Today is Saturday, August 30, 2014

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
S!"#$ $%&%S%"#

G.R. No. 82465 February 25, 1991
ST. FRANCIS IG SCOO!, a" re#re"e$%e& by SPS. FERNAN'O NANTES AN' ROSARIO !ACAN'U!A, (EN)AMIN
I!UMIN, TIRSO 'E CA*E+, !UISITO *INAS, CONNIE AR,UIO AN' PATRIA CA'I+, petitioners,
's(
TE ONORA(!E COURT OF APPEA!S, E!E*ENT 'I*ISION a$& 'R. ROMU!O CASTI!!O a$& !I!IA CA'I+, respondents
Jose C. Flores, Jr. for petitioners.
Jovito E. Talabong for private respondents.

PARAS, J.:p
This is a petition for re'ie) of the decision - of the !ourt of Appeals, the dispositi'e portion of )hich reads*
+,R-"R, the decision under appeal is hereby affir.ed, )ith the follo)ing .odifications* /10 1e.plary
da.ages in the a.ount of P20,000(00 are hereby a)arded to plaintiffs, in addition to the actual da.ages of
P30,000(00, .oral da.ages of P20,000(00 and attorney2s fees in the a.ount of P13,000(00 a)arded to
plaintiffs in the decision under appeal4 /20 St( -rancis ,igh School, represented by the Spouses -ernando
#antes and Rosario 5acandula, and 6en7a.in %llu.in, are hereby held 7ointly and se'erally liable )ith
defendants !onnie Ar8uio, Tirso de !ha'es, 5uisito &inas and Patria !adis for the pay.ent to plaintiffs of the
abo'e.entioned actual da.ages, .oral da.ages, e1e.plary da.ages and attorney2s fees, and for costs4
and /30 $efendants 9oly :aro and #ida Aragones are hereby absol'ed fro. liability, and the case against
the., together )ith their respecti'e counterclai.s, is hereby ordered dis.issed(
S" "R$R$( /p( ;0, Rollo0
The co.plaint alleged that -erdinand !astillo, then a fresh.an student of Section 1<! at the St( -rancis ,igh School, )anted to 7oin
a school picnic underta=en by !lass %<6 and !lass %<! at Talaan 6each, Sariaya, >ue?on( -erdinand2s parents, respondents spouses
$r( Ro.ulo !astillo and 5ilia !adi? !astillo, because of short notice, did not allo) their son to 7oin but .erely allo)ed hi. to bring
food to the teachers for the picnic, )ith the directi'e that he should go bac= ho.e after doing so( ,o)e'er, because of persuasion of
the teachers, -erdinand )ent on )ith the. to the beach(
$uring the picnic and )hile the students, including -erdinand, )ere in the )ater, one of the fe.ale teachers )as apparently
dro)ning( So.e of the students, including -erdinand, ca.e to her rescue, but in the process, it )as -erdinand hi.self )ho dro)ned(
,is body )as reco'ered but efforts to resuscitate hi. ashore failed( ,e )as brought to a certain $r( 5una in Sariaya, >ue?on and
later to the Mt( !annel @eneral ,ospital )here he )as pronounced dead on arri'al(
Thereupon, respondent spouses filed a co.plaint doc=eted as !i'il !ase #o( AA34, in the Regional Trial !ourt, 6ranch 5&%%% of
5ucena !ity, against the St( -rancis ,igh School, represented by the spouses -ernando #antes and Rosario 5acandula, 6en7a.in
%llu.in /its principal0, and the teachers* Tirso de !ha'es, 5uisito &inas, !onnie Ar8uio, #ida Aragones, 9oly :aro, and Patria !adi?,
for $a.ages )hich respondents allegedly incurred fro. the death of their 13<year old son, -erdinand !astillo( !ontending that the
death of their son )as due to the failure of the petitioners to e1ercise the proper diligence of a good father of the fa.ily in pre'enting
their son2s dro)ning, respondents prayed of actual, .oral and e1e.plary da.ages, attorney2s fees and e1penses for litigation(
The trial court found in fa'or of the respondents and against petitioners<teachers Ar8uio, de !ha'es, &inas, Aragones, :aro and
!adi?, ordering all of the. 7ointly and se'erally to pay respondents the su. of P30,000(00 as actual da.ages, P20,000(00 as .oral
da.ages, P13,000(00 as attorney2s fees, and to pay the costs( The court a quo reasoned*
Ta=ing into consideration the e'idence presented, this !ourt belie'es that the defendant teachers na.ely*
!onnie Ar8uio, 5uisito &inas, Tirso de !ha'es, 9oly :aro, #ida Aragones and Patria !adi? had failed to
e1ercise the diligence re8uired of the. by la) under the circu.stances to guard against the har. they had
foreseen( /pp( 2B30, Rollo0
111 111 111
+hile it is alleged that )hen defendants 9oly :aro and #ida Aragones arri'ed at the picnic site, the dro)ning
incident had already occurred, such fact does not and cannot e1cuse the. fro. their liability( %n fact, it could
be said that by co.ing late, they )ere re.iss in their duty to safeguard the students( /p( 30, Rollo0
The students, young as they )ere then /12 to 13 years old0, )ere easily attracted to the sea )ithout
aforethought of the dangers it offers( 9et, the precautions and re.inders allegedly perfor.ed by the
defendants<teachers definitely fell short of the standard re8uired by la) under the circu.stances( +hile the
defendants<teachers ad.itted that so.e parts of the sea )here the picnic )as held are deep, the supposed
lifeguards of the children did not e'en actually go to the )ater to test the depth of the particular area )here
the children )ould s)i.( And indeed the fears of the plaintiffs that the picnic area )as dangerous )as
confir.ed by the fact that three persons during the picnic got dro)ned at the sa.e ti.e( ,ad the defendant
teachers .ade an actual and physical obser'ation of the )ater before they allo)ed the students to s)i., they
could ha'e found out that the area )here the children )ere s)i..ing )as indeed dangerous( And not only
that, the .ale teachers )ho according to the fe.ale teachers )ere there to super'ise the children to ensure
their safety )ere not e'en at the area )here the children )ere s)i..ing( They )ere so.e)here and as
testified to by plaintiffs2 )itness they )ere ha'ing a drin=ing spree( /pp( 33<3;, Rollo0
"n the other hand, the trial court dis.issed the case against the St( -rancis ,igh School, 6en7a.in %llu.in and Aurora !adorna( Said
the court a quo*
As sho)n and ad'erted to abo'e, this !ourt cannot find sufficient e'idence sho)ing that the picnic )as a
school sanctioned one( Si.ilarly no e'idence has been sho)n to hold defendants 6en7a.in %llu.in and
Aurora !adorna responsible for the death of -erdinand !astillo together )ith the other defendant teachers( %t
has been sufficiently sho)n that 6en7a.in %llu.in had hi.self not consented to the picnic and in fact he did
not 7oin it( "n the other hand, defendant Aurora !adorna had then her o)n class to super'ise and in fact she
)as not a.ongst those allegedly in'ited by defendant !onnie Ar8uio to super'ise class %<! to )hich
-erdinand !astillo belongs( /p( 30, Rollo0
6oth petitioners and respondents appealed to the !ourt of Appeals( Respondents<spouses assigned the follo)ing errors co..itted
by the trial court*
1( The lo)er court erred in not declaring the defendant St( -rancis ,igh School and its ad.inistratorCprincipal
6en7a.in %llu.in as e8ually liable not only for its appro'ed co<curricular acti'ities but also for those )hich they
unreasonably failed to e1ercise control and super'ision li=e the holding of picnic in the dangerous )ater of
Talaan 6each, Sariaya, >ue?on(
2( The lo)er court erred in not declaring the St( -rancis ,igh School and principal 6en7a.in %llu.in as 7ointly
and solidarily liable )ith their co<defendants<teachers Rosario 5acandula, et als(, for the tragic death of
-erdinand !astillo in a picnic at Talaan 6each, Sariaya, >ue?on, last March 20, 1BA2(
3( The lo)er court erred in not declaring higher a.ount for actual and .oral da.ages for the unti.ely and
tragic death of -erdinand !astillo in fa'or of plaintiffs<appellants against all the defendants( /pp( 3;<3D, Rollo
The !ourt of Appeals ruled*
+e find plaintiffs<appellants2 sub.ission )ell<ta=en(
'en )ere +e to find that the picnic in 8uestion )as not a school<sponsored acti'ity, nonetheless it cannot be
gainsaid that the sa.e )as held under the super'ision of the teachers e.ployed by the said school,
particularly the teacher in charge of !lass %<! to )ho. the 'icti. belonged, and those )ho. she in'ited to
help her in super'ising the class during the picnic( !onsidering that the court a quo found negligence on the
part of the si1 defendants<teachers )ho, as such, )ere charged )ith the super'ision of the children during the
picnic, the St( -rancis ,igh School and the school principal, 6en7a.in %llu.in, are liable under Article 21D;
ta=en together )ith the 1st, 4th and 3th paragraphs of Article 21A0 of the !i'il !ode( They cannot escape
liability on the .ere e1cuse that the picnic )as not an Ee1tra<curricular acti'ity of the St( -rancis ,igh School(E
+e find fro. the e'idence that, as clai.ed by plaintiffs<appellants, the school principal had =no)ledge of the
picnic e'en fro. its planning stage and had e'en been in'ited to attend the affair4 and yet he did not e1press
any prohibition against underta=ing the picnic, nor did he prescribe any precautionary .easures to be adopted
during the picnic( At the least, +e .ust find that the school and the responsible school officials, particularly
the principal, 6en7a.in %llu.in, had ac8uiesced to the holding of the picnic(
Fnder Article 21A0, supra, the defendant school and defendant school principal .ust be found 7ointly and
se'erally liable )ith the defendants<teachers for the da.ages incurred by the plaintiffs as a result of the death
of their son( %t is the rule that in cases )here the abo'e<cited pro'isions find application, the negligence of the
e.ployees in causing the in7ury or da.age gi'es rise to a presu.ption of negligence on the part of the o)ner
andCor .anager of the establish.ent /in the present case, St( -rancis ,igh School and its principal04 and )hile
this presu.ption is not conclusi'e, it .ay be o'erthro)n only by clear and con'incing proof that the o)ner
andCor .anager e1ercised the care and diligence of a good father of a fa.ily in the selection andCor
super'ision of the e.ployee or e.ployees causing the in7ury or da.age /in this case, the defendants<
teachers0( The record does not disclose such e'idence as )ould ser'e to o'erco.e the aforesaid
presu.ption and absol'e the St( -rancis ,igh School and its principal fro. liability under the abo'e<cited
pro'isions(
As to the third assigned error interposed by plaintiffs<appellants, )hile +e cannot but co..iserate )ith the
plaintiffs for the tragedy that befell the. in the unti.ely death of their son -erdinand !astillo and understand
their suffering as parents, especially the 'icti.2s .other )ho, according to appellants, suffered a ner'ous
brea=do)n as a result of the tragedy, +e find that the a.ounts fi1ed by the court a quo as actual da.ages
and .oral da.ages /P30,000(00 and P20,000(00, respecti'ely0 are reasonable and are those )hich are
sustained by the e'idence and the la)(
,o)e'er, +e belie'e that e1e.plary or correcti'e da.ages in the a.ount of P20,000(00 .ay and should be,
as it is hereby, i.posed in the present case by )ay of e1a.ple of correction for the public good, pursuant to
Article 222B of the !i'il !ode( /pp( 3D<3B, Rollo0
"n the other hand, petitioners<teachers assigned the follo)ing errors co..itted by the trial court*
1( E( ( ( in finding the defendants !onnie Ar8uio, Tirso de !ha'e?, 5uisito &inas, #ida Aragones, 9oly :aro and
Patria !adi? guilty of negligence and 7ointly and se'erally liable for da.ages such finding not being supported
by facts and e'idence(
2( E( ( ( in dis.issing the counterclai. interposed by the defendants( /p( 3B, Rollo0
"n this score, respondent !ourt ruled*
The .ain thrust of defendants<appellants appeal is that plaintiffs, the parents of the 'icti. -erdinand !astillo,
)ere not able to pro'e by their e'idence that they did not gi'e their son consent to 7oin the picnic in 8uestion(
,o)e'er, +e agree )ith the trial court in its finding that )hether or not the 'icti.2s parents had gi'en such
per.ission to their son )as i..aterial to the deter.ination of the e1istence of liability on the part of the
defendants for the da.age incurred by the plaintiffs<appellants as a result of the death of their son( +hat is
.aterial to such a deter.ination is )hether or not there )as negligence on the part of defendants vis-a-vis the
super'ision of the 'icti.2s group during the picnic4 and, as correctly found by the trial court, an affir.ati'e
reply to this 8uestion has been satisfactorily established by the e'idence, as already pointed out(
,o)e'er, +e sustain defendants<appellants insofar as t)o of the defendants<teachers, 9oly :aro and #ida
Aragones, are concerned( As to the., the trial court found*
+hile it is alleged that )hen defendants 9oly :aro and #ida Aragones arri'ed at the picnic site,
the dro)ning incident had already occurred, such fact does not and cannot e1cuse the. fro.
their liability( %n fact, it could be said that by co.ing late, they )ere re.iss in their duty to
safeguard the students(
The e'idence sho)s that these t)o defendants had satisfactorily e1plained )hy they )ere late in going to the
picnic site, na.ely, that they had to attend to the entrance e1a.ination being conducted by the school )hich
is part of their duty as teachers thereof( Since they )ere not at the picnic site during the occurrence in
8uestion, it cannot be said that they had any participation in the negligence attributable to the other
defendants<teachers )ho failed to e1ercise diligence in the super'ision of the children during the picnic and
)hich failure resulted in the dro)ning of plaintiffs2 son( Thus, +e .ay not attribute any act or o.ission to the
t)o teachers, 9oly :aro and #ida Aragones, as to .a=e the. liable for the in7ury caused to the plaintiffs
because of the death of their son resulting fro. his dro)ning at the picnic( Accordingly, they .ust be absol'ed
fro. any liability(
As to the second assigned error raised by defendants<appellants, +e agree )ith the court a quo that the
counterclai. .ust be dis.issed for lac= of .erit( /pp( 3B<;0, Rollo0
,ence, this petition(
The issues presented by petitioners are*
A0 +hether or not there )as negligence attributable to the defendants )hich )ill )arrant the a)ard of
da.ages to the plaintiffs4
60 +hether or not Art( 21A0, in relation to Art( 21D; of the #e) !i'il !ode is applicable to the case at bar4
!0 +hether or not the a)ard of e1e.plary and .oral da.ages is proper under the circu.stances surrounding
the case at bar( /pp( A1<A2, Rollo0
%n the resolution of :anuary 1;, 1BAB, +e ga'e due course to the petition and re8uired the parties to sub.it their respecti'e
.e.oranda(
The petition is i.pressed )ith .erit(
%f at all petitioners are liable for negligence, this is because of their o)n negligence or the negligence of people under the.( %n the
instant case ho)e'er, as )ill be sho)n hereunder, petitioners are neither guilty of their o)n negligence or guilty of the negligence of
those under the.(
,ence, it cannot be said that they are guilty at all of any negligence( !onse8uently they cannot be held liable for da.ages of any
=ind(
At the outset, it should be noted that respondent spouses, parents of the 'icti. -erdinand, allowed their son to 7oin the e1cursion(
Testimony of Dr( Castillo on ross e!am( by "tty( Flores
> #o), )hen your son as=ed you for .oney to buy food, did you not as= hi. )here he )ill
bring thisG
A % as=ed hi. )here he )as going, he ans)ered, % a. going to the picnic, and )hen % as=ed
hi. )here, he did not ans)er, sir(
> And after gi'ing the .oney, you did not tell hi. anything .oreG
A #o .ore, sir(
> And after that you 7ust learned that your son 7oin the picnicG
A 9es, sir(
> And you ca.e to =no) of it after the ne)s that your son )as dro)ned in the picnic ca.e to
you, is that correctG
A 9es, sir(
> -ro. A*00 o2cloc= in the .orning up to 12*00 o2cloc= noon of March 20, 1BA2, you did not
=no) that your son 7oin the picnicG
A #o, sir, % did not =no)(
> $id you not loo= for your son during that ti.eG
A % a. too busy )ith .y profession, that is )hy % )as not able, sir(
> 9ou did not as= your )ifeG
A % did not, sir(
> And neither did your )ife tell you that your son 7oin the picnicG
A 5ater on after 12*00, sir(
> And during that ti.e you )ere too busy that you did not in8uire )hether your son ha'e
7oined that picnicG
A 9es, sir(
/TS#, pp( 1;<1D, hearing of April 2, 1BA4 )itness Ro.ulo !astillo0
The fact that he ga'e .oney to his son to buy food for the picnic e'en )ithout =no)ing )here it )ill be held, is a sign of consent for
his son to 7oin the sa.e( -urther.ore(
Testimony of Dr( #a$aro on ross e!amination*
> ,o) did you conduct this .ental and physical e1a.inationG
A % &ave interviewed several persons and t&e patient &erself '&e even felt guilty about t&e
deat& of &er son beause s&e oo(ed adobo for &im so &e ould )oin t&e e!ursion w&ere &er
son died of drowning(
> +hy )ere you able to say she )as feeling guilty because she )as the one )ho personally
coo=ed the adobo for her sonG
A %t )as during the inter'ie) that % had gathered it fro. the patient herself( She )as 'ery sorry
had she not allo)ed her son to 7oin the e1cursion her son )ould ha'e not dro)ned( % don2t
=no) if she actually per.itted her son although she said s&e oo(ed adobo so &e ould )oin
/.phasis Supplied0 /TS#, p( 1B, hearing of April 30, 1BA4, $r( 5a?aro H )itness0(
Respondent !ourt of Appeals co..itted an error in applying Article 21A0 of the !i'il !ode in rendering petitioner school liable for the
death of respondent2s son(
Article 21A0, par( 4 states that*
The obligation i.posed by article 21D; is de.andable not only for one2s o)n acts or o.issions, but also for
those of persons for )ho. one is responsible(
111 111 111
.ployers shall be liable for the da.ages caused by their e.ployees and household helpers acting )ithin the
scope of their assigned tas=s, e'en though the for.er are not engaged in any business or industry(
Fnder this paragraph, it is clear that before an e.ployer .ay be held liable for the negligence of his e.ployee, the act or o.ission
)hich caused da.age or pre7udice .ust ha'e occurred )hile an e.ployee )as in the perfor.ance of his assigned tas=s(
%n the case at bar, the teachersCpetitioners )ere not in the actual perfor.ance of their assigned tas=s( The incident happened not
)ithin the school pre.ises, not on a school day and .ost i.portantly )hile the teachers and students )ere holding a purely pri'ate
affair, a picnic( %t is clear fro. the beginning that the incident happened )hile so.e .e.bers of the %<! class of St( -rancis ,igh
School )ere ha'ing a picnic at Talaan 6each( This picnic had no per.it fro. the school head or its principal, 6en7a.in %llu.in
because this picnic is not a school sanctioned acti'ity neither is it considered as an e1tra<curricular acti'ity(
As earlier pointed out by the trial court, .ere =no)ledge by petitionerCprincipal %llu.in of the planning of the picnic by the students
and their teachers does not in any )ay or in any .anner sho) ac8uiescence or consent to the holding of the sa.e( The application
therefore of Article 21A0 has no basis in la) and neither is it supported by any 7urisprudence( %f )e )ere to affir. the findings of
respondent !ourt on this score, e.ployers )ig fore'er be e1posed to the ris= and danger of being hailed to !ourt to ans)er for the
.isdeeds or o.issions of the e.ployees e'en if such act or o.ission he co..itted )hile they are not in the perfor.ance of their
duties(
-inally, no negligence could be attributable to the petitioners<teachers to )arrant the a)ard of da.ages to the respondents<spouses(
Petitioners !onnie Ar8uio the class ad'iser of %<!, the section )here -erdinand belonged, did her best and e1ercised diligence of a
good father of a fa.ily to pre'ent any unto)ard incident or da.ages to all the students )ho 7oined the picnic(
%n fact, !onnie in'ited co<petitioners Tirso de !ha'e? and 5uisito &inas )ho are both P(( instructors and scout .asters )ho ha'e
=no)ledge in -irst Aid application and s)i..ing( Moreo'er, e'en respondents2 )itness, Segundo &inas, testified that Ethe
defendants /petitioners herein0 had life sa'ers especially brought by the defendants in case of e.ergency(E /p( A3, Rollo0 The records
also sho) that both petitioners !ha'e? and &inas did all )hat is hu.anly possible to sa'e the child(
Testi.ony of 5uisito &inas on cross e1a.ination,
> And )hen you sa) the boy, -erdinand !astillo, you approached the boy and clai. also
ha'ing applied first aid on hi.G
A 9es, sir(
> And )hile you )ere applying the so called first aid, the children )ere co'ering you up or
)ere surrounding youG
A 9es, sir(
> 9ou )ere rattled at that ti.e, is it notG
A #o, sir(
> 9ou .ean you )ere in cal. and peaceful conditionG
A 9es, sir(
> $espite the fact that the boy )as no longer responding to your application of first aidG
A 9es, sir(
> 9ou ha'e ne'er been disturbed, EnababahalaE in the process of your application of the first
aid on the body of -erdinand !astilloG
A #o, sir, because )e )ere attending to the application of first aid that )e )ere doing, sir(
> After you ha'e applied bac= to bac= pressure and )hich you clai.ed the boy did not
respond, )ere you not disturb any)ayG
A % )as disturbed during that ti.e, sir(
> -or ho) .any .inutes ha'e you applied the bac= to bac= pressureG
A -ro. B to 11 ti.es, sir(
> 9ou .ean B to 11 ti.es of ha'ing applied the pressure of your body on the body of
-erdinand !astilloG
A 9es, sir(
> +ill you please describe ho) you applied a single act of bac= to bac= pressureG
A This has been done by placing the boy lay first do)n)ards, then the face )as a little bit
facing right and doing it by .assaging the bac= of the child, sir(E /TS#, pp( 32<33, hearing of
:uly 30, 1BA40
Testi.ony of Tirso de !ha'e? on direct e1a.ination
ATT9( -5"RS*
> +ho actually applied the first aid or artificial respiration to the childG
A Myself, sir(
> ,o) did you apply the first aid to the guyG
A The first step that % too=, )ith the help of Mr( 5uisito &inas, )as % applied bac= to bac=
pressure and too= notice of the condition of the child( +e placed the feet in a higher position,
that of the head of the child, sir(
> After you ha'e placed the boy in that particular position, )here the feet )ere on a higher
le'el than that of the head, )hat did you do ne1tG
A The first thing that )e did, particularly .yself, )as that after putting the child in that position,
% applied the bac= to bac= pressure and started to .assage fro. the )aistline up, but % noticed
that the boy )as not responding, sir(
> -or ho) long did you apply this bac= to bac= pressure on the boyG
A About 10 seconds, sir(
> +hat about Mr( &inasG
A Al.ost the sa.e a little longer, for 13 seconds, sir(
> After you noticed that the boy )as not responding, )hat did you doG
A +hen )e noticed that the boy )as not responding, )e changed the position of the boy by
placing the child facing up)ards laying on the sand then )e applied the .outh to .outh
resuscitation, sir( /pp( B2<B3, Rollo0
+ith these facts in .ind, no .oral nor e1e.plary da.ages .ay be a)arded in fa'or of respondents<spouses( The case at bar does
not fall under any of the grounds to grant .oral da.ages(
Art( 221D( Moral $a.ages include physical suffering, .ental anguish, fright, serious an1iety, bes.irched
reputation, )ounded feelings, .oral shoc=, social hu.iliation, and si.ilar in7ury( Though incapable of
pecuniary co.putation, moral damages may be reovered if t&ey are t&e pro!imate result of t&e defendant*s
wrongful at or omission(
Moreo'er, as already pointed out hereinabo'e, petitioners are not guilty of any fault or negligence, hence, no .oral da.ages can be
assessed against the.(
+hile it is true that respondents<spouses did gi'e their consent to their son to 7oin the picnic, this does not .ean that the petitioners
)ere already relie'ed of their duty to obser'e the re8uired diligence of a good father of a fa.ily in ensuring the safety of the children(
6ut in the case at bar, petitioners )ere able to pro'e that they had e1ercised the re8uired diligence( ,ence, the clai. for .oral or
e1e.plary da.ages beco.es baseless(
PRM%SS !"#S%$R$, the 8uestioned decision dated #o'e.ber 1B, 1BAD, finding petitioners herein guilty of negligence and
liable for the death of -erdinand !astillo and a)arding the respondents da.ages, is hereby ST AS%$ insofar as the petitioners
herein are concerned, but the portion of the said decision dis.issing their counterclai., there being no .erit, is hereby A--%RM$(
S" "R$R$(
'armiento and Regalado, JJ., onur.



Se#ara%e O#.$.o$"

PA'I!!A, J., dissenting*
% regret that % can not concur )ith the .a7ority( % belie'e that the re'ersal of respondent appellate court2s decision gi'es rise to a
situation )hich )as neither conte.plated nor intended by the applicable la)s( % refer .ore particularly to the fact that
the ponenia has left pri'ate respondents<spouses )ith no one to hold liable for the unti.ely de.ise of their son( "n the other hand,
they ha'e, to .y .ind, been )ronged( and they should at least be reco.pensed for their sufferings( -or this and other reasons
stated hereunder( % dissent(
The issues, as adopted by the ponenia fro. the record, are as follo)s*
A0 +hether or not there )as negligence attributable to the defendants )hich )ill )arrant the a)ard of
da.ages to the plaintiffs4
60 +hether or not Art( 21A0, in relation to Art( 21D; of the #e) !i'il !ode is applicable to the case at bar4
!0 +hether or not the a)ard of e1e.plary and .oral da.ages is proper under the circu.stances surrounding
the case at bar(
1
%n .y opinion, the record clearly sho)s negligence on the part of the petitioners<teachers, )ith the e1ception of Aragones and :aro(
As to these t)o, respondent court absol'ed the. fro. liability for their ha'ing satisfactorily de.onstrated lac= of participation in the
negligence of their colleagues( % a. in agree.ent )ith said conclusion( 6ut % also agree )ith the respondent court in its finding that
Tirso de !ha'e?, 5uisito &iIas, !onnie Arguio and Patria !adi? failed to e1ercise $%5%@#T SFPR&%S%"# o'er the children during
the ill<fated e1cursion(
% .ay concede, albeit )ith reser'ation, that the afore<.entioned petitioners .ay not ha'e been negligent in finding )ays and .eans
to re'i'e the young !astillo A-TR the dro)ning incident( Their application of first<aid .easures .ay ha'e failed to re'i'e hi. but
the petitioners had fully e1hausted their efforts to sa'e the deceased( This concession, ho)e'er, is gi'en )ith hesitation, for there is
indication in the record that petitioner petitioners .ay ha'e tarried too long in securing i..ediate .edical attention for the deceased(
% refer to the trial court2s finding that Eit still too= the 7eep )hich brought -erdinand !astillo to the poblacion si1 /;0 .inutes before it
finally .o'ed to a)ait the other teachers(E
2
All this aside, % a. really disturbed about, and )ould li=e to e.phasi?e the de.onstrated lac= of diligence on the part of the
petitioners<teachers 6-"R the unfortunate incident too= place( $espite a)areness that the )aters in the area )ere deep,
petitioners< teachers did not ta=e concrete steps to .a=e sure their )ards did not stray too far and too deeply( 'en if they )ere not
actually infor.ed of the possible dangers )hich the area posed, petitioners<teachers should ha'e first Etested the )atersE, so to
spea=, to ensure )hich parts thereof )ere safe for s)i..ing purposes( ,o)e'er, this )as not the case for as testified to by petitioner
de !ha'e?, Ethey ad.itted that they did not e'en go to the )ater to chec= its depth although they )ere a)are that so.e parts of it
)ere deep(E
/
At best, it appears that only oral safety instructions )ere i.parted to the young e1cursionists(
6ut, )hat % find .ost disturbing is the fact that at the ti.e the trouble arose, &iIas and de !ha'e?, the .ale teachers )ho )ere
supposed to ensure the children2s safety, being physical education instructors, )ere no)here )ithin the i..ediate 'icinity but )ere,
in fact, as ad.itted by the latter, Eat his house getting so.e foods /si0 and thin=s(E The !ourt a quo e'en )ent as far as to say that
Ethey )ere so.e)here and as testified to by plaintiffs2 )itness they )ere ha'ing a drin=ing spreeJE
4
%t thus appears that the petitioners<teachers failed to e1ercise the proper diligence or )hat % .ay refer to as $%5%@#! 6-"R
T, -A!T( As earlier .entioned, the steps ta=en to re'i'e the deceased .ay be considered ade8uate, despite .y reser'ations, but
the o'er<all lac= of diligence on the part of petitioners<teachers suffices to put the. )ithin the standards set by this !ourt in
deter.ining the e1istence of negligence( As held in +edy ,an y -u vs( Court of "ppeals, et al(, the test in deter.ining )hether or not
a person is negligent in doing an act )hereby in7ury or da.age results to the person or property of another is this* +ould a prudent
.an in the position of the person to )ho. negligence is attributed foresee har. to the person in7ured as a reasonable conse8uence
of the course about to be pursuedG %f so, the la) i.poses the duty on the doer T" TAK PR!AFT%"# against its .ischie'ous
results and the failure to do so constitutes negligence(
5
The ne1t issue to be addressed pertains to the liability of the petitioner St( -rancis ,igh School as represented by petitioners<spouses
-ernando #antes and Rosario 5acandula( The .a7ority )ould li=e to e.phasi?e the fact that the unfortunate incident ha'ing occurred
during a purely pri'ate affair, the teachers in'ol'ed therein )ere not in the actual perfor.ance of their assigned tas=s( !onse8uently,
any act or o.ission caused by the. cannot bind their e.ployer, petitioner St( -rancis ,igh School(
% ta=e e1ception to this proposition( Although the e1cursion .ay not ha'e been attended by the appropriate school authorities, the
presence or sta.p of authority of the school ne'ertheless per'aded by reason of the participationnot of one but of se'eral teachers,
the petitioners( As found by the court a quo, the e1cursion )as an acti'ity Eorgani?ed by the teachers the.sel'es, for the students
and to )hich the student, #ATFRA559, acceded(E
6
Moreo'er, the record indicates that petitioner 6en7a.in %llu.in, school principal, =ne) of the e1cursion and had, in fact, been in'ited
to attend( As the .a7ority see it, such =no)ledge does not in any .anner sho) ac8uiescence or consent to the holding of the
e1cursion, a 'ie) )hich % do not accept( %t see.s to .e that ha'ing =no)n of the forthco.ing acti'ity, petitioner %llu.in, as school
principal, should ha'e ta=en appropriate .easures to ensure the safety of his students( ,a'ing preferred to re.ain silent, and e'en
indifferent, he no) see=s e1cuse fro. such o.ission by in'o=ing his alleged lac= of consent to the e1cursion( 6ut it is precisely his
silence and negligence in perfor.ing his role as principal head of the school that .ust be construed as an i.plied consent to such
acti'ity(
As ad.inistrati'e head /principal0 of St( -rancis ,igh School, petitioner %llu.in acted as the agent of his principal /the school0 or its
representati'es, the petitioners<spouses #antes and 5acandula( !onse8uently, and as found by the respondent court( Article 21D; in
con7unction )ith Article 21A0, paragraphs /10 and /30 are applicable to the situation( %n the application of these pro'isions, the
negligence of the e.ployee in causing in7ury or da.age gi'es rise to a presu.ption of negligence on the part of the o)ner andCor
.anager of the establish.ent( +hile this presu.ption is not conclusi'e, it .ay be o'erco.e only by clear and con'incing e'idence
that the o)ner andCor .anager e1ercised the care and diligence of a good father of a fa.ily in the selection andCor super'ision of the
e.ployees causing the in7ury or da.age( % agree )ith the respondent court that no proof )as presented to absol'e the o)ner andCor
.anager, herein petitioners<spouses #antes and 5acandula, and %llu.in( Thus, as correctly held by the respondent court, they too
.ust be accountable for the death of -erdinand !astillo(
The .a7ority 'ie) appears to be apprehensi'e that e.ployers )ill be continuously held accountable for .isdeeds of their e.ployees
co..itted e'en )hen the sa.e are done not in the actual e1ercise of their duties( % fail to appreciate such apprehensions, )hich
need not arise on the part of e.ployers, so long as the latter ha'e no =no)ledge of, or gi'e consent to, such act or o.ission on the
part of their e.ployee(
ducational institutions ha'e responsibilities )hich cannot be e8uated )ith those of the ordinary e.ployer or business establish.ent(
Such institutions, particularly the pri.ary and secondary schools, hold the tre.endous responsibility of e1ercising super'ision o'er
young children( Too often, such schools a'oid liabilities, as in the instant cage, by in'o=ing the absence of appro'al on their part for
acti'ities that .ay be held outside school pre.ises or held on a day not a school day( %t is about ti.e that such schools reali?e that
theirs is not a .ere .oney.a=ing entity or one i.personally established for the sole tas= of teaching the rudi.entary s=ills of
Ereading, )riting and 2rith.etic(E They .ust consider that their students are children of tender years )ho are in need of ade8uate
care, continuing attention and guidance(
Anent the issue of da.ages, fro. the foregoing discussion the a)ard thereof is clearly proper( % only )ish to point out the basis for
.oral da.ages )hich is found in Article 221B of the !i'il !ode, to )it*
Moral da.ages .ay be reco'ered in the follo)ing and analogous cases*
1( ( ( ( (
2( >uasi<delicts causing physical in7uries4
111 111 111
%t should be noted that the ter. Ephysical in7uriesE .ust not be construed in its penal sense alone but rather in its generic sense, in
the spirit of this !ourt2s rulings in Carandang vs( 'antiago /31 "(@( 2ADA0 and .ade)a vs( Caro, et al(, /@(R( #o( 311A3, 21 $ece.ber
1BA3, 12; S!RA 2B30( Thus, the death of pri'ate respondents2 son as a result of petitioners2 negligence gi'es rise to an action for
8uasi<delict )hich, as pro'ided, entitles the clai.ant to an a)ard of .oral da.ages(
%n the light of the foregoing, % 'ote to A--%RM the decision of the respondent court and thus hold the petitioners 7ointly and se'erally
liable for the death of -erdinand !astillo(
.elenio-+errera, J., onur.

Se#ara%e O#.$.o$"
PA'I!!A, J., dissenting*
% regret that % can not concur )ith the .a7ority( % belie'e that the re'ersal of respondent appellate court2s decision gi'es rise to a
situation )hich )as neither conte.plated nor intended by the applicable la)s( % refer .ore particularly to the fact that
the ponenia has left pri'ate respondents<spouses )ith no one to hold liable for the unti.ely de.ise of their son( "n the other hand,
they ha'e, to .y .ind, been )ronged( and they should at least be reco.pensed for their sufferings( -or this and other reasons
stated hereunder( % dissent(
The issues, as adopted by the ponenia fro. the record, are as follo)s*
A0 +hether or not there )as negligence attributable to the defendants )hich )ill )arrant the a)ard of
da.ages to the plaintiffs4
60 +hether or not Art( 21A0, in relation to Art( 21D; of the #e) !i'il !ode is applicable to the case at bar4
!0 +hether or not the a)ard of e1e.plary and .oral da.ages is proper under the circu.stances surrounding
the case at bar(
1
%n .y opinion, the record clearly sho)s negligence on the part of the petitioners<teachers, )ith the e1ception of Aragones and :aro(
As to these t)o, respondent court absol'ed the. fro. liability for their ha'ing satisfactorily de.onstrated lac= of participation in the
negligence of their colleagues( % a. in agree.ent )ith said conclusion( 6ut % also agree )ith the respondent court in its finding that
Tirso de !ha'e?, 5uisito &iIas, !onnie Arguio and Patria !adi? failed to e1ercise $%5%@#T SFPR&%S%"# o'er the children during
the ill<fated e1cursion(
% .ay concede, albeit )ith reser'ation, that the afore<.entioned petitioners .ay not ha'e been negligent in finding )ays and .eans
to re'i'e the young !astillo A-TR the dro)ning incident( Their application of first<aid .easures .ay ha'e failed to re'i'e hi. but
the petitioners had fully e1hausted their efforts to sa'e the deceased( This concession, ho)e'er, is gi'en )ith hesitation, for there is
indication in the record that petitioner petitioners .ay ha'e tarried too long in securing i..ediate .edical attention for the deceased(
% refer to the trial court2s finding that Eit still too= the 7eep )hich brought -erdinand !astillo to the poblacion si1 /;0 .inutes before it
finally .o'ed to a)ait the other teachers(E
2
All this aside, % a. really disturbed about, and )ould li=e to e.phasi?e the de.onstrated lac= of diligence on the part of the
petitioners<teachers 6-"R the unfortunate incident too= place( $espite a)areness that the )aters in the area )ere deep,
petitioners< teachers did not ta=e concrete steps to .a=e sure their )ards did not stray too far and too deeply( 'en if they )ere not
actually infor.ed of the possible dangers )hich the area posed, petitioners<teachers should ha'e first Etested the )atersE, so to
spea=, to ensure )hich parts thereof )ere safe for s)i..ing purposes( ,o)e'er, this )as not the case for as testified to by petitioner
de !ha'e?, Ethey ad.itted that they did not e'en go to the )ater to chec= its depth although they )ere a)are that so.e parts of it
)ere deep(E
/
At best, it appears that only oral safety instructions )ere i.parted to the young e1cursionists(
6ut, )hat % find .ost disturbing is the fact that at the ti.e the trouble arose, &iIas and de !ha'e?, the .ale teachers )ho )ere
supposed to ensure the children2s safety, being physical education instructors, )ere no)here )ithin the i..ediate 'icinity but )ere,
in fact, as ad.itted by the latter, Eat his house getting so.e foods /si0 and thin=s(E The !ourt a quo e'en )ent as far as to say that
Ethey )ere so.e)here and as testified to by plaintiffs2 )itness they )ere ha'ing a drin=ing spreeJE
4
%t thus appears that the petitioners<teachers failed to e1ercise the proper diligence or )hat % .ay refer to as $%5%@#! 6-"R
T, -A!T( As earlier .entioned, the steps ta=en to re'i'e the deceased .ay be considered ade8uate, despite .y reser'ations, but
the o'er<all lac= of diligence on the part of petitioners<teachers suffices to put the. )ithin the standards set by this !ourt in
deter.ining the e1istence of negligence( As held in +edy ,an y -u vs( Court of "ppeals, et al(, the test in deter.ining )hether or not
a person is negligent in doing an act )hereby in7ury or da.age results to the person or property of another is this* +ould a prudent
.an in the position of the person to )ho. negligence is attributed foresee har. to the person in7ured as a reasonable conse8uence
of the course about to be pursuedG %f so, the la) i.poses the duty on the doer T" TAK PR!AFT%"# against its .ischie'ous
results and the failure to do so constitutes negligence(
5
The ne1t issue to be addressed pertains to the liability of the petitioner St( -rancis ,igh School as represented by petitioners<spouses
-ernando #antes and Rosario 5acandula( The .a7ority )ould li=e to e.phasi?e the fact that the unfortunate incident ha'ing occurred
during a purely pri'ate affair, the teachers in'ol'ed therein )ere not in the actual perfor.ance of their assigned tas=s( !onse8uently,
any act or o.ission caused by the. cannot bind their e.ployer, petitioner St( -rancis ,igh School(
% ta=e e1ception to this proposition( Although the e1cursion .ay not ha'e been attended by the appropriate school authorities, the
presence or sta.p of authority of the school ne'ertheless per'aded by reason of the participationnot of one but of se'eral teachers,
the petitioners( As found by the court a quo, the e1cursion )as an acti'ity Eorgani?ed by the teachers the.sel'es, for the students
and to )hich the student, #ATFRA559, acceded(E
6
Moreo'er, the record indicates that petitioner 6en7a.in %llu.in, school principal, =ne) of the e1cursion and had, in fact, been in'ited
to attend( As the .a7ority see it, such =no)ledge does not in any .anner sho) ac8uiescence or consent to the holding of the
e1cursion, a 'ie) )hich % do not accept( %t see.s to .e that ha'ing =no)n of the forthco.ing acti'ity, petitioner %llu.in, as school
principal, should ha'e ta=en appropriate .easures to ensure the safety of his students( ,a'ing preferred to re.ain silent, and e'en
indifferent, he no) see=s e1cuse fro. such o.ission by in'o=ing his alleged lac= of consent to the e1cursion( 6ut it is precisely his
silence and negligence in perfor.ing his role as principal head of the school that .ust be construed as an i.plied consent to such
acti'ity(
As ad.inistrati'e head /principal0 of St( -rancis ,igh School, petitioner %llu.in acted as the agent of his principal /the school0 or its
representati'es, the petitioners<spouses #antes and 5acandula( !onse8uently, and as found by the respondent court( Article 21D; in
con7unction )ith Article 21A0, paragraphs /10 and /30 are applicable to the situation( %n the application of these pro'isions, the
negligence of the e.ployee in causing in7ury or da.age gi'es rise to a presu.ption of negligence on the part of the o)ner andCor
.anager of the establish.ent( +hile this presu.ption is not conclusi'e, it .ay be o'erco.e only by clear and con'incing e'idence
that the o)ner andCor .anager e1ercised the care and diligence of a good father of a fa.ily in the selection andCor super'ision of the
e.ployees causing the in7ury or da.age( % agree )ith the respondent court that no proof )as presented to absol'e the o)ner andCor
.anager, herein petitioners<spouses #antes and 5acandula, and %llu.in( Thus, as correctly held by the respondent court, they too
.ust be accountable for the death of -erdinand !astillo(
The .a7ority 'ie) appears to be apprehensi'e that e.ployers )ill be continuously held accountable for .isdeeds of their e.ployees
co..itted e'en )hen the sa.e are done not in the actual e1ercise of their duties( % fail to appreciate such apprehensions, )hich
need not arise on the part of e.ployers, so long as the latter ha'e no =no)ledge of, or gi'e consent to, such act or o.ission on the
part of their e.ployee(
ducational institutions ha'e responsibilities )hich cannot be e8uated )ith those of the ordinary e.ployer or business establish.ent(
Such institutions, particularly the pri.ary and secondary schools, hold the tre.endous responsibility of e1ercising super'ision o'er
young children( Too often, such schools a'oid liabilities, as in the instant cage, by in'o=ing the absence of appro'al on their part for
acti'ities that .ay be held outside school pre.ises or held on a day not a school day( %t is about ti.e that such schools reali?e that
theirs is not a .ere .oney.a=ing entity or one i.personally established for the sole tas= of teaching the rudi.entary s=ills of
Ereading, )riting and 2rith.etic(E They .ust consider that their students are children of tender years )ho are in need of ade8uate
care, continuing attention and guidance(
Anent the issue of da.ages, fro. the foregoing discussion the a)ard thereof is clearly proper( % only )ish to point out the basis for
.oral da.ages )hich is found in Article 221B of the !i'il !ode, to )it*
Moral da.ages .ay be reco'ered in the follo)ing and analogous cases*
1( ( ( ( (
2( >uasi<delicts causing physical in7uries4
111 111 111
%t should be noted that the ter. Ephysical in7uriesE .ust not be construed in its penal sense alone but rather in its generic sense, in
the spirit of this !ourt2s rulings in Carandang vs( 'antiago /31 "(@( 2ADA0 and .ade)a vs( Caro, et al(, /@(R( #o( 311A3, 21 $ece.ber
1BA3, 12; S!RA 2B30( Thus, the death of pri'ate respondents2 son as a result of petitioners2 negligence gi'es rise to an action for
8uasi<delict )hich, as pro'ided, entitles the clai.ant to an a)ard of .oral da.ages(
%n the light of the foregoing, % 'ote to A--%RM the decision of the respondent court and thus hold the petitioners 7ointly and se'erally
liable for the death of -erdinand !astillo(
.elenio-+errera, J., onur.
Foo%$o%e"
L Penned by Associate :ustice 5orna S( 5o.bos<$e la -uente and concurred in by Associate :ustices Ricardo
:( -rancisco and Alfredo 5( 6enipayo(
Padilla, :* dissenting opinion
1 Rollo, pp( A1<A2(
2 $ecision in !i'il !ase #o( AA34, Rollo, p( 2B(
3 %bid(, p( 2;(
4 %bid(, p( 31(
3 @(R( #o( 5<442;4, 1B Septe.ber 1BAA, 1;3 S!RA 3DA4 e.phasis supplied(
; $ecision in !i'il !ase #o( AA34, rollo, p( 244 e.phasis supplied(
The 5a)phil Pro7ect < Arellano 5a) -oundation