Teachers Duties and Responsibilities

under our Civil Laws

By:
Honoridez, Kvyn
Lim, Roceli
Moreno, Raisa
Omar, Sharine
Regalado, Katrina
Villalon, John Rey
 Outline
Legal Provisions
-Article 2180 of the Civil Code
-Article 218 of the Family Code
Cases
-Amadora Case, GR No. L-47745
-University of the East Case, GR No. 132344
-Palisoc Case, GR No. L-29025
-St. Marys Academy Case, GR No. 143363
 Legal Provisions
Article 2180 of the Civil Code
The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is
demandable not only for ones own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom
one is responsible.
xxxxx
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts
and trades shall be liable for damages caused by
their pupils and students or apprentices, so long
as they remain in their custody.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall
cease when the persons herein mentioned
prove that they observed all the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent damage.
Article 218 of the Family Code
The school, its administrators and teachers, or the
individual, entity or institution engaged in child
care shall have special parental authority and
responsibility over the minor child while under
their supervision, instruction or custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all
authorized activities whether inside or outside the
premises of the school, entity or institution.
 Art. 2180 of the Civil Code Art. 218 of the Family Code
GR: Applies to teachers of academic The school, its administrators and
or non-academic institutions. teachers, or the individual, entity or
Exception: In the case of institution engaged in child care is liable
establishments of arts and trades,
the head thereof shall be liable.

The damage or injury is caused by The damage or injury is caused by a

the student regardless of age minor

The student must be under the The minor must be under their
custody of the teacher in charge supervision, instruction or custody

Liability for damages is direct and Liability for damages is principal and
primary solidary

Applies only when inside the school Applies to all authorized activities
premises whether inside or outside the school
premises
 Amadora vs Court of Appeals, GR No.
L-47745, April 15, 1988

Facts:
Like any prospective graduate,
Alfredo Amadora was looking
forward to the commencement
exercises where he would ascend
the stage and in the presence of his
relatives and friends receive his high
school diploma. These ceremonies
were scheduled on April 16, 1972.
As it turned out, though, fate would intervene and
deny him that awaited experience. On April 13,
1972, while they were in the auditorium of their
school, the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, a
classmate, Pablito Damon, fired a gun that mortally
hit Alfredo, ending all his expectations and his life as
well. The victim was only seventeen years old.
The parents filed a case for damages against the
school, the dean and the physics teacher, invoking
Art. 2180 of the Civil Code.

Art. 2180
xxxxx
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and
trades shall be liable for damages caused by their
pupils and students or apprentices so long as they
remain in their custody.
 Arguments
Parents allegations: The petitioners contend that
their son was in the school to show his physics
experiment as a prerequisite to his graduation;
hence, he was then under the custody of the
private respondents.

Schools defense: 1. It was not a school of arts and

trades; and 2. it no longer had custody over
Amadora since the semester had already ended.
 Held
1st issue: The provision in question should apply to all schools,
academic as well as non-academic.

General Rule: Where the school is academic rather than technical or

vocational in nature, responsibility for the tort committed by the
student will attach to the teacher in charge of such student,
following the first part of the provision.

Exception: In the case of establishments of arts and trades, it is the

head thereof, and only he, who shall be held liable as an exception
to the general rule.

In other words, teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of

their students except where the school is technical in nature, in
which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable.
2nd issue: In the view of the Court, 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 yet begun or has already ended.

"so long as (the students) remain in their custody" means 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 at attendance in the school, including recess
time (citing Palisoc vs. Brillantes)
Includes:

1.)Even before the start of classes and the student

has already registered or enrolled and thus placed
himself under the rules of the school

2.)Even after the last day of classes since there

may still be certain requisites to be satisfied for
the completion of the course (submission of
reports, term papers, clearances)
3.)When the student is in the school premises in
pursuance of a legitimate student objective, in the
exercise of a legitimate student right, and even in
the enjoyment of a legitimate student privilege.

4.)It is not necessary that at the time of the injury,

the teacher be physically present and in a position
to prevent it. Custody does not connote
immediate and actual physical control but refers
more to the influence exerted on the child and
the discipline instilled in him as a result of such
influence.
It is the teacher in charge of the student who is liable
under Art. 2180.

In this case, the physics teacher who was the teacher-

in-charge over the student who shot Amadora was not
proven to be lax in enforcing discipline upon him. His
absence cannot be considered against him since he was
not supposed to report to school that day.

The school was also not held liable since only the
teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades is
made responsible for the damage caused by the
student or apprentice.
University of the East vs Romeo A. Jader,
GR No. 132344, February 17, 2000

Facts:
In this case, Romeo had graduated
with a degree of Bachelor of Laws
at the University of the East. He
joined the commencement rights
and was able to climb at the stage
to get his diploma. But prior to
this he had a failing grade in his
Practice Court and was allowed to
take a removal exam. Since his
grades are not submitted yet by
the professor his name was part of
the tentative list of graduates.
However, when he is already enrolled at a pre-bar review class,
he was informed that he had failed his Practice Court I. So
technically, he did not finish his studies and should not have
graduated.

So, Romeo filed an action for

damages against petitioner school.
Romeo argued that he suffered
moral shock, mental anguish,
serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings and
sleepless nights when he was not
able to take the 1988 bar
examinations because of the
negligence of the petitioner school.
UE denied any liability, it argued that it never led
respondent to believe that he completed the
requirements for a Bachelor of Laws degree when his
name was included in the tentative list of graduating
students.

After the trial, the lower court render its decision in

favor of the respondent Romeo, which was affirmed by
the Court of Appeals.

Now, before the Supreme Court, petitioner school

argued that it has no liability to respondent Romeo
because the proximate and immediate cause of the
alleged damages suffered by Romeo is due to his own
negligence in not verifying from the professor
concerned the result of his removal exam.
 Issue
Whether the teacher is liable for the damages
sustained by Romeo or in other words Is the
school liable for the damages sustained by
Romeo by reason of the negligent act of a
professor who fails to observe the rules of the
school, for instance by not promptly
submitting a student's grade
 Held
UE is liable to Romeo A. Jader
When a student is enrolled in any educational or learning
institution, a contract of education is entered into between said
institution and the student.
The professors, teachers or instructors
hired by the school are considered
merely as agents and administrators
tasked to perform the school's
commitment under the contract. Since
the contracting parties are the school
and the student, the latter is not duty-
bound to deal with the former's agents,
such as the professors with respect to
the status or result of his grades.
The Court takes judicial notice of the traditional
practice in educational institutions wherein the
professor directly furnishes his/her students their
grades. It is the contractual obligation of the
school to timely inform and furnish sufficient
notice and information to each and every student
as to whether he or she had already complied
with all the requirements for the conferment of a
degree or whether they would be included among
those who will graduate.
Educational institutions are duty-bound to inform the
students of their academic status and not wait for the
students to inquire from the school. Petitioner ought to
have known that time was of the essence in the
performance of its obligation to inform respondent of
his grade. It cannot feign ignorance that respondent will
not prepare himself for the bar exams since that is
precisely the immediate concern after graduation of an
LLB graduate. Petitioner's liability arose from its failure
to promptly inform respondent of the result of an
examination and in misleading the latter into believing
that he had satisfied all requirements for the course.
Here, the petitioner University had been informed that the
professor in Practice Court I gave Romeo a failing grade. Yet, it
still did not inform Romeo of his failure to complete the
requirements for the degree and they did not remove his
name from the tentative list of candidates for graduation.
Petitioner cannot pass on its blame to the professors to justify
its own negligence that led to the delayed relay of information
to respondent. When one of two innocent parties must suffer,
he through whose agency the loss occurred must bear it. The
modern tendency is to grant indemnity for damages in cases
where there is abuse of right, even when the act is not illicit. If
mere fault or negligence in one's acts can make him liable for
damages for injury caused thereby, with more reason should
abuse or bad faith make him liable. A person should be
protected only when he acts in the legitimate exercise of his
right, that is, when he acts with prudence and in good faith,
but not when he acts with negligence or abuse.
 Palisoc vs Brillantes, GR No. L- 29025,
October 4, 1971
Facts:
The deceased Dominador Palisoc and Virgilio
Daffon were classmates at the Manila
Technical Institute. One day, during recess,
they, together with another classmate were in
the laboratory room located on the ground
floor.
Daffon made a remark to Palisoc
which made the latter slapped
slightly the former on the face.
Daffon, in retaliation, gave
Palisoc a strong flat blow on the
face, which was followed by
other fist blows on the stomach.
Palisoc retreated and stumbled
on an engine block which
caused him to fall face
downward. Palisoc became pale
and fainted. First aid was
administered to him but he was
not revived, so he was
immediately taken to a hospital.
However, he never regained
consciousness and he died.
The trial court found Daffon
liable for the quasi delict
under Article 2176 of the
Civil Code. The act of Daffon
in giving the deceased strong
fist blows in the stomach
which ruptured his internal
organs and caused his death
falls within the purview of
the Code. It absolved the
school officials of the Manila
Technical Institute.
 Issue

Whether or not the school officials of Manila

Technical Institute are solidarily liable with
Daffon
 Held
Article 2180 of the Civil Code expressly hold
teachers or head of establishments of arts and
tradesliable for damages caused by their pupils
and students and apprentices, so long as they
remain in their custody. Under the cited codal
article, the heads and the teacher of the Manila
Technical Institute, it being a technical vocational
and industrial school, are liable jointly and
severally for damages to the parents of the
deceased caused by Daffon at the schools
laboratory room.
The rationale of such liability of school heads and
teachers for the tortious acts of their pupils and
students, so long as they remain in their custody, is that
they stand, to a certain extent, as to their pupils and
students, in loco parentis and are called upon to
"exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of
the child." The protective custody of the school heads
and teachers is mandatorily substituted for that of the
parents, and hence, it becomes their obligation as well
as that of the school itself to provide proper supervision
of the students' activities during the whole time that
they are at attendance in the school, including recess
time, as well as to take the necessary precautions to
protect the students in their custody from dangers and
hazards that would reasonably be anticipated, including
injuries that some student themselves may inflict
willfully or through negligence on their fellow students.
The defendant president and teacher-in-charge of
the school must be held solidarily liable for the
quasi-delict of Daffon. The unfortunate death
resulting from the fight between Palisoc and
Daffoncould have been avoided, had said
defendants 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. Defendants failed
to prove that they observed all the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent damage.
 St. Marys Academy vs Carpitanos, GR
No. 143363, February 6, 2002
Facts:
Herein petitioner, conducted an
enrollment drive for the school year
1995-1996 They visited schools from
where prospective enrollees were
studying. Sherwin Carpitanos joined
the campaign. Along with the other
high school students, they rode a
Mitsubishi jeep owned by Vivencio
Villanueva on their way to Larayan
Elementary School. Such jeep was
driven by James Daniel II, a 15 year
old student of the same school. It
was alleged that he drove the jeep in
a reckless manner which resulted for
it to turned turtle. Sherwin died due
to this accident.
 Issue

Whether or not petitioner St. Marys Academy

should be held liable
 Held
No. St. Marys Academy is not liable.

Under Article 219 of the Family Code, if the person under

custody is a minor, those exercising special parental
authority are principally and solidarily liable for damages
caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated
minor while under their supervision, instruction, or custody.

However, for petitioner to be liable, there must be a finding

that the act or omission considered as negligent was the
proximate cause of the injury caused because the
negligence must have a causal connection to the accident.
In this case, the respondents failed to show that the
negligence of petitioner was the proximate cause of the
death of the victim. Respondents Daniel spouses and
Villanueva admitted that the immediate cause of the
accident was not the negligence of petitioner or the reckless
driving of James Daniel II, but the detachment of the
steering wheel guide of the jeep.

Significantly, respondents did not present any evidence to

show that the proximate cause of the accident was the
negligence of the school authorities, or the reckless driving
of James Daniel II. Hence, the respondents reliance on
Article 219 of the Family Code that those given the authority
and responsibility under the preceding Article shall be
principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by acts
or omissions of the unemancipated minor was unfounded.
Further, there was no evidence that petitioner school
allowed the minor James Daniel II to drive the jeep of
respondent Vivencio Villanueva. It was Ched Villanueva,
grandson of respondent Vivencio Villanueva, who had
possession and control of the jeep. He was driving the
vehicle and he allowed James Daniel II, a minor, to drive the
jeep at the time of the accident.

Hence, liability for the accident, whether caused by the

negligence of the minor driver or mechanical detachment of
the steering wheel guide of the jeep, must be pinned on the
minors parents primarily. The negligence of petitioner St.
Marys Academy was only a remote cause of the accident.
Between the remote cause and the injury, there intervened
the negligence of the minors parents or the detachment of
the steering wheel guide of the jeep.
Considering that the negligence of the minor
driver or the detachment of the steering wheel
guide of the jeep owned by respondent
Villanueva was an event over which petitioner
St. Marys Academy had no control, and which
was the proximate cause of the accident,
petitioner may not be held liable for the death
resulting from such accident.
 Defenses

1. Proof of diligence of a good father of a family

In any event, it should be noted that the liability imposed by
this article is supposed to fall directly on the teacher or the
head of the school of arts and trades and not on the school
itself. If at all, the school, whatever its nature, may be held
to answer for the acts of its teachers or even of the head
thereof under the general principle of respondeat superior,
but then it may exculpate itself from liability by proof that it
had exercised the diligence of a bonus paterfamilias.
Such defense is, of course, also available to the teacher or
the head of the school of arts and trades directly held to
answer for the tort committed by the student. As long as
the defendant can show that he had taken the necessary
precautions to prevent the injury complained of, he can
exonerate himself from the liability imposed by Article 2180,
which also states that:

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when

the Persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all
the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damages. (Amadora Case, GR No. L-47745, April 15, 1988)
2. Proximate Cause
Hence, liability for the accident, whether caused
by the negligence of the minor driver or
mechanical detachment of the steering wheel
guide of the jeep, must be pinned on the minors
parents primarily. The negligence of petitioner St.
Marys Academy was only a remote cause of the
accident. Between the remote cause and the
injury, there intervened the negligence of the
minors parents or the detachment of the steering
wheel guide of the jeep.
Considering that the negligence of the minor
driver or the detachment of the steering wheel
guide of the jeep owned by respondent
Villanueva was an event over which petitioner
St. Marys Academy had no control, and which
was the proximate cause of the accident,
petitioner may not be held liable for the death
resulting from such accident. (St. Marys
Academy vs Carpitanos, GR No.143363,
February 6, 2002)
END