SABINA EXCONDE vs. DELFIN CAPUNO, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-10134

June 29, 1957

Facts:

Dante Capuno was a member of the Boy Scouts organization and a student of Balintawak
Elementary school. On March 31, they were instructed by the school’s supervisor to attend a
parade in honor of Dr. Jose Rizal. From school, Dante and other students boarded the jeep that
was going to take them to the parade. Dante then drove the jeep, while the driver sat by his side.
They have not gone too far when the jeep turned turtle resulting to the death of two of its
passengers, Amado Ticzon and Isidore Caperi.

Issue:

Whether or not Delfin capuno may be held jointly and severally liable with his son Dante
Capuno, for the civil liability of his tortuous act?

Held:

Yes. Under Art 1903, of the Spanish Civil Code paragraph 1, and 5 which provides: the father
and in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are liable for any damages caused by the minor
children who live with them. xxx Finally, teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for
any damages caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody. But the
provision applies only to an institution of arts and trades and not to any academic educational
institution. Dante was then a student of Balintawak Elem School and as part of his extra-
curricular activity; he attended the parade upon instruction of City school’s supervisor. It was in
connection with the parade that the accident took place Clear that neither the head of the school
nor the city supervisor could be held liable for the negligent act of Dante because he was not then
a student of an institution of arts and trades.

Civil liability of father (in case of death or incapacity, the mother) for any damages caused by
minor children is a necessary consequence of the parental authority they exercise over them
which imposes upon the parents the duty of supporting them, keeping them in their company,
educating them and instructing them in proportion to their means, while on the other hand, gives
them the right to correct and punish them in moderation. The only way they could relieve
themselves of liability is if they prove that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent the damage.
Mercado vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 87584
May 30, 1960

Facts:
Augusto Mercado and Manuel Quisumbing, Jr. are both pupils of the Lourdes Catholic School,
Kanlaon, Quezon City. A ‘pitogo’ (an empty nutshell used by children as a piggy bank) belonged
to Augusto Mercado but he lent it to Benedicto Lim and in turn Benedicto lent it to Renato
Legaspi. Renato was not aware that the ‘pitogo’ belonged to Augusto. Manuel Quisumbing, Jr.
thought it was Benedicto’s, so when Augusto attempted to get the ‘pitogo’ from Renato, Manuel,
Jr. told him not to do so because Renato was better at putting the chain into the holes of the
‘pitogo’. Augusto resented his remark and pushed Manuel, Jr., which started the fight. After
successive blows to Manuel, Jr., Augusto cut him on the right cheek with a piece of razor.
Manuel, Jr. and his father filed a complaint against Ciriaco Mercado, Augusto’s father.

Issue:
Whether or not the teacher or head of the school should be held responsible instead of the father?

Held:
NO. CHILDREN WERE NOT IN THEIR CUSTODY. Petitioner rests his claim on the last
paragraph of Art. 2180 of the Civil Code: “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.” That clause contemplates a situation where the pupil lives and
boards with the teacher, such that the control, direction and influence on the pupil supersedes
those of the parents. In these circumstances the control or influence over the conduct and actions
of the pupil would pass from the father and mother to the teacher; and so would the
responsibility for the torts of the pupil. Such a situation does not appear in the case at bar; the
pupils appear to go to school during school hours and go back to their homes with their parents
after school is over.
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 court’s 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.
Amadora vs. CA
GR No. L47745, April 15, 1988

FACTS:

Alfredo Amadora, while in the auditorium of the school, was mortally hit by a gun by Pablito Daffon
resulting to the former’s death. Daffon was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence. The
victim’s parents, herein petitioners, filed a civil action for damages against Colegio de San Jose-
Recoletos, its rectors, high school principal, dean of boys, the physics teacher together with Daffon and 2
other students. Complaints against the students were dropped. Respondent Court absolved the
defendants completely and reversed CFI Cebu’s decision for the following reasons: 1. Since the school
was an academic institution of learning and not a school of arts and trades 2. That students were not in
the custody of the school since the semester has already ended 3. There was no clear identification of the
fatal gun, and 4. In any event, defendants exercised the necessary diligence through enforcement of the
school regulations in maintaining discipline. Petitioners on othe other hand claimed their son was under
school custody because he went to school to comply with a requirement for graduation (submission of
Physics reports).

ISSUE: WON Collegio de San Jose-Recoletos should be held liable.

HELD:

The time Alfredo was fatally shot, he was in the custody of the authorities of the school notwithstanding
classes had formally ended when the incident happened. It was immaterial if he was in the school
auditorium to finish his physics requirement. What was important is that he was there for a legitimate
purpose. On the other hand, the rector, high school principal and the dean of boys cannot be held liable
because none of them was the teacher-in-charge as defined in the provision. Each was exercising only a
general authority over the students and not direct control and influence exerted by the teacher placed in-
charge of particular classes.

In the absence of a teacher- in charge, dean of boys should probably be held liable considering that he
had earlier confiscated an unlicensed gun from a student and later returned to him without taking
disciplinary action or reporting the matter to the higher authorities. Though it was clear negligence on his
part, no proof was shown to necessarily link this gun with the shooting incident.

Collegio San Jose-Recoletos cannot directly be held liable under the provision because only the teacher
of the head of school of arts and trade is made responsible for the damage caused by the
student. Hence, under the facts disclosed, none of the respondents were held liable for the injury inflicted
with Alfredo resulting to his death.

Petition was denied.

PSBA v. CA (G.R. No. 84698)

Facts:
Private respondents sought to adjudge petitioner PSBA and its officers liable for the
death of Carlitos Bautista, a third year commerce student who was stabbed while on
the premises of PSBA by elements from outside the school. Private respondents are
suing under the law on quasi-delicts alleging the school and its officers’ negligence,
recklessness and lack of safety precautions before, during, and after the attack on
the victim. Petitioners moved to dismiss the suit but were denied by the trial court.
CA affirmed.

Issue:
Whether or not PSBA may be held liable under quasi-delicts.

Ruling:
NO.
Because the circumstances of the present case evince a contractual relation between the PSBA and
Carlitos Bautista, the rules on quasi-delict do not really govern. A perusal of Article 2176 shows that
obligations arising from quasi-delicts or tort, also known as extra-contractual obligations, arise only
between parties not otherwise bound by contract, whether express or implied.

When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment, there is established a contract between
them, resulting in bilateral obligations which both parties are bound to comply with. For its part, the school
undertakes to provide the student with an education that would presumably suffice to equip him with the
necessary tools and skills to pursue higher education or a profession. On the other hand, the student
covenants to abide by the school’s academic requirements and observe its rules and regulations.
Necessarily, the school must ensure that adequate steps are taken to maintain peace and order within
the campus premises and to prevent the breakdown thereof.

In the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, however, there is, as yet, no finding that the contract
between the school and Bautista had been breached thru the former’s negligence in providing proper
security measures. This would be for the trial court to determine. And, even if there be a finding of
negligence, the same could give rise generally to a breach of contractual obligation only.