INES HAMOY JUNIO Torts and Damages June 23, 2012 Amadora vs. CA GR No.

L-47745, April 15, 1988 Facts: It was summer of 1972 Alfredo Amadora about to graduate at the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletes was shot to death by his classmate Pablito Daffon. Alfredo went to the school to submit his Report in Physics. The school denies custody of Amadora because the semester had already ended. Issue: Whether or not Article 2180 covers establishments which are technically not schools of arts and trades, and, if so, when the offending student is supposed to be in its custody. Held: Article 2180 of the Civil Code applies to all schools, academic or non-academic. Teachers are liable for acts of their student except where the school is technical in nature (arts and trade establishment) in which case the head thereof shall be answerable. There is really no substantial distinction between the academic and non-academic schools in so far as torts committed by their students are concerned. The same vigilance is expected from the teacher over the student under their control and supervision, whatever the nature of the school where he is teaching. x x x x The distinction no longer obtains at present. x x x The student is in the custody of the school authorities as long as he is under the control and influence of the school and within its premises, whether the semester has not ended, or has ended or has not yet begun. The term custody signifies that the student is within the control and influence of the school authorities. The teacher in charge is the one designated by the dean, principal, or other administrative superior to exercise supervision over the pupils or students in the specific classes or sections to which they are assigned. It is not necessary that at the time of the injury, the teacher is physically present and in a position to prevent it. Thus, for injuries caused by the student, the teacher and not the parent shall be held responsible if the tort was committed within the premises of the school at any time when its authority could be validly exercised over him. In any event, the school may be held to answer for the acts of its teacher or the head thereof under the general principle of respondent superior, but it may exculpate itself from liability by proof that it had exercised the diligence of a bonus paterfamilias. Such defense they had taken necessary precautions to prevent the injury complained of and thus be exonerated from liability imposed by Art 2180. Basis of teachers vicarious liability is, as such, they acting in Loco Parentis (in place of parents). However teachers are not expected to have the same measure of responsibility as that imposed on parent for their influence over the child is not equal in degree. x x x The parent can instill more lasting discipline more lasting disciple on the child than the teacher and so should be held to a greater accountability than the teacher or the head for the tort committed by the child. As the teacher was not shown to have been negligent nor the school remised in the discharged of their duties, they were exonerated of liability.