Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Republic of The Philippines Court of Appeals National Capital Judicial Region Manila
Republic of The Philippines Court of Appeals National Capital Judicial Region Manila
COURT OF APPEALS
National Capital Judicial Region
Manila
SPS. JOSE INTON and MA. VICTORIA S. INTON, on behalf of their minor child
Jose Luis Inton
Plaintiff-Appellants
AQUINAS SCHOOL
Defendant-Appellee,
X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
I. THE PARTIES
This is an ordinary appeal under Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
filed by herein Plaintiff-Appellants Spouses Jose Inton and Ma. Victoria S. Inton on
behalf of their minor child Jose Luis Inton against defendant-appellee Aquinas School
seeking to MODIFY the Decision dated 26 January 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of
San Juan City, Branch 07, in the case entitled “Spouses Jose Inton and Ma. Victoria S.
Inton on behalf of their minor child Jose Luis Inton vs. Aquinas School and Sr.
Margarita Yamyamin”, docketed as Civil Case No. 145-M-2010.
In the said Decision, the court a quo rendered judgment in favor of the defendant-
appellee, with dispositive portion as follows:
Claim for moral and exemplary damages against Sr. Margarita Yamyamin are
hereby denied.
SO ORDERED.”
On July 14, 1998, while Yamyamin was writing on the blackboard, Jose Luis left
his assigned seat and went over to a classmate to play a joke for surprising him.
Yamyamin noticed this and sent Jose Luis back to his seat. After a while, Jose Luis got
up again and went over to the same classmate. This time, unable to tolerate the child’s
behavior, Yamyamin approached Jose Luis and kicked him on the legs several times.
She also pulled and shoved his head on the classmate’s seat. Finally, she told the child to
stay where he was on that spot of the room and finish copying the notes on the
blackboard while seated on the floor.
As a result of the incident, plaintiff-appellant Jose and Victoria Inton (the Intons)
filed an action for damages on behalf of their son Jose Luis against Yamyamin and
Aquinas before the Regional Trial Court of San Juan, City, Branch 10 dated 26 July
1998.
V. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
A) he Honorable Trial Court, committed reversible error in declaring defendant
Aquinas School NOT LIABLE for the injuries sustained by minor Jose Luis
while the latter was within the premises of the defendant school.
It is well-settled that schools have substituted parental authority over the minor
children who are currently registered/enrolled in their institution. Once they accept the
student a contract between them is created which contract is one impressed with public
interest. The moment the contract is perfected the school shall assume supervision and
instruction whenever it has custody over the child which is temporary in nature.
Subsequently, such duty shall include ensuring that the child’s welfare is its highest
priority.
In Philippine School of Business Administration v. Court of Appeals, the Court held
that:
“the school’s liability can arise from a breach in contract as when an educational
institution accepts students for enrolment, there exists a contract which is one
“imbued with public interest”. This contract produces bilateral obligations, and
one of the school’s obligations is to provide their students with an atmosphere
that is conducive in furthering their primary purpose which is to impart
knowledge.”
Hence, in this regard, Aquinas school fell short in satisfying its duty to ensure that
the minor over which it had custody thereof was provided the most conducive
atmosphere so as to facilitate the best means for learning. Aquinas therefore shall be
held liable on the ground of breach of its contractual relationship.
Before an educational institution be relieved from its liability over the act of its
teacher / employee, it must clearly and convincingly prove that it had exercised due
diligence to prevent the happening of the act complained of.
Art. 2188 of the Family Code was clear: The persons must prove that they have
observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
The diligence of a good father of a family requires only that diligence which an ordinary
prudent man would exercise.
In the case at bar, Aquinas shall not be held to have exercised the due diligence required
of it in terms of supervision over the teachers in its educational premises. It cannot
contend that since it has no employer-employee relationship with Yamyamin then it has
no duty to exercise diligence over its conduct. To rule otherwise will subject many minor
children into an atmosphere which may be inconsistent with what the law contemplates.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, plaintiff-appellants Spouses
Jose and Victoria Inton on behalf of Jose Luis Inton respectfully prays for this
Honorable Court that the Decision of the Honorable Regional Trial Court of San Juan
City, Branch 10 dated 26 January 2011 and the Order dated 17 March 2011 appealed
from and to MODIFY, in lieu thereof, the judgment be rendered to HOLD defendant-
appellee SOLIDARILY LIABLE with Sister Margarita Yamyamin and that the following
relief be granted in favor of plaintiff-appellants:
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
By:
EXPLANATION
Copies of the foregoing Formal Offer are served upon counsel of the defendant-
appellee and filed with the Court by personal service.