Article Reference: Art 2180 G.R. No.

L-47745 April 15, 1988

Facts:
In the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletes' auditorium on April 13, 1972, a classmate named Pablito Daffon shot Alfredo fatally, putting an end to his entire career.
expectations, and also his life. Only seventeen years old, the victim. The victim's parents immediately filed a civil lawsuit for damages under Article 2180 of the Civil
Code against the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, its rector, as well as the school. Daffon was convicted of murdering the victim via reckless imprudence. Alongside
Daffon and two other pupils through their parents, the physics teacher, the dean of boys at the high school, and the principal all attended.

The remaining defendants were detained by the Court of First Instance of Cebu folowing the trial. to the plaintiffs' detriment. The respondent court decided in its
decision—the subject of this petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Court Rules—that Article 2180 was not relevant since the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos was
not an academic institution but rather an arts and trades school. a place of learning.

The court further ruled that the students were not in the school's supervision at the time of the incident since the semester had already finished, that the deadly gun
wasn't able to be identified, and that the defendants had taken the necessary precautions in any case. attentiveness in averting the damage. The primary undeniable facts
are that Alfredo Amadora entered the San Jose-Recoletos on April 13, 1972, and was shot and killed by a classmate inside the auditorium. The parties vehemently
disagree about the significance and consequences of these facts.

Issues:
The parties herein have also... raised a question of whether Article 2180 applies to institutions that aren't really schools of arts and trades was brought up explicitly, in
addition to when the offending student is supposed to be "under its custody."

Ruling:
The interpretation of Article 2180, which, as it happens, is cited by both sides to support their opposing perspectives, will determine how all of these conflicts are
resolved. Last but not least, "teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils, students or apprentices so long as
they remain in their custody." The Court has already made decisions in three cases that involve the aforementioned clause, namely Exconde v. Capuno,Mercado v.
Court of Appeals, and Palisoc v. Brillantes.

Dante Capuno, a Balintawak Elementary School student and Boy Scout, attended a Rizal Day parade as ordered by the city school supervisor in the Exconde Case.
Justice Bautista Angelo's June 29, 1957 verdict exonerated the school in an obiter dictum (as it was not a party to the case) on the grounds that it was not an arts and
trades school. In the Mercado Case, Exconde was reiterated and elaborated upon. In the Lourdes Catholic School in Quezon City, a kid actually cut a classmate with a
razor blade during recess. The victim's parents then filed a lawsuit against the offender's parents for damages.

As the school itself had not been sued, the court determined through Judge Labrador that the institution was not liable since it was not an establishment of the arts and
trades. In Palisoc V. Brillantes, a case resolved on October 4, 1971, a 16-year-old student was murdered in a Manila Technological Institute lab by a classmate using fist
strikes. The lower court inaccurately held that in order for liability to attach, the student or pupil committing the wrongful act must reside and board at the school. As a
result, the dictum in Mercado (as well as in Exconde) upon which it relied must now be viewed as having been rescinded by the decison.

Justice Teehankee stated in a footnote that although he agreed with Justice Reyes' dissent in the Exconde Case, "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 must wait for another case wherein it may properly be raised." The
Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos has been directly impleaded and has been sought to be held accountable under Article 2180, in contrast to Exconde and Mercado, and in
contrast to Palisoc, it is not a school of arts and trades rather an academic institution of learning.

The involved parties here have also The issue of whether Article 2180 applies to institutions that aren't really schools of arts and trades was brought up directly, as well
as when the offending student is supposed to be "under its custody." The Court has determined that the disputed provision should be applied to all schools, academic
and non-academic, after carefully examining the issue.

Where the focus of the institution is academics rather than technical or vocational training,... Following the first half of the provision, the instructor who is in charge of
that student shall be held liable for the student's wrongdoing. This is the standard guideline. As an exception to the general rule, the head of establishments of arts and
trades—and only he—shall be held accountable.

In other words, except in cases where a technical school is involved, the director of such institution will be held accountable for the actions of its pupils. Following the
canon of reddendo singula... singulis, "teachers" should apply to the words "pupils and students" and "heads of establishments of arts and trades" to the word
"apprentices."." When it comes to the actions committed by their students, there really isn't much of a difference between academic and non-academic schools.

Yet, the following concerns may be elevated: Why is only the school's head held accountable when an injury occurs in an arts and trades school if the instructor of the
academic school is to be held accountable for the actions committed by his students? Also, if... Why not extend the regulation to the head of the academic or non-
technical school as well, rather than placing responsibility just on the teacher?

A highly respected professional, the head of the school of arts and trades personally oversaw the instruction of his usually boarded students. came to be under his
constant supervision, control, and influence due to their relationship with him. The head of the academic institution, in contrast, had less interaction with his students
and solely had administrative responsibilities for the professors, who were the ones who had direct contact with the students.

It is acknowledged that the distinction is no longer valid at the moment due to the growth of the art and trade schools, the ensuing rise in student enrollment, and the
related decrease in the amount of direct and personal interaction their leaders have with the students. Nonetheless, Article 2180 is unchanged. Until the legislature
decides to pass the necessary legislation, taking into account the changes in the situation that require regulation, the provision must be read by the Court in accordance
with its clear and original mandate as it currently stands. amendment.

The duration of the teacher's or the school's head's control over the kids is the second issue that needs to be settled. Is it responsibility continuous with the time the
student is actually enrolled in classes during the academic year, as... implied admission made by the petitioners themselves and asserted by the respondents? While the
custody requirement, to reiterate Palisoc v. Brillantes, does not mean that the student must be boarding with the school authorities at the time of the injury, it does mean
that the student should be under the control and influence of the school authorities at that time. This becomes clear from a reading of the provision under examination.

The student is in the custody of the school authorities, in the court's opinion, whether or not the semester has started or finished, as long as he is on school property and
in its care.

None of the rector, the high school administrator, or the dean of boys was the teacher-in-charge as previously described, hence they are not accountable.
Furthermore, even if he was the instructor in charge, there is no evidence that Dicon was careless in maintaining Daffon's discipline or that he had disregarded the
school's laws and regulations or excused their disregard. Because he was neither expected or obligated to report to school that day, his absence when the tragedy
occurred cannot be used against him.

If there isn't a teacher-in-charge, the dean of boys should likely be held accountable.

Lastly, as was already said, the article does not make the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos directly liable for damages caused by students or apprentices; rather, only the
teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades is held accountable.

In conclusion, the Court determines that none of the respondents are responsible for the injury suffered by Alfredo Amadora as a result of Pablito Daffon's attack on
him on April 13, 1972 at the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos auditorium in light of the facts revealed by the record and the principles herein announced.