You are on page 1of 2

Amadora v. CA [1988] Cruz, J.

Facts: April 13, 1972: Alfredo Amadora, a high school graduating student of Colegio de San Jose-R e c o l e t o s w e n t t o s c h o o l t o f i n i s h a P h y s i c s e x p e r i m e n t . H o w e v e r , w h i l e h e w a s i n t h e auditorium, his classmate Pablito Daffon fired a gun that hit him. He died at 17. Daffon wasconvicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence. Amadoras parents filed a civil action for damages under CC Art. 2180 against the school, itsrector, HS principal, dean of boys & Physics teacher, plus Daffon & 2 other students thru theirparents. 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 & attorneys 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 hadalready ended.3 . N o c l e a r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e f a t a l g u n . 4.Defendants exercised necessary diligence in preventing injury. Petitioners claim their son was still under schools 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 intheir 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 reportingsuch to the principal or taking further action. Gumban was one Daffons companions when the incident happened. Petitioners claim it was this gun that killed their son w/crespondents 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 scoutattended a Rizal Day parade on city school supervisors instructions. Afterwards, Capunoboarded a jeep & drove it recklessly that it turned turtle killing 2 passengers. SCexculpated school in obiter dictum (it was not party to the case) since it was not aschool 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 situationwhere student lives & boards w/teacher such that control, direction & influences on pupilsupersede those of parents. Palisoc v. Brillantes: a 16-yr old student was killed by a classmate w/fist blows in the labof Manila Technical Institute. Court ruled that even if offender was already of age & notboarding 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 over students for as long as they are at the attendance in the schoolincluding recess time. No such requirement as actual living & boarding in the schoolbefore such liability is attached. It set aside Mercado ruling. Even students of age weres t i l l c o v e r e d b y p r o v i s i o n s i n c e t h e y r e e q u a l l y i n c u s t o d y o f s c h o o l & s u b j t o i t s 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 thelatter (arts & trades), it is the head (exception). SC agrees w/dissent in Exconde, sayingthat while the child is in school, parent is not supposed to interfere w/discipline of schoolnor w/authority & supervision of teacher. W/o authority, there can be no responsibility.N o r e a s o n t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e t h e v i g i l a n c e e x p e c t e d f r o m t e a c h e r s f r o m a c a d e m i c institutions and non-academic ones. History of disparity:a . h e a d o f s c h o o l o f a r t s & t r a d e s e x e r c i s e d c l o s e r t u t e l a g e o v e r h i s 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 . H e a d o f a c a d e m i c s c h o o l : e x e r c i s e d o n l y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u t i e s o v e r teachers who were directly dealing w/students. Thus, teacher is liable. CC Art. 2180s custody requirement is not limited to boarding w/schoola u t h o r i t i e s . I t s n o t c o t e r m i n o u s w / s e m . I t i n c l u d e s p e r i o d s o f registration or before graduation during w/c, student is still subj to thedisciplinary authority of the school. There is custody for as long as hesunder control & influence of school & w/in its premises regardless of t i m e a n d f o r a s l o n g a s s t u d e n t c a n s h o w t h a t h e i s i n s c h o o l i n pursuance of a legitimate student objective, exercise & enjoyment of alegitimate student rt/privilege. It includes relaxing in the campus. Under similar circumstances, teacher-in-charge should be liable for hisstudents torts. He need not be physically present or in a position toprevent 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 students age. Teacher should beliable & not school itself unless he can prove that he exercised thed i l i g e n c e o f a g o o d f a t h e r s u c h a s b y e m p l o y i n g s u f f i c i e n t n o . o f security guards, etc. This defense is made available to the teacher considering that his responsibility/influence over the child cannot beequated to that of the parents. Parents can expect more obediencefrom the child since kid depends more on parents. Parent can instill more lasting discipline on child than teacher & thus, should be held toa greater accountability for tort committed by kid. WRT liability for kidso f t h e a g e o f m a j o r i t y , l e n i e n c y s h o u l d b e o b s e r v e d i n a s s e s s i n g teachers responsibility considering that parents are no longer liable forthe acts of their emancipated children HOLDING: Petition Denied 1. Rector, principal & dean not liable because they are not teachers-in-charge. They only had generalauthority over students.2 . T e a c h e r - i n - c h a r g e : n o t d i s c l o s e d b y e v i d e n c e . J u s t b e c a u s e A m a d o r a w e n t t o s c h o o l i n connection w/a physics report doesnt necessarily make physics teacher the teacher-in-charge.Besides, theres 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 . S c h o o l o n l y t e a c h e r o r h e a d i s r e s p o n s i b l e

You might also like