ST. JOSEPHS COLLEGE, SR.

JOSEPHINI AMBATALI, SFIC, AND ROSALINDA TABUGO, petitioners

vs.
JAYSON MIRANDA, REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER, RODOLFO S. MIRANDA, respondent
G.R. 182353, June 29, 2010

FACTS:
- November 17, 1994, 1:30PM, inside SJCs premises, the class to which Jayson Miranda (a sixth-grader)
belonged was conducting a science experiment about fusion of sulphur powder and iron fillings under the tutelage
of petitioner Rosalinda Tabugo, she being the subject teacher and employee of SJC. The adviser of Jayson 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 Jason. At that instance, the
compound in the test tube spurted out and several particles of which hit Jaysons eye and the different parts of the
bodies of some of his group mates. As a result thereof, Jaysons eyes were chemically burned, particularly his left
eye, for which he had to undergo surgery and had to spend for his medication.
- Upon learning of the incident and because of the need for finances, Jaysons mother, who was working abroad,
had to rush back home for which she spent P36,070.00 for her fares, and had to forego her salary from November
23 December 26, 1994, in the amount of at least P40,000.00.
- Jayson and his parents suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish and wounded feelings as a result of his injury
due to petitioners fault and failure to exercise the degree of care and diligence upon each one of them.
- 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.
- On the other hand, petitioners alleged that before the science experiment was conducted, the class was 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 violated such instructions.
- Jayson was rushed by the school employees to the school clinic and thereafter transferred to St. Lukes Medical
Center for treatment.
- After the treatment, Jayson was pronounced ready for discharge and an eye test showed that his vision has not
been impaired or affected. In order to avoid additional hospital charges due to the delay in Jaysons discharge,
Jaysons father Rodolfo requested SJC to advance the amount of P26,176.35 (the hospital bill) until his wife could
arrive from abroad and pay back the money. SJC acceded to the request.
- On December 6, 1994, however, the parents of Jayson 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. SJC
refused, saying that the accident occurred by reason of Jaysons failure to comply with the written procedure for
the experiment and his teachers repeated warnings. Because of this, the Mirandas filed for an action for
damages against petitioners.
- RTC ruled in favor of the Mirandas, holding the petitioners jointly and solidarily liable to pay the amount of
P77.338.25 as actual damages. However, Jayson is odered to reimburse SJC the amount of P26,176.36
representing the advances given to pay the hospital expenses or to deduct said amount to the 77,338.25 by way
of compensation; P50,000 for moral damages; and P30,000 for attorneys fees. CA affirmed in toto.

ISSUE:
- WON the proximate cause of Jaysons injury was his own act of looking at the heated test tube, hence petitioners
shouldnt be held liable

HELD:
- NO.
- RTC: 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. Petitioners failed to show that the
negligence of Jayson was the proximate cause of the injury.
- Petitioners could have prevented the mishap if they exercised a higher degree of care, caution and foresight. 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 and prudence 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 their well-being. Based on the facts presented before this Court, they were remiss in their responsibilities
and lacking in the degree of vigilance expected of them.
- No evidence was presented to establish that Tabugo was inside the classroom for the whole duration of the
experiment. The Court is inclined to believe that Tabugo was NOT inside the classroom when the incident
happened. It was unnatural in the ordinary course of events that Jayson was brought to the school clinic for
immediate treatment not by Tabugo but by somebody else. Estefania Abdan is equally at fault as the subject
adviser 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 harm to the students. Sr. Josephini Ambatali is likewise culpable under the doctrine of
command responsibility because the other individual petitioners were under her direct control and supervision.
- It was 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.
- An educational institution may be held liable under the principle of RESPONDENT SUPERIOR. The liability of the
employer for the tortuous acts of negligence of its employees is primary and solidary, direct and immediate and
not conditioned upon the insolvency or prior recourse against the negligent employee.
- Proximate cause was the concurrent failure of petitioners to prevent the forseeable mishap that occurred during
the conduct of the science experiment. They 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 bestows special parental authority on the following persons with the corresponding
obligation, thus:
o FC 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.
- And as provided in Art. 2180:
o Art. 2180: The obligation imposed by Art 2176 is demandable not only for ones own acts or omissions,
but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
- 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 is demonstrated by the following:
o Petitioner school did not take affirmative steps to avert damage and injury to its students, although uit had
full information on the nature of dangerous science experiments conducted by the students during class;
o Petitioner school did not install safety measures to protect the students who conduct experiments in
class;
o Petitioner school did not provide protective gears and devices, especially goggles, to shield students from
expected risks and dangers; and
o Petitioner Tabugo was not inside the classroom the whole time her class conducted the experiment,
specifically when the accident involving Jayson occurred.
- The mishap which happened was forseeable by the school. This neglect in preventing a forseeable 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 regards the contributory negligence of Jayson, he should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must
likewise bear the consequences of his own negligence. Petitioners should be held liable only for the damages
actually caused by their negligence.
- Award of actual and moral damages, and attorneys fees affirmed.