d2015member

Palisoc v. Brillantes (1971) Plaintiff-appellants: Sps. Moises and Brigada Palisoc Defendant-appellees: Antonio Brilliantes, Teododio Valenton, Virgilio Daffon, and Santiago Quibulue Ponente: Teehankee, J. Doctrine: 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. It becomes their obligation, as well as that of the school to provide proper supervision of the students activities, take the necessary precautions from dangers and hazards, including injuries that some student themselves may inflict wilfully or through negligence on their fellow students. Short Version: 2 students fought during a recess break. One dies. Are the school president, a member of the board of directors, and the instructor liable? SC says the school pres and instructor are liable because they have the obligation to provide proper supervision. Dominador Palisoc was a student at the Manila Technical Institute. o During a recess break, he, along with 2 classmates, Desiderio Cruz and Virgilio Daffon, was in the laboratory room. Cruz and Daffon were working on a machine. Palisoc was just watching them. Daffon made a comment that Palisoc was acting like a foreman so Palisoc responded by slapping (Daffon) slightly on the face. o Daffon responded with a strong flat blow to the face, with other fist blows on the stomach. o Palisoc retreated, but Daffon followed him. o When backed up on an engine block, Palisoc fainted. o He never regained consciousness again. Palisoc died due to fractures in his ribs and contusions to his stomach and pancreas, Daffon was subjected to a trial for homicide (acquitted for reasonable doubt) o CFI-Manila accepted the testimony of Cruz, as a disinterested witness, who had no motive to lie or go in favor of one party over the other. The LC absolved the other defendants (meaning aside from Daffon): o Antonio Brillantes, as a member of the Board of Directors o Teodisio Valenton, the President of the school o Santiago Quibule, the instructor of the class. Palisocs parents: o Contend that the rest of the defendants should be made solidarily liable with Daffon for the tort, pursuant to NCC 2180 (teachers or heads of establishments or arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students and apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody) Note: Brillantes was the then sole proprietor of the Manila Technical Institute. But during the Palisoc-Daffon incident, the MTI was incorporated, and so, Brillantes was not the sole proprietor anymore.

Issue: Should the (other) defendants be held liable? Held: Antonio Brillantes, as a member of the Board of Directors- no Teodisio Valenton, the President - yes Santiago Quibule, the instructor of the class - yes Ratio: The LC absolved all the defendants because it construed the provision so long as (the students) remain in (the teachers) custody to contemplate a situation where the pupil lives and boards with the teachers, that the control, direction, and influence on the pupil supersedes those of the parents. (this was taken from obiter in Mercado v. CA, which was in itself citing dictum from Exconde v. Capuno)

Exconde v. Capuno: Dante Capuno, 15 year old son of Delfin Capuno, is a student who attended a parade in honor of Rizal upon the instruction of the city schools supervisor. Dante, with other students, boarded a jeep and drove it while the driver sat on his left side. The jeep turned turtle causing the deaths of Amado Ticzon and Isidro Caperina. o SC says the civil liability of teachers as imposed in (old)CC 1903 applies only to an institution of arts and trades, and not an academic institution. o So the school supervisor (or the head of the school) is exempt from liability since Capunos school is an academic institution. Dissent, JBL Reyes: There is no reason for limiting CC1903 to teachers of arts and trades and not to academic ones. There is no substantial difference between them in so far as the proper supervision and vigilance over their pupils. Re: Antonio Brillantess non-liability SC noted that being a member of the Board of Directors does not in itself make him liable. o Also, he was improperly impleaded as defendant, due to the confusion in the sole proprietorship v. incorporation. Re: Liability of Teodisio Valenton (president) and Santiago Quibule (instructor)

d2015member
The rationale for such liability is that to a certain extent, the teachers are in loco parentis, and are called upon to exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child this much is gleaned from NCC 349, 350, 352. 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. o It becomes their obligation, as well as that of the school to provide proper supervision of the students activities, take the necessary precautions from dangers and hazards, including injuries that some student themselves may inflict wilfully or through negligence on their fellow students. SC notes JBL Reyess dissent in the Exconde case. o The Exconde case should be overturned o It is accepted 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 us under instruction. Thus, Valenton, and Quibule are held to be solidarily laible, as joint tort-feasors in the death of Palisoc.

Judgment modified: Daffon,, Valenton, Quibulue to pay Palisoc. Brilliantes absolved. Dissent Palisoc: Sees no reason to depart from Mercado doctrine so long as they remain in their custody refers to a situation where the student lives with the teacher. Unrealistic to hold teachers liable given the size of our educational institutions. Opines that just as parents are not liable if their children are no longer minors, then teachers and heads shouldnt be, too