Amadora v.

CA
G.R. No. L-47745 – April 15, 1988
J. Cruz

Topic: Persons vicariously liable – Under the Civil Code

Summary: Alfredo Amadora went to school to pass a physics report when he was shot by one of the other students. The
Court held that the heads of the school cannot be held liable for what had happened since basing on Art. 2180, only the
teacher-in-charge can be held liable for a tort committed by a student because the students are in his custody and
supervision, if the student is in the school for a legitimate purpose. In the case at bar, however, there was no specific
teacher-in-charge that could be held liable for what happened to Alfredo.

FACTS:
“Like any prospective graduate, Alfredo Amadora was looking forward to the commencement exercises where he would
ascend the stage and in the presence of his relatives and friends, receive his high school diploma… As it turned out, though,
fate would intervene and deny him that awaited experience…”
 April 13, 1972: Alfredo Amadora, a student at Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, was fatally shot in the school’s
auditorium by Pablito Daffon. Daffon was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence.
 The petitioners, the victim's parents, filed a civil action for damages under Article 2180 of the Civil Code against
the Colegio de San Jose Recoletos, its rector the high school principal, the dean of boys, and the physics teacher,
together with Daffon and two other students, through their respective parents.
 CFI Cebu: Held defendants liable for sum of P294,984.00, representing death compensation, loss of earning capacity,
costs of litigation, funeral expenses, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
 Court of Appeals: Reversed the decision and absolved the defendants. It said that Art 2180 was not applicable because
Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos was not a school of arts and trades but an academic institution of learning.
o It also held that the students were not in the custody of the school at the time of the incident as the semester
had already ended, that there was no clear identification of the fatal gun and that in any event the defendant,
had exercised the necessary diligence in preventing the injury.
 Petitioners:
o The kid was in school to present his physics experiment as a requisite to graduation as was therefore under
the supervision of the school
 Respondents:
o The kid only there to submit his physics assignment and is not under the supervision of the school cus the
sem ended na.
 Other important facts:
o April 7, 1972: Sergio Damaso, Jr., the dean of boys, confiscated from Jose Gumban an unlicensed pistol but
later returned it to him without making a report to the principal or taking any further action
o Gumban was one of the companions of Daffon when the latter fired the gun that killed Alfredo, the petitioners
contend that this was the same pistol that had been confiscated from Gumban and that their son would not
have been killed if it had not been returned by Damaso. The respondents say, however, that there is no proof
that the gun was the same firearm that killed Alfredo
o Three cases have been decided by the Court in connection with the interpretation of Art. 21801
 The Exconde Case:
o Dante Capuno was a student of Balintawake Elementary School. After attending a parade, he took a jeep,
took over its wheel and drove it so recklessly that it turned turtle, resulting in the death of two of its

1
Article 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.
(6) 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.
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage.
 passengers. Dante was found guilty of double homicide with reckless imprudence. His father was held
solidarily liable under (1903) now 2180 for the tort committed by the 15-year old boy.
o The decision exculpated the school in an obiter dictum because liability under the provision is only imposed
on (1) teachers in general; (2) heads of schools of arts and trades. The clause of “establishments of arts and
trades” should apply only to “heads” and not “teachers”
 The Mercado Case:
o Reiterated Exconde. A student cut a classmate with a razor blade during recess. The Court in another obiter
dictum held that the school was not liable because it was not an establishment of arts and trades.
o Moreover, the custody requirement had not proved the contemplation of “a situation where the student lives
and boards with the teacher, such that control, direction and influences on the pupil supersede those of the
parents”
 The Brillantes Case:
o A student was killed by a classmate with fist blows. Although the student was not living in the school, the
head and the teacher-in-charge were held solidarily liable with the student. Justice Teehankee stated:
“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… Nothing in the law states
that they must live and board in the school…”

ISSUES + HELD:
1. W/N Article 2180 covers even establishments which are not schools of arts and trades – YES
 The Court states that the provision should apply to all school, academic as well as non-academic.
o General Rule: Where the school is academic rather than technical or vocational, the tort committed by the
student will attach to the teacher-in-charge of the student (following the first part of the provision)
 Exception: In the case of establishments of arts and trades, it is the head thereof, and only he, who
shall be held liable
 Following the canon of reddendo singula singulis, “teachers” should apply to the words of “pupils
and students” and “heads of establishments of arts and trades” to the word “apprentices”
 There is really no substantial distinction between the academic and non-academic schools insofar as torts committed
by their students are concerned
o Same vigilance expected from teacher over the students under his control and supervision, whatever the
nature of the school where he is teaching
o Court does not see any reason for different degrees of vigilance to be exercised by school authorities
 The Court however, explained why there is a disparity among the persons to be held responsible in torts committed
in said establishments
o Schools of arts and trades: Historically, the head of the school of arts and trades exercised a closer tutelage
over pupils than the head of the academic school
 Old schools of arts of arts and trades were engaged in apprenticeship, wherein the master of the trade
or art would be personally involved in teaching the apprentice. Students would even board with the
master and there was constant control over the student
o Academic Schools: In contrast, the head of an academic school is more involved with administrative duties
over the teachers of the school. The head of the academic school (then and now) only a vicarious
relationship with the students
 It is conceded, however, that the distinction no longer applies. The provision must then be interpreted by the Court
according to its clear and original mandate, considering the changes in the situation subject to be regulated
o Further examination of the provision shows that under the custody requirement, the student need not
board/live with the head/teacher
o It is also clear that the control and influence of the school authorities does not necessarily mean that it is only
coterminous with the semester – this means that the custody also includes registration, and in the case of
graduating students, the period before commencement exercises
 The student is in the custody of the school authorities as long as he is under the control and
influence of the school and within its premises
 As long as it can be shown that the student is in the school premises in pursuance of a legitimate
student objective, the responsibility of the school authorities over the student continues
  Even if the student is doing nothing more than relaxing in the campus, he is still within the custody
and subject to the discipline of the school authorities
 Why should a teacher-in-charge answer for the students’ torts?
o It is practically the same way that parents are responsible for a child when he/she is in their custody
o Not necessary that at time of injury, teacher is physically present and, in the position, to prevent it
 Custody does not connote immediate and actual physical control, but refers more to the
influence exerted on the child and the discipline instilled in him
 For injuries caused by the student in school, the teacher, and not the parent shall be held responsible
 In connection with this, it must be noted that a teacher will be held liable not only when he is
acting in loco parentis. The law does not require that the offending student be of minority age
(Unlike parents who are only held liable if child is still a minor)
 The Court did note that there are defenses available to the schools and the teachers to exonerate them from liability
o Showing of taking the necessary precautions to prevent the injury
o The Court is disposed not to expect from the teacher the same measure of responsibility imposed on the
parent – the latter’s influence over the child is not equal in degree. Parents expect > obedience from the child
for obvious reasons
o Also, if it is expected that teachers be liable for damage caused by a student of age – and therefore less
tractable than the minor – then it is justified to require the school authorities less accountability as long as
they can prove reasonable diligence
 Conclusions of the Court:
o At the time Amadora was shot, he was still in the custody of the authorities of the school. Notwithstanding
the fact that classes had formally ended, and that he was just in school to pass a physics experiment –
legitimate purpose!
o Rector, principal, and dean of boys cannot be held liable because none of them was the teacher-in-charge as
defined.
o The mere fact that Amadora was in school to pass the report to the physics teacher, Celestino Dicon, the facts
did not establish that the incident was caused by his laxness in enforcing discipline upon the student
o If there is anyone who might be closely held to be liable, it may be the dean of boys who had earlier
confiscated an unlicensed gun from one of the students and returned the same later to him without taking any
disciplinary action or reporting the matter to higher authorities. For this, he deserves to be sanctioned
 However, the incident does not necessarily link him to the shooting of Amador  not been shown
that the confiscated gun was the gun that killed Amadora
o Finally, the school cannot be held directly liable under the article, because only the teacher-in-charge or the
head of the school of arts and trades is made responsible for the damage cause by the student or apprentice

RULING: “WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, without any pronouncement as to costs…”

Melencio-Herrera, J. concurring and dissenting: