CASE DIGEST

EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-47745. April 15, 1988.]

Jose S. Amadora & Associates for petitioners.

Padilla Law Office for respondents.

FACTS:
The petitioner 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 were dropped but the rest of the respondents were liable to
the plaintiffs in the sum of P294,984.00. On appeal to the respondent court, however, the
decision was reversed and all the defendants were completely absolved.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendants were liable for the tort and damages under Article 2180 of the
Civil Code.

RULING:
In its decision, which is now the subject of this petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
of Court, 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 in the custody of the school at the time of the incident as they are
there for a legitimate purpose even the mere savoring of the company of his friends. That the
rector cannot be held liable because none of them was the teacher-in-charge. The rector is only
exercising only a general authority over the student and not direct control. Assuming that the
Rector is teacher-in-charge, there is no showing that Dicon was negligent in enforcing discipline
upon Daffon though Dicon is clearly a negligence on his part when he returned the confiscated
gun without taking disciplinary action, but it does not link him to the shooting of Amadora as it
has no clear evidence that the pistol was the confiscated one. That the Supreme Court held that
there was no clear identification of the fatal gun, and that in any event the defendants had
exercised the necessary diligence in preventing the injury.