Amadora v.
CA [1988]
Cruz, J.
Facts:
• April 13, 1972: Alfredo Amadora, a high school graduating student of
Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos went to school to finish a Physics
experiment. However, while he was in the auditorium, his classmate Pablito
Daffon fired a gun that hit him. He died at 17. Daffon was convicted of
homicide thru reckless imprudence.
• Amadora’s parents filed a civil action for damages under CC Art. 21801
against the school, its rector, HS principal, dean of boys & Physics teacher,
plus Daffon & 2 other students thru their parents. Complaint against
students was later dropped.
• CFI Cebu: defendants were liable in the sum of P294,984.00 (death
compensation, loss of earning capacity, costs of litigation, funeral expenses,
moral damages, exemplary damages & attorney’s fees)
• CA: reversed, all defendants absolved completely.
1. As per Rules of Court (ROC) Rule 45, CC Art. 2180 is not applicable
since the school was an academic institution of learning & not a school
of arts & trades.
2. Students were not in custody of the school at the time of the incident
since the semester had already ended.
3. No clear identification of the fatal gun.
4. Defendants exercised necessary diligence in preventing injury.
• Petitioners claim their son was still under school’s custody because he went
to school to comply w/a requirement for graduation.
• Respondents: Amadora went to school to submit a Physics report & he was
no longer in their custody since the semester was over.
• A gun was confiscated by Sergio Damaso, dean of boys, from Jose Gumban
on April 7, 1972. It was an unlicensed pistol w/c was later on returned to
Gumban w/o reporting such to the principal or taking further action.
Gumban was one Daffon’s companions when the incident happened.
Petitioners claim it was this gun that killed their son w/c respondents
rebutted by saying there was no proof that they were one and the same.
ISSUE & RATIO: WON respondents are liable. – NO.
• Exconde v Capuno: Capuno, a student of Balintawak Elementary School & a
boy scout attended a Rizal Day parade on city school supervisor’s
instructions. Afterwards, Capuno boarded a jeep & drove it recklessly that it
turned turtle killing 2 passengers. SC exculpated school in obiter dictum (it
was not party to the case) since it was not a school of arts & trades. Some
justices dissented claiming that liability under CC Art. 2180 applied to
teachers in general & heads of schools of arts & trades in particular.
• Mercado v. CA: a student cut a classmate w/a razor blade at the Lourdes
Catholic School, QC. Exconde ruling reiterated. Custody requirement was
defined as a situation where student lives & boards w/teacher such that
control, direction & influences on pupil supersede those of parents.
• Palisoc v. Brillantes: a 16-yr old student was killed by a classmate w/fist
blows in the lab of Manila Technical Institute. Court ruled that even if
offender was already of age & not boarding in the school, the head &
teacher-in-charge were solidarily liable w/him. Custody was defined as the
protective & supervisory custody that school, its heads & teachers exercise
1
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts & trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils & students
or apprentices so long as they remain in their custody. (CC Art. 2180)
over students for as long as they are at the attendance in the school
including recess time. No such requirement as actual living & boarding in
the school before such liability is attached. It set aside Mercado ruling. Even
students of age were still covered by provision since they’re equally in
custody of school & subj to its discipline.
• CC Art. 2180 applies to all schools whether academic or non-academic. In
the former, teacher-in-charge of student is the person responsible (general
rule). Whereas in the latter (arts & trades), it is the head (exception). SC
agrees w/dissent in Exconde, saying that while the child is in school, parent
is not supposed to interfere w/discipline of school nor w/authority &
supervision of teacher. W/o authority, there can be no responsibility. No
reason to differentiate the vigilance expected from teachers from academic
institutions and non-academic ones. History of disparity:
a. head of school of arts & trades exercised closer tutelage over his
students who apprenticed to their master, the school head. He was
personally involved in teaching his students who usually boarded w/him
& thus he exercised constant control, supervision & influence.
b. Head of academic school: exercised only administrative duties over
teachers who were directly dealing w/students. Thus, teacher is liable.
• CC Art. 2180’s custody requirement is not limited to boarding w/school
authorities. It’s not co-terminous w/sem. It includes periods of registration
or before graduation during w/c, student is still subj to the disciplinary
authority of the school. There is custody for as long as he’s under control &
influence of school & w/in its premises regardless of time and for as long as
student can show that he is in school in pursuance of a legitimate student
objective, exercise & enjoyment of a legitimate student rt/privilege. It
includes relaxing in the campus.
• Under similar circumstances, teacher-in-charge should be liable for his
students’ torts. He need not be physically present or in a position to prevent
the injury. Custody refers more to his influence on the child & the discipline
instilled. Applicable as well to head of school of arts & trade. Teacher is
liable regardless of student’s age. Teacher should be liable & not school
itself unless he can prove that he exercised the diligence of a good father
such as by employing sufficient no. of security guards, etc. This defense is
made available to the teacher considering that his responsibility/influence
over the child cannot be equated to that of the parents. Parents can expect
more obedience from the child since kid depends more on parents. Parent
can instill more lasting discipline on child than teacher & thus, should be
held to a greater accountability for tort committed by kid. WRT liability for
kids of the age of majority, leniency should be observed in assessing
teacher’s responsibility considering that parents are no longer liable for the
acts of their emancipated children.
HOLDING: Petition denied.
1. Rector, principal & dean – not liable because they are not teachers-in-charge.
They only had general authority over students.
2. Teacher-in-charge: not disclosed by evidence. Just because Amadora went
to school in connection w/a physics report doesn’t necessarily make physics
teacher the teacher-in-charge. Besides, there’s no showing that the teacher
was negligent in any manner. He was not even required to report to school
on that day thus, his absence cannot be considered as negligence. On the
contrary, they have proven that they exercised due diligence.
3. Dean of boys – no proof that the gun he released was the same gun that
killed Amadora.
4. School – only teacher or head is responsible