SJC v.

Miranda

On November 17, 1994, at around 1:30 in the afternoon inside St. Joseph College's [SJC's] premises, the class to which
Jayson Val Miranda belonged was conducting a science experiment about fusion of sulphur powder and iron filings
under the tutelage of Rosalinda Tabugo, she being the subject teacher and employee of SJC. The adviser of Jayson's class
is . . . Estefania Abdan. Tabugo left her class while it was doing the experiment without having adequately secured it
from any untoward incident or occurrence. In the middle of the experiment, Jayson, who was the assistant leader of one of
the class groups, checked the result of the experiment by looking into the test tube with magnifying glass. The test tube
was being held by one of his group mates who moved it close and towards the eye of [Jayson]. At that instance, the
compound in the test tube spurted out and several particles of which hit [Jayson's] eye and the different parts of the bodies
of some of his group mates. As a result thereof, Jayson's eyes were chemically burned, particularly his left eye, for which
he had to undergo surgery and had to spend for his medication.

Jayson sent a demand letter to petitioners for the payment of his medical expenses as well as other expenses incidental
thereto, which the latter failed to heed. Hence, Jayson was constrained to file the complaint for damages. Petitioners,
therefore, should likewise compensate Jayson for litigation expenses, including attorney's fees.

On the other hand, petitioners alleged that before the science experiment was conducted, [Jayson] and his classmates were
given strict instructions to follow the written procedure for the experiment and not to look into the test tube until the
heated compound had cooled off. [Jayson], however, a person of sufficient age and discretion and completely capable of
understanding the English language and the instructions of his teacher, without waiting for the heated compound to cool
off, as required in the written procedure for the experiment and as repeatedly explained by the teacher, violated such
instructions and took a magnifying glass and looked at the compound, which at that moment spurted out of the test tube, a
small particle hitting one of Jayson's eyes.

Jayson was rushed by the school employees to the school clinic and thereafter transferred to St. Luke's Medical Center for
treatment. At the hospital, when Tabago visited [Jayson], the latter cried and apologized to his teacher for violating her
instructions not to look into the test tube until the compound had cooled off. After the treatment, [Jayson] was pronounced
ready for discharge and an eye test showed that his vision had not been impaired or affected.

The parents of [Jayson], through counsel, wrote SJC a letter demanding that it should shoulder all the medical expenses of
[Jayson] that had been incurred and will be incurred further arising from the accident caused by the science experiment. In
a letter, the counsel for SJC explained that the school cannot accede to the demand because "the accident occurred by
reason of Jayson's failure to comply with the written procedure for the experiment and his teacher's repeated warnings and
instruction that no student must face, much less look into, the opening of the test tube until the heated compound has
cooled. Since SJC did not accede to the demand, Rodolfo, Jayson's father, on Jayson's behalf, sued petitioners for
damages.

The RTC rendered judgment in favor of Jayson and against petitioners. The CA affirmed in toto the ruling of the RTC.
Petitioners appealed by certiorari to this Court, adamant that the CA grievously erred.

WON the teacher, adviser, and the school should be held solidarily liable--YES

The SC found no reason to depart from the uniform rulings of the lower courts that petitioners were negligent since they
all failed to exercise the required reasonable care, prudence, caution and foresight to prevent or avoid injuries to
the students.

Both courts correctly concluded that the immediate and proximate cause of the accident which caused injury to
Jayson was the sudden and unexpected explosion of the chemicals, independent of any intervening cause. The
assailed Decision of the CA quotes with favor the RTC decision, thus:

In this case, [petitioners] failed to show that the negligence of [Jayson] was the proximate cause of the latter's injury. We
find that the immediate cause of the accident was not the negligence of Jayson when he curiously looked into the test tube
when the chemicals suddenly exploded which caused his injury, but the sudden and unexpected explosion of the chemicals
independent of any intervening cause. Petitioners could have prevented the mishap if they exercised a higher degree of
care, caution and foresight. The court a quo correctly ruled that:

"All of the petitioners are equally at fault and are liable for negligence because all of them are responsible for exercising
the required reasonable care, prudence, caution and foresight to prevent or avoid injuries to the students. The individual
petitioners are persons charged with the teaching and vigilance over their students as well as the supervision and ensuring
of their well-being. Based on the facts presented, these petitioners were remiss in their responsibilities and lacking in the
degree of vigilance expected of them. It was unnatural in the ordinary course of events that Jayson was brought to the
school clinic for immediate treatment not by subject teacher Rosalinda Tabugo but by somebody else. The Court is
inclined to believe that Tabugo was not inside the classroom at the time the accident happened. Abdan is equally at fault as
the subject adviser or teacher in charge because she exercised control and supervision over Tabugo and the students
themselves. It was her obligation to insure that nothing would go wrong and that the science experiment would be
conducted safely and without any harm or injury to the students. Sr. Ambatali is likewise culpable under the doctrine of
command responsibility because the other individual petitioners were under her direct control and supervision. The
negligent acts of the petitioners were done within the scope of their assigned tasks.

"The defense of due diligence of a good father of a family raised by St. Joseph College will not exculpate it from liability
because it has been shown that it was guilty of inexcusable laxity in the supervision of its teachers (despite an apparent
rigid screening process for hiring) and in the maintenance of what should have been a safe and secured environment
for conducting dangerous experiments. The school is still liable for the wrongful acts of the teachers and employees
because it had full information on the nature of dangerous science experiments but did not take affirmative steps to
avert damage and injury to students.

Petitioners were negligent by failing to exercise the higher degree of care, caution and foresight incumbent upon the
school, its administrators and teachers.

Article 218 of the Family Code, in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code, bestows special parental authority on the
following persons with the corresponding obligation, thus:

Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution engaged in child care
shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision,
instruction or custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the
school, entity or institution.
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but
also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
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.

Petitioners' negligence and failure to exercise the requisite degree of care and caution is demonstrated by the
following:
1. Petitioner school did not take affirmative steps to avert damage and injury to its students although it had
full information on the nature of dangerous science experiments conducted by the students during class;
2. Petitioner school did not install safety measures to protect the students who conduct experiments in class;
3. Petitioner school did not provide protective gears and devices, specifically goggles, to shield students from
expected risks and dangers; and
4. Petitioner Tabugo was not inside the classroom the whole time her class conducted the experiment,
specifically, when the accident involving Jayson occurred. In any event, the size of the class — 50 students
— conducting the experiment is difficult to monitor.

Moreover, petitioners cannot simply deflect their negligence and liability by insisting that petitioner Tabugo gave specific
instructions to her science class not to look directly into the heated compound. Neither does our ruling in St. Mary's
preclude their liability in this case.

Unfortunately for petitioners, St. Mary's is not in point. In that case, respondents thereat admitted the documentary
exhibits establishing that the cause of the accident was a mechanical defect and not the recklessness of the minor, James
Daniel II, in driving the jeep.

In marked contrast, both the lower courts similarly concluded that the mishap which happened during the science
experiment was foreseeable by the school, its officials and teachers. This neglect in preventing a foreseeable injury
and damage equates to neglect in exercising the utmost degree of diligence required of schools, its administrators
and teachers, and, ultimately, was the proximate cause of the damage and injury to Jayson. As we have held in St.
Mary's, "for petitioner [St. Mary's Academy] to be liable, there must be a finding that the act or omission considered as
negligent was the proximate cause of the injury caused because the negligence must have a causal connection to the
accident."
As regards the contributory negligence of Jayson, we see no need to disturb the lower courts' identical rulings thereon:

As earlier discussed, the proximate cause of Jayson's injury was the explosion of the heated compound independent of any
efficient intervening cause. The negligence on the part of Tabugo in not making sure that the science experiment was
correctly conducted was the proximate cause or reason why the heated compound exploded and injured not only Jayson
but his classmates as well. However, Jayson is partly responsible for his own injury, hence, he should not be entitled
to recover damages in full but must likewise bear the consequences of his own negligence . Petitioners, therefore,
should be held liable only for the damages actually caused by their negligence.

Lastly, given our foregoing ruling, we likewise affirm the lower courts' award of actual and moral damages, and grant of
attorney's fees. The denial of petitioners' counterclaim is also in order.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 68367 is AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioners.