Palisoc v. Brillantes (G.R. No.

L-29025 October 4, 1971)

FACTS: Involved in this case were Dominador Palisoc (16 yrs old) and Virgilio Daffon ( of
legal age), who were students of Manila Technical Institute, a school of arts and trades.
Sometime in March 1966, during recess, while Palisoc was watching Virgilio Daffon and
Desiderio Cruz work on a machine in their laboratory class, Daffon scolded Palisoc for just
standing around like a foreman. This caused Palisoc to slightly slap the face of Daffon and
a fistfight ensued between the two. Palisoc retreated but Daffon went after him until
Palisoc stumbled, falling face down. The parents of Palisoc sued Daffon, the school
president (Teodosio Valenton), the instructor (Santiago Quibulue), and the owner (Antonio
Brillantes). The basis of the suit against Valenton, Quibulue, and Brillantes was Article
2180 of the Civil Code.
The lower court, as well as the CA, ruled that only Daffon is liable for damages and that
Valenton, Quibulue, and Brillantes are not liable because under Article 2180, they are
only liable so long as they [the students] remain in their custody. And that this means,
as per Mercado vs Court of Appeals, that teachers or heads of establishments are only
liable for the tortious acts of their students if the students are living and boarding with
the teacher or other officials of the school which Daffon was not.

ISSUE: Whether or not the ruling or interpretation of Art 2180 in the Mercado Case still
applies.

HELD: No. The SC abandoned the ruling in the Mercado Case as well as the ruling in
the Exconde Case as they adopted Justice JBL Reyes dissenting opinion in the latter
case. Valenton and Quibulue as president and teacher-in-charge of the school must be
held jointly and severally liable for the quasi-delict of Daffon.
The unfortunate death resulting from the fight between the students could have been
avoided, had said defendants but complied with their duty of providing adequate
supervision over the activities of the students in the school premises to protect their
students from harm, whether at the hands of fellow students or other parties. At any
rate, the law holds them liable unless they relieve themselves of such liability, in
compliance with the last paragraph of Article 2180, Civil Code, by (proving) that they
observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. In the light of
the factual findings of the lower courts decision, said defendants failed to prove such
exemption from liability.
The SC reiterated that there is nothing in the law which prescribes that a student must be
living and boarding with his teacher or in the school before heads and teachers of the
school may be held liable for the tortious acts of their students.