TORTS (Case Digest)

                                       
First Assignment CASE 13,14,15  
 
AQUINAS SCHOOL vs. SPS. JOSE INTON and MA. VICTORIA S. INTON
G.R. No. 184202 (January 26, 2011)

FACTS: religion teachers to Aquinas to provide catechesis to its

This case is about the private school’s liability for the
outside catechist’s act of shoving a student and kicking him
on the legs when he disobeyed her instruction to remain in
his seat and not move around the classroom.
In 1998, Jose Luis Inton (Jose Luis) was a grade three
student at Aquinas School (Aquinas). Respondent Sister
Margarita Yamyamin (Yamyamin), a religion teacher who
began teaching at that school only in June of that year,
taught Jose Luis’ grade three religion class.
students.
Aquinas insists that it was not the school but Yamyamin’s
religious congregation that chose her for the task of
catechizing the school’s grade three students, much like
the way bishops designate the catechists who would teach
religion
in public schools. Aquinas did not have control over
Yamyamin’s teaching methods.

Jose Luis left his seat and went over to a classmate to play
a joke of surprising him. Yamyamin noticed this and sent
him back to his seat.
After a while, Jose Luis got up again and went over to the
same classmate.
Yamyamin approached the Jose Luis and kicked him on the
legs several times. She also pulled and shoved his head on
the classmate’s seat.
She also made the child copy the notes on the blackboard
while seating on the floor.
Respondents Jose and Victoria Inton (the Intons) filed an
action for damages on behalf of their son Jose Luis against
Yamyamin and Aquinas before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Pasig City in Civil Case 67427.
The Intons had not refuted the school directress’ testimony
in this regard.
Aquinas still had the responsibility of taking steps to ensure
that only qualified outside catechists are allowed to teach
its young students. In this regard, it cannot be said that
Aquinas took no steps to avoid the occurrence of improper
conduct towards the students by their religion teacher.
They showed records, certificates and diploma that
Yamyamin is qualified to teach. There is no question that
she came from a legitimate congregation of sisters. They
provided Faculty Staff Manual in handling the students.
They pre-approved the content of the course she wanted to
teach. They have a classroom evaluation program for her
unfortunately, she was new, therefore do not have
sufficient opportunity to observe her.

The Intons also filed a criminal action against Yamyamin for
violation of Republic Act 7610 to which she pleaded guilty
and was sentenced accordingly.
With regard to the action for damages, the Intons sought
to recover actual, moral, and exemplary damages, as well
as attorney’s fees, for the hurt that Jose Luis and his
mother Victoria suffered.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition, SETS
ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
88106 dated August 4, 2008, and HOLDS petitioner
Aquinas School not liable in damages to respondent Jose
Luis Inton.

The RTC dismissed Victoria’s personal claims but ruled in

Jose Luis’ favor, holding Yamyamin liable to him for moral
damages of P25,000.00, exemplary damages
of P25,000.00, and attorney’s fees of P10,000.00 plus the
costs of suit.

They elevate the case to the CA to increase the award of

damages and hold Aquinas solidarily liable with Yamyamin.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA was correct in holding Aquinas

solidarily liable with Yamyamin for the damages awarded to
Jose Luis.

HELD:

No. The school directress testified that Aquinas had an

agreement with a congregation of sisters under which, in
order to fulfill its ministry, the congregation would send
TORTS (Case Digest)                                        
First Assignment CASE 13,14,15  
 
ST. JOSEPH’S COLLEGE vs. JAYSON MIRANDA
G.R. No. 182353 (June 29, 2010)

employees because it had full information on the nature of

FACTS: dangerous science experiments but did not take affirmative
steps to avert damage and injury to students.
While inside the premises of St. Joseph’s College, the class
where respondent Miranda belonged was conducting a The fact that there has never been any accident in the past
science experiment about fusion of sulphur powder and during the conduct of science experiments is not a
iron fillings under the tutelage of Rosalinda Tabugo, she justification to be complacent in just preserving the status
being the teacher and the employee, while the adviser is quo and do away with creative foresight to install safety
Estafania Abdan. measures to protect the students. Schools should not
simply install safety reminders and distribute safety
instructional manuals. More importantly, schools should
Tabugo left her class while it was doing the experiment provide protective gears and devices to shield students
without having adequately secured it from any untoward from expected risks and anticipated dangers.
incident or occurrence. In the middle of the experiment,
[Jayson], who was the assistant leader of one of the class
groups, checked the result of the experiment by looking
into the test tube with magnifying glass. The test tube was
being held by one of his group mates who moved it close
and towards the eye of [Jayson]. At that instance, the
compound in the test tube spurted out and several particles
of which hit [Jayson’s] eye and the different parts of the
bodies of some of his group mates. As a result thereof,
[Jayson’s] eyes were chemically burned, particularly his left
eye, for which he had to undergo surgery and had to spend
for his medication. Upon filing of this case [in] the lower
court, his wound had not completely healed and still had to
undergo another surgery.

Upon learning of the incident and because of the need for

finances, [Jayson’s] mother, who was working abroad, had
to rush back home for which she spent P36,070.00 for her
fares and had to forego her salary from November 23,
1994 to December 26, 1994, in the amount of at
least P40,000.00.

Jason and his parents suffered sleepless nights, mental

anguish and wounded feelings as a result of his injury due
to the petitioner’s fault and failure to exercise the degree of
care and diligence incumbent upon each one of them. Thus,
they should be held liable for moral damages.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioners were liable for the

accident.

HELD:

Yes. As found by both lower courts, proximate cause of the

Jason’s injury was the concurrent failure of petitioners to
prevent to foreseeable mishap that occurred during the
conduct of the science experiment. Petitioners were
negligent by failing to exercise the higher degree of care,
caution and foresight incumbent upon the school, its
administrators and teachers. "The defense of due diligence
of a good father of a family raised by [petitioner] St.
Joseph College will not exculpate it from liability because it
has been shown that it was guilty of inexcusable laxity in
the supervision of its teachers (despite an apparent rigid
screening process for hiring) and in the maintenance of
what should have been a safe and secured environment for
conducting dangerous experiments. [Petitioner] school is
still liable for the wrongful acts of the teachers and
TORTS (Case Digest)                                        
First Assignment CASE 13,14,15  
 
JOSEPH SALUDAGA vs. FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY injury to another.
G.R. NO. 179337 (April 30, 2008)

FACTS:

Joseph Saludaga was a sophomore law student of

respondent Far Eastern University when he was shot by
Alejandro Rosete, one of the security guards on duty at
the school premises on August 18, 1996. He was rushed to
FEU-Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation (FEU-NRMF) due
to the wound he sustained. Meanwhile, Rosete was brought
to the police station where he explained that the shooting
was accidental. He was eventually released considering
that no formal complaint was filed against him. Salduga
thereafter filed a complaint for damages against
respondents on the ground that they breached their
obligation to provide students with a safe and secure
environment and an atmosphere conducive to learning.

Far Eastern University and Edilberto De Jesus (as

president) in turn, filed a Third-Party Complaint against
Galaxy Development and Management Corporation, the
agency contracted by respondent FEU to provide security
services within its premises and Mariano D. Imperial
(Galaxy's President,) to indemnify them. On the other
hand, Galaxy and Imperial filed a Fourth-Party Complaint
against AFP General Insurance.

On November 10, 2004, the trial court rendered a decision

in favor of petitioner, Respondents appealed to the Court of
Appeals which rendered the assailed Decision. Petitioner
filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied hence,
the instant petition.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the school is liable for breach of contract?

HELD:

YES, It is settled that in culpa contractual, the mere proof

of the existence of the contract and the failure of its
compliance justify, prima facie, a corresponding right of
relief. In the instant case, we find that, when petitioner
was shot inside the campus by no less the security guard
who was hired to maintain peace and secure the premises,
there is a prima facie showing that respondents failed to
comply with the defense of Caso Fortuito cannot be
sustained. After a thorough review of the records, we find
that respondents failed to discharge the burden of proving
that they exercised due diligence in providing a safe
learning environment for their students. They failed to
prove that they ensured that the guards assigned in the
campus met the requirements stipulated in the Security
Service Agreement. also failed to show that they
understood steps to ascertain and confirm that the security
guards assigned to them actually possess the qualifications
required in the Security Service Agreement.

Consequently, respondents' defense of force majeure must

fail. In order for force majeure to be considered, respondents
must show that no negligence or misconduct was
committed that may have occasioned the loss. An act of
God cannot be invoked to protect a person who has failed
to take steps to forestall the possible adverse
consequences of such a loss. One's negligence may have
concurred with an act of God in producing damage and