CASE FACTS
EXCONDE v - Dante, a minor, was accused of double
CAPUNO homicide through reckless imprudence for
GR L-10134 the death of Isidoro and Amado.
JUNE 29, 1957 - The mother of Isidoro, reserved her right to
bring a separate civil action for damages
against the accused. Dante then was found
guilty of the crime charged
- The mother of Isidoro filed a present action
against the father of Dante, Delfin, asking for
damages in the amount of P 2,959 for the
death of her son.
- Delfin contends that he should not be held
liable for the death of Isidoro because he
was not under the control and supervision of
Dante at the time the accident happened.
MERCADO v CA  - Manuel Jr and Augusto Mercado, both
GR L-14342 minors, were classmates in a catholic school
MAY 30, 1960 in quezon city. They both fought over a toy
which led Augusto to aggressively push
Manuel then later on he cut Manuel on the
right cheek with a piece of razor
- At the first action, 50 pesos was collected
from Augusto for the medical expenses of
Manuel
- At the second action, Manuel’s parents filed
a case against Augusto’s parents for 5,000
pesos for moral damages contending that
they suffered due to their son being
wounded and 3000 for attorney’s fees
PALISOC v - Parents of the deceased, Palisoc, filed an
BRILLANTES action against (1) Daffon, defendant (2)
GR L-29025 Valenton, the head/president of MTI, (3)
OCTOBER 4, 1971 Quibule who was the teacher in charge at
the time of the incident, and
(4) Brillantes who is a member of the board
of directors and former sole proprietor of
MTI.
- The trial court held Virgilio liable but
absolved the other defendants-officials. It
stated that the clause “so long as they
remain in their custody” contained in Article
2180 of the Civil Code applies only where
the pupil lives and boards with the teachers,
such that the control or influence on the
pupil supersedes those of the parents., and
such control and responsibility for the
pupil’s actions would pass from the father
and mother to the teachers.
- The trial court held that Article 2180 was not
applicable in this case, as defendant Virgilio
did not live with the defendants-officials at
the time of the incident.
ISSUE RULING
Whether or not - The court ruled that the father is liable
Delfin, the father, for any damages that may caused the
can be held civilly minor children who lived with them and
liable, jointly, and is a necessary consequence of the
severally with his parental authority.
son Dante, for - The law “teachers and directors of arts
damages and trades are liable for any damages
caused by their pupils or apprentices
while they are under their custody” is not
applicable to this case because it was
specifically mentioned “arts and trades”
and not to any academic educational
institution
- The only way by which they can relieve
themselves of his liability is if they prove
that they exercised all the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent the
damage, which in this case, the
defendants failed to prove
Whether Manuel is - The court held that the plaintiff-appellant
entitled to receive should not recover moral damages as
moral damages by the effect of the moral shock is not on
reason of wound by the injury caused
Augusto - Moral damages can only be recovered
when the circumstance is caused by
criminal offense or a quas-delict,
however in the case at bar, it is just a
minor fight between 2 minor children and
it does not appear that Augusto acted
with discernment when he inflicted
physical injuries
- The court also ruled that none of the
cases mentioned in Art. 2210 of the CC
which authorizes the grant of moral
damages, was shown to have existed.
Hence, the grant of moral damages is
not justified
Whether the school - The court held that the head/president
officials should be and teacher of MTI (Valenton and
held liable for the Quibule respectively) were held liable
death of Palisoc jointly and severally for the death of
Palisoc at the hands of defendant Daffon
at the school's laboratory room.
- No liability attaches to Brillantes as a
mere member of the MTI board of
directors. Similarly, MTI may not be held
liable since it had not been properly
impleaded as party defendant.
- 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, in loco parentis to a certain extent
to their pupils and students and are
called upon to “exercise reasonable
supervision over the conduct of the
child.”
AMADORA v CA - Amadora was shot by a gun fired by Daffon Whether or not Art, - the petition is DENIED. The rector, the
GR L-477445 while in their school auditorium. He was 2180 of the civil high school principal and the dean of
APRIL 15, 1988 there to submit a graduation requirement in code applies to this boys cannot be held liable because
physics case none of them was the teacher-in-charge
- Daffon was convicted of homicide through as previously defined. Colegio de San
reckless imprudence. The parents of Jose-Recoletos cannot be held directly
Amadora filed a civil action for damages liable under the article because only the
under Art. 2180 of the civil code against the teacher or the head of the school of arts
school, its rector, the dean of boys, the and trades is made responsible for the
physics teacher and Daffon together with 2 damage caused by the student or
other students apprentice
- The complaint against the students was later
dropped which held the remaining
defendants liable. However, the decision
was reversed and all the defendants were
completely absolved
- The trial court ruled that Art, 2180 was not
applicable to colegio de san jose recoletos
as they are not a school of arts and trades
but is an academic institution of learning
- It also held that the students were not in the
custody of the school at the time of the
incident as the semester had already ended

PSBA v CA
GR 84698
FEBRUARY 4, 1992

SOLIMAN v TUAZON
GR 66207
MAY 18, 1992

REGINO v
PANGASINAN
COLLEGE
GR 156109
NOVEMBER 18, 2004

MENDOZA v
SORIANO
GR 164012
JUNE 8, 2007

PSI (medical city) v

AGANA
GR 126297
JANUARY 31, 2007

CATHAY PACIFIC v
SPOUSES VASQUEZ
GR 150843

SINGAPORE
AIRLINES v
FERNANDEZ
GR 142305
DECEMBER 10, 2003
EQUITABLE PCIB v
NG SHEUNG NGOR
GR 171545
DECEMBER 19, 2007

MACALINAO v BPI 
GR 175490
SEPTEMBER 17,
2009

HEIRS OF
SERVANDO FRANCO
v SPS GONZALES
GR 159709
JUNE 27, 2012

ABS-CBN v CA
GR 128690
JANUARY 21, 1999

NERI v HEIRS OF UY 

GR 194366
OCTOBER 10, 2012

AGAN v PIATCO
GR 155001
MAY 5, 2003

PAJUYO v CA 
GR 146364