Case Digest (G.R. No. L-47745)
Facts:
In Jose S. Amadora et al. v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos et al. (G.R. No. L-47745, April 15, 1988), petitioners are the parents and heirs of seventeen‐year‐old Alfredo Amadora who was fatally shot on April 13, 1972, inside the auditorium of Colegio de San Jose–Recoletos by his classmate, Pablito Daffon. Daffon was later criminally convicted for homicide by reckless imprudence. Concurrently, the petitioners filed a civil action for damages under Article 2180 of the Civil Code against the school, its rector, high school principal, dean of boys, and the physics teacher, together with Daffon’s parents. The Court of First Instance of Cebu held the school officials solidarily liable for P294,984.00 covering death compensation, loss of earning capacity, funeral and litigation expenses, moral and exemplary damages, and attorneys’ fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and absolved all defendants, ruling that Article 2180 did not apply to academic instituCase Digest (G.R. No. L-47745)
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Petitioners are the parents of Alfredo Amadora, a 17-year-old student of Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, and respondents include the school (its rector, high school principal, dean of boys, physics teacher), the Court of Appeals, and the shooter Pablito Daffon (through his parents).
- On April 13, 1972, during a visit to the school auditorium—shortly before commencement exercises—Daffon recklessly fired a gun and mortally wounded Alfredo, who died before graduation.
- Procedural History
- Criminal Case: Daffon was convicted for homicide through reckless imprudence.
- Civil Case (Art. 2180, Civil Code): The Amadoras sued the school officials and Daffon’s parents for damages (death compensation, lost earning capacity, funeral and litigation costs, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees).
- Trial Court (CFI Cebu) Liability: Found the school and officers solidarily liable for ₱294,984.00.
- Court of Appeals Reversal: Held that (a) Art. 2180 applied only to schools of arts and trades, (b) students were not “in custody” as semester had ended, (c) gun identity was unclear, and (d) respondents exercised due diligence—thus absolving all defendants.
Issues:
- Does Article 2180 of the Civil Code extend liability to academic institutions and their teachers for torts of students in their custody?
- Was Alfredo still “in the custody” of Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos when he was shot, despite the end of formal classes?
- Can negligence of school authorities be inferred from the prior confiscation and return of a pistol by the dean of boys absent proof it was the murder weapon?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)