Parents’ And Guardian’s Liability for Torts of child or ward (2nd and 3rd par. Art 2180, Art.

2181; Art
2182, Civil Code; Article 58 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code; Art. 221, Art.216, Art 236, Family
Code;)

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)

Article 58. Torts. - Parents and guardians are responsible for the damage caused by the child under their
parental authority in accordance with the Civil Code.

Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries
and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in their company
and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law. (2180(2)a and
(4)a )

Art. 216. In default of parents or a judicially appointed guardian, the following person shall exercise
substitute parental authority over the child in the order indicated:

(1) The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art. 214;

(2) The oldest brother or sister, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or disqualified; and

(3) The child's actual custodian, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or disqualified.
Art. 236. Emancipation for any cause shall terminate parental authority over the person and property of
the child who shall then be qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life. (412a)

Whenever the appointment or a judicial guardian over the property of the child becomes necessary, the
same order of preference shall be observed. (349a, 351a, 354a)

Teacher’s or Head’s Liability for damages caused by pupils, students and apprentices (7 th par. Art 2180,
Civil Code)

Liability of Schools, its administrators and teachers (Art 218 and 219, Family Code)

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)

Article 218 provides that, the persons and entities given by law special parental authority are the school,
its administrators an teachers, or the individual,entity or institution engaged in child care. They are
civilly liable for acts and omissions of unemancipated minor. However, the liabilities shall not apply if
they proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under a particular circumstances. The
liability is still attache while the minor child is under their supervision, instruction and custody and also
to all authorized activities inside the premises of the school.

Art. 219. 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. (n)

Article 219 of the family code states that parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising parental
authority over the minor child shall be subsidiary liable because while in school or in an institution
engaged in the child care, the said persons do not have the direct custody of their children. Again, they
shall only be liable if the persons with the special parental authority cannot satisfy their liability.

1. ABINA EXCONDE, vs. DELFIN CAPUNO, G.R. No. L-10134 June 29, 1957
Dante Capuno was a member of the Boy Scouts Organization and a student of the Balintawak
Elementary School situated in a barrio in the City of San Pablo and on March 31, 1949 he
attended a parade in honor of Dr. Jose Rizal in said city upon instruction of the city school’s
supervisor. From the school Dante, with other students, boarded a jeep and when the same
started to run, he took hold of the wheel and drove it while the driver sat on his left side. They
have not gone far when the jeep turned turtle and two of its passengers, Amado Ticzon and
Isidoro Caperiña, died as a consequence.

Plaintiff contends that defendant Delfin Capuno is liable for the damages in question jointly and
severally with his son Dante because at the time the latter committed the negligent act which
resulted in the death of sidoro Caperiña and Amado Ticzon.

We find merit in this claim. It is true that under the law above quoted, "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 this provision only applies to an institution of arts and trades and not
to any academic educational institution.

In the circumstances, it is clear that neither the head of that school, nor the city school’s
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 as provided for by law.

The civil liability which the law impose upon the father, and, in case of his death or incapacity,
the mother, for any damages that may be caused by the minor children who live with them, is
obvious. This 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."

Delfin Capuno, father of Dante, is solidarily liable to the plaintiff.

2. CIRIACO L. MERCADO vs.CA, G.R. No. L-14342 May 30, 1960 – razor cheek piggy bank
Plaintiff-appellant Manuel Quisumbing, Jr. is the son of his co- plaintiff-appellants Ana Pineda
and Manuel L. Quisumbing, while Augusto Mercado is the son of defendant-appellee Ciriaco L.
Mercado, Manuel Quisumbing, Jr.
Augusto Mercado were classmates in the Lourdes Catholic School on Kanlaon, Quezon City. A
‘pitogo’, which figures prominently in this case, may be described as an empty nutshell used by
children as a piggy bank.
On February 22, 1956, Augusto Mercado and Manuel Quisumbing, Jr. quarrelled over a ‘pitogo’.
As a result, Augusto wounded Manuel, Jr. on the right cheek with a piece of razor.

It was Augusto Mercado who started the aggression. Undeniably, the ‘pitogo’ belonged to
Augusto Mercado but he lent it to Benedicto P. Lim and in turn Benedicto lent it to Renato
Legaspi.
Renato was not aware that the ‘pitogo’ belonged to Augusto, because right after Benedicto gave
it to him, Benedicto ran away to get a basket ball with which they could play.

Manuel Quisumbing, Jr. was likewise unaware that the ‘pitogo’ belonged to Augusto. He
thought it was the ‘pitogo’ of Benedicto P. Lim, so that 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’.

However, Augusto resented Manuel, Jr.’s remark and he aggressively pushed the latter. The
fight started then. After Augusto gave successive blows to Manuel, Jr. and the latter was
clutching his stomach which bore the brunt of Augusto’s anger, Augusto seeing that Manuel, Jr.
was in a helpless position, cut him on the right check with a piece of razor.

As pointed in Exconde Case, petitioner argues that since the incident of the inflicting of the
wound on respondent occurred in a Catholic School (during recess time), through no fault of the
father, petitioner herein, the teacher or head of the school should be held responsible instead of
the father. The parented of the injured son relied on Article 2180 of the Civil Code upon which
petitioner rests his claim that the school where his son was studying should be made liable.

It would seem that the clause "so long as they remain in their custody," 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. The situation
contemplated in the last paragraph of Article 2180 does not apply, nor does paragraph 2 of said
article, which makes father or mother responsible for the damages caused by their minor
children.

The claim of petitioner that responsibility should pass to the school must, therefore, be held to
be without merit.

This is, according to the decision appealed from, the reason why Mercado was incensed and
pushed Quisumbing who, in turn, also pushed Mercado. It is, therefore, apparent that the
proximate cause of the injury caused to Quisumbing was Quisumbing’s own fault or negligence
 for having interfered with Mercado while trying to get the pitogo from another boy. Hence,
moral damage is not justified.

3. MARIA TERESA Y. CUADRA, vs. ALFONSO MONFORT, G.R. No. L-24101 Sep. 30, 1970 -blind
throw object

Maria Teresa Cuadra, 12, and Maria Teresa Monfort, 13, were classmates in Grade Six at the
Mabini Elementary School in Bacolod City.

T teacher assigned them, together with three other classmates, to weed the grass in the school
premises. While thus engaged Maria Teresa Monfort found a plastic headband, an ornamental
object commonly worn by young girls over their hair. Jokingly she said aloud that she had found
an earthworm and, evidently to frighten the Cuadra girl, tossed the object at her. At that precise
moment the latter turned around to face her friend, and the object hit her right eye.

She rubbed the injured part and treated it with some powder. The next day, July 10, the eye
became swollen and it was then that the girl related the incident to her parents. She underwent
surgical operation twice but she c ompletely lost the sight of her right eye.

A civil suit subsequently instituted by the parents in behalf of their minor daughter against
Alfonso Monfort, Maria Teresa Monfort's father. The legal issue posed in this appeal is the
liability of a parent for an act of his minor child which causes damage to another.

When the act or omission is that of one person for whom another is responsible, the latter then
becomes himself liable under Article 2180, in the different cases enumerated therein, such as
that of the father or the mother under the circumstances above quoted. The basis of this
vicarious, although primary, liability is, as in Article 2176, fault or negligence, which is presumed
from that which accompanied the causative act or omission.

In the present case there is nothing from which it may be inferred that the defendant could
have prevented the damage by the observance of due care, or that he was in any way remiss in
the exercise of his parental authority in failing to foresee such damage, or the act which caused
it. On the contrary, his child was at school, where it was his duty to send her and where she was,
as he had the right to expect her to be, under the care and supervision of the teacher. And as far
as the act which caused the injury was concerned, it was an innocent prank not unusual among
children at play and which no parent, however careful, would have any special reason to
anticipate much less guard against. Nor did it reveal any mischievous propensity, or indeed any
trait in the child's character which would reflect unfavorably on her upbringing and for which
the blame could be attributed to her parents.

The victim, no doubt, deserves no little commiseration and sympathy for the tragedy that befell
her. But if the defendant is at all obligated to compensate her suffering, the obligation has no
legal sanction enforceable in court, but only the moral compulsion of good conscience.
 The Court dismissed the complaint.

4. Spouses PALISOC, vs. BRILLANTES, G.R. No. L-29025 Oct. 4, 1971 fist blow died

The deceased Dominador Palisoc and the defendant Virgilio L. Daffon were classmates, and on
the afternoon of March 10, 1966, between two and three o'clock, they, together with another
classmate Desiderio Cruz were in the laboratory room located on the ground floor.

At that time the classes were in recess. Desiderio Cruz and Virgilio L. Daffon were working on a
machine while Dominador Palisoc was merely looking on at them. Daffon made a remark to the
effect that Palisoc was acting like a foreman. Because of this remark Palisoc slapped slightly
Daffon on the face. Daffon, in retaliation, gave Palisoc a strong flat blow on the face, which was
followed by other fist blows on the stomach.

Palisoc retreated apparently to avoid the fist blows, but Daffon followed him and both
exchanged blows until Palisoc stumbled on an engine block which caused him to fall face
downward.

Palisoc became pale and fainted. First aid was administered to him but he was not revived, so he
was immediately taken to a hospital. He never regained consciousness; finally he died.

The findings of Dr. Angelo Singian of the Manila Police Department who performed the autopsy
The cause of death shock due to traumatic fracture of the ribs. The act, therefore, of the
accused Daffon in giving the deceased strong fistblows in the stomach which ruptured his
internal organs and caused his death falls within the purview of this Article 2176 of the CC on
quasi-delict.

The trial court, however, absolved from liability the three other defendants-officials of the
Manila Technical Institute. Hence this appeal.

As what discussed in Mercado and Exconde Case, It is true that under the law abovequoted,
teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for any damage caused by their pupils or
apprentices while they are under their custody, but this provision only applies to an institution
of arts and trades and not to any academic educational institution"

The case at bar was instituted directly against the school officials and squarely raises the issue of
liability of teachers and heads of schools under Article 2180, Civil Code, for damages caused by
their pupils and students against fellow students on the school premises. Here, the parents of
the student at fault, defendant Daffon, are not involved, since Daffon was already of age at the
time of the tragic incident. There is no question, either, that the school involved is a non-
academic school
 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, to a certain extent, as
to their pupils and students, in loco parentis and are called upon to "exercise reasonable
supervision over the conduct of the child."

The Court holds that under the cited codal article, defendants head and teacher of the Manila
Technical Institute (defendants Valenton and Quibulue, respectively) are liable jointly and
severally for damages to plaintiffs-appellants for the death of the latter's minor son at the hands
of defendant Daffon at the school's laboratory room.

"the basis of the presumption of negligence of Art. 1903 [now 2180] is some culpa in vigilando
that the parents, teachers, etc. are supposed to have incurred in the exercise of their
authority" 13 and "where the parent places the child under the effective authority of the
teacher, the latter, and not the parent, should be the one answerable for the torts committed
while under his custody, for the very reason that the parent is not supposed to interfere with
the discipline of the school nor with the authority and supervision of the teacher while the child
is under instruction."

Defendants Valenton and Quibulue as president and teacher-in-charge of the school must
therefore be held jointly and severally liable for the quasi-delict of their co-defendant Daffon
in the latter's having caused the death of his classmate, the deceased Dominador Palisoc. The
unfortunate death resulting from the fight between the protagonists-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.

5. JOSE S. AMADORA, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. L-47745 April 15, 1988 – gun shot

The basic undisputed facts are that Alfredo Amadora went to the San Jose-Recoletos on April 13,
1972, and while in its auditorium was shot to death by Pablito Daffon, a classmate.

The petitioners contend that their son was in the school to show his physics experiment as a
prerequisite to his graduation; hence, he was then under the custody of the private
respondents.

The private respondents submit that Alfredo Amadora had gone to the school only for the
purpose of submitting his physics report and that he was no longer in their custody because the
semester had already ended.

Petitioners, as the victim's parents, filed a civil action for damages under Article 2180 of the Civil
Code 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.
Court of First Instance of Cebu held the remaining defendants liable to the plaintiffs. On appeal
to the respondent court, however, the decision was reversed and all the defendants were
completely absolved.

Justice Teehankee said he agreed with Justice Reyes' dissent in the Exconde Case but added that
"since the school involved at bar is a non-academic school, the question as to the applicability of
the cited codal provision to academic institutions will have to await another case wherein it may
properly be raised."

Unlike in Exconde and Mercado, the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos has been directly impleaded
and is sought to be held liable under Article 2180; and unlike in Palisoc, it is not a school of arts
and trades but an academic institution of learning

whether or not Article 2180 covers even establishments which are technically not schools of arts
and trades? YES

The Court has come to the conclusion that the provision in question should apply to all schools,
academic as well as non-academic. Where the school is academic rather than technical or
vocational in nature, responsibility for the tort committed by the student will attach to the
teacher in charge of such student, following the first part of the provision.

This is the general rule. In the case of establishments of arts and trades, it is the head thereof,
and only he, who shall be held liable as an exception to the general rule.

There is really no substantial distinction between the academic and the non-academic schools
insofar as torts committed by their students are concerned. The same vigilance is expected from
the teacher over the students under his control and supervision, whatever the nature of the
school where he is teaching.

It is conceded that the distinction no longer obtains at present in view of the expansion of the
schools of arts and trades, the consequent increase in their enrollment, and the corresponding
diminution of the direct and personal contract of their heads with the students. Article 2180,
however, remains unchanged.

Is such responsibility co-extensive with the period when the student is actually undergoing
studies during the school term, as contended by the respondents and impliedly admitted by the
petitioners themselves? NO.

As long as it can be shown that the student is in the school premises in pursuance of a legitimate
student objective, in the exercise of a legitimate student right, and even in the enjoyment of a
legitimate student right, and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student privilege, the
responsibility of the school authorities over the student continues.
 In any event, it should be noted that the liability imposed by this article is supposed to fall
directly on the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades and not on the school itself.

In almost all cases now, in fact, these measures are effected through the assistance of an
adequate security force to help the teacher physically enforce those rules upon the students. Ms
should bolster the claim of the school that it has taken adequate steps to prevent any injury that
may be committed by its students.
Court is disposed not to expect from the teacher the same measure of responsibility imposed on
the parent for their influence over the child is not equal in degree.

Dean of boys- in-charge not liable no proof of lax of discipline

Dicon – physics teacher only exercise general authority no proof of the returned gun was the
one used to kill Alfredo.

Head teacher – not the premise no instruction to be in school.

Court finds under the facts as disclosed by the record and in the light of the principles herein
announced that none of the respondents is liable for the injury inflicted by Pablito Damon on
Alfredo Amadora that resulted in the latter's death at the auditorium of the Colegio de San Jose-
Recoletos.

6. ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 82465 February
25, 1991 drown child

The complaint alleged that Ferdinand Castillo, then a freshman student of Section 1-C at the St.
Francis High School, wanted to join a school picnic undertaken by Class I-B and Class I-C at
Talaan Beach, Sariaya, Quezon. Ferdinand's parents, respondents spouses Dr. Romulo Castillo
and Lilia Cadiz Castillo, because of short notice, did not allow their son to join but merely
allowed him to bring food to the teachers for the picnic, with the directive that he should go
back home after doing so. However, because of persuasion of the teachers, Ferdinand went on
with them to the beach.

During the picnic and while the students, including Ferdinand, were in the water, one of the
female teachers was apparently drowning. Some of the students, including Ferdinand, came to
her rescue, but in the process, it was Ferdinand himself who drowned.

Thereupon, respondent spouses filed a complaint against the St. Francis High School,
represented by the spouses Fernando Nantes and Rosario Lacandula, Benjamin Illumin (its
principal), and the teachers: Tirso de Chaves, Luisito Vinas, Connie Arquio, Nida Aragones, Yoly
Jaro, and Patria Cadiz, for Damages.
The trial court found in favor of the respondents and against petitioners-teachers Arquio, de
Chaves, Vinas, Aragones, Jaro and Cadiz, ordering all of them jointly and severally to pay
respondents.

On the other hand, the trial court dismissed the case against the St. Francis High School,
Benjamin Illumin and Aurora Cadorna.

Both petitioners and respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals. CA sustain defendants-
appellants insofar as two of the defendants-teachers, Yoly Jaro and Nida Aragones, are
concerned: CA may not attribute any act or omission to the two teachers, Yoly Jaro and Nida
Aragones, as to make them liable for the injury caused to the plaintiffs because of the death of
their son resulting from his drowning at the picnic. Accordingly, they must be absolved from any
liability.

Hence this petition.

The petition is impressed with merit.

If at all petitioners are liable for negligence, this is because of their own negligence or the
negligence of people under them. In the instant case however, as will be shown hereunder,
petitioners are neither guilty of their own negligence or guilty of the negligence of those under
them.

Hence, it cannot be said that they are guilty at all of any negligence. Consequently they cannot
be held liable for damages of any kind.

Under this paragraph, it is clear that before an employer may be held liable for the negligence of
his employee, the act or omission which caused damage or prejudice must have occurred while
an employee was in the performance of his assigned tasks.

In the case at bar, the teachers/petitioners were not in the actual performance of their
assigned tasks. The incident happened not within the school premises, not on a school day
and most importantly while the teachers and students were holding a purely private affair, a
picnic. It is clear from the beginning that the incident happened while some members of the I-C
class of St. Francis High School were having a picnic at Talaan Beach. This picnic had no permit
from the school head or its principal, Benjamin Illumin because this picnic is not a school
sanctioned activity neither is it considered as an extra-curricular activity.

Petitioners Connie Arquio the class adviser of I-C, the section where Ferdinand belonged, did her
best and exercised diligence of a good father of a family to prevent any untoward incident or
damages to all the students who joined the picnic.

In fact, Connie invited co-petitioners Tirso de Chavez and Luisito Vinas who are both P.E.
instructors and scout masters who have knowledge in First Aid application and swimming.
 Moreover, even respondents' witness, Segundo Vinas, testified that "the defendants (petitioners
herein) had life savers especially brought by the defendants in case of emergency.

While it is true that respondents-spouses did give their consent to their son to join the picnic,
this does not mean that the petitioners were already relieved of their duty to observe the
required diligence of a good father of a family in ensuring the safety of the children. But in the
case at bar, petitioners were able to prove that they had exercised the required diligence.
Hence, the claim for moral or exemplary damages becomes baseless.

7. ST. MARY'S ACADEMY, vs. WILLIAM CARPITANOS, G.R. No. 143363 February 6, 2002 school
open house – campaigning rode jeep died

The facts appears that from 13 to 20 February 1995, Defendant-Appellant St. Mary’s Academy of
Dipolog City conducted an enrollment drive for the school year 1995-1996. A facet of the
enrollment campaign was the visitation of schools from where prospective enrollees were
studying. As a student of St. Mary’s Academy, Sherwin Carpitanos was part of the campaigning
group. Accordingly, on the fateful day, Sherwin, along with other high school students were
riding in a Mitsubishi jeep owned by defendant Vivencio Villanueva on their way to Larayan
Elementary School, Larayan, Dapitan City. The jeep was driven by James Daniel II then 15 years
old and a student of the same school. Allegedly, the latter drove the jeep in a reckless manner
and as a result the jeep turned turtle.

Sherwin Carpitanos died as a result of the injuries he sustained from the accident

RTC ruled that St. Mary’s Academy of Dipolog City, is hereby ordered to pay plaintiffs William
Carpitanos and Luisa Carpitanos. The owner and the minor jeep driver were absolved of liability.

In due time, petitioner St. Mary’s Academy appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. CA
affirmed the RTC in toto.

Petitioner St. Mary’s Academy filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision but was denied.
Hence, this appeal.

SC reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Under Article 219 of the Family Code, if the person under custody is a minor, those exercising
special parental authority are principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or
omissions of the unemancipated minor while under their supervision, instruction, or custody.

However, for petitioner to be liable, there must be a finding that the act or omission considered
as negligent was the proximate cause of the injury caused because the negligence, must have a
causal connection to the accident.
 In this case, the respondents failed to show that the negligence of petitioner was the proximate
cause of the death of the victim.

Respondents Daniel spouses and Villanueva admitted that the immediate cause of the accident
was not the negligence of petitioner or the reckless driving of James Daniel II, but the
detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep.

Further, there was no evidence that petitioner school allowed the minor James Daniel II to drive
the jeep of respondent Vivencio Villanueva. It was Ched Villanueva, grandson of respondent
Vivencio Villanueva, who had possession and control of the jeep. He was driving the vehicle and
he allowed James Daniel II, a minor, to drive the jeep at the time of the accident.

For the reason that petitioner was not directly liable for the accident, the decision of the Court
of Appeals ordering petitioner to pay death indemnity to respondent Carpitanos must be
deleted.

Hence, with the overwhelming evidence presented by petitioner and the respondent Daniel
spouses that the accident occurred because of the detachment of the steering wheel guide of
the jeep, it is not the school, but the registered owner of the vehicle who shall be held
responsible for damages for the death of Sherwin Carpitanos.

8. SCHOOL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT OF QUEZON CITY vs. CORAZON P. TAGUIAM, G.R. No. 165565
July 14, 2008 school pool drown

Respondent Corazon P. Taguiam was the Class Adviser of Grade 5-Esmeralda of the petitioner,
School of the Holy Spirit of Quezon City.

the class president, wrote a letter to the grade school principal requesting permission to hold a
year-end celebration at the school grounds. The principal authorized the activity and allowed
the pupils to use the swimming pool. In this connection, respondent distributed the
parent’s/guardian’s permit forms to the pupils.

Respondent admitted that Chiara Mae Federico’s permit form was unsigned. Nevertheless, she
concluded that Chiara Mae was allowed by her mother to join the activity since her mother
personally brought her to the school with her packed lunch and swimsuit.

Respondent warned the pupils who did not know how to swim to avoid the deeper area.
However, while the pupils were swimming, two of them sneaked out.

Unfortunately, while respondent was away, Chiara Mae drowned. When respondent returned,
the maintenance man was already administering cardiopulmonary resuscitation on Chiara Mae.
She was still alive when respondent rushed her to the General Malvar Hospital where she was
pronounced dead on arrival.
Petitioners issued a Notice of Administrative Charge to respondent for alleged gross negligence
and required her to submit her written explanation.  Respondent also submitted her Affidavit of
Explanation

Petitioners dismissed respondent on the ground of gross negligence resulting to loss of trust and
confidence.

Chiara Mae’s parents filed a damage suit against petitioners and respondent, among others.
They also filed against respondent a criminal complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide.

As it turned out, since respondent was the only adult present, majority of the pupils were left
unsupervised when she followed the two pupils who sneaked out. In the light of the odds
involved, respondent should have considered that those who sneaked out could not have left
the school premises since there were guards manning the gates. The guards would not have
allowed them to go out in their swimsuits and without any adult accompanying them. But those
who stayed at the pool were put at greater risk, when she left them unattended by an adult.

As a teacher who stands in loco parentis to her pupils, respondent should have made sure that
the children were protected from all harm while in her company.

Respondent should have known that leaving the pupils in the swimming pool area all by
themselves may result in an accident. A simple reminder "not to go to the deepest part of the
pool" was insufficient to cast away all the serious dangers that the situation presented to the
children, especially when respondent knew that Chiara Mae cannot swim.

Dismally, respondent created an unsafe situation which exposed the lives of all the pupils
concerned to real danger. This is a clear violation not only of the trust and confidence reposed
on her by the parents of the pupils but of the school itself