Case Summary (G.R. No. L-47745)
Key Dates and Applicable Law
Key dates: April 7, 1972 (confiscation of pistol), April 13, 1972 (shooting), April 16, 1972 (scheduled commencement exercises), April 15, 1988 (decision).
Applicable law: Article 2180 of the Civil Code (formerly Art. 1903) regarding liability of teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades for damages caused by their pupils/students or apprentices while in their custody. Applicable constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered in 1988).
Procedural History
Civil action: Petitioners sued for damages under Article 2180 against the Colegio, certain officials, the physics teacher, the shooter and other students (some claims against students later dropped). Trial court (Court of First Instance of Cebu) found the remaining defendants liable and awarded P294,984.00 for various heads of damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and absolved all defendants. Petitioners sought relief by certiorari under Rule 45 to review the Court of Appeals' reversal.
Factual Core
Undisputed facts: Alfredo Amadora attended the school on April 13, 1972, and was shot in the auditorium by classmate Pablito Daffon. Alfredo was on campus for a student‑related purpose (petitioners say to finish a physics experiment; respondents say to submit a physics report). It is undisputed that a pistol had earlier been confiscated from Jose Gumban by the dean of boys and later returned without formal report or disciplinary action. There was no conclusive proof that the returned pistol was the fatal weapon.
Parties’ Contentions
Petitioners: Alfredo remained under the custody of the school because he was on campus to complete a graduation prerequisite; Article 2180 therefore renders school authorities liable for a student’s torts committed while in custody. Petitioners further argued that the returned pistol was the same firearm used in the killing and that the dean’s return of the weapon demonstrated negligence causally linked to the death.
Respondents: The semester had ended; Alfredo was not under the school’s custody. Article 2180 was inapplicable because the Colegio is an academic institution (not a school of arts and trades). There was no proof identifying the fatal gun as the one confiscated and returned. Respondents also asserted they exercised necessary diligence to prevent injury.
Legal Issue Presented
Whether Article 2180 applies to academic institutions and, if so, who among school personnel (teachers in general, teacher‑in‑charge, or heads of establishments of arts and trades) may be held liable for torts committed by students while those students “remain in their custody”; and whether the Colegio and/or its officials were liable on the facts, including the effect of the earlier confiscation and return of a pistol by the dean of boys.
Prior Decisions Interpreted by the Court
Exconde v. Capuno and Mercado v. Court of Appeals: earlier decisions suggested a limited reading of Article 2180 such that it applied to schools of arts and trades and contemplated a custody akin to boarding or close tutelage; those decisions contained obiter statements excluding academic schools from the rule.
Palisoc v. Brillantes: held that “custody” means the protective and supervisory custody exercised while students are attending school (including recess), and rejected the requirement that students board with the school; applied Article 2180 to a non‑academic technical institute and held the head and teacher liable.
Court’s Interpretation of Article 2180 — Scope of Application
The Court concluded Article 2180 applies to all schools — academic as well as non‑academic. The general rule: teachers, in general, are liable for torts committed by their pupils or students while the latter remain in their custody. The exception: in establishments of arts and trades, the head of the establishment (historically the master/apprentice relationship) is expressly made liable. The Court applied the principle of reddendo singula singulis to read “teachers” as pertaining to pupils and students and “heads of establishments of arts and trades” as pertaining to apprentices. The historical rationale for the narrower liability of heads of arts and trades was recognized, but the Court declined to rewrite the statute despite social changes.
Court’s Interpretation of “Custody” and Its Temporal Scope
“Custody” denotes protective and supervisory custody — control and influence of the school authorities over the student — and does not require boarding or residence with the school. Custody exists whenever the student is under the school’s discipline and within its premises pursuing a legitimate student objective, right, or privilege (including completing requirements, submitting reports, or merely being on campus for legitimate reasons). Custody is not strictly coextensive with the academic term; it survives before classes start and after classes end when the student remains on premises under school authority.
Identity of Responsible Person and Teacher‑in‑Charge Concept
Liability under Article 2180 is imposed directly on the teacher (or on the head of an arts and trades establishment as the statute specifies). The “teacher‑in‑charge” is the person designated by the dean, principal, or administrative superior to exercise supervision over a particular class or section; that teacher, not the general administrative officers (rector, principal, dean acting in purely administrative capacity), is the one required to answer for students’ torts. The teacher need not be physically present at the moment of the tort; custody connotes disciplinary influence rather than continuous physical control.
Standard of Liability and Available Defense
Article 2180 imposes a presumption of negligence (culpa in vigilando) on teachers/heads for torts committed by students in their custody, but it also affords a statutory defense: the liability ceases if the person held to answer proves he observed “all the diligence of a good father of a family” to prevent the damage. The school itself is not directly charged by Article 2180 but may be held vicariously liable under respondeat superior for acts of teachers or heads; the school likewise may plead the due‑diligence defense.
Application of Legal Principles to the Present Facts
The Court found that Alfredo was within the custody of the Colegio at the time of the shooting despite the formal end of fourth year classes, because he was on the premises for legitimate student purposes. However, the record did not identify the teacher‑in‑charge of the offending student; mere attendance to submit or complete a physics requirement did not establish that the physics teacher was the teacher‑in‑charge of Daffon. There was no proof that Celestino Dicon (the physics teacher) was negligent in discipline or that his absence on that day amounted to failure of diligence; evidence showed respondents had rules and enforcement measures and had exercised due diligence. Although the dean of boys had been negligent in returning the confiscated unlicensed pistol without reporting or taking disciplinary action (a lapse warranting internal sanctions), there was no proof that the pistol he returned was the one used in the killing; absent proof of identity and causal link, that negligence did not establish legal liability for the death. Because neither a teacher‑in‑charge nor the head of
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-47745)
Facts
- Alfredo Amadora, a seventeen-year-old fourth year high school student, was fatally shot on April 13, 1972, while in the auditorium of Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, three days before the scheduled commencement exercises of April 16, 1972.
- The shooter was classmate Pablito Daffon, who was criminally convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence.
- Petitioners are the victim’s parents and family members who filed civil action for damages under Article 2180 of the Civil Code against Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos and several school officials (the rector, the high school principal, the dean of boys, and the physics teacher), as well as against Daffon and two other students through their parents; the complaint against the students was later dropped.
- The petitioners asserted Alfredo was at school to finish his physics experiment as a prerequisite to graduation and therefore remained under the custody of the school authorities.
- Respondents contended Alfredo was at school only to submit his physics report and that the semester had already ended; therefore, the student was not in the school’s custody at the time of the incident.
- Relevant prior incident: on April 7, 1972, the dean of boys, Sergio P. Damaso, Jr., confiscated an unlicensed pistol from Jose Gumban but later returned it to him without reporting the matter to the principal or taking further disciplinary action; Gumban was a companion of Daffon on April 13, 1972. Petitioners alleged the returned pistol was the firearm used to kill Alfredo; respondents denied proof that the confiscated pistol and the fatal gun were the same.
Procedural History
- Trial Court (Court of First Instance of Cebu): Held the remaining defendants (school and specified officials) liable in the aggregate sum of P294,984.00 for death compensation, loss of earning capacity, costs of litigation, funeral expenses, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
- Court of Appeals (respondent court): Reversed the trial court’s decision and absolved all defendants, finding Article 2180 inapplicable because Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos was an academic institution rather than a school of arts and trades; further found the students were not in the custody of the school at the time because the semester had ended; observed lack of clear identification of the fatal gun; and concluded defendants had exercised the necessary diligence.
- Supreme Court (this petition for certiorari under Rule 45): Review of the appellate decision and interpretation of Article 2180, applying prior jurisprudence and elaborating legal standards.
Legal Provision Invoked (Article 2180 and related text quoted/treated in the decision)
- Pertinent language quoted in the opinion: "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 Court also references the codal provision that: "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 damages." (This defense of due diligence is recognized and applied in the opinion.)
- The opinion treats Article 2180 as imposing direct liability on the teacher or head of an establishment of arts and trades for torts of pupils/students/apprentices while in custody, with the possibility that the school as employer may be held vicariously liable under respondeat superior but may exculpate itself by proving due diligence.
Issues Presented
- Whether Article 2180 of the Civil Code applies to academic institutions as well as to establishments of arts and trades.
- Whether the offending student (Pablito Daffon) was "in the custody" of the school at the time of the fatal shooting on April 13, 1972, despite the formal end of the semester.
- Whether the school, its rector, principal, dean of boys, or the physics teacher may be held liable under Article 2180 for damages resulting from Alfredo Amadora’s death.
- Whether the earlier confiscation and later return of an unlicensed pistol by the dean of boys establishes negligence that links him or the school to the fatal shooting.
- What are the scope, duration, and limits of the custodial responsibility contemplated by Article 2180, and what defenses are available.
Prior Jurisprudence Reviewed and Its Import
- Exconde v. Capuno (101 Phil. 843):
- Facts: A student driving a jeep after a parade caused an accident resulting in deaths; the student was found guilty of double homicide with reckless imprudence.
- Civil holding: The student’s father was held solidarily liable under Article 1903 (old numbering of Article 2180).
- Observations in Exconde: An obiter dictum exculpated the school on the ground it was not a school of arts and trades. Justice J.B.L. Reyes dissented, arguing the phrase "of establishments of arts and trades" should qualify only "heads" and not "teachers," and that teachers generally should be liable.
- Mercado v. Court of Appeals (108 Phil. 414):
- Facts: A student cut a classmate with a razor during recess at Lourdes Catholic School.
- Observations: Court held in obiter that the school was not liable because it was not an establishment of arts and trades, and found custody requirement not proved, interpreting custody to require a situation where the student lives and boards with the teacher such that the teacher’s control supersedes parental control.
- Justice J.B.L. Reyes did not take part; the other members concurred with the obiter.
- Palisoc v. Brillantes (41 SCRA 548):
- Facts: A 16-year-old was killed by a classmate with fist blows in the laboratory of Manila Technical Institute; the wrongdoer was of age and not boarding at the school.
- Holding: The head of the technical school and the teacher in charge were held solidarily liable. The Court declared that "so long as (the students) remain in their custody" means the protective and supervisory custody exercised for as long as students are attending school, including recess; the decision rejected the restrictive custody interpretation in Mercado and Exconde.
- Concurrences and dissents: Five justices concurred; Justice Makalintal dissented arguing the rule should apply only when students are minors and boarding.
Court’s Interpretation and Doctrinal Holdings
- Applicability of Article 2180:
- Article 2180 applies to all schools — academic as well as non-academic (technical or vocational). The Court rejects a narrow reading that confines the rule to only establishments of arts and trades.
- General rule: Teachers in general shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students so long as they remain in their custody.
- Exception: