G.R. No.

L-47745; April 15, 1988

Petitioners: JOSE S. AMADORA, LORETA A. AMADORA, JOSE A. AMADORA JR., NORMA A. YLAYA
PANTALEON A. AMADORA, JOSE A. AMADORA III, LUCY A. AMADORA, ROSALINDA A.
AMADORA, PERFECTO A. AMADORA, SERREC A. AMADORA, VICENTE A. AMADORA
and MARIA TISCALINA A. AMADORA
Respondents: HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS, VICTOR
LLUCH SERGIO P. DLMASO JR., CELESTINO DICON, ANIANO ABELLANA, PABLITO
DAFFON thru his parents and natural guardians, MR. and MRS. NICANOR GUMBAN, and
ROLANDO VALENCIA, thru his guardian, A. FRANCISCO ALONSO

Nature of the Case: A Civil action for damages

Facts:

 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.
 Alfredo Amadora was shot by a gun fired by his classmate Daffon while in the Colegio de San Jose-
Recoletos Auditorium at a date after the semester ended. He was there to submit a graduation
requirement in Physics.
 Daffon was convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence. Additionally, the herein petitioners, as
the victim’s parents, filed a civil action for damages under Article 2180 of the CC against the Colegio
de San Jose-Recoletos, its rector the high school principal, the dean of boys, and the physics
teacher, together with Daffon and two other students, through their respective parents.
 The complaint against the students was later dropped. After trial, the CFI of Cebu held the
remaining defendants liable to the plaintiffs, representing death compensation, loss of earning
capacity, costs of litigation, funeral expenses, and medical expenses.
 On appeal to the respondent court, however, the decision was reversed and all the defendants were
completely absolved. Hence this petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
 In its decision the respondent court found that Article 2180 was not applicable as the Colegio de
San Jose-Recoletos was not a school of arts and trades but 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.

Issue: Whether or not Collegio de San Jose-Recoletos should be held liable.

Ruling:
 Article 2180 of the Civil Code states that “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. Responsibility shall cease when the persons herein
mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damage.”
 Even though at 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.
 The petition was DENIED