AMADORA VS COURT OF APPEALS

(GR. No. L-47745, April 15, 1988)

FACTS:
Pablito Daffon, a student of Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos fired a gun while he was at the auditorium of
the school with some of the students. The stray bullet hit Alfredo Amadora which caused immediately
death of Alfredo. The parents of the deceased filed a petition against Daffon before the RTC. The trial
court convicted the accused for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The parents also sued the
school for damages under Article 2180 of the Civil Code because of the schools negligence. The RTC ruled
in favor of Amadora, wherein, the principal, the dean of boys and the teacher-in-charge are all civilly liable.

The Institution appealed and claimed that when the incident happened the school year has already ended.
Amadora argued that even though the semester has already ended, his son was there in school to
complete a school requirement in his Physics subject. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the school on
the basis that under the last paragraph of Article 2180, only schools of arts and trades (vocational schools)
are liable not academic schools like Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos can be held civilly liable for the negligence which caused
to the death of Amadora

RULING:
No. The Court ruled that all schools may not be held directly liable. Its liability is only subsidiary. Moreover,
for non-academic schools, it would be the principal or head of school who should be directly liable for the
tortuous act of its students. For academic schools, it would be the teacher-in-charge who would be directly
liable for the tortuous act of the students and not the dean or the head of school. It also ruled that such
liability does not cease when the school year ends or when the semester ends. Liability applies whenever
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. Indeed, even if the student should be doing nothing more than relaxing
in the campus in the company of his classmates and friends enjoying the ambience and atmosphere of
the school, he is still within the custody and subject to the discipline of the school authorities under the
provisions of Article 2180. However, a teacher can avoid direct liability, and for the school, to avoid
subsidiary liability, is to show proof that he, the teacher, exercised the necessary precautions to prevent
the injury complained of, and the school exercised the diligence of a bonus pater familias. In this case, the
Physics teacher in charge was not properly named and there was no sufficient evidence presented to
make the said teacher-in-charge liable and the school. Therefore, Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos cannot
be held subsidiarily liable.