Palisoc vs. Brillantes et al
Palisoc retreated
October 4, 1971 G.R. No. L-29025
Teehankee, J:
Plaintiff-Appellants: Parents of the deceased (Palisoc)
Defendants: Antonio C. Brillantes (member of the Board of Directors of the institute)
Teodosio Valenton (president thereof), the defendant Santiago M. Quibulue,
(instructor of the class to which the deceased belonged) and the defendant Virgilio L.
Daffon (fellow student of the deceased)
Doctrine: Teachers and 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.
FACTS
Deceased Dominador Palisoc and the defendant Virgilio L.
Daffon were classmates
at the Manila Technical Institute
On March 10, 1966, between two and three o'clock, they,
together with another classmate Desiderio Cruz were in the
laboratory room located at the ground floor. Desiderio Cruz
and Virgilio L. Daffon were working on a machine while
Dominador Palisoc was merely looking at them.
Daffon made a remark to the effect that Palisoc was acting
like a foreman. Because of this remark Palisoc slapped
slightly Daffon on the face. Daffon, in retaliation, gave
Palisoc a strong flat blow on the face, which was followed
by other fist blows on the stomach.
apparently to avoid the fist blows, but Daffon followed him
and both exchanged blows until Palisoc stumbled on an
engine block which caused him to fall with his face
downward.
Palisoc became pale and fainted. First aid was administered
to him but he was not revived, so he was immediately taken
to a hospital. He never regained consciousness and later on
died.
Plaintiffs-appellants as parents of the deceased had filed on
May 19, 1966 an action for damages.
At the beginning the Manila Technical Institute was a single
proprietorship, but lately on August 2, 1962, it was duly
incorporated."
TC= Sp. Palisoc won (Daffon liable for the quasi delict under
Article 2176 of the Civil Code however absolved
from liability the three other defendants officials
of the Manila Technical Institute citing that
Article 2180 is not applicable in this case)
ISSUE
W/N defendant-school officials are liable under Art. 2180
HELD:
YES, defendants-school officials are liable under Art. 2180 of
the NCC. TC erred in law in absolving defendants-school officials
on the ground that they could be held liable under Article 2180,
Civil Code, only if the student who inflicted the fatal fist blows
on his classmate and victim "lived and boarded with his teacher
or the other defendants officials of the school." As stated above,
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. There is nothing in the law
that requires that for such liability to attach the pupil or student
who commits the tortious act must live and board in the school,
as erroneously held by the lower court, and the dicta in Mercado
(as well as in Exconde) on which it relied, must now be deemed
to have been set aside by the present decision.
Defendants Valenton and Quibulue as president and teacher-in-
charge of the school must therefore be held jointly and severally
liable for the quasi-delict of their co-defendant Daffon in the
latter having caused the death of his classmate, the deceased
Dominador Palisoc. The unfortunate death resulting from the
fight between the protagonists-students could have been
avoided, had said defendants complied with their duty of
providing adequate supervision over the activities of the
students in the school premises to protect their students from
harm, whether at the hands of fellow students or other parties.
The law holds them liable unless they relieve themselves of such
liability, in compliance with the last paragraph of Article 2180,
Civil Code, by "(proving) that they observed all the diligence of
a good father of a family to prevent damage." In this case, said
defendants failed to prove such exemption from liability.
AMADORA v CA 160 SCRA 315 (April 15, 1988) G.R. No.
L-47745
Cruz, J:
Doctrine: Teachers and 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.
FACTS
Alfredo Amadora was a student of the Colegio de San Jose
Recoletos. While he was in the schools auditorium he was shot
to death by his classmate named Pablito Daffon. The latter was
then convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence.
The victims parents sued for damages under Art. 2180 against
the school, the principal, dean for boys, the Physics teacher, the
accused, his parents and some other students along with their
parents.
Later, the complaint against the other students and their
parents were dropped.
CFI of Cebu = Sp. Amadora won
On appeal = All the defendants won (reversed due to the
ff. reasons:
1. Since the school was an academic institution of
learning and not a school of arts and trades;
2. That students were not in the custody of the school
since the semester has already ended;
 3. There was no clear identification of the fatal gun; and
4. In any event, defendants exercised the necessary
diligence through enforcement of the school regulations
in maintaining discipline).
Amadoras Contention:
that the presence of Alfredo in the auditorium was by reason
of a Physics experiment as a requirement for graduation,
hence the student is still under custody of the school at the
time of the incident.
Accdg. to the School: denied liability since Amadoras
presence was merely to submit the Physics project and that
the semester had already ended.
ISSUE : W/N Collegio de San Jose-Recoletos should be held
liable under Art.2180
HELD:
No. Article 2180 applies to schools whether academic or non-
academic. The student is deemed in the custody of the school
as long as he is under the control and influence of the school
and is within its premises, whether the school semester has just
begun or has ended. The said provision holds liable the head
superior, in-charge to the student and not the school who could
be liable under respondeat superior. Both have the defense of
bonus pater familias. In this case the evidence failed to show
who was the teacher in-charge at that time of the incident other
than the fact that Amadora submitted his Physics report. And
even if the Physics teacher was in fact in charge there is no
showing that he was negligent in the supervision and discipline
of the accused. The private respondents properly adduced
evidence to prove they exercised bonus pater familias. The time
Alfredo was fatally shot, he was in the custody of the
authorities of the school notwithstanding classes had
formally ended when the incident happened. It was
immaterial if he was in the school auditorium to finish his
physics requirement. What was important is that he was
there for a legitimate purpose. On the other hand, the
rector, high school principal and the dean of boys cannot be
held liable because none of them was the teacher-in-charge
as defined in the provision. Each was exercising only a
general authority over the students and not direct control
and influence exerted by the teacher placed in-charge of
particular classes. In the absence of a teacher- in charge,
dean of boys should probably be held liable considering that
he had earlier confiscated an unlicensed gun from a student
and later returned to him without taking disciplinary action
or reporting the matter to the higher authorities. Though it
was clear negligence on his part, no proof was shown to
necessarily link this gun with the shooting incident.
Collegio San Jose-Recoletos cannot directly be held liable
under the provision because only the teacher of the head of
school of arts and trade is made responsible for the damage
caused by the student. Hence, under the facts disclosed,
none of the respondents were held liable for the injury
inflicted to Alfredo resulting to his death. Petition denied.
FYI:
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is
demandable not only for ones own acts or omissions, but
also for those of persons for whom one is responsible
xx student be of minority age. Unlike the parent, who wig
be liable only if his child is still a minor, the teacher is
held answerable by the law for the act of the student
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts
under him regardless of the students age
and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their
In any event, it should be noted that the liability imposed
pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they
by this article is supposed to fall directly on the teacher
remain in their custody. The responsibility treated of in
or the head of the school of arts and trades and not on
this article shall cease when the persons herein
the school itself. If at all, the school, whatever its nature,
mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a
may be held to answer for the acts of its teachers or even
good father of a family to prevent damage.
of the head thereof under the general principle
After an exhaustive examination of the problem, the
of respondeat superior, but then it may exculpate itself
Court has come to the conclusion that the provision in
from liability by proof that it had exercised the diligence
question should apply to all schools, academic as well
of a bonus paterfamilias. The school can show that it
as non-academic. Where the school is academic rather
exercised proper measures in selecting the head or its
than technical or vocational in nature, responsibility for
teachers and the appropriate supervision over them in
the tort committed by the student will attach to
the custody and instruction of the pupils pursuant to its
the teacher in charge of such student, following the first
rules and regulations for the maintenance of discipline
part of the provision. This is the general rule. In the case
among them.
of establishments of arts and trades, it is the head
The other matter to be resolved is the duration of the
thereof, and only he, who shall be held liable as
responsibility of the teacher or the head of the school of
an exception to the general rule.
arts and trades over the students. Is such responsibility
As stated in the dissent of Justice J.B.L. Reyes in the
co-extensive with the period when the student is actually
Exconde Case, under Art. 2180, he said, was imposed on
undergoing studies during the school term, as contended
(1) teachers in general; and (2) heads of schools of arts
by the respondents and impliedly admitted by the
and trades in particular. The modifying clause of
petitioners themselves.
establishments of arts and trades should apply only to
This does not necessarily mean that such, custody be co-
heads and not teachers. But of course, as long as the
terminous with the semester, beginning with the start of
defendant can show that he had taken the necessary
classes and ending upon the close thereof, and excluding
precautions to prevent the injury complained of, he can
the time before or after such period, such as the period
exonerate himself from the liability imposed by Article
of registration, and in the case of graduating students,
2180, as stated in its last paragraph.
the period before the commencement exercises [During
In this connection, it should be observed that the teacher
such periods, the student is still subject to the disciplinary
will be held liable not only when he is acting in loco
authority of the school and cannot consider himself
parentis for the law does not require that the offending
 released altogether from observance of its rules.]In the and trades, because of his closer ties with them, could be
view of the Court, the student is in the custody of the so blamed.
school authorities as long as he is under the control and
influence of the school and within its premises, whether It is conceded that the distinction no longer obtains at
the semester has not yet begun or has already ended. present in view of the expansion of the schools of arts
As long as it can be shown that the student is in the and trades, the consequent increase in their enrollment,
school premises in pursuance of a legitimate student and the corresponding diminution of the direct and
objective, in the exercise of a legitimate student right, personal contract of their heads with the students. Article
and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student right, 2180, however, remains unchanged. In its present state,
and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student the provision must be interpreted by the Court according
privilege, the responsibility of the school authorities over to its clear and original mandate until the legislature,
the student continues. Indeed, even if the student should taking into account the charges in the situation subject to
be doing nothing more than relaxing in the campus in the be regulated, sees fit to enact the necessary amendment.
company of his classmates and friends and 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.
The reason for the disparity [distinction of who should be
responsible for students between academic and arts and
trades schools] can be traced to the fact that historically
the head of the school of arts and trades exercised a
closer tutelage over his pupils than the head of the
academic school. The old schools of arts and trades were
engaged in the training of artisans apprenticed to their
master who personally and directly instructed them on
the technique and secrets of their craft. By contrast, the
head of the academic school was not as involved with his
students and exercised only administrative duties over
the teachers who were the persons directly dealing with
the students. The head of the academic school had then
(as now) only a vicarious relationship with the students.
Consequently, while he could not be directly faulted for
the acts of the students, the head of the school of arts

Joseph Saludaga vs. Far Eastern University & Edilberto
de Jesus
G.R. No.179337, April 30, 2008
Ynares-Santiago; J.
Doctrines:
1.Institutions of learning must also meet the implicit or built-
in obligation of providing their students with an atmosphere
that promotes or assists in attaining its primary undertaking
of imparting knowledge.
2.Liability for illegal or harmful acts committed by the security
guards attaches to the employer agency, and not to the clients
or customers of such agency. As a general rule, a client or
customer of a security agency has no hand in selecting who
among the pool of security guards or watchmen employed by the
agency shall be assigned to it; the duty to observe the diligence
of a good father of a family in the selection of the guards cannot,
in the ordinary course of events, be demanded from the client
whose premises or property are protected by the security
guards.
FACTS
Joseph Saludaga was a sophomore law student in FEU Manila
While walking on his way to the law library, Saludaga was shot
by SG Alejandro Rosete of Galaxy Devt & Management
Corporation (GDMC)
Saludaga was rushed to the FEU hospital due to the wound
sustained. Petitioner spent P35,298.25 for his hospitalization
and other medical expenses.
Rosete was brought to the police station where he explained
that the shooting was an accident. Since no charges were filed
against Rosete, he was released by the police.
The defendants or any of their representatives did not bother
to visit and inquire about Saludagas condition during his
confinement and even after he was discharged from the
hospital when not even a word of consolation was heard from
them. Saludaga waited for more than one (1) year for the
defendants to perform their moral obligation but the wait was
fruitless.
Saludaga filed a complaint for damages vs GDMC and FEU
on the alleged breach of student-school contract for a safe
learning environment.
FEU filed a Third-Party Complaint vs GDMC and Mariano D.
Imperial (Imperial), Galaxys President, to indemnify them
for whatever would be adjudged in favor of Saludaga.
On the other hand, Galaxy and Imperial filed a Fourth-
Party Complaint against AFP General Insurance
TC: Saludaga won
(FEU, Edilberto de Jesus (then FEU President), Galaxy and
Imperial were held liable for damages)The Fourth Party
Complaint was dismissed for lack of merit).
CA= Reversed (Complaint v FEU dismissed, shooting incident
was a fortuitous event)
MR=Denied
 duty to observe the diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection of the guards cannot, in the ordinary course of events,
FEU & de Jesus Averments:
be demanded from the client whose premises or property are
That the shooting incident was a fortuitous event protected by the security guards. In this case, Evidence duly
because they could not have reasonably foreseen nor supports the findings of the trial court that Galaxy is negligent
avoided the accident caused by Rosete as he was not not only in the selection of its employees but also in their
their employee; supervision. Indeed, no administrative sanction was imposed
That they complied with their obligation to ensure a safe against Rosete despite the shooting incident; moreover, he was
learning environment for their students by having even allowed to go on leave of absence which led eventually to
exercised due diligence in selecting the security services his disappearance. For these acts of negligence and for having
of Galaxy. supplied respondent FEU with an unqualified security guard,
which resulted to the latters breach of obligation to petitioner,
ISSUE it is proper to hold Galaxy liable to respondent FEU for such
W/N FEU should be held vicariously liable Art.2180 of the Civil damages equivalent to the above-mentioned amounts awarded
Code to petitioner. Therefore, the fact that a client company may give
instructions or directions to the security guards assigned to it,
HELD: does not, by itself, render the client responsible as an employer
No. FEU should not be held vicariously liable Art.2180 of the of the security guards concerned and liable for their wrongful
Civil Code. 2180 of the Civil Code because respondents are not acts or omissions.
the employers of Rosete. The latter was employed by Galaxy.
The instructions issued by respondents Security Consultant to
Galaxy and its security guards are ordinarily no more than
requests commonly envisaged in the contract for services
entered into by a principal and a security agency. They cannot
be construed as the element of control as to treat respondents
as the employers of Rosete. As held in a factually similar case
(Soliman, Jr. v. Tuazon): Liability for illegal or harmful acts
committed by the security guards attaches to the employer
agency, and not to the clients or customers of such agency. As
a general rule, a client or customer of a security agency has no
hand in selecting who among the pool of security guards or
watchmen employed by the agency shall be assigned to it; the
 the Isuzu truck was in its rightful lane, and was even at a
stop, having been flagged down by a security guard of St.
MENDOZA V SP. GOMEZ
Ignatius Village.
Mendoza was negligent in driving the subject Mayamy
bus, as demonstrated by the fact that, at the time of the
collision, the bus intruded on the lane intended for the
Isuzu truck.
Having encroached on the opposite lane, Mendoza was
clearly in violation of traffic laws.
Article 2185 of the Civil Code provides that unless there is
proof to the contrary, it is presumed that a person driving a
motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the
mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation. In the case
at bar, Mendozas violation of traffic laws was the proximate
cause of the harm. Proximate cause is defined as that cause,
which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by
any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and
without which the result would not have occurred. And more
comprehensively, the proximate legal cause is that acting
first and producing the injury, either immediately or by
setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and
continuous chain of events, each having a close causal in
the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and
probable result of the cause which first acted, under such
circumstances that the person responsible for the first event
should, as an ordinary prudent and intelligent person, have
reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or
default that an injury to some person might probably result
therefrom.
The evidence on record shows that before the collision,
The mishap occurred when the Mayamy bus, travelling
at a fast speed as shown by the impact of the collision,
and going in the opposite direction as that of the Isuzu
truck, encroached on the lane rightfully occupied by said
Isuzu truck, and caused the latter to spin, injuring Perez,
Anla, Banca, and Repisada, and considerably damaging
the Isuzu truck.
His negligence having caused the damage, Mendoza is
certainly liable to repair said damage
Mendozas employer may also be held liable under the
doctrine of vicarious liability or imputed negligence.
Under such doctrine, a person who has not committed
the act or omission which caused damage or injury to
another may nevertheless be held civilly liable to the
latter either directly or subsidiarily under certain
circumstances. In our jurisdiction, vicarious liability or
imputed negligence is embodied in Article 2180 of the
Civil Code and the basis for damages in the action under
said article is the direct and primary negligence of the
employer in the selection or supervision, or both, of his
employee
TC= Sp. Gomez won
CA= Partly granted. TC ruling modified (award of
unrealized income deleted)
Under the civil law
principle of unjust enrichment, the registered owner of
the motor
 vehicle has a right to be indemnified by the actual
employer of the
driver; and under Article 2181 of the Civil Code, whoever
pays for
the damage caused by his dependents or employees
may recover
from the latter what he has paid or delivered in
satisfaction of the
claim.As such, there can be no other conclusion but to
hold Lim
vicariously liable with Mendoza. This does not mean,
however,
that Lim is left without any recourse against Enriquez
and
Mendoza. Under the civil law principle of unjust
enrichment, the
registered owner of the motor vehicle has a right to be
indemnified by the actual employer of the driver; and
under

Article 2181 of the Civil Code, whoever pays for the damage
caused by his dependents or employees may recover from
the
latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of
the claim.