AMADORA v CA (April 15, 1988, Cruz, J.

)
Doctrine: Doctrine of necessary implication

No statue can be enacted that can provide all the details involved in its
application. There is always an omission that may not meet a particular
situation. What is thought at the time of enactment, to be an allembracing legislation may be inadequate to provide for the unfolding
events of the future.
What is implied in a statue is as much part thereof as that which is
expressed.

Pertinent Provisions:
1. Article 2176. NCC Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is
governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)
2. Article 2180. NCC The obligation imposed by article 2176 is
demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for
those of persons for whom one is responsible.
(Paragraphs 7-8) Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts
and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and
students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the
persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of
a good father of a family to prevent damage. (1903a)

Nature:
A petition against CAs decision in favour of respondent, Colegio de San
Jose-Recoletos
Article 2180 of the civil code application of said article to the case
Petitioners:

Amadora Family the family of Alfredo Amadora who was shot by

Pablito Damon

Respondents

Court of Appeals, Colegio De San Jose-Recoletos

Sergio Damaso dean of boys who returned a confiscated gun to a

student; though the gun was not successfully connected with the
shooting.

Facts:
April 13, 1972, while at the auditorium Damon fired a gun that mortally
hit Amadora killing him
Daffon was convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence.
Petitioners no ile a civil case for damages citing article 2180 of NCC
against respondents
COURT IF FIRST INSTANCE CEBU: held defendants liable to sum of
P294,984 for death compensation, loss of earning capacity, costs of
litication, funeral expenses, moral damages, exemplary damages and
attorneys fees.
Court of Appeals: reversed and respondents were completely absolved.
o CA: respondent school was not a school of arts and trades but an
academic institution of learning.
o Students were not at the custody of the school as the semester
already ended
o No clear identification of the fatal gun that in any event the
defendant, had exercised the necessary diligence in preventing
the injury.
Current case:
Petitioners:
o Their son was in school to show his physics experiment as a
prerequisite to his graduationstill under custody of the
respondent
o Identity of the gun used: earlier incident where respondent
Damaso, dean of boys, confiscated from Jose Gumban an
unlicensed pistol but later returned to him without making a
report to the principal or taking any other action.
o Since Gumban was with Daffon when Daffon killed Amadora,
petitioners claim it was the same pistol.
Respondents
o No proof that same gun was used
Court:
Cited:

o Exconde- Capuno, student of balintawak elementary school,

attended rizal day parade under city school supervisor. After the
parade, Capuno boarded a jeep, took over the wheel which lead
to it flipping over killing 2 passengers. Dante was found guilty of
double homicide with reckless imprudence father was held
solidarily liable under article 1903(not 2180).
Dissenting from (Reyes, J.) school should be liable
o Mercado- student cut a classmate with razor blade during recess
time. Court declared school as it was not sued and was not an
establishment of arts and trades.
Custody requirement not proved- situation where student
lives and boards with the teacher such that the control on
the pupil supersede those of the parents.
o Palisoc- 16 year old student killed by classmate with fist blows.
Although wrongdoer- of age- was not boarding, the head and
teacher in charge were held solidarily liable
(Teehankee, J.) so long as the student remain in their
custody- protective and supervisory custody- set aside
Mercade and Exconde
Issues-Held

WON article 2180 covers establishment which are not schools of arts
and trades? YES
o Provision should apply to all schools
o GENERAL RULE: Responsibility for the tort will be attached to the
teacher in charge of such student.
o Exemption: school is technical in nature, head thereof shall be
answerable.
o Exconde dissent by Reyes, J.- no substantial distinction between
academic and non-academic schools
o Exconde and mercade- distinction between academic and nonacademic schoolscourt cannot see any differences in degrees
of vigilance on the basis of the nature of the schools
o Teacher should not be able to excuse himself by simply showing
that he is in an academic school, not a non-academic school.
o Distinction no longer present in view of expansion of schools of
arts and tradesthe provision must be interpreted by the court
according to its clear and original mandate until legislature,
taking into account the changes in the situation subject to be
regulated, sees fit to enact the necessary amendment.
WON responsibility is with the school even if the term was
over/boarding in the school? yes

o Palisoc- custody requirement does not mean the student must be

boarding with the school authorities
The student should be within the control and influence of
the school authorities at the time of the injury.
Not co-terminous with semester
o Student is under custody of the school authoritie as long as he is
under the control and influence of the school and within its
premises, whether the sem has not yet begun or has already
ended.
o As long as it can be shown that the student is in the school
premises in pursuance of legitimate student objective, in
exercise of a legitimate student right and even in the enjoyment
of a legitimate student privilege- responsibility is of the school
authorities.
WON liability is with the teacher or with the school?
o Article 2180, liability falls on the teacher or head of the school
and not on the school itself.
Defense: prove that he had taken necessary precautions to
prevent injury (last paragraph of 2180)
o Teacher will be held liable not only when he is acting in loco
parentis for the law does not require that the offending student
be of minority age, unlike parents who is only liable if child is still
minor. liability higher for teacher?
What about increasing activism in some schools?defense
to prove that necessary precautions
o Teacher has less authority than parent. teachers and heads
should prove to have reasonable diligence in preventing injury.

Decision of the court:

1. At the time Amadora was shot, he was still in the custody of
respondent school, even if classes already ended. He was submitting a
report, which was a legitimate purpose
2. Rector, dean of boys and principal not liable because none of them
were teacher-in-charge at the time. Each were only exercising general
authority.
3. Assuming that there were a teacher in chargeno showing that Dicon
was negligent
4. In the absence of teacher-in-charge- probably dean of boys who should
be liable by returning the confiscated gun. The said dean deserves
sanction from the school but not necessarily linked to the shooting as
the gun was not proven to be linked with the shooting.
5. Respondent school cannot be held directly liable because teacher and
head of the school of arts and trades is made responsible for the

damage cause by the student. none of the respondents were found

to have custody of the offending student.

Petition Denied.