(Pasiloc v.

Brillantes)
Spouses Moises Pasiloc and Brigida Pasiloc plaintiff-appelants
V
Antonio Brillantes and Teodosio Valenton Owner and president
respectively of a school of arts and trades Manila Tech. Ins. Virgilion
Daffon and Santiago Quibule
Gr. No. L-29025

October 4, 1971

Facts: On the afternoon of March 10, 1966, the deceased Dominador

Pasiloc was with his classmates Virgillo Daffon and Desiderio Cruz, at
the laboratory of the Manila Tech. Ins., during recess, Cruz and Daffon
were working on a Machine to which Pasiloc was merely looking, Daffon
made a remark that Pasiloc looked like a foreman. Pasiloc then slapped
Daffon lightly in the face, in retaliation, Daffon boxed Pasiloc in the face
and on his stomach, Pasiloc tried to retreat but Daffon followed in
pursuit. After an exchange of fist blows, Pasiloc stumbled upon an
engine block and landed face first on the floor, he got pale and fainted,
first aid was not effective which prompted his immediately delivery to
the hospital, to which he never woke up.
In the Trial Court, only Daffon was convicted, the officials of the
school were absolved from liability, the Trial Courts rationale centered
on the interpretation that for Article 2180 to apply, it is necessary that
a situation where the pupils lived and boards with the teacher in order
for there to be control or influence that would supersede those of the
parents. That only in those circumstances would the conduct and
actions of the pupils as well as the responsibility for their sort would
pass from the parents to the teachers.
Issue: Whether or not the lower court erred in ruling that in order for
art. 2180 of the Civil Code to apply, it is necessary that the students be
living under the custody of teachers.
Held: No, The Supreme Court, in reversing the decision of the lower
court, held that the defendant school officials should not be absolved
from liability on the ground that they may be held liable under article
2180 of the Civil Code. For the article to apply, the phrase so long as
the students remain in their custody does not require the students to
living and boarding at the school, rather it merely requires the
protective and supervisory custody that the school and its heads
and teachers exercise over the pupils and students for as long as they
are in attendance in the school, which includes recess time.
Thus, Defendants Valenton and Quibule being president and
teacher-in-charge must be held jointly and severally liable for the quasi
delict of their co-defendant, had they complied with their duty of
providing adequate supervision over the students activities in the

school premises. But if they may proved that they exercised the
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage, to
which they have failed to do so.