Civil Liability Arising From Delict
Civil Liability Arising From Delict
Civil Liability Arising From Delict
THE DEFENDANTS
Defense of Exercise of Due Diligence
ART 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176
is demandable not only for one's own acts or
G.R. No. L-24101 omissions, but also for those of persons for whom
one is responsible.
September 30, 1970
FELICIANO, J.:
On 20 October 1982, Adelberto Bundoc, then a minor Petitioners went to the Court of Appeals on a petition
of 10 years of age, shot Jennifer Tamargo with an air for mandamus and certiorari questioning the trial
rifle causing injuries which resulted in her death. court's Decision dated 3 December 1987 and the
Accordingly, a civil complaint for damages was filed Orders dated 18 April 1988 and 6 June 1988, The Court
with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Vigan, Ilocos of Appeals dismissed the petition, ruling that
Sur, docketed as Civil Case No. 3457-V, by petitioner petitioners had lost their right to appeal.
Macario Tamargo, Jennifer's adopting parent, and
In the present Petition for Review, petitioners once Upon the other hand, the law imposes civil liability
again contend that respondent spouses Bundoc are the upon the father and, in case of his death or incapacity,
indispensable parties to the action for damages caused the mother, for any damages that may be caused by
by the acts of their minor child, Adelberto Bundoc. a minor child who lives with them. Article 2180 of the
Resolution of this Petition hinges on the following Civil Code reads:
issues: (1) whether or not petitioners, notwithstanding
loss of their right to appeal, may still file the instant The obligation imposed by article 2176 is
Petition; conversely, whether the Court may still take demandable not only for one's own acts or
cognizance of the case even through petitioners' omissions, but also for those of persons for whom
appeal had been filed out of time; and (2) whether or one is responsible.
not the effects of adoption, insofar as parental
authority is concerned may be given retroactive effect
so as to make the adopting parents the indispensable
parties in a damage case filed against their adopted
child, for acts committed by the latter, when actual The father and, in case of his death or incapacity,
custody was yet lodged with the biological parents. the mother, are responsible for the damages
caused by the minor children who live in their
company.
In the instant case, the shooting of Jennifer by Article 58 Torts Parents and guardians are
Adelberto with an air rifle occured when parental responsible for the damage caused by the child
authority was still lodged in respondent Bundoc under their parental authority in accordance with
spouses, the natural parents of the minor Adelberto. It the civil Code. (Emphasis supplied)
would thus follow that the natural parents who had
then actual custody of the minor Adelberto, are the
indispensable parties to the suit for damages.
Article 221 of the Family Code of the Philippines 9 has
similarly insisted upon the requisite that the child, doer
of the tortious act, shall have beer in the actual
The natural parents of Adelberto, however, stoutly custody of the parents sought to be held liable for the
maintain that because a decree of adoption was issued ensuing damage:
by the adoption court in favor of the Rapisura spouses,
parental authority was vested in the latter as adopting Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising
parents as of the time of the filing of the petition for parental authority shall be civilly liable for the
adoption that is, before Adelberto had shot Jennifer injuries and damages caused by the acts or
which an air rifle. The Bundoc spouses contend that omissions of their unemancipated children living in
they were therefore free of any parental responsibility their company and under their parental authority
for Adelberto's allegedly tortious conduct. subject to the appropriate defenses provided by
law. (Emphasis supplied)
REGALADO, J.:
One of the ironic verities of life, it has been said, is that
Accordingly, we conclude that respondent Bundoc sorrow is sometimes a touchstone of love. A tragic
spouses, Adelberto's natural parents, were illustration is provided by the instant case, wherein two
indispensable parties to the suit for damages brought lovers died while still in the prime of their years, a
by petitioners, and that the dismissal by the trial court bitter episode for those whose lives they have touched.
While we cannot expect to award complete
of petitioners' complaint, the indispensable parties
assuagement to their families through seemingly
being already before the court, constituted grave
prosaic legal verbiage, this disposition should at least
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of terminate the acrimony and rancor of an extended
jurisdiction. judicial contest resulting from the unfortunate
occurrence.
SYLLABUS For more than two (2) years before their deaths, Julie
Ann Gotiong and Wendell Libi were sweethearts until
CIVIL LAW; QUASI DELICT; LIABILITY OF PARENTS December, 1978 when Julie Ann broke up her
FOR CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM CRIMINAL relationship with Wendell after she supposedly found
OFFENSES COMMITTED BY THEIR MINOR him to be sadistic and irresponsible. During the first
CHILDREN; RULE. The parents are and should be and second weeks of January, 1979, Wendell kept
held primarily liable for the civil liability arising from pestering Julie Ann with demands for reconciliation but
criminal offenses committed by their minor children the latter persisted in her refusal, prompting the former
under their legal authority or control, or who live in to resort to threats against her. In order to avoid him,
their company, unless it is proven that the former Julie Ann stayed in the house of her best friend, Malou
acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to
Alfonso, at the corner of Maria Cristina and Juana of gunpowder residue on Wendells hands was
Osmea Streets, Cebu City, from January 7 to 13, 1978. forever lost when Wendell was hastily buried.
On January 14, 1979, Julie Ann and Wendell died, each More specifically, Dr. Cerna testified that he
from a single gunshot wound inflicted with the same conducted an autopsy on the body of Wendell Libi
firearm, a Smith and Wesson revolver licensed in the about eight (8) hours after the incident or, to be
name of petitioner Cresencio Libi, which was recovered exact, eight (8) hours and twenty (20) minutes based
from the scene of the crime inside the residence of on the record of death; that when he arrived at the
private respondents at the corner of General Maxilom Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, the body of the
and D. Jakosalem streets of the same city. deceased was already on the autopsy table and in
the stage of rigor mortis; and that said body was not
Due to the absence of an eyewitness account of the washed, but it was dried. However, on redirect
circumstances surrounding the death of both minors, examination, he admitted that during the 8-hour
their parents, who are the contending parties herein, interval, he never saw the body nor did he see
posited their respective theories drawn from their whether said body was wiped or washed in the area
interpretation of circumstantial evidence, available of the wound on the head which he examined
reports, documents and evidence of physical facts. because the deceased was inside the morgue. In
fact, on cross-examination, he had earlier admitted
Private respondents, bereaved over the death of their that as far as the entrance of the wound, the
daughter, submitted that Wendell caused her death by trajectory of the bullet and the exit of the wound are
shooting her with the aforesaid firearm and, thereafter, concerned, it is possible that Wendell Libi shot
turning the gun on himself to commit suicide. On the himself.
other hand, Petitioners, puzzled and likewise distressed
over the death of their son, rejected the imputation He further testified that the muzzle of the gun was not
and contended that an unknown third party, whom pressed on the head of the victim and that he found no
Wendell may have displeased or antagonized by burning or singeing of the hair or extensive laceration
reason of his work as a narcotics informer of the on the gunshot wound of entrance which are general
Constabulary Anti-Narcotics Unit (CANU), must have characteristics of contact or near-contact fire. On direct
caused Wendells death and then shot Julie Ann to examination, Dr. Cerna nonetheless made these
eliminate any witness and thereby avoid identification. clarification:
"Q Is it not a fact that there are certain guns which
As a result of the tragedy, the parents of Julie Ann filed are so made that there would be no black residue
Civil Case No. R-17774 in the then Court of First or tattooing that could result from these guns
Instance of Cebu against the parents of Wendell to because they are what we call clean?
recover damages arising from the latters vicarious
liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. After trial, A Yes, sir. I know that there are what we call
the court below rendered judgment on October 20, smokeless powder.
1980 as follows:
"WHEREFORE, premises duly considered, judgment ATTY. ORTIZ:
is hereby rendered dismissing plaintiffs complaint Q Yes. So, in cases, therefore, of guns where the
for insufficiency of the evidence. Defendants powder is smokeless, those indications that you
counterclaim is likewise denied for lack of sufficient said may not rule out the possibility that the gun
merit." was closer than 24 inches, is that correct?
On appeal to respondent court, said judgment of the A If the . . . assuming that the gun used was .. the
lower court dismissing the complaint of therein bullet used was a smokeless powder.
plaintiffs-appellants was set aside and another
judgment was rendered against defendants-appellees Q At any rate, doctor, from . . . disregarding those
who, as petitioners in the present appeal by certiorari, other matters that you have noticed, the singeing,
now submit for resolution the following issues in this etc., from the trajectory, based on the trajectory of
case: the bullet as shown in your own sketch, is it not a
1. Whether or not respondent court correctly fact that the gun could have been fired by the
reversed the trial court in accordance with person himself, the victim himself, Wendell Libi,
established decisional laws; and because it shows a point of entry a little above the
2. Whether or not Article 2180 of the Civil Code was right ear and point of exit a little above that, to be
correctly interpreted by respondent court to very fair and on your oath?
make petitioners liable for vicarious liability.
In the proceedings before the trial court, Dr. Jesus P. A As far as the point of entrance is concerned and
Cerna, Police Medico-Legal Officer of Cebu, submitted as far as the trajectory of the bullet is concerned
his findings and opinions on some postulates for and as far as the angle or the manner of fire is
determining whether or not the gunshot wound was concerned, it could have been fired by the victim."
inflicted on Wendell Libi by his own suicidal act.
However, undue emphasis was placed by the lower As shown by the evidence, there were only two used
court on the absence of gunpowder or tattooing bullets found at the scene of the crime, each of which
around the wound at the point of entry of the bullet. were the bullets that hit Julie Ann Gotiong and Wendell
It should be emphasized, however, that this is not Libi, respectively. Also, the sketch prepared by the
the only circumstance to be taken into account in the Medico-Legal Division of the National Bureau of
determination of whether it was suicide or not. Investigation, 9 shows that there is only one gunshot
wound of entrance located at the right temple of
It is true that said witness declared that he found no Wendell Libi. The necropsy report prepared by Dr.
evidence of contact or close-contact of an explosive Cerna states:
discharge in the entrance wound. However, as x x x
pointed out by private respondents, the body of "Gunshot wound, ENTRANCE, ovaloid, 0.5 x 0.4
deceased Wendell Libi must have been washed at cm., with contusion collar widest inferiorly by 0.2
the funeral parlor, considering the hasty interment cm., edges inverted, oriented upward, located at
thereof a little after eight (8) hours from the the head, temporal region, right, 2.8 cms. behind
occurrence wherein he died. Dr. Cerna himself could and 5.5 cms. above right external auditory meatus,
not categorically state that the body of Wendell Libi directed slightly forward, upward and to the left,
was left untouched at the funeral parlor before he involving skin and soft tissues, making a punch-in
was able to conduct his autopsy. It will also be noted fracture on the temporal bone, right, penetrating
that Dr. Cerna was negligent in not conducting a cranial cavity, lacerating extensively along its
paraffin test on Wendell Libi, hence possible evidence course the brain tissues, fracturing parietal bone,
left, and finally making an EXIT wound, irregular, credence as to the reliability and accuracy of the
2.0 x 1.8 cms., edges (e)verted, parietal region, witnesses observations, since the visual perceptions of
left, 2.0 cms. behind and 12.9 cms. above left both were obstructed by high walls in their respective
external auditory meatus. houses in relation to the house of herein private
x x x respondents. On the other hand, witness Manolo
"Evidence of contact or close-contact fire, such as Alfonso, testifying on rebuttal, attested without
burning around the gunshot wound of entrance, contradiction that he and his sister, Malou Alfonso,
gunpowder tatooing (sic), smudging, singeing of were waiting for Julie Ann Gotiong when they heard her
hair, extensive laceration or bursting of the scream; that when Manolo climbed the fence to see
gunshot wound of entrance, or separation of the what was going on inside the Gotiong house, he heard
skin from the underlying tissue, are absent." the first shot; and, not more than five (5) seconds later,
he heard another shot. Consequently, he went down
On cross-examination, Dr. Cerna demonstrated his from the fence and drove to the police station to report
theory which was made of record, thus: the incident. 15 Manolos direct and candid testimony
"Q Now, will you please use yourself as Wendell establishes and explains the fact that it was he whom
Libi, and following the entrance of the wound, the Lydia Ang and James Enrique Tan saw as the "shadow"
trajectory of the bullet and the exit of the wound, of a man at the gate of the Gotiong house.
and measuring yourself 24 inches, will you please
indicate to the Honorable Court how would it have We have perforce to reject petitioners effete and
been possible for Wendell Libi to kill himself? Will unsubstantiated pretension that it was another man
you please indicate the 24 inches? who shot Wendell and Julie Ann. It is significant that the
Libi family did not even point to or present any suspect
in the crime nor did they file any case against any
WITNESS: alleged "John Doe." Nor can we sustain the trial courts
A Actually, sir, the 24 inches is approximately one dubious theory that
arms length. Wendell Libi did not die by his own hand because of the
overwhelming evidence testimonial, documentary
ATTY. SENINING: and pictorial the confluence of which point to
I would like to make of record that the witness has Wendell as the assailant of Julie Ann, his motive being
demonstrated by extending his right arm almost revenge for her rejection of his persistent pleas for a
straight towards his head." reconciliation.
Private respondents assail the fact that the trial court Petitioners defense that they had exercised the due
gave credence to the testimonies of defendants diligence of a good father of a family, hence they
witnesses Lydia Ang and James Enrique Tan, the first should not be civilly liable for the crime committed by
being a resident of an apartment across the street from their minor son, is not borne out by the evidence on
the Gotiongs and the second, a resident of the house record either.
adjacent to the Gotiong residence, who declared
having seen a "shadow" of a person at the gate of the Petitioner Amelita Yap Libi, mother of Wendell, testified
Gotiong house after hearing shots therefrom. that her husband, Cresencio Libi, owns a gun which he
kept in a safety deposit box inside a drawer in their
On cross-examination, Lydia Ang testified that the bedroom. Each of these petitioners holds a key to the
apartment where she was staying faces the gas safety deposit box and Amelitas key is always in her
station; that it is the second apartment; that from her bag, all of which facts were known to Wendell. They
window she can see directly the gate of the Gotiongs have never seen their son Wendell taking or using the
and, that there is a firewall between her apartment and gun. She admitted, however, that on that fateful night
the gas station. 12 After seeing a man jump from the the gun was no longer in the safety deposit box.
gate of the Gotiongs to the rooftop of the Tans, she We, accordingly, cannot but entertain serious doubts
called the police station but the telephone lines were that petitioner spouses had really been exercising the
busy. Later on, she talked with James Enrique Tan and diligence of a good father of a family by safely locking
told him that she saw a man leap from the gate the fatal gun away. Wendell could not have gotten hold
towards his rooftop. thereof unless one of the keys to the safety deposit box
However, James Enrique Tan testified that he saw a was negligently left lying around or he had free access
"shadow" on top of the gate of the Gotiongs, but to the bag of his mother where the other key was.
denied having talked with anyone regarding what he
saw. He explained that he lives in a duplex house with The diligence of a good father of a family required by
a garden in front of it; that his house is next to Felipe law in a parent and child relationship consists, to a
Gotiongs house; and he further gave the following large extent, of the instruction and supervision of the
answers to these questions: child. Petitioners were gravely remiss in their duties as
"ATTY. ORTIZ: (TO WITNESS). parents in not diligently supervising the activities of
their son, despite his minority and immaturity, so much
Q What is the height of the wall of the Gotiongs in so that it was only at the time of Wendells death that
relation to your house? they allegedly discovered that he was a CANU agent
and that Cresencios gun was missing from the safety
WITNESS: deposit box. Both parents were sadly wanting in their
A It is about 8 feet. duty and responsibility in monitoring and knowing the
activities of their children who, for all they know, may
ATTY. ORTIZ: (TO WITNESS) be engaged in dangerous work such as being drug
Q And where were you looking from? informers, 17 or even drug users. Neither was a
plausible explanation given for the photograph of
WITNESS: Wendell, with a handwritten dedication to Julie Ann at
A From upstairs in my living room. the back thereof, 18 holding upright what clearly
appears as a revolver and on how or why he was in
ATTY. ORTIZ (TO WITNESS) possession of that firearm.
Q From Your living room window, is that correct? In setting aside the judgment of the court a quo and
holding petitioners civilly liable, as explained at the
WITNESS: start of this opinion, respondent court waved aside the
A Yes, but not very clear because the wall is high." protestations of diligence on the part of petitioners and
had this to say:
Analyzing the foregoing testimonies, we agree with ". . . It is still the duty of parents to know the
respondent court that the same do not inspire activity of their children who may be engaged in
this dangerous activity involving the menace of Cadano, Et. Al. which supposedly holds that" (t)he
drugs. Had the defendants-appellees been diligent subsidiary liability of parents for damages caused by
in supervising the activities of their son, Wendell, their minor children imposed by Article 2180 of the
and in keeping said gun from his reach, they could New Civil Code covers obligations arising from both
have prevented Wendell from killing Julie Ann quasi-delicts and criminal offenses," followed by an
Gotiong. Therefore, appellants are liable under extended quotation ostensibly from the same case
Article 2180 of the Civil Code which provides: explaining why under Article 2180 of the Civil Code and
The father, and in case of his death or Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code parents should
incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the assume subsidiary liability for damages caused by their
damages caused by their minor children who live minor children. The quoted passages are set out two
in their company. paragraphs back, with pertinent underscoring for
purposes of the discussion hereunder.
"Having been grossly negligent in preventing
Wendell Libi from having access to said gun which Now, we do not have any objection to the doctrinal rule
was allegedly kept in a safety deposit box, holding, the parents liable, but the categorization of
defendants-appellees are subsidiarily liable for the their liability as being subsidiary, and not primary, in
natural consequence of the criminal act of said nature requires a hard second look considering
minor who was living in their company. This previous decisions of this court on the matter which
vicarious liability of herein defendants-appellees warrant comparative analyses. Our concern stems from
has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in many our readings that if the liability of the parents for
cases, prominent of which is the case of Fuellas v. crimes or quasi-delicts of their minor children is
Cadano, et. al. (L-14409, Oct. 31, 1961, 3 SCRA subsidiary, then the parents can neither invoke nor be
361-367), which held that: absolved of civil liability on the defense that they acted
The subsidiary liability of parents for damages with the diligence of a good father of a family to
caused by their minor children imposed by Article prevent damages. On the other hand, if such liability
2180 of the New Civil Code covers obligations imputed to the parents is considered direct and
arising from both quasi-delicts and criminal primary, that diligence would constitute a valid and
offenses. substantial defense.
The subsidiary liability of parents arising from We believe that the civil liability of parents for quasi-
the criminal acts of their minor children who delicts of their minor children, as contemplated in
acted with discernment is determined under the Article 2180 of the Civil Code, is primary and not
provisions of Article 2180, N.C.C. and under subsidiary. In fact, if we apply Article 2194 of said code
Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code, because to which provides for solidary liability of joint tortfeasors,
hold that the former only covers obligations the persons responsible for the act or omission, in this
which arise from quasi-delicts and not obligations case the minor and the father and, in case of his death
which arise from criminal offenses, would result of incapacity, the mother, are solidarily liable.
in the absurdity that while for an act where mere Accordingly, such parental liability is primary and not
negligence intervenes the father or mother may subsidiary, hence the last paragraph of Article 2180
stand subsidiarily liable for the damages caused provides that" (t)he responsibility treated of in this
by his or her son, no liability would attach if the article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned
damage is caused with criminal intent. (3 SCRA prove that they observed all the diligence of a good
361-362). father of a family to prevent damages."
We are also persuaded that the liability of the parents
". . . In the instant case, minor son of herein for felonies committed by their minor children is
defendants-appellees, Wendell Libi somehow got likewise primary, not subsidiary. Article 101 of the
hold of the key to the drawer where said gun was Revised Penal Code provides:
kept under lock without defendant-spouses ever "ARTICLE 101. Rules regarding civil liability in
knowing that said gun had been missing from that certain cases.
safety box since 1978 when Wendell Libi had) a x x x
picture taken wherein he proudly displayed said First. In cases of subdivisions . . . 2, and 3 of Article
gun and dedicated this picture to his sweetheart, 12, the civil liability for acts committed by . . . a
Julie Ann Gotiong; also since then, Wendell Libi was person under nine years of age, or by one over
said to have kept said gun in his car, in keeping up nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted
with his supposed role of a CANU agent . . ." without discernment, shall devolve upon those
x x x having such person under their legal authority or
control, unless it appears that there was no fault or
"Based on the foregoing discussions of the negligence on their part." (Emphasis supplied.)
assigned errors, this Court holds that the lower
court was not correct in dismissing herein plaintiffs- Accordingly, just like the rule in Article 2180 of the Civil
appellants complaint because as preponderantly Code, under the foregoing provision the civil liability of
shown by evidence, defendants-appellees utterly the parents for crimes committed by their minor
failed to exercise all the diligence of a good father children is likewise direct and primary, and also subject
of the family in preventing their minor son from to the defense of lack of fault or negligence on their
committing this crime by means of the gun of part, that is, the exercise of the diligence of a good
defendants-appellees which was freely accessible father of a family.
to Wendell Libi for they have not regularly checked
whether said gun was still under lock, but learned That in both quasi-delicts and crimes the parents
that it was missing from the safety deposit box primarily respond for such damages is buttressed by
only after the crime had been committed." the corresponding provisions in both codes that the
(Emphases ours.) minor transgressor shall be answerable or shall
respond with his own property only in the absence or in
We agree with the conclusion of respondent court that case of insolvency of the former. Thus, for civil liability
petitioners should be held liable for the civil liability ex quasi delicto of minors, Article 2182 of the Civil
based on what appears from all indications was a crime Code states that" (i)f the minor causing damage has no
committed by their minor son. We take this parents or guardian, the minor . . . shall be answerable
opportunity, however, to digress and discuss its with his own property in an action against him where a
ratiocination therefor on jurisprudential dicta which we guardian ad litem shall be appointed." For civil liability
feel require clarification. ex delicto of minors, an equivalent provision is found in
the third paragraph of Article 101 of the Revised Penal
In imposing sanctions for the so-called vicarious Code, to wit:
liability of petitioners, respondent court cites Fuellas v.
"Should there be no person having such . . . minor accomplices and accessories for the unpaid civil
under his authority, legal guardianship or control, liability of their co-accused in the other classes. 30
or if such person be insolvent, said . . . minor shall
respond with (his) own property, excepting Also, coming back to respondent courts reliance on
property exempt from execution, in accordance Fuellas in its decision in the present case, it is not
with civil law." exactly accurate to say that Fuellas provided for
subsidiary liability of the parents therein. A careful
The civil liability of parents for felonies committed by scrutiny shows that what respondent court quoted
their minor children contemplated in the aforesaid rule verbatim in its decision now on appeal in the present
in Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to case, and which it attributed to Fuellas, was the
Article 2180 of the Civil Code has, aside from the syllabus on the law report of said case which spoke of
aforecited case of Fuellas, been the subject of a "subsidiary" liability. However, such categorization
number of cases adjudicated by this Court, viz.: does not specifically appear in the text of the decision
Exconde v. Capuno, Et Al., 22 Araneta v. Arreglado, 23 in Fuellas. In fact, after reviewing therein the cases of
Salen, Et. Al. v. Balce, 24 Paleyan, etc., Et. Al. v. Exconde, Araneta and Salen and the discussions in said
Bangkili, Et Al., 25 and Elcano, et al, v. Hill, Et. Al. 26 cases of Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code in
Parenthetically, the aforesaid cases were basically on relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code, this Court
the issue of the civil liability of parents for crimes concluded its decision in this wise:
committed by their minor children over 9 but under 15 "Moreover, the case at bar was decided by the
years of age, who acted with discernment, and also of Court of Appeals on the basis of evidence
minors 15 years of aye or over, since these situations submitted therein by both parties, independent of
are not covered by Article 101, Revised Penal Code. In the criminal case. And responsibility for fault or
both instances, this Court held that the issue of negligence under Article 2176 upon which the
parental civil liability should be resolved in accordance present action was instituted, is entirely separate
with the provisions of Article 2180 of the Civil Code for and distinct from the civil liability arising from fault
the reasons well expressed in Salen and adopted in the or negligence under the Penal Code (Art. 2177),
cases hereinbefore enumerated that to hold that the and having in mind the reasons behind the law as
civil liability under Article 2180 would apply only to heretofore stated, any discussion as to the minors
quasi-delicts and not to criminal offenses would result criminal responsibility is of no moment."
in the absurdity that in an act involving mere
negligence the parents would be liable but not where Under the foregoing considerations, therefore, we
the damage is caused with criminal intent. In said hereby rule that the parents are and should be held
cases, however, there are unfortunate variances primarily liable for the civil liability arising from
resulting in a regrettable inconsistency in the Courts criminal offenses committed by their minor children
determination of whether the liability of the parents, in under their legal authority or control, or who live in
cases involving either crimes or quasi-delicts of their their company, unless it is proven that the former
minor children, is primary or subsidiary. acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent such damages. That primary liability is
In Exconde, where the 15-year old minor was convicted premised on the provisions of Article 101 of the
of double homicide through reckless imprudence, in a Revised Penal Code with respect to damages ex delicto
separate civil action arising from the crime the minor caused by their children 9 years of age or under, or
and his father were held jointly and severally liable for over 9 but under 15 years of age who acted without
failure of the latter to prove the diligence of a good discernment; and, with regard to their children over 9
father of a family. The same liability in solidum and, but under 15 years of age who acted with discernment,
therefore, primary liability was imposed in a separate or 15 years or over but under 21 years of age, such
civil action in Araneta on the parents and their 14-year primary liability shall be imposed pursuant to Article
old son who was found guilty of frustrated homicide, 2180 of the Civil Code.
but on the authority of Article 2194 of the Civil Code
providing for solidary responsibility of two or more Under said Article 2180, the enforcement of such
persons who are liable for a quasi-delict. liability shall be effected against the father and, in case
of his death or incapacity, the mother. This was
However, in Salen, the father was declared subsidiarily amplified by the Child and Youth Welfare Code which
liable for damages arising from the conviction of his provides that the same shall devolve upon the father
son, who was over 15 but less than 18 years of age, by and, in case of his death or incapacity, upon the
applying Article 2180 but, this time, disregarding mother or, in case of her death or incapacity, upon the
Article 2194 of the Civil Code. In the present case, as guardian, but the liability may also be voluntarily
already explained, the petitioners herein were also held assumed by a relative or family friend of the youthful
liable but supposedly in line with Fuellas which offender. 32 However, under the Family Code, this civil
purportedly declared the parents subsidiarily liable for liability is now, without such alternative qualification,
the civil liability for serious physical injuries committed the responsibility of the parents and those who
by their 13-year old son. On the other hand, in Paleyan, exercise parental authority over the minor offender. 33
the mother and her 19-year old son were adjudged For civil liability arising from quasi-delicts committed
solidarily liable for damages arising from his conviction by minors, the same rules shall apply in accordance
for homicide by the application of Article 2180 of the with Articles 2180 and 2182 of the Civil Code, as so
Civil Code since this is likewise not covered by Article modified.
101 of the Revised Penal Code. Finally, in Elcano,
although the son was acquitted in a homicide charge In the case at bar, whether the death of the hapless
due to "lack of intent, coupled with mistake," it was Julie Ann Gotiong was caused by a felony or a quasi-
ruled that while under Article 2180 of the Civil Code delict committed by Wendell Libi, respondent court did
there should be solidary liability for damages, since the not err in holding petitioners liable for damages arising
son, "although married, was living with his father and therefrom. Subject to the preceding modifications of
getting subsistence from him at the time of the the premises relied upon by it therefor and on the
occurrence," but "is now of age, as a matter of equity" bases of the legal imperatives herein explained, we
the father was only held subsidiarily liable. conjoin in its findings that said petitioners failed to duly
exercise the requisite diligentissimi patris familias to
It bears stressing, however, that the Revised Penal prevent such damages.
Code provides for subsidiary liability only for persons
causing damages under the compulsion of irresistible ACCORDINGLY, the instant Petition is DENIED and the
force or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear; 27 assailed judgment of respondent Court of Appeals is
innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of hereby AFFIRMED, with costs against petitioners.
establishments; 28 employers, teachers, persons and
corporations engaged in industry; 29 and principals, SO ORDERED.
only for the purpose of submitting his physics report
and that he was no longer in their custody because the
semester had already ended.
There is also the question of the identity of the gun
used which the petitioners consider important because
of an earlier incident which they claim underscores the
negligence of the school and at least one of the private
respondents. It is not denied by the respondents that
G.R. No. L-47745 on April 7, 1972, Sergio Damaso, Jr., the dean of boys,
April 15, 1988 confiscated from Jose Gumban an unlicensed pistol but
later returned it to him without making a report to the
JOSE S. AMADORA, LORETA A. AMADORA, JOSE A. principal or taking any further action . 6 As Gumban was
AMADORA JR., NORMA A. YLAYA PANTALEON A. one of the companions of Daffon when the latter fired
AMADORA, JOSE A. AMADORA III, LUCY A. the gun that killed Alfredo, the petitioners contend that
AMADORA, ROSALINDA A. AMADORA, PERFECTO this was the same pistol that had been confiscated
A. AMADORA, SERREC A. AMADORA, VICENTE A. from Gumban and that their son would not have been
AMADORA and MARIA TISCALINA A. killed if it had not been returned by Damaso. The
AMADORA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF respondents say, however, that there is no proof that
APPEALS, COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS, the gun was the same firearm that killed Alfredo.
VICTOR LLUCH SERGIO P. DLMASO JR., CELESTINO
DICON, ANIANO ABELLANA, PABLITO DAFFON Resolution of all these disagreements will depend on
thru his parents and natural guardians, MR. and the interpretation of Article 2180 which, as it happens,
MRS. NICANOR GUMBAN, and ROLANDO is invoked by both parties in support of their conflicting
VALENCIA, thru his guardian, A. FRANCISCO positions. The pertinent part of this article reads as
ALONSO, respondents. follows:
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts
CRUZ, J.: and trades shall be liable for damages caused by
Like any prospective graduate, Alfredo Amadora was their pupils and students or apprentices so long as
looking forward to the commencement exercises where they remain in their custody.
he would ascend the stage and in the presence of his
relatives and friends receive his high school diploma. Three cases have so far been decided by the Court in
These ceremonies were scheduled on April 16, 1972. connection with the above-quoted provision, to wit:
As it turned out, though, fate would intervene and deny Exconde v. Capuno 7 Mercado v. Court of Appeals, 8 and
him that awaited experience. On April 13, 1972, while Palisoc v. Brillantes. 9 These will be briefly reviewed in
they were in the auditorium of their school, the Colegio this opinion for a better resolution of the case at bar.
de San Jose-Recoletos, a classmate, Pablito Damon,
fired a gun that mortally hit Alfredo, ending all his In the Exconde Case, Dante Capuno, a student of the
expectations and his life as well. The victim was only Balintawak Elementary School and a Boy Scout,
seventeen years old. 1 attended a Rizal Day parade on instructions of the city
school supervisor. After the parade, the boy boarded a
Daffon was convicted of homicide thru reckless jeep, took over its wheel and drove it so recklessly that
imprudence . 2 Additionally, the herein petitioners, as it turned turtle, resulting in the death of two of its
the victim's parents, filed a civil action for damages passengers. Dante was found guilty of double homicide
under Article 2180 of the Civil Code against the Colegio with reckless imprudence. In the separate civil action
de San Jose-Recoletos, its rector the high school flied against them, his father was held solidarily liable
principal, the dean of boys, and the physics teacher, with him in damages under Article 1903 (now Article
together with Daffon and two other students, through 2180) of the Civil Code for the tort committed by the
their respective parents. The complaint against the 15-year old boy.
students was later dropped. After trial, the Court of
First Instance of Cebu held the remaining defendants This decision, which was penned by Justice Bautista
liable to the plaintiffs in the sum of P294,984.00, Angelo on June 29,1957, exculpated the school in
representing death compensation, loss of earning an obiter dictum (as it was not a party to the case) on
capacity, costs of litigation, funeral expenses, moral the ground that it was riot a school of arts and trades.
damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's Justice J.B.L. Reyes, with whom Justices Sabino Padilla
fees . 3 On appeal to the respondent court, however, and Alex Reyes concurred, dissented, arguing that it
the decision was reversed and all the defendants were was the school authorities who should be held liable
completely absolved . 4 Liability under this rule, he said, was imposed on (1)
teachers in general; and (2) heads of schools of arts
In its decision, which is now the subject of this petition and trades in particular. The modifying clause "of
for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the establishments of arts and trades" should apply only to
respondent court found that Article 2180 was not "heads" and not "teachers."
applicable as the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos was
not a school of arts and trades but an academic Exconde was reiterated in the Mercado Case, and with
institution of learning. It also held that the students an elaboration. A student cut a classmate with a razor
were not in the custody of the school at the time of the blade during recess time at the Lourdes Catholic School
incident as the semester had already ended, that there in Quezon City, and the parents of the victim sued the
was no clear identification of the fatal gun and that in culprits parents for damages. Through Justice Labrador,
any event the defendant, had exercised the necessary the Court declared in another obiter (as the school
diligence in preventing the injury. 5 itself had also not been sued that the school was not
liable because it was not an establishment of arts and
The basic undisputed facts are that Alfredo Amadora trades. Moreover, the custody requirement had not
went to the San Jose-Recoletos on April 13, 1972, and been proved as this "contemplates a situation where
while in its auditorium was shot to death by Pablito the student lives and boards with the teacher, such
Daffon, a classmate. On the implications and that the control, direction and influences on the pupil
consequences of these facts, the parties sharply supersede those of the parents." Justice J.B.L. Reyes did
disagree. not take part but the other members of the court
concurred in this decision promulgated on May 30,
The petitioners contend that their son was in the school 1960.
to show his physics experiment as a prerequisite to his
graduation; hence, he was then under the custody of In Palisoc vs. Brillantes, decided on October 4, 1971, a
the private respondents. The private respondents 16-year old student was killed by a classmate with fist
submit that Alfredo Amadora had gone to the school blows in the laboratory of the Manila Technical
Institute. Although the wrongdoer who was already position to exercise authority and Supervision over
of age was not boarding in the school, the head the pupil. In my opinion, in the phrase "teachers or
thereof and the teacher in charge were held solidarily heads of establishments of arts and trades" used in
liable with him. The Court declared through Justice Art. 1903 of the old Civil Code, the words "arts and
Teehankee: trades" does not qualify "teachers" but only "heads
The phrase used in the cited article "so long as of establishments." The phrase is only an updated
(the students) remain in their custody" means version of the equivalent terms "preceptores y
the protective and supervisory custody that the artesanos" used in the Italian and French Civil
school and its heads and teachers exercise over Codes.
the pupils and students for as long as they are at
attendance in the school, including recess time. If, as conceded by all commentators, the basis of
There is nothing in the law that requires that for the presumption of negligence of Art. 1903 in
such liability to attach, the pupil or student who some culpa in vigilando that the parents, teachers,
commits the tortious act must live and board in the etc. are supposed to have incurred in the exercise
school, as erroneously held by the lower court, and of their authority, it would seem clear that where
the dicta in Mercado (as well as in Exconde) on the parent places the child under the effective
which it relied, must now be deemed to have been authority of the teacher, the latter, and not the
set aside by the present decision. parent, should be the one answerable for the torts
committed while under his custody, for the very
This decision was concurred in by five other reason/that the parent is not supposed to interfere
members, 10 including Justice J.B.L. Reyes, who with the discipline of the school nor with the
stressed, in answer to the dissenting opinion, that even authority and supervision of the teacher while the
students already of age were covered by the provision child is under instruction. And if there is no
since they were equally in the custody of the school authority, there can be no responsibility.
and subject to its discipline. Dissenting with three
others, 11 Justice Makalintal was for retaining the There is really no substantial distinction between the
custody interpretation in Mercado and submitted that academic and the non-academic schools insofar as
the rule should apply only to torts committed by torts committed by their students are concerned. The
students not yet of age as the school would be acting same vigilance is expected from the teacher over the
only in loco parentis. students under his control and supervision, whatever
the nature of the school where he is teaching. The
In a footnote, Justice Teehankee said he agreed with suggestion in the Exconde and Mercado Cases is that
Justice Reyes' dissent in the Exconde Case but added the provision would make the teacher or even the head
that "since the school involved at bar is a non- of the school of arts and trades liable for an injury
academic school, the question as to the applicability of caused by any student in its custody but if that same
the cited codal provision to academic institutions will tort were committed in an academic school, no liability
have to await another case wherein it may properly be would attach to the teacher or the school head. All
raised." other circumstances being the same, the teacher or
the head of the academic school would be absolved
This is the case. whereas the teacher and the head of the non-academic
Unlike in Exconde and Mercado, the Colegio de San school would be held liable, and simply because the
Jose-Recoletos has been directly impleaded and is latter is a school of arts and trades.
sought to be held liable under Article 2180; and unlike
in Palisoc, it is not a school of arts and trades but an The Court cannot see why different degrees of
academic institution of learning. The parties herein vigilance should be exercised by the school authorities
have also directly raised the question of whether or not on the basis only of the nature of their respective
Article 2180 covers even establishments which are schools. There does not seem to be any plausible
technically not schools of arts and trades, and, if so, reason for relaxing that vigilance simply because the
when the offending student is supposed to be "in its school is academic in nature and for increasing such
custody." vigilance where the school is non-academic. Notably,
the injury subject of liability is caused by the student
After an exhaustive examination of the problem, the and not by the school itself nor is it a result of the
Court has come to the conclusion that the provision in operations of the school or its equipment. The injury
question should apply to all schools, academic as well contemplated may be caused by any student
as non-academic. Where the school is academic rather regardless of the school where he is registered. The
than technical or vocational in nature, responsibility for teacher certainly should not be able to excuse himself
the tort committed by the student will attach to the by simply showing that he is teaching in an academic
teacher in charge of such student, following the first school where, on the other hand, the head would be
part of the provision. This is the general rule. In the held liable if the school were non-academic.
case of establishments of arts and trades, it is the head
thereof, and only he, who shall be held liable as an These questions, though, may be asked: If the teacher
exception to the general rule. In other words, teachers of the academic school is to be held answerable for the
in general shall be liable for the acts of their students torts committed by his students, why is it the head of
except where the school is technical in nature, in which the school only who is held liable where the injury is
case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable. caused in a school of arts and trades? And in the case
Following the canon of reddendo singula of the academic or non- technical school, why not
singulis "teachers" should apply to the words "pupils apply the rule also to the head thereof instead of
and students" and "heads of establishments of arts and imposing the liability only on the teacher?
trades" to the word "apprentices."
The reason for the disparity can be traced to the fact
The Court thus conforms to the dissenting opinion that historically the head of the school of arts and
expressed by Justice J.B.L. Reyes in Exconde where he trades exercised a closer tutelage over his pupils than
said in part: the head of the academic school. The old schools of
I can see no sound reason for limiting Art. 1903 of arts and trades were engaged in the training of
the Old Civil Code to teachers of arts and trades artisans apprenticed to their master who personally
and not to academic ones. What substantial and directly instructed them on the technique and
difference is there between them insofar as secrets of their craft. The head of the school of arts and
concerns the proper supervision and vice over their trades was such a master and so was personally
pupils? It cannot be seriously contended that an involved in the task of teaching his students, who
academic teacher is exempt from the duty of usually even boarded with him and so came under his
watching that his pupils do not commit a tort to the constant control, supervision and influence. By
detriment of third Persons, so long as they are in a contrast, the head of the academic school was not as
involved with his students and exercised only dean, principal, or other administrative superior to
administrative duties over the teachers who were the exercise supervision over the pupils in the specific
persons directly dealing with the students. The head of classes or sections to which they are assigned. It is not
the academic school had then (as now) only a vicarious necessary that at the time of the injury, the teacher be
relationship with the students. Consequently, while he physically present and in a position to prevent it.
could not be directly faulted for the acts of the Custody does not connote immediate and actual
students, the head of the school of arts and trades, physical control but refers more to the influence
because of his closer ties with them, could be so exerted on the child and the discipline instilled in him
blamed. as a result of such influence. Thus, for the injuries
caused by the student, the teacher and not the parent
It is conceded that the distinction no longer obtains at shag be held responsible if the tort was committed
present in view of the expansion of the schools of arts within the premises of the school at any time when its
and trades, the consequent increase in their authority could be validly exercised over him.
enrollment, and the corresponding diminution of the
direct and personal contract of their heads with the In any event, it should be noted that the liability
students. Article 2180, however, remains unchanged. imposed by this article is supposed to fall directly on
In its present state, the provision must be interpreted the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades
by the Court according to its clear and original and not on the school itself. If at all, the school,
mandate until the legislature, taking into account the whatever its nature, may be held to answer for the acts
charges in the situation subject to be regulated, sees fit of its teachers or even of the head thereof under the
to enact the necessary amendment. general principle of respondeat superior, but then it
may exculpate itself from liability by proof that it had
The other matter to be resolved is the duration of the exercised the diligence of a bonus paterfamilias.
responsibility of the teacher or the head of the school
of arts and trades over the students. Is such Such defense is, of course, also available to the
responsibility co-extensive with the period when the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades
student is actually undergoing studies during the directly held to answer for the tort committed by the
school term, as contended by the respondents and student. As long as the defendant can show that he
impliedly admitted by the petitioners themselves? had taken the necessary precautions to prevent the
injury complained of, he can exonerate himself from
From a reading of the provision under examination, it is the liability imposed by Article 2180, which also states
clear that while the custody requirement, to that:
repeat Palisoc v. Brillantes, does not mean that the The responsibility treated of in this article shall
student must be boarding with the school authorities, it cease when the Persons herein mentioned prove
does signify that the student should be within the that they observed all the diligence of a good
control and under the influence of the school father of a family to prevent damages.
authorities at the time of the occurrence of the injury.
This does not necessarily mean that such, custody be In this connection, it should be observed that the
co-terminous with the semester, beginning with the teacher will be held liable not only when he is acting
start of classes and ending upon the close thereof, and in loco parentis for the law does not require that the
excluding the time before or after such period, such as offending student be of minority age. Unlike the parent,
the period of registration, and in the case of graduating who wig be liable only if his child is still a minor, the
students, the period before the commencement teacher is held answerable by the law for the act of the
exercises. In the view of the Court, the student is in the student under him regardless of the student's age.
custody of the school authorities as long as he is under Thus, in the Palisoc Case, liability attached to the
the control and influence of the school and within its teacher and the head of the technical school although
premises, whether the semester has not yet begun or the wrongdoer was already of age. In this sense, Article
has already ended. 2180 treats the parent more favorably than the
teacher.
It is too tenuous to argue that the student comes under
the discipline of the school only upon the start of The Court is not unmindful of the apprehensions
classes notwithstanding that before that day he has expressed by Justice Makalintal in his dissenting
already registered and thus placed himself under its opinion in Palisoc that the school may be unduly
rules. Neither should such discipline be deemed ended exposed to liability under this article in view of the
upon the last day of classes notwithstanding that there increasing activism among the students that is likely to
may still be certain requisites to be satisfied for cause violence and resulting injuries in the school
completion of the course, such as submission of premises. That is a valid fear, to be sure. Nevertheless,
reports, term papers, clearances and the like. During it should be repeated that, under the present ruling, it
such periods, the student is still subject to the is not the school that will be held directly liable.
disciplinary authority of the school and cannot consider Moreover, the defense of due diligence is available to it
himself released altogether from observance of its in case it is sought to be held answerable as principal
rules. for the acts or omission of its head or the teacher in its
employ.
As long as it can be shown that the student is in the
school premises in pursuance of a legitimate student The school can show that it exercised proper measures
objective, in the exercise of a legitimate student right, in selecting the head or its teachers and the
and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student appropriate supervision over them in the custody and
right, and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate instruction of the pupils pursuant to its rules and
student privilege, the responsibility of the school regulations for the maintenance of discipline among
authorities over the student continues. Indeed, even if them. In almost all cases now, in fact, these measures
the student should be doing nothing more than are effected through the assistance of an adequate
relaxing in the campus in the company of his security force to help the teacher physically enforce
classmates and friends and enjoying the ambience and those rules upon the students. Ms should bolster the
atmosphere of the school, he is still within the custody claim of the school that it has taken adequate steps to
and subject to the discipline of the school authorities prevent any injury that may be committed by its
under the provisions of Article 2180. students.
During all these occasions, it is obviously the teacher- A fortiori, the teacher himself may invoke this defense
in-charge who must answer for his students' torts, in as it would otherwise be unfair to hold him directly
practically the same way that the parents are answerable for the damage caused by his students as
responsible for the child when he is in their custody. long as they are in the school premises and
The teacher-in-charge is the one designated by the presumably under his influence. In this respect, the
Court is disposed not to expect from the teacher the him without taking disciplinary action or reporting
same measure of responsibility imposed on the parent the matter to higher authorities. While this was
for their influence over the child is not equal in degree. clearly negligence on his part, for which he
Obviously, the parent can expect more obedience from deserves sanctions from the school, it does not
the child because the latter's dependence on him is necessarily link him to the shooting of Amador as it
greater than on the teacher. It need not be stressed has not been shown that he confiscated and
that such dependence includes the child's support and returned pistol was the gun that killed the
sustenance whereas submission to the teacher's petitioners' son.
influence, besides being coterminous with the period of 5. Finally, as previously observed, the Colegio de San
custody is usually enforced only because of the Jose-Recoletos cannot be held directly liable under
students' desire to pass the course. The parent can the article because only the teacher or the head of
instill more las discipline on the child than the teacher the school of arts and trades is made responsible
and so should be held to a greater accountability than for the damage caused by the student or
the teacher for the tort committed by the child. apprentice. Neither can it be held to answer for the
tort committed by any of the other private
And if it is also considered that under the article in respondents for none of them has been found to
question, the teacher or the head of the school of arts have been charged with the custody of the
and trades is responsible for the damage caused by the offending student or has been remiss in the
student or apprentice even if he is already of age discharge of his duties in connection with such
and therefore less tractable than the minor then custody.
there should all the more be justification to require
from the school authorities less accountability as long In sum, the Court finds under the facts as disclosed by
as they can prove reasonable diligence in preventing the record and in the light of the principles herein
the injury. After all, if the parent himself is no longer announced that none of the respondents is liable for
liable for the student's acts because he has reached the injury inflicted by Pablito Damon on Alfredo
majority age and so is no longer under the former's Amadora that resulted in the latter's death at the
control, there is then all the more reason for leniency in auditorium of the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos on
assessing the teacher's responsibility for the acts of the April 13, 1972. While we deeply sympathize with the
student. petitioners over the loss of their son under the tragic
circumstances here related, we nevertheless are
Applying the foregoing considerations, the Court has unable to extend them the material relief they seek, as
arrived at the following conclusions: a balm to their grief, under the law they have invoked.
1. At the time Alfredo Amadora was fatally shot, he
was still in the custody of the authorities of Colegio WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, without any
de San Jose-Recoletos notwithstanding that the pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.
fourth year classes had formally ended. It was
immaterial if he was in the school auditorium to
finish his physics experiment or merely to submit G.R. No. 84698
his physics report for what is important is that he February 4, 1992
was there for a legitimate purpose. As previously
observed, even the mere savoring of the company PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
of his friends in the premises of the school is a ADMINISTRATION, JUAN D. LIM, BENJAMIN P.
legitimate purpose that would have also brought PAULINO, ANTONIO M. MAGTALAS, COL. PEDRO
him in the custody of the school authorities. SACRO and LT. M. SORIANO, petitioners, vs. COURT
2. The rector, the high school principal and the dean OF APPEALS, HON. REGINA ORDOEZ-BENITEZ, in
of boys cannot be held liable because none of them her capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 47,
was the teacher-in-charge as previously defined. Regional Trial Court, Manila, SEGUNDA R.
Each of them was exercising only a general BAUTISTA and ARSENIA D. BAUTISTA, respondents.
authority over the student body and not the direct
control and influence exerted by the teacher placed PADILLA, J.:
in charge of particular classes or sections and thus A stabbing incident on 30 August 1985 which caused
immediately involved in its discipline. The evidence the death of Carlitos Bautista while on the second-floor
of the parties does not disclose who the teacher-in- premises of the Philippine School of Business
charge of the offending student was. The mere fact Administration (PSBA) prompted the parents of the
that Alfredo Amadora had gone to school that day deceased to file suit in the Regional Trial Court of
in connection with his physics report did not Manila (Branch 47) presided over by Judge (now Court
necessarily make the physics teacher, respondent of Appeals justice) Regina Ordoez-Benitez, for
Celestino Dicon, the teacher-in-charge of Alfredo's damages against the said PSBA and its corporate
killer. officers. At the time of his death, Carlitos was enrolled
3. At any rate, assuming that he was the teacher-in- in the third year commerce course at the PSBA. It was
charge, there is no showing that Dicon was established that his assailants were not members of
negligent in enforcing discipline upon Daffon or the school's academic community but were elements
that he had waived observance of the rules and from outside the school.
regulations of the school or condoned their non-
observance. His absence when the tragedy Specifically, the suit impleaded the PSBA and the
happened cannot be considered against him following school authorities: Juan D. Lim (President),
because he was not supposed or required to report Benjamin P. Paulino (Vice-President), Antonio M.
to school on that day. And while it is true that the Magtalas (Treasurer/Cashier), Col. Pedro Sacro (Chief of
offending student was still in the custody of the Security) and a Lt. M. Soriano (Assistant Chief of
teacher-in-charge even if the latter was physically Security). Substantially, the plaintiffs (now private
absent when the tort was committed, it has not respondents) sought to adjudge them liable for the
been established that it was caused by his laxness victim's untimely demise due to their alleged
in enforcing discipline upon the student. On the negligence, recklessness and lack of security
contrary, the private respondents have proved that precautions, means and methods before, during and
they had exercised due diligence, through the after the attack on the victim. During the
enforcement of the school regulations, in proceedings a quo, Lt. M. Soriano terminated his
maintaining that discipline. relationship with the other petitioners by resigning
4. In the absence of a teacher-in-charge, it is probably from his position in the school.
the dean of boys who should be held liable
especially in view of the unrefuted evidence that Defendants a quo (now petitioners) sought to have the
he had earlier confiscated an unlicensed gun from suit dismissed, alleging that since they are presumably
one of the students and returned the same later to sued under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the
complaint states no cause of action against them, as student covenants to abide by the school's academic
jurisprudence on the subject is to the effect requirements and observe its rules and regulations.
that academic institutions, such as the PSBA, are
beyond the ambit of the rule in the afore-stated article. Institutions of learning must also meet the implicit or
"built-in" obligation of providing their students with an
The respondent trial court, however, overruled atmosphere that promotes or assists in attaining its
petitioners' contention and thru an order dated 8 primary undertaking of imparting knowledge. Certainly,
December 1987, denied their motion to dismiss. A no student can absorb the intricacies of physics or
subsequent motion for reconsideration was similarly higher mathematics or explore the realm of the arts
dealt with by an order dated 25 January 1988. and other sciences when bullets are flying or grenades
Petitioners then assailed the trial court's disposition exploding in the air or where there looms around the
before the respondent appellate court which, in a school premises a constant threat to life and limb.
decision * promulgated on 10 June 1988, affirmed the Necessarily, the school must ensure that adequate
trial court's orders. On 22 August 1988, the respondent steps are taken to maintain peace and order within the
appellate court resolved to deny the petitioners' motion campus premises and to prevent the breakdown
for reconsideration. Hence, this petition. thereof.
At the outset, it is to be observed that the respondent Because the circumstances of the present case evince
appellate court primarily anchored its decision on the a contractual relation between the PSBA and Carlitos
law of quasi-delicts, as enunciated in Articles 2176 and Bautista, the rules on quasi-delict do not really
2180 of the Civil Code. 1 Pertinent portions of the govern. 8 A perusal of Article 2176 shows that
appellate court's now assailed ruling state: obligations arising from quasi-delicts or tort, also
Article 2180 (formerly Article 1903) of the Civil known as extra-contractual obligations, arise only
Code is an adoption from the old Spanish Civil between parties not otherwise bound by contract,
Code. The comments of Manresa and learned whether express or implied. However, this impression
authorities on its meaning should give way to has not prevented this Court from determining the
present day changes. The law is not fixed and existence of a tort even when there obtains a contract.
flexible (sic); it must be dynamic. In fact, the In Air France vs. Carrascoso (124 Phil. 722), the private
greatest value and significance of law as a rule of respondent was awarded damages for his unwarranted
conduct in (sic) its flexibility to adopt to changing expulsion from a first-class seat aboard the petitioner
social conditions and its capacity to meet the new airline. It is noted, however, that the Court referred to
challenges of progress. the petitioner-airline's liability as one arising from tort,
Construed in the light of modern day educational not one arising from a contract of carriage. In
system, Article 2180 cannot be construed in its effect, Air France is authority for the view that liability
narrow concept as held in the old case from tort may exist even if there is a contract, for the
of Exconde vs. Capuno 2 and Mercado vs. Court act that breaks the contract may be also a tort.
of Appeals; 3hence, the ruling in (Austro-America S.S. Co. vs. Thomas, 248 Fed. 231).
the Palisoc 4 case that it should apply to all kinds
of educational institutions, academic or This view was not all that revolutionary, for even as
vocational. early as 1918, this Court was already of a similar mind.
In Cangco vs. Manila Railroad (38 Phil. 780), Mr. Justice
At any rate, the law holds the teachers and Fisher elucidated thus:
heads of the school staff liable unless they The field of non-contractual obligation is much
relieve themselves of such liability pursuant to broader than that of contractual obligation,
the last paragraph of Article 2180 by "proving comprising, as it does, the whole extent of juridical
that they observed all the diligence to prevent human relations. These two fields, figuratively
damage." This can only be done at a trial on the speaking, concentric; that is to say, the mere fact
merits of the case. 5 that a person is bound to another by contract does
not relieve him from extra-contractual liability to
While we agree with the respondent appellate court such person. When such a contractual relation
that the motion to dismiss the complaint was correctly exists the obligor may break the contract under
denied and the complaint should be tried on the such conditions that the same act which
merits, we do not however agree with the premises of constitutes a breach of the contract would have
the appellate court's ruling. constituted the source of an extra-contractual
obligation had no contract existed between the
Article 2180, in conjunction with Article 2176 of the parties.
Civil Code, establishes the rule of in loco parentis. This
Court discussed this doctrine in the afore-cited cases Immediately what comes to mind is the chapter of the
of Exconde, Mendoza, Palisoc and, more recently, Civil Code on Human Relations, particularly Article 21,
in Amadora vs. Court of Appeals. 6 In all such cases, it which provides:
had been stressed that the law (Article 2180) plainly Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to
provides that the damage should have been caused or another in a manner that is contrary to morals,
inflicted by pupils or students of he educational good custom or public policy shall compensate the
institution sought to be held liable for the acts of its latter for the damage. (emphasis supplied).
pupils or students while in its custody. However, this
material situation does not exist in the present case Air France penalized the racist policy of the airline
for, as earlier indicated, the assailants of Carlitos were which emboldened the petitioner's employee to forcibly
not students of the PSBA, for whose acts the school oust the private respondent to cater to the comfort of a
could be made liable. white man who allegedly "had a better right to the
seat." In Austro-American, supra, the public
However, does the appellate court's failure to consider embarrassment caused to the passenger was the
such material facts mean the exculpation of the justification for the Circuit Court of Appeals, (Second
petitioners from liability? It does not necessarily follow. Circuit), to award damages to the latter. From the
foregoing, it can be concluded that should the act
When an academic institution accepts students for which breaches a contract be done in bad faith and be
enrollment, there is established a contract between violative of Article 21, then there is a cause to view the
them, resulting in bilateral obligations which both act as constituting a quasi-delict.
parties are bound to comply with. 7 For its part, the
school undertakes to provide the student with an In the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar,
education that would presumably suffice to equip him however, there is, as yet, no finding that the contract
with the necessary tools and skills to pursue higher between the school and Bautista had been breached
education or a profession. On the other hand, the thru the former's negligence in providing proper
security measures. This would be for the trial court to installed, the same may still fail against an individual
determine. And, even if there be a finding of or group determined to carry out a nefarious deed
negligence, the same could give rise generally to a inside school premises and environs. Should this be the
breach of contractual obligation only. Using the test case, the school may still avoid liability by proving that
of Cangco, supra, the negligence of the school would the breach of its contractual obligation to the students
not be relevant absent a contract. In fact, that was not due to its negligence, here statutorily defined
negligence becomes material only because of the to be the omission of that degree of diligence which is
contractual relation between PSBA and Bautista. In required by the nature of the obligation and
other words, a contractual relation is a condition sine corresponding to the circumstances of persons, time
qua non to the school's liability. The negligence of the and place. 9
school cannot exist independently of the contract,
unless the negligence occurs under the circumstances As the proceedings a quo have yet to commence on
set out in Article 21 of the Civil Code. the substance of the private respondents' complaint,
the record is bereft of all the material facts. Obviously,
This Court is not unmindful of the attendant difficulties at this stage, only the trial court can make such a
posed by the obligation of schools, above-mentioned, determination from the evidence still to unfold.
for conceptually a school, like a common carrier,
cannot be an insurer of its students against all risks. WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the
This is specially true in the populous student petition is DENIED. The court of origin (RTC, Manila, Br.
communities of the so-called "university belt" in Manila 47) is hereby ordered to continue proceedings
where there have been reported several incidents consistent with this ruling of the Court. Costs against
ranging from gang wars to other forms of hooliganism. the petitioners.
It would not be equitable to expect of schools to
anticipate all types of violent trespass upon their SO ORDERED.
premises, for notwithstanding the security measures