 Provide specific and realistic solution(s) or changes needed.

 Explain why this solution was chosen.

 Support this solution with solid evidence, such as:
o Concepts from class (text readings, discussions, lectures)
o Outside research
o Personal experience (anecdotes)

My child was rushed to the hospital because some acid had spilled on her arms
during a laboratory experiment in school. According to her classmates, their
teacher-in-charge went outside when the accident happened. Can we hold the
school or the teacher liable for the expenses incurred in the medication of my
child?
SOLUTIONS:

FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8533 | TITLE IX, CHAPTER 2

Art. 218. 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. (349a)

Art. 129. Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article shall be principally
and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor. The
parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute parental authority over said minor
shall be subsidiarily liable.

The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is proved
that they exercised the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances.

All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed by the provisions of
the Civil Code on quasi-delicts.

CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 386 | TITLE XVII EXTRA-CONTRACTUAL
OBLIGATIONS, CHAPTER 2 QUASI-DELICITS

Art. 2179. When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury,
he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate
cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the
courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. (n)
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused
by the minor children who live in their company.

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their
authority and live in their company.

The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages
caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the
occasion of their functions.

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting
within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or
industry

The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage
has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is
provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.

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. (1903a)

I. CONCEPT

GENERAL RULE: Whoever committed the act or omission causing damage to another is liable for such
damage to the injured person.

EXCEPTION: In the doctrine of vicarious liability, another person is made responsible for the acts or
omissions of another. The essence is the relationship between the person responsible and the one
who committed the act or omission. Under this doctrine, the employer is presumed negligent, thus,
the employer must prove that it had exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its
employees in order to avoid liability.

“Lastly, teachers or heads of establishing 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.” According to the
provisions stated above, the school administrators and the teacher are liable for any damages even if
the same is caused by an accident. Hence, in your situation, it is clear that the administrators of the
school and the teacher-in-charge are accountable for the injury suffered by your child, since they
failed to observe all the required diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

On November 17, 1994, at around 1:30 in the afternoon inside St. Joseph College's [SJC's] premises,
the class to which [respondent Jayson Val Miranda] belonged was conducting a science experiment
about fusion of sulphur powder and iron fillings under the tutelage of [petitioner] Rosalinda Tabugo,
she being the subject teacher and employee of [petitioner] SJC. The adviser of [Jayson's] class is x x x
Estefania Abdan.

Tabugo left her class while it was doing the experiment without having adequately secured it from
any untoward 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.

"All of the [petitioners] are equally at fault and are liable for negligence because all of them are
responsible for exercising the required reasonable care, prudence, caution and foresight to prevent or
avoid injuries to the students. The individual [petitioners]... are persons charged with the teaching
and vigilance over their students as well as the supervision and ensuring of their well-being. Based on
the facts presented before this Court, these [petitioners] were remiss in their responsibilities and
lacking in the degree of vigilance... expected of them. [Petitioner] subject teacher Rosalinda Tabugo
was inside the classroom when the class undertook the science experiment although [Jayson] insisted
that said [petitioner] left the classroom. No evidence, however, was presented to establish that
[petitioner]

Tabugo was inside the classroom for the whole duration of the experiment. It was unnatural in the
ordinary course of events that [Jayson] was brought to the school clinic for immediate treatment not
by [petitioner] subject teacher Rosalinda Tabugo but by somebody else. The Court... is inclined to
believe that [petitioner] subject teacher Tabugo was not inside the classroom at the time the accident
happened. The Court is also perplexed why none of the other students (who were eyewitnesses to the
incident) testified in Court to corroborate the story of the [petitioners]. The Court, however,
understands that these other students cannot testify for [Jayson] because [Jayson] is no longer
enrolled in said school and testifying for [Jayson] would incur the ire of school authorities. Estefania
Abdan is equally at fault as the subject... adviser or teacher in charge because she exercised control
and supervision over [petitioner] Tabugo and the students themselves. It was her obligation to insure
that nothing would go wrong and that the science experiment would be conducted safely and without
any harm or injury... to the students. [Petitioner] Sr. Josephini Ambatali is likewise culpable under the
doctrine of command responsibility because the other individual [petitioners] were under her direct
control and supervision. The negligent acts of the other individual [petitioners] were done... within
the scope of their assigned tasks.
The teacher

In the Philippines’ Family Code, or the Republic Act No. 8533

It was stated in the Title IX, Chapter 2 (Substitute and Special Parental Authority), Art. 218 of the
Philippines’ Family Code or the Republic Act No. 8533 that

Article