EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-29025. October 4, 1971.]

Spouses MOISES P. PALISOC and BRIGIDA P. PALISOC ,

plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ANTONIO C, BRILLANTES and
TEODOSIO V. VALENTON, owner and President,
respectively, of a school of arts and trades, known under
the name and style of "Manila Technical Institute" (M.I.T.),
VIRGILIO L. DAFFON and SANTIAGO M. QUIBULUE,
defendants-appellees.

Leovollo C . Agustin for plaintiffs-appellants.

Honorato S. Reyes for appellee Brillantes, et al., Villareal, Almacen,
Navarra, and Amares for appellee Daffon.

SYLLABUS

1. CIVIL LAW; QUASI-DELICT; LIABILITY OF SCHOOL HEADS AND

TEACHERS FOR TORTIOUS ACTS OF STUDENTS; RATIONALE. — The rationale
of such liability of school heads and teachers for the tortious acts of their
pupils and students, so long as they remain in their custody, is that they
stand, to a certain extent, as to their pupils and students, in loco parentis
and are called upon to "exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of
the child" This is expressly provided for in Articles 349, 350 and 352 of the
Civil Code. In the law of torts, the governing principle is that the protective
custody of the school heads and teachers is mandatorily substituted for that
of the parents, and hence, it becomes their obligation as well as that of the
school itself to provide proper supervision of the students' activities during
the whole time that they are at attendance in the school, including recess
time, as well as to take the necessary precautions to protect the students in
their custody from dangers and hazards that would reasonably be
anticipated, including injuries that some students themselves may inflict
willfully or through negligence on their fellow students.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE; BASIS. — The basis
of the presumption of negligence of Art. 1903 (now 2180)is some culpa in
vigilando that the parents, teachers, etc., are supposed to have incurred in
the exercise of their authority and where the parent places the child under
the effective authority of the teacher, the latter, and not the parent, should
be the one answerable for the torts committed while under his custody, for
the reason that the parent is not supposed to interfere with the discipline of
the school nor with the authority and supervision of the teacher while the
child is under instruction. The school itself, likewise, has to respond for the
fault or negligence of its school head and teachers under the same cited
article.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PHRASE "SO LONG AS STUDENTS REMAIN IN THEIR
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 CUSTODY," CONSTRUED. — The lower court therefore erred in law in
absolving defendants-school officials on the ground that they could be held
liable under Article 2180, Civil Code, only if the student who inflicted the
fatal fistblows on his classmate and victim "lived and boarded with his
teacher or the other defendants officials of the school." As stated above, the
phrase used in the cited article — "so long as (the students) remain in their
custody" means the protective and supervisory custody that the school and
its head and teachers exercise over the pupils and students for as long as
they are at attendance in the school, including recess time. There is nothing
in the law that requires that for such liability to attach, the pupil or student
who commits the tortious act must live an board in the school, as
erroneously held by the lower court, and the dicta in Mercado (as well as in
Exconde ) on which it relied, must now be deemed to have been set aside by
the present decision.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; OBSERVANCE OF DILIGENCE OF A GOOD FATHER OF
A FAMILY, VALID DEFENSE. — The unfortunate death resulting from the fight
between the protagonists-students could have been avoided, had said
defendants but complied with their duty of providing adequate supervision
over the activities of the students in the school premises to protect their
students from harm, whether at the hands of fellow students or other
parties. At any rate, the law holds them liable unless they relieve themselves
of such liability, in compliance with the last paragraph of Article 2180, Civil
Code, by "(proving) that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent damage." In the light of the factual findings of the lower
court's decision said defendants failed to prove such exemption from liability.
5. ID.; DAMAGES, COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR DEATH CAUSED
BY CRIME OR QUASI DELICT, P12,000.00 AS SET BY PEOPLE VS. PANTOJA . —
Plaintiffs-appellees' contention that the award of P6,000.00 as indemnity for
the death of their son should be increased to P12,000.00 as set by the Court
i n People vs . Pantoja (25 SCRA 468), and observed in all death indemnity
cases thereafter is well taken. The Court, in Pantoja, after noting the decline
in the purchasing power of the Philippine peso, had expressed its
"considered opinion that the amount of award of compensatory damages for
death caused by a crime or quasi-delict should now be P12,000.00." The
Court thereby adjusted the minimum amount of "compensatory damages for
death caused by a crime or quasi-delict" as per Article 2206, Civil Code, from
the old stated minimum of P3,000.00 to P12,000.00, which amount is to be
awarded "even though there may have been mitigating circumstances"
pursuant to the express provisions of said codal article.
6. ID.; ID.; EXEMPLARY DAMAGES; NOT GRANTED IN ABSENCE OF
GROSS NEGLIGENCE. — Decisive here is the touchstone provision of Article
2231, Civil Code, that "In quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted
if the defendant acted with gross negligence." No gross negligence on the
part of defendants was found by the trial court to warrant the imposition of
exemplary damages, as well as of interest and increased attorney's fees,
and the Court has not been shown in this appeal any compelling reason to
disturb such finding.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 REYES, J.B.L., J., concurring:
CIVIL LAW; QUASI-DELICT; CUSTODIAL SUPERVISION OF SCHOOLS
OVER PUPILS; AUTHORITY EXISTS REGARDLESS OF STUDENT'S AGE. — While
in the case of parents and guardians, their authority and supervision over the
children and wards end by law upon the latter reaching majority age, the
authority and custodial supervision over pupils exist regardless of the age of
the latter. A student over twenty-one, by enrolling and attending a school,
places himself under the custodial supervision and disciplinary authority of
the school authorities, which is the basis of the latter's correlative
responsibility for his torts, committed while under such authority. Of course,
the teachers' control is not a plenary as when the student is a minor; but
that circumstance can only affect the degree of the responsibility but cannot
negate the existence thereof. It is only a factor to be appreciated in
determining whether or not the defendant has exercised due diligence in
endeavoring to prevent the injury, as prescribed in the last paragraph of
Article 2180.
MAKALINTAL, J., dissenting:
1. CIVIL LAW; QUASI-DELICT; TEACHERS ARE LIABLE FOR TORTIOUS
ACTS OF STUDENTS LIVING AND BOARDING WITH THEM. — I see no reason
to depart from the doctrine laid down by this Court in Mercado vs. Court of
Appeals, 108 Phil. 414, where the clause, "so long as they remain in their
custody" used in Article 2180 of the Civil Code was construed as referring to
a " situation where the pupil lives and boards with the teacher, such that the
(latter's) control, direction and influence on the pupil supersedes those of
the parents." I think it is highly unrealistic and conducive to unjust results,
considering the size of the enrollment in many of our educational
institutions, academic and non-academic, as well as the temper, attitudes
and often destructive activism of the students, to hold their teachers and/or
the administrative heads of the schools directly liable for torts committed by
them.
2. ID.; ID.; TORTIOUS ACTS OF CHILDREN; PARENTS LIABLE
THEREFOR ONLY AS TO MINORS LIVING IN THEIR COMPANY. — For parental
responsibility to arise the children must be minors who live in their company.
If, as stated also in the opinion of the majority, "the rationale of (the) liability
of school heads and teachers for the tortious acts of their pupils and
students, so long as they remain in their custody, is that they stand, to a
certain extent, as to their pupils and students, in loco parentis and are called
upon to exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child," then
it stands to reason that (1) the clause "so long as they remain in their
custody" as used in reference to teachers and school heads should be
equated with the phrase "who live in their company" as used in reference to
parents; and (2) that just as parents are not responsible for damages caused
by their children who are no longer minors, so should teachers and school
heads be exempt from liability for the tortious acts of their students in the
same age category. I find no justification, either in the law itself or in justice
and equity, to make a substitute parent liable where the real parent would
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 be free from liability.

DECISION

TEEHANKEE, J : p

An appeal in forma pauperis on pure questions of law from a decision

of the Court of First Instance of Manila.
Plaintiffs-appellants as parents of their sixteen-year old son, Dominador
Palisoc, and a student in automotive mechanics at the Manila Technical
Institute, Quezon Boulevard, Manila, had filed on May 19, 1966, the action
below for damages arising from the death on March 10, 1966 of their son at
the hands of a fellow student, defendant Virgilio L. Daffon, at the laboratory
room of the said Institute.
Defendants, per the trial court's decisions are: "(T)he defendant
Antonio C. Brillantes, at the time when the incident which gave rise to his
action occurred was a member of the Board of Directors of the institute; 1
the defendant Teodosio Valenton, the president thereof; the defendant
Santiago M. Quibulue, instructor of the class to which the deceased
belonged; and the defendant Virgilio L. Daffon, a fellow student of the
deceased. At the beginning the Manila Technical Institute was a single
proprietorship, but lately on August 2, 1962, it was duly incorporated."
The facts that led to the tragic death of plaintiffs' son were thus
narrated by the trial court: "(T)he deceased Dominador Palisoc and the
defendant Virgilio L. Daffon were classmates, and on the afternoon of March
10, 1966, between two and three o'clock, they, together with another
classmate Desiderio Cruz were in the laboratory room located on the ground
floor. At that time the classes were in recess. Desiderio Cruz and Virgilio L.
Daffon were working on a machine while Dominador Palisoc was merely
looking on at them. Daffon made a remark to the effect that Palisoc was
acting like a foreman. Because of this remark Palisoc slapped slightly Daffon
on the face. Daffon, in retaliation, gave Palisoc a strong flat blow on the face,
which was followed by other fist blows on the stomach. Palisoc retreated
apparently to avoid the fist blows, but Daffon followed him and both
exchanged blows until Palisoc stumbled on an engine block which caused
him to fall face downward. Palisoc became pale and fainted. First aid was
administered to him but he was not revived, so he was immediately taken to
a hospital. He never regained consciousness; finally he died. The foregoing is
the substance of the testimony of Desiderio Cruz, the lone witness to the
incident."
The trial court expressly gave credence to this version of the incident,
as testified to by the lone eyewitness, Desiderio Cruz, a classmate of the
protagonists, as that of a disinterested witness who "has no motive or
reason to testify one way or another in favor of any party" and rejected the
self-exculpatory version of defendant Daffon denying that he had inflicted
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 any fist blows on the deceased.
With the postmortem findings of Dr. Angelo Singian of the Manila Police
Department who performed the autopsy re "Cause of death: shock due to
traumatic fracture of the ribs (6th and 7th, left, contusion of the pancreas
and stomach with intra-gastric hemorrhage and slight subarachnoid
hemorrhage on the brain," and his testimony that these internal injuries of
the deceased were caused "probably by strong fist blows," 2 the trial court
found defendant Daffon liable for the quasi delict under Article 2176 of the
Civil Code. 3 It held that "(T)he act, therefore, of the accused Daffon in giving
the deceased strong fistblows in the stomach which ruptured his internal
organs and caused his death falls within the purview of this article of the
Code." 4
The trial court, however, absolved from liability the three other
defendants-officials of the Manila Technical Institute, in this wise:
". . . Their liabilities are based on the provisions of Article 2180 of
the New Civil Code which reads:

'Art. 2180. . . .
'Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades
shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students and
apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.'

"In the opinion of the Court, this article of the Code is not
applicable to the case at bar, since this contemplates the situation
where the control or influence of the teachers and heads of school
establishments over the conduct and actions by the pupil supersedes
those of the parents.

'CIVIL LAW: DAMAGES ART 2180. NEW CIVIL CODE CONSTRUED:

— The clause 'so long as they remain in their custody' contained in
Article 2180 of the new civil code contemplated a situation where the
pupil lives and boards with the teacher, such that the control or
influence on the pupil supersedes those of the parents. In those
circumstances the control or influence over the conduct and actions of
the pupil as well as the responsibilities for their sort would pass from
the father and mother to the teachers. (Ciriaco L. Mercado, Petitioner,
vs. the Court of Appeals, Manuel Quisumbing, Jr., et al., respondents,
G.R. No. L-14862, May 30, 1960).' 5
"There is no evidence that the accused Daffon lived and boarded
with his teacher or the other defendant officials of the school. These
defendants cannot therefore be made responsible for the tort of the
defendant Daffon."

Judgment was therefore rendered by the trial court as follows:

"1. Sentencing the defendant Virgilio L. Daffon to pay the
plaintiffs as heirs of the deceased Dominador Palisoc (a) P6,000.00 for
the death of Dominador Palisoc; (b) P3,375.00 for actual and
compensatory expenses; (c) P5,000.00 for moral damages; (d)
P10,000.00 for loss of earning power, considering that the deceased
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 was only between sixteen and seventeen years, and in good health
when he died, and (e) P2,000.00 for attorney's fee, plus the costs of
this action.
"2. Absolving the other defendants.

"3. Dismissing the defendants' counterclaim for lack of

merit."

Plaintiffs' appeal raises the principal legal question that under the
factual findings of the trial court, which are now beyond review, the trial
court erred in absolving the defendants-school officials instead of holding
them jointly and severally liable as tortfeasors, with defendant Daffon, for
the damages awarded them as a result of their son's death. The Court finds
the appeal, in the main, to be meritorious.
1. The lower court absolved defendants-school officials on the
ground that the provisions of Article 2180, Civil Code, which expressly hold
"teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades . . . liable for
damages caused by their pupils and students and apprentices, so long as
they remain in their custody," are not applicable to the case at bar, since
"there is no evidence that the accused Daffon [who inflicted the fatal
fistblows] 6 lived and boarded with his teacher or the other defendants-
officials of the school. These defendants cannot therefore be made
responsible for the tort of the defendant Daffon."
The lower court based its legal conclusion expressly on the Court's
dictum in Mercado vs. Court of Appeals, 7 that " (I) t would seem that the
clause 'so long as they remain in their custody,' contemplates a situation
where the pupil lives and boards with the teacher, such that the control,
direction and influence on the pupil supersedes those of the parents. In
these circumstances the control or influence over the conduct and actions of
the pupil would pass from the father and mother to the teacher; and so
would the responsibility for the torts of the pupil. Such a situation does not
appear in the case at bar; the pupils appear to go to school during school
hours and go back to their homes with their parents after school is over."
This dictum had been made in rejecting therein petitioner-father's contention
that his minor son's school, Lourdes Catholic School at Kanlaon, Quezon City
[which was not a party to the case] should be held responsible, rather than
him as father, for the moral damages of P2,000.00 adjudged against him for
the physical injury inflicted by his son on a classmate. [A cut on the right
cheek with a piece of razor which cost only P50.00 by way of medical
expenses to treat and cure, since the wound left no scar.] The moral
damages award was after all set aside by the Court on the ground that none
of the specific cases provided in Article 2219, Civil Code, for awarding moral
damages had been established, petitioner's son being only nine years old
and not having been shown to have "acted with discernment" in inflicting the
injuries on his classmate.
The dictum in Mercado was based in turn on another dictum in the
earlier case of Exconde vs. Capuno, 8 where the only issue involved as
expressly stated in the decision, was whether the therein defendant-father
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 could be held civilly liable for damages resulting from a death caused in a
motor vehicle accident driven unauthorizedly and negligently by his minor
son, (which issue was resolved adversely against the father). Nevertheless,
the dictum in such earlier case that "It is true that under the law above-
quoted, 'teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for any damage
caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody, but
this provision only all applies to an institution of arts and trades and not to
any academic educational institution" was expressly cited and quoted in
Mercado.
2. The case at bar was instituted directly against the school officials
and squarely raises the issue of liability of teachers and heads of schools
under Article 2180, Civil Code, for damages caused by their pupils and
students against fellow students on the school premises. Here, the parents
of the student at fault, defendant Daffon, are not involved, since Daffon was
already of age at the time of the tragic incident. There is no question, either,
that the school involved is a non-academic school, 9 the Manila Technical
Institute being admittedly a technical vocational and industrial school.
The Court holds that under the cited codal article, defendants head and
teacher of the Manila Technical Institute (defendants Valenton and Quibulue,
respectively) are liable jointly and severally for damages to plaintiffs-parents
for the death of the latter's minor son at the hands of defendant Daffon at
the school's laboratory room. No liability attaches to defendant Brillantes as
a mere member of the school's board of directors. The school itself cannot
be held similarly liable, since it has not been properly impleaded as party
defendant. While plaintiffs sought to so implead it, by impleading improperly
defendant Brillantes, its former single proprietor, the lower court found that
it had been incorporated since August 2, 1962, and therefore the school
itself, as thus incorporated, should have been brought in as party defendant.
Plaintiffs failed to do so, notwithstanding that Brillantes and his co-
defendants in their reply to plaintiffs' request for admission had expressly
manifested and made of record that "defendant Antonio C. Brillantes is not
the registered owner/head of the 'Manila Technical Institute' which is now a
corporation and is not owned by any individual person." 10
3. The rationale of such liability of school heads and teachers for
the tortious acts of their pupils and students, so long as they remain in their
custody, is that they stand, to a certain extent, as to their pupils and
students, in loco parentis and are called upon to "exercise reasonable
supervision over the conduct of the child." 11 This is expressly provided for in
Articles 349, 350 and 352 of the Civil Code. 12 In the law of torts, the
governing principle is that the protective custody of the school heads and
teachers is mandatorily substituted for that of the parents, and hence, it
becomes their obligation as well as that of the school itself to provide proper
supervision of the students' activities during the whole time that they are at
attendance in the school, including recess time, as well as to take the
necessary precautions to protect the students in their custody from dangers
and hazards that would reasonably be anticipated, including injuries that
some student themselves may inflict willfully or through negligence on their
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 fellow students.

4. As tersely summarized by Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes in his

dissenting opinion in Exconde, "the basis of the presumption of negligence of
Art. 1903 [now 2180] is some culpa in vigilando that the parents, teachers,
etc. are supposed to have incurred in the exercise of their authority" 13 and
"where the parent places the child under the effective authority of the
teacher, the latter, and not the parent, should be the one answerable for the
torts committed while under his custody, for the very reason that the parent
is not supposed to interfere with the discipline of the school nor with the
authority and supervision of the teacher while the child is under instruction "
The school itself, likewise, has to respond for the fault or negligence of its
school head and teachers under the same cited article. 14
5. The lower court therefore erred in law in absolving defendants-
school officials on the ground that they could be held liable under Article
2180, Civil Code, only if the student who inflicted the fatal fistblows on his
classmate and victim "lived and boarded with his teacher or the other
defendants officials of the school." As stated above, the phrase used in the
cited article — "so long as (the students) remain in their custody" means the
protective and supervisory custody that the school and its heads and
teachers exercise over the pupils and students for as long as they are at
attendance in the school, including recess time. There is nothing in the law
that requires that for such liability to attach, the pupil or student who
commits the tortious act must live and board in the school, as erroneously
held by the lower court, and the dicta in Mercado (as well as in Exconde ) on
which it relied, must now be deemed to have been set aside by the present
decision.
6. Defendants Valenton and Quibulue as president and teacher-in-
charge of the school must therefore be held jointly and severally liable for
the quasi-delict of their co-defendant Daffon in the latter's having caused the
death of his classmate, the deceased Dominador Palisoc. The unfortunate
death resulting from the fight between the protagonists-students could have
been avoided, had said defendants but complied with their duty of providing
adequate supervision over the activities of the students in the school
premises to protect their students from harm, whether at the hands of fellow
students or other parties. At any rate, the law holds them liable unless they
relieve themselves of such liability, in compliance with the last paragraph of
Article 2180, Civil Code, by "(proving) that they observed all the diligence of
a good father of a family to prevent damage." In the light of the factual
findings of the lower court's decision, said defendants failed to prove such
exemption from liability.
7. Plaintiffs-appellees' contention that the award of P6,000.00 as
indemnity for the death of their son should be increased to P12,000.00 as set
by the Court in People vs. Pantoja, 15 and observed in all death indemnity
cases thereafter is well taken. The Court, in Pantoja, after noting the decline
in the purchasing power of the Philippine peso, had expressed its
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 "considered opinion that the amount of award of compensatory damages for
death caused by a crime or quasi-delict should now be P12,000.00." The
Court thereby adjusted the minimum amount of "compensatory damages for
death caused by a crime or quasi-delict" as per Article 2206, Civil Code, from
the old stated minimum of P3,000.00 to P12,000.00, which amount is to be
awarded "even though there may have been mitigating circumstances"
pursuant to the express provisions of said codal article.
8. Plaintiffs-appellees' other claims on appeal that the lower court
should have awarded exemplary damages and imposed legal interest on the
total damages awarded, besides increasing the award of attorney's fees all
concern matters that are left by law to the discretion of the trial court and
the Court has not been shown any error or abuse in the exercise of such
discretion on the part of the trial court 16 Decisive here is the touchstone
provision of Article 2231, Civil Code, that "In quasi-delicts, exemplary
damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence." No
gross negligence on the part of defendants was found by the trial court to
warrant the imposition of exemplary damages, as well as of interest and
increased attorney's fees, and the Court has not been shown in this appeal
any compelling reason to disturb such finding.
ACCORDINGLY, the judgment appealed from is modified so as to
provide as follows:
1. Sentencing the defendants Virgilio L. Daffon, Teodosio V.
Valenton and Santiago M. Quibulue jointly and severally to pay plaintiffs as
heirs of the deceased Dominador Palisoc (a) P12,000.00 for the death of
Dominador Palisoc; (b) P3,375.00 for actual and compensatory expenses; (c)
P5,000.00 for moral damages; (d) P10,000.00 for less of earning power and
(e) P2,000 00 for attorney's fee, plus the costs of this action in both
instances; 2. absolving defendant Antonio C. Brillantes from the complaint;
and 3. dismissing defendants' counterclaims.
Concepcion, C .J ., Villamor and Makasiar, JJ ., concur.
Dizon, J ., took no part.

Separate Opinions
REYES, J.B.L., J ., concurring:

I concur with the opinion of Mr. Justice Teehankee but would like to
clarify that the judgment of the dissenting opinion to the effect that the
responsibility of teachers and school officers under Article 2180 should be
limited to pupils who are minors (below the age of majority) is not in accord
with the plain text of the law. Article 2180 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
is to the following effect:
"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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 "The father and, in case of his death or incapacity the mother,
are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live
in their company.
"Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or
incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their
company.
"The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are
likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the
service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the
occasion of their functions.
"Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their
employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry.
"The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a
special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the
official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is
provided in article 2176 shall be applicable.
"Last, 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.
"The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the
persons herein mentioned prove that they observe all the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent damages.

Examination of the article shows that where the responsibility

prescribed therein is limited to illegal acts during minority, the article
expressly so provides, as in the case of the parents and of the guardians. It
is natural to expect that if the law had intended to similarly restrict the civil
responsibility of the other categories of persons enumerated in the article, it
would have expressly so stated. The fact that it has not done so indicates an
intent that the liability be not restricted to the case of persons under age.
Further, it is not without significance that the teachers and heads of
scholarly establishments are not grouped with parents and guardians but
ranged with owners and managers of enterprises, employers and the state,
as to whom no reason is discernible to imply that they should answer only
for minors.
Giorgi, in his well-known "Teoria de las Obligaciones en el Derecho
Moderno", Volume 5, page 404, No. 272 (Sp. Ed.), after noting the split
among commentators on the point at issue, observes with considerable
cogency that —
"272. Ante esta variedad de opiniones, ninguna de las cuales
se funda en argumentos merecedores de seria ponderacion, no es f cil
tomar un partido. Esto no obstante, debiendo manifestar nuestra
opinion, nos acercamos la de los que no estiman necesaria la menor
edad del discipulo o del aprendiz; porque si el aforismo ubi voluit dixit,
ubi noluit tacuity, no es siempre argumento seguro para interpretar la
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 le, es infalible cuanto se refiere una misma disposicion relativa varios
casos. Y tal es el art. 1.153. Lo que haya establecido importa poco si,
elev ndones los principios de razon, puede dudarse de la oportunidad
de semajante diferencia; porque la voluntad cierta del legislador
prevalece in iure condito cualquier otra consideracion. Por otra parte,
si bien se considera, no puede parecer extraño o absurdo el suponer
que un discipulo y un aprendiz, aunque mayores de edad, acepten
voluntariamente la entera vigilancia de su preceptor mientras dura la
educacion. Ni parece dudoso desde el momento que los artesanos y los
preceptores deben, al par de los padres, responder civilmente de los
daños comitidos por sus discipulos, aun cuando estos estn faltos de
discernimiento."

Similarly, Planiol-Ripert, in their "Droit Civil Pratique," Volume VI, No.

635 (Spanish version), say that —
"635. Personas de quin responde. — Si bien la responsibilidad
del maestro es originalmente una estensi"n de la de los padres (1), el
art. 1384 no especifica que los alumnos y aprendices han de ser
menores de edad, por lo que la presuncion de culpa funcionar aun
cuando sean mayores (2); pero, la vigilancia no tendra que ser ejercida
en iguales terminos. Aun respecto a los menores variar segun la edad,
extremo que tendr que tenerse en cuenta a los fines de apreciar si el
maestro ha podido impedir el acto nocivo o no.

I submit, finally, that while in the case of parents and guardians, their
authority and supervision over the children and wards end by law upon the
latter reaching majority age, the authority and custodial supervision over
pupils exist regardless of the age of the latter. A student over twenty-one, by
enrolling and attending a school, places himself under the custodial
supervision and disciplinary authority of the school authorities, which is the
basis of the latter's correlative responsibility for his torts, committed while
under such authority. Of course, the teachers' control is not as plenary as
when the student is a minor; but that circumstance can only affect the
degree of the responsibility but cannot negate the existence thereof. It is
only a factor to be appreciated in determining whether or not the defendant
has exercised due diligence in endeavoring to prevent the injury, as
prescribed in the last paragraph of Article 2180.

MAKALINTAL, J ., dissenting:

I vote to affirm the decision appealed from. I see no reason to depart

from the doctrine laid down by this Court in Mercado v. Court of Appeals, 108
Phil. 414, where the clause "so long as they remain in their custody" used in
Article 2180 of the Civil Code was construed as referring to a "situation
where the pupil lives and boards with the teacher, such that the (latter's)
control, direction and influence on the pupil supersedes those of the
parents." I think it is highly unrealistic and conducive to unjust results,
considering the size of the enrollment in many of our educational
institutions, academic and non-academic, as well as the temper, attitudes
and often destructive activism of the students, to hold their teachers and/or
the administrative heads of the schools directly liable for torts committed by
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 them. When even the school authorities find themselves besieged,
beleaguered and attacked, and unable to impose the traditional disciplinary
measures formerly recognized as available to them, such as suspension or
outright expulsion of the offending students, it flies in the face of logic and
reality to consider such students, merely from the fact of enrollment and
class attendance, as "in the custody" of the teachers or school heads within
the meaning of the statute, and to hold the latter liable unless they can
prove that they have exercised "all the diligence of a good father of the
family to prevent damage." Article 2180, if applied as appellants construe it,
would be bad law. It would demand responsibility without commensurate
authority, rendering teachers and school heads open to damage suits for
causes beyond their power to control. Present conditions being what they
are, I believe the restrictive interpretation of the aforesaid provision
enunciated in Mercado should be maintained.
With particular reference to the case at bar, one other factor constrains
me to dissent. The opinion of the majority states: "Here, the parents of the
student at fault, defendant Daffon, are not involved, since Daffon was
already of age at the time of the tragic incident." This statement is of course
in accordance with Article 2180, which says that "the father and, in case of
his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused
by the minor children who live in their company." Note that for parental
responsibility to arise the children must be minors who live in their company.
If, as stated also in the opinion of the majority, "the rationale of (the) liability
of school heads and teachers for the tortious acts of their pupils and
students, so long as they remain in their custody, is that they stand, to a
certain extent, as to their pupils and students, in loco parentis and are called
upon to exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child," then
it stands to reason that (1) the clause "so long as they remain in their
custody" as used in reference to teachers and school heads should be
equated with the phrase "who live in their company" as used in reference to
parents; and (2) that just as parents are not responsible for damages caused
by their children who are no longer minors, so should teachers and school
heads be exempt from liability for the tortious acts of their students in the
same age category. I find no justification, either in the law itself or in justice
and equity, to make a substitute parent liable where the real parent would
be free from liability.
Zaldivar, Castro and Fernando, JJ ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Per allegations of the complaint and as indicated in the title of the case.
Brillantes was made defendant as "registered owner/head under Act No.
3883" of the Manila Technical Institute.

2. Notes in parentheses supplied from other portions of autopsy report.

3. ART, 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there

being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this
Chapter. (1902a) ."

4. Per the decision also, defendant Daffon had been charged for homicide for
the death in Criminal Case No. 82419 and was "acquitted on reasonable
doubt."
5. Reported in 108 Phil. 414.

6. Note in brackets supplied.

7. 108 Phil. 414 (May 1960).

8. 101 Phil. 843 (June 29, 1957), a six-to-three decision.

9. The writer concurs with the views expressed in the dissenting opinion of Mr.
Justice J.B.L. Reyes in Exconde [concurred in by Justices Padilla and A. Reyes]
that "(I) can see no sound reason for limiting Art. 1903 of the old Civil Code
to teachers of arts and trades and not to academic ones What substantial
difference is there between them in so far as concerns the proper supervision
and vigilance over their pupils. It cannot be seriously contended that an
academic teacher is exempt from the duty of watching that his pupils do not
commit a tort to the detriment of third persons, so long as they are in a
position to exercise authority and supervision over the pupil." However, since
the school involved at bar is a non-academic school, the question as to the
applicability of the cited codal provision to academic institutions will have to
await another case wherein it may properly be raised.

10. Rollo, page, 47.

11. Art. 350, Civil Code.

12. Art. 349, Civil Code enumerates: "(2) Teachers and professors" and "(4)
directors of trade establishments, with regard to apprentices" among those
who "shall exercise substitute parental authority." Art. 352, Civil Code
provides that "The relation between teacher and pupil, professor and
student, are fixed by government regulations and those of each school or
institution. . . ."

13. Tolentino expresses a similar opinion: "Teachers: — In order to be within

this provision, a teacher must not only be charged with teaching but also
vigilance over their students or pupils. They include teachers in educational
institutions of all kinds, whether for the intellect, the spirit, or the body;
teachers who give instruction in classes or by individuals, even in their own
homes; teachers in institutions for deficient or abandoned children, and
those in correctional institutions."

14. "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. . . .

"Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and
household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even
though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
"xxx xxx xxx
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 15. 25 SCRA, 468, (Oct. 11, 1968).

16. See Arts. 2231, 2211 and 2208, Civil Code.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com