St. Francis High School vs. Court of Appeals

St. Francis High School vs.
Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 82465. February 25, 1991
Civil Law; Negligence; 4th paragraph Article 2180 of the Civil Code;When employer held
liable for the negligence of its employees; Rule.—Before an employer may be held liable for
the negligence of his employee,the act or omission which caused damage or prejudice must
have occurredwhile an employee was in the performance of his assigned tasks.
FACTS:
Ferdinand Castillo, a 13 years old fresh-manstudent of Section 1-C at the St. Francis
High School, join a school picnic undertaken by his class in Talaan Beach, Quezon. His
parents alleges that they did not allow their son to join but merely allowed him to bring food
to the teachers for the picnic. However, because of persuasion of the teachers, Ferdinand went
on with them to thebeach.
One of the female teachers was apparently drowning. Some of the students, including
Ferdinand, came to her rescue, but in the process, it was Ferdinand himself who drowned.
His parents filed a complaint for damages against incurred from the death of their son
against:
1. St. Francis High School, represented by thespouses Fernando Nantes and Rosario Lacan-
dula, Benjamin Illumin
2. The teachers: Tirso de Chaves, Luisito Vinas,Connie Arquio, Nida Aragones, Yoly Jaro, and
Patria Cadiz
The respdents alleges that the petitioners failed to exercise the proper diligence of a good
father of the family in preventing their son’s drowning.
The Trial Court:
Dismissed the case against the St.Francis High School, Benjamin Illumin and Aurora Cadorna.
Considering that there is insufficient evidence showing that the picnic was a school
sanctioned one.
Court of Appeals ruled:
The petitioner’s cannot escape liability on the mere excuse that the picnic was not an ‘extra-
curricu-lar activity of the St. FrancisHigh School.’ Since the school principal had knowledge of
the picnic even from its planning stage and had even been invited to attend the affair.
That teachers failed to exercise diligence in the supervision of the children during the picnic
and which failure resulted in the drowning of plaintiffs’son.
Under Article 2180, supra, the defendant school and defendant school principal must be
found jointly and severally liable with the defendants-teachers for the damages incurred by
the plaintiffs as a result of the death oftheir son.
And whetheror not the victim’s parents had given such permission to their son was
immaterial to the determination of the existence of liability on the part of thedefendants for
the damage incurred by the plaintiffs-appellants as a result of the death of their son.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the petitioner-teachers incurred negligence under Article 2176.

2. Whether St. Francis High School, represented by thespouses Fernando Nantes and Rosario
Lacan-dula, Benjamin Illumin is liable for damages pursuantto Article 2180.
HELD
1. Petitioners are neither guilty of their own negligence or guilty of the negligence of those
under them. The found that the respondent spouses, parents of the victim Ferdinand, allowed
their son to join the excursion.
Moreover, per testimony of of the therapist of one of the parent-spouse. He stated that the
patient herself felt guilty about the death of her son had she not allowed her son to join the
excursion her son would have not drowned
While it is true that respondents-spouses did give their consent to their son to join the picnic,
this does not mean that the petitioners were already relieved of their duty to observe the
required diligenceof a good father of a family in ensuring the safety of the children. But in the
case at bar,petitioners were able to prove that they had exercised the required diligence.
The court finds that Connie Arquio, the class adviser of I-C, the section where Ferdinand
belonged, did her best and exercised diligence of agood father of a family to prevent any
untoward incident. Connie invited co-petitioners Tirso de Chavez and Luisito Vinas who are
both P.E. instructors and scout masters who have knowledge in First Aid application and
swimming. The petitioner’s had life savers especially brought by thedefendants in case of
emergency and that Chavez and Vinas did all what is humanlypossible to save the child.
2. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals committed an error in applying Article 2180 of the Civil
Code in rendering petitioner school liable for the death of respondent’s son.
Under this paragraph, it is clear that before an employer may be held liable for the negligence
of his employee, the act or omission which caused damage or prejudice must have occurred
while an employee was in the performance of his assigned tasks.
In the case at bar, the teachers/petitioners were not in the actual performance of their
assigned tasks. The incident happened not within the school premises, not on a school day
and most importantly while the teachers and students were holding a purely private affair,
a picnic and because this picnic is not a school sanctioned activity neither is it considered
as an extra-curricular activity.
Mere knowledge bypetitioner/principal Illumin of the planning of the picnic by the students
and their teachers does not in any way or in any manner show acquiescence or consent to the
holding of the same.

St. Francis High School vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

St. Francis High School vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

St. Francis High School vs.

The Trial Court:

Court of Appeals ruled:

1. Whether the petitioner-teachers incurred negligence under Article 2176.

You might also like