Title
Palisoc vs. Brillantes
Case
G.R. No. L-29025
Decision Date
Oct 4, 1971
A student fatally injured by a classmate during a school fight; school officials held jointly liable under Article 2180 for inadequate supervision, with indemnity increased to P12,000.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 239090)

Applicable Law and Constitution

Governing Constitution: 1935 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered October 4, 1971).
Civil Code provisions: Article 2176 (quasi-delict liability), Article 2180 (liability of persons for acts of those in their custody), Article 2206 (death indemnity), Article 2211 (moral damages), Article 2208 (loss of earning power), Article 2231 (exemplary damages), and Articles 349, 350, 352 (in-loco-parentis duties).

Factual Background of the Incident

On March 10, 1966, during a class recess in the laboratory room, Dominador Palisoc (16 years old) observed classmates Virgilio L. Daffon and Desiderio Cruz at work. After Daffon alleged that Palisoc was acting like a foreman, Palisoc slapped Daffon. Daffon retaliated with strong punches to Palisoc’s face and abdomen. Palisoc stumbled over an engine block, fell unconscious, and later died in hospital without regaining consciousness.

Trial Court Findings and Ruling

The trial court credited eyewitness testimony of Desiderio Cruz and the postmortem report establishing traumatic rib fractures, pancreatic and gastric contusions, intra-gastric hemorrhage, and subarachnoid hemorrhage—injuries “probably by strong fist blows.” It held Daffon liable under Article 2176 for quasi-delict. Under Article 2180, however, it absolved school officials on the ground that “custody” required proof the student lived and boarded with the institution’s teachers or heads, which was absent.

Issue on Appeal

Whether the president and instructor of a vocational-technical school are jointly and severally liable under Article 2180 for the quasi-delict committed by a student during school attendance, notwithstanding that the student does not board at the institution.

Supreme Court’s Interpretation of “Custody”

The Court held that “custody” under Article 2180 refers to the protective and supervisory authority exercised by teachers and heads of establishments over students during attendance, including recess, rather than residence or boarding. Earlier dicta in Mercado v. Court of Appeals and Exconde v. Capuno requiring boarding were overruled as inconsistent with the statute’s purpose.

In Loco Parentis and Duty of Supervision

Teachers and heads of vocational-technical schools stand in loco parentis and must exercise reasonable supervision (Arts. 349, 350, 352) over students while in their protective custody. Failure to provide adequate vigilance and precautions against foreseeable harm, including violence among students, presumes culpa in vigilando and gives rise to liability.

Burden of Proof for Exemption

Under the last paragraph of Article 2180, school officials may exculpate themselves only by proving they exercised “all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.” The defendants failed to meet that burden; hence, liability attaches.

Adjustment of Death Indemnity

Invoking People v. Pantoja, the Court increased the minimum compensatory damages for death caused by q

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.