Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 24

1. Construction Devlpmt. Corp. vs. Rebecca bus.

Petitioner, who has direct and primary

Estrella, 501 SCRA 228 [2005] liability for the negligent conduct of its
Facts: On December 29, 1978, respondents subordinates, was also found negligent in the
Rebecca G. Estrella and her granddaughter, selection and supervision of its employees.
Rachel E. Fletcher, boarded in San Pablo City, a
BLTB bus bound for Pasay City. However, they 2. Sabina Exconde v. Delfin Capuno and
never reached their destination because their Dante Capuno
bus was rammed from behind by a tractor-truck GR L-10134, June 29, 1957
of CDCP in the South Expressway. The strong
impact pushed forward their seats and pinned 15 y.o. Dante, son of Delfin Capuno, a student
their knees to the seats in front of them. They of the Balintawak Elementary School, attended
regained consciousness only when rescuers a parade in honor of Dr. Jose Rizal upon
created a hole in the bus and extricated their instruction of the city school's supervisor. Dante
legs from under the seats. They were brought and the other students boarded a jeep from the
to the Makati Medical Center where the doctors school; he took hold of the wheel and drove it
diagnosed their injuries. Thereafter, while the driver sat on his left side. They have
respondents filed a Complaint for damages. not gone far when the jeep turned turtle and
CDCP filed its Answer which was later amended two of its passengers, Amado Ticzon and
to include a third-party complaint against Isidoro Caperiña, died as a consequence.
Philippine Phoenix Surety and Insurance, Inc.
(Phoenix). Dante was found guilty for double homicide
Issue: Whether BLTB and its driver Wilfredo through reckless imprudence. Sabina Econde,
Datinguinoo are solely liable for the mother of the deceased Isidoro, filed a separate
damages sustained by respondents civil action for damages against Dante and
Ruling: No. In a joint obligation, each obligor Delfin Capuno asking for P2,959 for the death
answers only for a part of the whole liability; in of her son.
a solidary or joint and several obligation, the
relationship between the active and the passive Issue #1: Can parents be held civilly liable for
subjects is so close that each of them must the damages caused by their minor children?
comply with or demand the fulfillment of the How can they be relieved of such liability?
whole obligation.
Joint tort feasors are jointly and severally liable Ruling:
for the tort which they commit. The persons Yes. The civil liability which the law imposes
injured may sue all of them or any number less upon the father, and, in case of his death or
than all. Each is liable for the whole damages incapacity, the mother, for any damages that
caused by all, and all together are jointly liable may be caused by the minor children who live
for the whole damage. It is no defense for one with them is a necessary consequence of the
sued alone, that the others who participated in parental authority they exercise over them
the wrongful act are not joined with him as which imposes upon the parents the "duty of
defendants; nor is it any excuse for him that his supporting them,
participation in the tort was insignificant as keeping them in their company, educating them
compared to that of the others. x x x and instructing them in proportion to their
Joint tort feasors are not liable pro rata. The means" while, on the other hand,º gives them
damages can not be apportioned among them, the "right to correct and punish them in
except among themselves. They cannot insist moderation.” In the case at bar, Dante and
upon an apportionment, for the purpose of each Delfin Capuno shall jointly and severally pay the
paying an aliquot part. They are jointly and sum of P2,959 as damages.
severally liable for the whole amount. x x x
In this case, petitioners driver was driving The only way by which they can relieve
recklessly at the time its truck rammed the BLTB themselves of such liability is if they prove that
they exercised all the diligence of a good father prevented the damage by the observance of
of a family to prevent the damage. due care, or that he was in any way remiss in
the exercise of his parental authority in failing
Issue #2: Can the school supervisor be held to foresee such damage, or the act which
liable for the damages caused by its pupil? caused it. On the contrary, his child was at
school, where it was his duty to send her and
Ruling: where she was, as he had the right to expect
No. The civil liability imposed by Article 1903 of her to be, under the care and supervision of the
the old Civil Code on teachers or directors of teacher. And as far as the act which caused the
arts and trades for damages caused by pupils injury was concerned, it was an innocent prank
or apprentices under their custody, only applies not unusual among children at play and which
to an institution of arts and trades and not to no parent, however careful, would have any
any academic educational institution. special reason to anticipate much less guard
against. Nor did it reveal any mischievous
3. Maria Teresa Cuadra vs Alfonso Monfort propensity, or indeed any trait in the child’s
No. L-24101. September 30, 1970 character which would reflect unfavorably on
her upbringing and for which the blame could
Facts: Maria Teresa Cuadra, 12, and Maria be attributed to her parents. The victim, no
Teresa Monfort, 13, were classmates. One day, doubt, deserves no little commiseration and
their teacher assigned them, together with sympathy for the tragedy that befell her. But if
three other classmates, to weed the grass in the the defendant is at all obligated to compensate
school premises. While working, Monfort found her suffering, the obligation has no legal
a plastic headband and jokingly the said aloud sanction enforceable in court, but only the
that she had found an earthworm and, evidently moral compulsion of good conscience.
to frighten the Cuadra girl, tossed the object at
her. At that precise moment the latter turned
around to face her friend, and the object hit her 4. Gutierrez vs. Court of Appeals
right eye. Cuadra rubbed the injured part and No. L-31611
treated it with some powder. The next day, the November 28,1976
eye became swollen and it was then that the Teehankee J.;
girl related the incident to her parents, who
thereupon took her to a doctor for treatment. Workers of petitioner Gutierrez, under the
She underwent surgical operation twice, first on supervision of co-petitioner Balisalisa was
July 20 and again on August 4, 1962, and engaged in a construction job. They started
stayed in the hospital for a total of twenty-three digging up a street, first by manual labor, later
days, for all of which the parents spent the sum by crane. They piled earth and mud against the
of P1,703.75. Despite the medical efforts, exterior side of the adobe fence of A. Mabinini
however, Maria Teresa Cuadra completely lost Elementary School. When the earth and mud
the sight of her right eye. reached the same height as the fence, the
crane’s steel scooper was used to press the
Issue: Are the parents of Morfort liable for earth and mud. Because of the heavy stress
damages pursuant to Art. 2176 of the Civil placed on the fence a portion of the adobe wall
Code? gave way and crushed Edna Baloyo by the
falling debrs of the adobe wall and was buried
Ruling: NO. The basis of the vicarious, although underneath the piled up earth and mud. She
primary, liability is, as in Article 2176, fault or died.
negligence, which is presumed from that which Trial court and appellate court rendered
accompanied the causative act or omission. In judgement in favour of respondents and pay a
the present case there is nothing from which it total sum of 61,000 pesos. In their petition,
may be inferred that the defendant could have petitioners would assign as error the appellate
court’s rejection of their defense of non- No, it did not. The negligence of the defendants
existence of employee-employer relationship has been clearly established by the evidence.
No evidence is necessary to show that the
ISSUES: defendants were negligent in the performance
Issue:#1 of their obligation. They ought to have known
Whether or not appellate court erred in failing that it was not the right thing to do to pile up
to appreciate respondent’s defense of lack of the big volume of earth excavated against the
existence of employee-employer relationship. wall, which was fragile, being made only of
adobe stones held together by weak mortar and
Issue #2 without reinforcements.
Whether or not the specific denial through the
claim of lack of sufficient knowledge or The collapse, therefore, of the said wall could
information is a proper defense? reasonably be expected by any person of
ordinary prudence, if not intelligence. The
Issue #3: Whether or not respondent court danger not only to the wall but also to anybody
erred as to the amount and character of the on the other side of the wall, being a school
damages awarded ground, could have been anticipated by the
defendants herein and yet they failed to take
RULINGS: the necessary precautions to avoid the same.
For this omission on their part, they should be
Ruling#1 held responsible for moral and exemplary
No, Appellate Court did not. Respondent court damages.
found that the evidence sufficiently established
the existence of such employee-employer 5. Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Phil-Am.
relationship between petitioners and the Forwarders, Inc.
negligent crane operators, stressing the GR No. L-25142
contract presented as evidence. March 25, 1975

Ruling #2 FACTS: A truck owned by Phil-Am Forwarders

No, the claim of lack of sufficient knowledge or and driven recklessly by Pineda, bumped into a
information as to employment of the crane bus owned by Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines which was
operators cannot be appreciated. Following the driven by Pangalanan. As a result, Pangalanan
finding through the contract that there was an suffered injuries and the damage to the bus
employee-employer relationship, these matters made it useless for seventy nine days, depriving
were peculiarly within their knowledge as job Phil. Rabbit Bus of earnings amounting to
contractors. P8,665.51. Phil-Am Forwarders, its driver
Pineda, and its manager Balingit were all sued
It is a long established doctrine that, “An for damages in an action based on quasi-delict.
unexplained denial of information and belief of The Court of First Instance of Tarlac, however,
a matter of record, the means of information dismissed the complaint as against Balingit on
concerning which are within the control of the the ground that he is not the manager of an
pleader, or are readily accessible to him, is establishment contemplated in Art. 2180 of the
evasive and is insufficient to constitute an New Civil Code.
effective denial and that the form of denial
adopted by the appellants, although allowed by ISSUE: Whether or not Balingit, as manager of
the Rules of Court (referring to lack of sufficient the corporation Phil-Am. Forwarders, Inc. is the
knowledge or information) must be availed of manager of an establishment contemplated in
with sincerity and in good faith. Art. 2180 of the New Civil Code, and hence
liable for driver Pined's act.
Ruling #3
RULING: No. The Supreme Court was of the that they bought. On account of this, Clarita
opinion that the terms under Art. 2180 do not was constrained to replace the gasoline sold to
include the manager of a corporation. It may be the said customers. However, a certain Eduardo
gathered from the context of Art. 2180 that the Villanueva, one of the customers, filed a
term 'manager' is used in the sense of complaint with the police against Camacho for
'employer.' Hence, under the allegations of the selling the adulterated gasoline. In addition, he
complaint, no tortious or quasi-delictuap liability caused the incident to be published in two local
can be fastened on Balingit as manager of Phil- newspapers. Shell undertook to settle the
Am. Forwarders, Inc. because HE HIMSELF MAY criminal complaint filed by Villanueva.
BE REGARDED AS AN EMPLOYEE OR Subsequently, Villanueva filed an affidavit of
DEPENDIENTE of his employer, Phil-Am. desistance. Thereafter, Camacho filed before
Forwarders, Inc. (emphasis by Greg) the trial court a complaint for damages against
Shell due to the latter’s alleged negligence in
Note: Phil. Rabbit Bus argued in their appeal to the conduct of the hydro-pressure test in her
SC that the veil of corporate fiction should be gasoline station. For its part, Shell denied
pierced, making Balingit (and his wife) liable, liability because, according to them,, the hydro-
because Balingit and his wife subscribed to pressure test on the underground storage tanks
P40,000 out of P41,200 of Phil-Am Forwarder's was conducted by an independent contractor.
capital stock, while other incorporators paid The trial court dismissed the complaint which
only P250.25 and P25, indicating that the ruling was reversed by the Court of Appeals.
corporation was merely used as a business
conduit of Balingit. This argument was rejected Issue:
by the SC for Phil. Rabbit Bus failing to raise it WON Shell should be held accountable for the
in the lower court. damage to Camacho due to the hydro- pressure
test conducted by Feliciano?
6. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. vs. Court
of Appeals 221 SCRA 389 Ruling:

Facts: No. It is a well-entrenched rule that an

employer-employee relationship must exist
Clarita T. Camacho, the operator of a gasoline before an employer may be held liable for the
station in Baguio City wherein she sells Pilipinas negligence of his employee. It is likewise firmly
Shell Petroleum Corp.’s (Shell) petroleum settled that the existence or non-existence of
products, requested Shell to conduct a hydro- the employer-employee relationship is
pressure test on the underground storage tanks commonly to be determined by examination of
of the said station in order to determine certain factors or aspects of that relationship.
whether or not the sales losses she was These include: (a) the manner of selection and
incurring for the past several months were due engagement of the putative employee; (b) the
to leakages therein. Shell acceded to the said mode of payment of wages; (c) the presence or
request and one Jesus “Jessie” Feliciano absence of a power to control the putative
together with other workerscame to Clarita’s employee’s conduct, although the latter is the
station with a job order from Shell to perform most important element.
the hydropressure test. Jessie conducted the
necessary procedures to carry out the said test. As aptly held by the trial court, petitioner did
At around5:30a.m. the next day, Clarita’s not exercise control and supervision over
husband opened the station and started selling Feliciano with regard to the manner in which he
gasoline. At about 6:00a.m. however, the conducted the hydro-pressure test. All that
customers who had bought gasoline returned to petitioner did, through its Field Engineer,
the station complaining that their vehicles Roberto Mitra, was relay to Feliciano the
stalled because there was water in the gasoline request of private respondent for a hydro-
pressure test, to determine any possible petitioner because he can accept other business
leakages in the storage tanks in her gasoline but not from other oil companies. All these are
station. The mere hiring of Feliciano by the hallmarks of an independent contractor.
petitioner for that particular task is not the form Being an independent contractor, Feliciano is
of control and supervision contemplated by law responsible for his own acts and omissions. As
which may be the basis for establishing an he alone was in control over the manner of how
employer-employee relationship between he was to undertake the hydro-pressure test,
petitioner and Feliciano. The fact that there was he alone must bear the consequences of his
no such control is further amplified by the negligence, if any, in the conduct of the same.
absence of any Shell representative in the job
site at the time when the test was conducted. 7. Metro Manila Transit Corporation vs.
Roberto Mitra was never there. Only Feliciano Court of Appeals
and his men were. G.R. No. 116617
November 16, 1998
Independent contractor liable for own acts of
negligence.—A careful perusal of the records Facts:
will lead to the conclusion that Feliciano is an The key stakeholders of the case are as follows:
independent contractor. Section 8 of Rule VIII, Metro Manila Transit Corporation (MMTC for
Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing brevity) is the operator of a fleet of passenger
the Labor Code provides: “Sec. 8. Job buses within Metro Manila area and Pedro Musa
contracting.—There is job contracting was the driver assigned to its Bus No. 27. The
permissible under the Code if the following spouses Rosales were the parents of Liza
conditions are met: (1) The contractor carries Rosalie, a high school student at the University
on an independent business and undertakes the of the Philippines Integrated School.
contract work on his own account under his own
responsibility according to his own manner and At around a quarter past one in the afternoon
method, free from the control and direction of of August 9, 1986, MMTC Bus No. 27, which was
his employer or principal in all matters driven by Musa, hit Liza Rosalie who was then
connected with the performance of the work crossing Katipunan Avenue in Quezon City. An
except as to the results thereof; and (2) The eye witness said the girl was already near the
contractor has substantial capital or investment center of the street when the bus, then bound
in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, for the south, hit her. She fell to the ground
work premises, and other materials which are upon impact, rolled between the two front
necessary in the conduct of his business.” wheels of the bus, and was run over by the left
Feliciano is independently maintaining a rear tires thereof. Her body was dragged
business under a duly registered business several meters away from the point of impact.
name, “JFS Repair and Maintenance Service,” Liza Rosalie was taken to the Philippine Heart
and is duly registered with the Bureau of Center, but efforts to revive her proved futile.
Domestic Trade. He does not enjoy a fixed
salary but instead charges a lump sum Pedro Musa was found guilty of reckless
consideration for every piece of work he imprudence resulting in homicide. However, for
accomplishes. If he is not able to finish his work, the civil liability, the Spouses Rosales filed an
he does not get paid, as what happened in this independent civil action for damages against
case. Further, Feliciano utilizes his own tools MMTC, Musa, MMTC’s Acting General Manager
and equipment and has a complement of Conrado Tolentino, and the Government
workers. Neither is he required to work on a Service Insurance System (GSIS). They
regular basis. Instead, he merely awaits calls subsequently amended their complaint to
from clients such as petitioner whenever repairs include Feliciana Celebrado, a dispatcher of the
and maintenance services are requested. MMTC, as a defendant therein.
Moreover, Feliciano does not exclusively service
To free themselves from liability, MMTC for damages is satisfied by the common carrier,
attempted to prove that it exercise diligentissimi the latter has a right to recover what it has paid
patris familias in the selcetion and supervision from its employee who committed the fault or
of employees through oral evidence. negligence which gave rise to the action based
on quasi-delict. Hence, the spouses Rosales
The RTC ruled in favor of Spouses Rosales, but have the option of enforcing the judgment
made MMTC primarily liable and Musa against either MMTC or Musa.
secondarily liable.
From another point of view, Art. 2194 provides
Issue: that “the responsibility of two or more persons
Is MMTC solidarily liable with Musa? who are liable for a quasi-delict is solidary.” We
ruled in Gelisan v. Alday that “the registered
Ruling: owner/operator of a public service vehicle is
Yes. MMTC’s attempt to prove its diligentissimi jointly and severally liable with the driver for
patris familias in the selection and supervision damages incurred by passengers or third
of employees through oral evidence must fail as persons as a consequence of injuries sustained
it was unable to buttress the same with any in the operation of said vehicle.” In Baliwag
other evidence, object or documentary, which Transit, Inc. v. Court of Appealsit was held that
might obviate the apparent biased nature of the “to escape solidary liability for a quasi-delict
testimony. committed by an employee, the employer must
adduce sufficient proof that it exercised such
Although, MMTC submitted brochures and degree of care.” Finally, it was held in Philtranco
programs of seminars for prospective Service Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
employees on vehicle maintenance, traffic that “the liability of the registered owner of a
regulations, and driving skills and claimed that public service vehicle . . . for damages arising
applicants are given tests to determine driving from the tortious acts of the driver is primary,
skills, concentration, reflexes, and vision, there direct, and joint and several or solidary with the
is no record that Musa attended such training driver.”
programs and passed the said examinations
before he was employed. No proof was Thus, MMTC is solidarily liable.
presented that Musa did not have any record of
traffic violations. Nor were records of daily 8. ERNESTO PLEYTO and PHILIPPINE
inspections, allegedly conducted by supervisors, RABBIT BUS LINESINC vs MARIA
148737, 16 JUNE 2004
The failure of MMTC to produce in court any
record or other documentary proof tending to Facts:
establish that it had exercised all the diligence
of a good father of a family in the selection and During one drizzly morning, a Philippine Rabbit
supervision of its drivers and buses, Bus Lines (PRBL) bus driven by PLEYTO
notwithstanding the calls therefor by both the travelled along the Macarthur Highway bound
trial court and the opposing counsel, argues for Vigan. In front of the bus was a tricycle
strongly against its pretensions. headed north. According to one of the bus
passengers, PLEYTO tried to overtake the
As already stated, MMTC is primarily liable for tricylce but hit it instead causing him to swerve
damages for the negligence of its employee in into the left opposite lane. Coming down the
view of Art. 2180. Pursuant to Art. 2181, it can lane, some fifty meters away, was a
recover from its employee what it may pay. This southbound Mitsubishi Lancer car driven by
does not make the employee’s liability Arnulfo Asuncion who had Ricardo Lomboy (his
subsidiary. It only means that if the judgment brother in law) in the passenger’s seat and in
the back seat Carmela Lomboy (Ricardo’s
daughter) and Rhino Daba (Carmela’s friend). FACTS:
The bus smashed head on with the car, Private respondent McLoughlin had been
instantly killing Arnulfo and Ricardo. Carmela staying at Tropicana Hotel where Lainez, Payam
and Rhino suffered injuries but only the former and Danilo Lopez were employed. It had been
required hospitalization. his practice to rent a safety deposit box every
time he registered at the hotel. The safety
Respondents, Maria Lomboy (surviving spouse) deposit box could only be opened through the
and Carmela Lomboy (eldest daughter), as use of two keys, one of which is given to the
pauper litigants, filed an action for damages registered guest, and the other remaining in the
against PRBL and its driver, Pleyto, with the RTC possession of the management of the hotel.
of Dagupan City. Judgment was rendered in McLoughlin later on discovered that a few
favor of respondents. The CA affirmed the lower dollars he placed in the safety deposit box were
court’s decision. missing and the jewelry he bought was likewise
missing. Tan admitted that she had stolen
Issue: Should PRBL be also held liable for the McLoughlin's key and was able to open the
negligence of its employee? safety deposit box with the assistance of Lopez,
Payam and Lainez. Lopez also told McLoughlin
Ruling: Yes. When the employee causes that Tan stole the key assigned to McLoughlin
damage due to his own negligence while while the latter was asleep.
performing his own duties, there arises the juris McLoughlin insisted that it must be the hotel
tantum presumption that the employer is who must assume responsibility for the loss he
negligent, rebuttable only by proof of suffered. However, paragraphs (2) and (4) of
observance of the diligence of a good father of the Undertaking For the Use Of Safety Deposit
a family. Thus, in the selection of prospective Box provides that:
employees, employers are required to examine 2. To release and hold free and blameless
them as to their qualifications, experience and TROPICANA APARTMENT HOTEL from any
service records. With respect to the supervision liability arising from any loss in the contents
of employees, employers must formulate and/or use of the said deposit box for any cause
standard operating procedures, monitor their whatsoever, including but not limited to the
implementation and impose disciplinary presentation or use thereof by any other person
measures for breaches thereof. These facts should the key be lost.
must be shown by concrete proof, including
documentary evidence. ISSUE:
Can a hotel evade liability for the loss of items
In the present case, petitioners presented left with it for safekeeping by its guests, by
several documents in evidence to show the having these guests execute written waivers
various tests and prequalification requirements holding the establishment or its employees free
imposed upon petitioner Pleyto before his hiring from blame for such loss?
as a driver by PRBL. However, no documentary
evidence was presented to prove that petitioner HELD:
PRBL exercised due diligence in the supervision No. Article 2180, paragraph (4) of the same
of its employees, including Pleyto. In the case Code provides that the owners and managers of
cited by the CA, “The mere allegation of the an establishment or enterprise are likewise
existence of hiring procedures and supervisory responsible for damages caused by their
policies without anything more is decidedly not employees in the service of the branches in
sufficient to overcome such presumption.” which the latter are employed or on the
occasion of their functions. Also, this Court has
9. YHT REALTY CORPORATION ruled that if an employee is found negligent, it
vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS is presumed that the employer was negligent in
selecting and/or supervising him for it is hard
for the victim to prove the negligence of such RULING: Ong's liability is solidary with
employer. Thus, given the fact that the loss of Sebastian pursuant to Art. 2176 in relation to
McLoughlin's money was consummated Art. 2180 of the NCC.
through the negligence of Tropicanas
employees in allowing Tan to open the safety Whenever an employee's negligence causes
deposit box without the guests consent, both damage or injury to another, there instantly
the assisting employees and YHT Realty arises a presumption juris tantum that the
Corporation itself, as owner and operator of employer failed to exercise diligentissimi patris
Tropicana, should be held solidarily liable families in the selection (culpa in eligiendo) or
pursuant to Article 2193. supervision (culpa in vigilando) of its
Paragraphs (2) and (4) of the undertaking employees. To avoid liability for a quasi-delict
manifestly contravene Article 2003 of the New committed by his employee, an employer must
Civil Code. The New Civil Code is explicit that overcome the presumption by presenting
the responsibility of the hotel-keeper shall convincing proof that he exercised the care and
extend to loss of, or injury to, the personal diligence of a good father of a family in the
property of the guests even if caused by selection and supervision of his employee.
servants or employees of the keepers of hotels
or inns as well as by strangers, except as it may ISSUE 2: Provided that Sebastian required Ong
proceed from any force majeure. In this case, it to produce police and NBI clearances and took
it was evident that without the assistance of into account the recommendations of Ong's
hotel employees, the loss would not have previous employer, and also instructed Ong to
occurred. Thus, Tropicana was guilty of drive carefully and to take the necessary
concurrent negligence in allowing Tan, who was precautions, can it be said that Sebastian
not the registered guest, to open the safety exercised due care in selecting and supervising
deposit box of McLoughlin, even assuming that Ong?
the latter was also guilty of negligence in
allowing another person to use his key. RULING: No. Sebastian's testimony is self-
serving and devoid of corroboration as he did
10. Marcelo Macalinao vs. Eddie Medecielo not bother to support the same with document
Ong and Genovevo Sebastian, G.R. No. evidence.
146635, December 14, 2005
On the other hand, due diligence in supervision
FACTS: Macalinao and Ong were employed as requires the formulation of rules and
utility man and driver, respectively, at the regulations for the guidance of employees and
Genetron International Marketing, a company the issuance of proper instructions as well as
owned by Sebastian. Sebastian instructed actual implementation and monitoring of
Macalinao and Ong to deliver a heavy piece of consistent compliance with the rules.
machinery to his manufacturing plant. In Admonitions to drive carefully without the
complying with the order, the truck driven by corresponding guidelines and monitoring of the
Ong hit and bumped the front portion of a employee do not satisfy the due diligence
private jeepney. required by law either.

Both vehicles incurred severe damages while In short, Sebastian's claims fall short of what is
the passengers sustained physical injuries as a required by law to overcome the presumption
consequence of the collision. Macalinao of negligence in the selection and supervision of
incurred the most serious injuries. his employee

ISSUE 1: What is Sebastian liability to the 11. Mercury Drug Corporation v Huang
damages caused by the Ong's negligence? FACTS:
A six-wheeler truck owned by petitioner duties. Thus, in the selection of its prospective
weighing 14, 058kg drove by an employee employees, the employer is required to examine
Rolando Del Rosario and a Toyota Corolla the as to their qualifications, experience, and
owned by respondent Huang weighing 1,450kg, service records. With respect to the supervision
drove by their son, met in a road accident. Both of its employees, the employer should
were passing through C-5 Highway, north formulate standard operating procedures,
bound, coming from the general direction of monitor their implementation, and impose
Alabang going to Pasig City. Huang is taking the disciplinary measures for their breach. To
leftinnermost side of the road while on his right establish compliance with these requirements,
is the truck driven by del Rosario when the truck employers must submit concrete proff,
suddenly swerved to the left. It hit the front including documentary evidence.
right side of the car which consequently tossed Merlie Caamic, the Recruitment and Training
the car over the island where it hit a lamppost, Manager of petitioner Mercury Drug, admitted
and then spun around and landed on the that when Del Rosario was hired, he took the
opposite lane. When the accident happened, driving tests and psychological examination
Del Rosario only has in his possession a Traffic when he applied for the position of delivery
Violation Receipt since he was caught for man, but not when he applied for the position
reckless driving before the incident. Due to of truck man. No further tests were conducted
collision, Stephen Huang sustained several and no NBI and police clearances were
injuries all over his body. Because his spinal presented. In addition, the last driving seminar
cord, head, face, and lung were seriously he attended was in 1984, which was 12 years
damaged, he is paralyzed from his chest down ago when the accident happened. Also, no
for life despite the operations. backup driver is assigned during long trips.
The Huangs filed a case before the RTC of When the accident happened, it appears that
Makati City against Mercury on the ground of Del Rosario was at work for more than 13 hours.
failure to exercise diligence of a good father of It can be gleaned from the fact that Del Rosario
the family in the selection and supervision of its was actually driving at that time without license
driver, and also Del Rosario for gross negligence having only a TVR in his possession. He
and reckless imprudence while driving. On the admitted that he reported it to his superiors but
other hand, Mercury and Del Rosario alleged to no action was taken.
that it was because of Stephen Huang’s
recklessness that the accident occurred. Del 12. MERRITT vs GOVERNMENT
Rosario said that he was the one driving on the G.R. No. L-11154
left innermost lane when the car bumped the March 21, 1916
truck’s front right tire.
ISSUE: FACTS: While plaintiff was riding his motorcycle
WON Mercury Drug failed to exercise the along Calle Padre Faura, he was bumped by the
diligence required in supervising its employees General Hospital ambulance. By reason of the
and therefore liable. resulting collision, the plaintiff was so severely
HELD: injured rendering him unable to return to work.
YES. The liability of the employer under Article The legislature later enacted Act 2457
2180 of the Civil Code is direct and immediate. authorizing Merritt to file a suit against the
It is not conditioned on a prior recourse against Government in order to fix the responsibility for
the negligent employee, or a prior showing of the collision between his motorcycle and the
insolvency of such employee. It is also joint and ambulance of the General Hospital, and to
solidary with the employee. To be relieved of determine the amount of the damages, if any,
liability, Mercury Drug should show that it to which he is entitled.
exercised the diligence of a good father of a
family, both in the selection of the employee ISSUE: Did the defendant, in enacting Act 2457,
and in the supervision of the performance of his simply waive its immunity from suit or did it also
concede its liability to the plaintiff? deposit/trust funds in ISU’s account in the PNB
(such fund were generated from the installment
RULING: NO. By consenting to be sued a state payments ISU received).
simply waives its immunity from suit. It does
not thereby concede its liability to plaintiff, or ISSUE: Whether or not such deposits may be
create any cause of action in his favor, or garnished.
extend its liability to any cause not previously
recognized. It merely gives a remedy to enforce HELD: No. ISU’s activity of selling irrigation
a preexisting liability and submits itself to the pumps is not intended to earn profit or financial
jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right to gain. It is actually just to replenish the funds
interpose any lawful defense. It follows used in purchasing said irrigation pumps (the
therefrom that the state, by virtue of such original funds were from FTA from US). The CA
provisions of law, is not responsible for the ruled that ISU, by selling irrigation pumps is
damages suffered by private individuals in engaged in private business, hence it waived its
consequence of acts performed by its immunity from suit and had also ordered the
employees in the discharge of the functions garnishment of ISU’s deposits in PNB. But then
pertaining to their office, because neither fault again, as based in Merritt vs Insular
nor even negligence can be presumed on the Government, the waiver of said immunity does
part of the state in the organization of branches not make the government liable. This would
of public service and in the appointment of its only lead to a disbursement of fund without any
agents. The State can only be liable if it acts proper appropriation as required by law. There
through a special agent (and a special agent, in is also no showing that the ISU’s alleged
the sense in which these words are employed, inducement of Handong is authorized by the
is one who receives a definite and fixed order State hence the government cannot be liable
or commission, foreign to the exercise of the under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
duties of his office if he is a special official) so
that in representation of the state and being In addition, The Court ruled that the ISU is a
bound to act as an agent thereof, he executes government agency engaged in the
the trust confided to him. In the case at bar, the administration of irrigation system to promote
ambulance driver was not a special agent nor an economic policy of sustaining development
was a government officer acting as a special and growth in agriculture. Aside from being an
agent hence, there can be no liability from the agency of the government pursuing a
government. governmental function, the fact that it is
collecting payment for irrigation pumps will not
13. REPUBLIC vs PALACIOS make the ISU one engaged in business. The
In April 1960, a certain Ildefenso Ortiz sued the installment payment being collected is not for
Irrigation Service Unit (ISU) which was under profit but merely for the purpose of financing
the Department of Public Works because ISU, the cost of the pump and its maintenance and
without the consent of Ortiz, encroached upon administration.
his land by allegedly inducing the Handong
Irrigation Assoc. to do so. The basis of the suit Although the State allowed its self to be sued,
was that ISU, though created by the the trust fund may not be automatically the
government, is engaged in private business subject of garnishment due to the fact that it is
(selling of irrigation pumps/construction a public fund. Being a public fund, it may only
materials in installment) and being such has be appropriated by law and may not be use for
opened itself to suit thereby waiving immunity garnishment at the expense of the public.
from suit. Judge Palacio of CFI Camarines Sur
ruled in favor of Ortiz so did the Court of 14. Case: Consolidated Case of : Fontanilla vs.
Appeals. The CA also ordered the issuance of Maliama, G.R. No. 55963; National
the order of garnishment against the Irrigation Administration vs. Fontanilla,
G.R. No. 61045, 01 December 1989. part of respondents employee-driver. In this
Facts: on August 21, 1976 at about 6:30 P.M., regard, the Solicitor General alleges that the
a pickup owned and operated by respondent trial court decision does not categorically
National Irrigation Administration, then driven contain such finding.
officially by Hugo Garcia, an employee of said 2) Respondent National Irrigation
agency as its regular driver, bumped a bicycle Administration, however, avers that it cannot be
ridden by Francisco Fontanilla, son of herein held liable for the damages because it is an
petitioners, and Restituto Deligo, at Maasin, San agency of the State performing governmental
Jose City along the Maharlika Highway. As a functions and driver Hugo Garcia was a regular
result, Francisco Fontanilla and Restituto Deligo driver of the vehicle, not a special agent who
were injured and brought to the San Jose City was performing a job or act foreign to his usual
Emergency Hospital for treatment. Fontanilla duties. Hence, the liability for the tortious act
was later transferred to the Cabanatuan should not be borne by respondent government
Provincial Hospital where he died. agency but by driver Garcia who should answer
Spouses Fontanilla file an action for damages in for the consequences of his act.
connection with the death of their son. After
trial, the trial court rendered judgment on Issue: Whether or not petitioners may be
March 20, 1980 which directed respondent entitled to an award of moral and exemplary
National Irrigation Administration to pay damages and attorney’s fees can very well be
damages (death benefits) and actual expenses answered with the application of Arts. 2176 and
to petitioners. 2180 of the New Civil Code.
NIAC filed for a motion for reconsideration but
was denied by the respondent trial court, thus Ruling: YES. The liability of the State has two
the NIAC appealed said decision to the Court of aspects, namely: 1. its public or governmental
Appeals. Instead of filing the required brief in aspects where it is liable for the tortious acts of
the aforecited Court of Appeals case, petitioners special agents only. ; 2. Its private or business
filed the instant petition with this Court. aspects (as when it engages in private
IAC contend among others, that: enterprises) where it becomes liable as an
1) The award of moral damages is specifically ordinary employer.
allowable under paragraph 3 of Article 2206 of The National Irrigation Administration is an
the New Civil Code which provides that the agency of the government exercising
spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants proprietary functions, by express provision of
and ascendants of the deceased may demand Rep. Act No. 3601. Indubitably, the NIA is a
moral damages for mental anguish by reason of government corporation with juridical
the death of the deceased.. . personality and not a mere agency of the
2) Respondent National Irrigation government. Since it is a corporate body
Administration acted with gross negligence performing non-governmental functions, it now
because of the accident and the subsequent becomes liable for the damage caused by the
failure of the National Irrigation Administration accident resulting from the tortious act of its
personnel including the driver to stop in order driver-employee. In this particular case, the NIA
to give assistance to the victims. Thus, by assumes the responsibility of an ordinary
reason of the gross negligence of respondent, employer and as such, it becomes answerable
petitioners become entitled to exemplary for damages.
damages under Arts. 2231 and 2229 of the New This assumption of liability, however, is
Civil Code. predicated upon the existence of negligence on
The Solicitor General, on the other hand, the part of respondent NIA. The negligence
contend among others, that: referred to here is the negligence of
1) Before petitioners claim for moral and supervision. Since it has been established that
exemplary damages could be resolved, there respondent is a government agency performing
should first be a finding of negligence on the proprietary functions and as such, it assumes
the posture of an ordinary employee which, sustained by the claimant; (2) a culpable act or
under Par. 5 of Art. 2180, is responsible for the omission factually established; (3) a wrongful
damages caused by its employees provided that act or omission of the defendant as the
it has failed to observe or exercise due diligence proximate cause of the injury sustained by the
in the selection and supervision of the driver. claimant; and (4) the award of damages
Evidently, there was negligence in the predicated on any of the cases stated in Article
supervision of the driver for the reason that 2219. In the present case, the Complaint
they were travelling at a high speed within the alleged that respondent’s son sustained
city limits and yet the supervisor of the group, physical injuries. The son testified that he
Ely Salonga, failed to caution and make the suffered physical injuries, however, no other
driver observe the proper and allowed speed evidence was presented to prove such bare
limit within the city. Under the situation, such assertion of physical injury. Thus, there was no
negligence is further aggravated by their desire credible proof that would justify an award of
to reach their destination without even checking moral damages based on Article 2219(2) of the
whether or not the vehicle suffered damage Civil Code. Moreover, the Decisions are
from the object it bumped, thus showing conspicuously silent with respect to the claim of
imprudence and recklessness on the part of respondent that his moral sufferings were due
both the driver and the supervisor in the group. to the negligence of petitioners; it makes no
Significantly, this Court has ruled that even if mention of any statement regarding moral
the employer can prove the diligence in the suffering. Well-settled is the rule that moral
selection and supervision (the latter aspect has damages cannot be awarded -- whether in a
not been established herein) of the employee, civil or a criminal case, in the absence of proof
still if he ratifies the wrongful acts, or take no of physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
step to avert further damage, the employer serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
would still be liable. wounded feelings, moral shock, social
humiliation, or similar injury. The award of
15. QUEZON CITY GOV’T vs DACARA moral damages must be solidly anchored on a
G R No. 150304, June 15, 2005 definite showing that respondent actually
experienced emotional and mental sufferings.
Facts: Dacara Jr.’s car turned turtle upon hitting Mere allegations do not suffice; they must be
a rammed into a pile of earth/street diggings substantiated by clear and convincing proof.
found at Matahimik St., Quezon City, which was
then being repaired by the Quezon City Issue #2: Is the Quezon City Government liable
government. As a result, Dacara, Jr. allegedly for exemplary damages due to the injuries
sustained bodily injuries and the vehicle suffered by Dacara Jr.?
suffered extensive damage. Thus his father
Fulgencio Dacara Senior filed a claim for Ruling #2: YES. Article 2231 of the Civil Code
damages against the Local Government. The mandates that in cases of quasi-delicts,
LGU contended that the fault is with the driver, exemplary damages may be recovered if the
since the LGU have put up warning signs. The defendant acted with gross negligence. Gross
trial court ruled that the LGU is liable. negligence means such utter want of care as to
raise a presumption that the persons at fault
Issue #1: Is the Quezon City Government liable must have been conscious of the probable
for moral damages due to the injuries suffered consequences of their carelessness, and that
by Dacara Jr.? they must have nevertheless been indifferent
(or worse) to the danger of injury to the person
Ruling #1: NO. To award moral damages, a or property of others. The negligence must
court must be satisfied with proof of the amount to a reckless disregard for the safety of
following requisites: (1) an injury -- whether persons or property. Such a circumstance
physical mental, or psychological -- clearly obtains in the instant case. The City
Government through its instrumentalities have were no barricades around the manhole.
failed to show the modicum of responsibility, Biglang-awa filed a complaint against MWSS,
much less, care expected of them by the KC,The Municipality of San Juan (San Juan),
constituents of this City. It is even more and a number of municipal officials before RTC
deplorable that it was a case of a street digging Pasig. The RTC held MWSS and San Juan jointly
in a side street which caused the accident in the liable. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC with
so-called ‘premier city.’ Article 2229 of the Civil modification as to the value of damages. San
Code provides that exemplary damages may be Juan contends that it cannot be held liable
imposed by way of example or correction for the because the road were the accident occured
public good. The award of these damages is was a national road, to which they had no
meant to be a deterrent to socially deleterious control over.
actions. Public policy requires such imposition
to suppress wanton acts of an offender. It must ISSUE: Is the Municipality of San Juan liable for
be emphasized that local governments and their the damages suffered by Assistant Prosecutor
employees should be responsible not only for Biglang-awa?
the maintenance of roads and streets, but also
for the safety of the public. Thus, they must RULING:YES. Jurisprudence teaches that for
secure construction areas with adequate liability to arise under Article 2189 of the Civil
precautionary measures. Code, ownership of the roads, streets, bridges,
public buildings and other public works, is not a
16. Municipality of San Juan v CA, GR , 9 Aug controlling factor, it being sufficient that a
2005 province, city or municipality has control or
GARCIA, J. supervision thereof.

FACTS:The Metropolitan Waterworks and It is argued, however, that under Section 149,
Sewerage System (MWSS) engaged the [1][z] of the Local Government Code, petitioner
services of K.C. Waterworks System has control or supervision only over municipal
Construction (KC) to install water service and not national roads, like Santolan
connections. On 20 May 1988, KC was given a Road.Sadly, petitioner failed to take note of the
Job Order by MWSS to conduct excavations at other
the corner of M. Paterno amd Santolan Rd, San provisions of Section 149 of the same Code,
Juan, Metro Manila, a national road, for the more particularly the following: Section 149.
laying of water pipes and tapping of water to Powers and Duties.
the respective houses of water concessionaires. (1) The sangguniang bayan shall:
On the same day, KC dispatched 5 workers to (bb) Regulate the drilling and excavation of the
conduct the operations. The workers dug a ground for the laying of gas, water, sewer, and
hole, after which they refilled the excavated other pipes; the building and repair of tunnels,
portion of the road with the same gravel and sewers, drains and other similar structures;
stone excavated from the area. At that time, erecting of poles and the use of crosswalks,
only 3/4 of the job was finished in view of the curbs and gutters therein, and adopt measures
fact that the workers were still required to re- to ensure public safety against open canals,
excavate that particular portion for the tapping manholes, live wires and other similar hazards
of pipes for the water connections. On 31 May to life and property, and provide just
1988, Priscilla Chan and her passenger, compensation or relief for persons suffering
Assistant City Prosecutor Laura Biglang-awa, from them;
met an accident, which led to a fractured
humerus of Prosecutor Biglang-awa's right arm. Clear it is from the above that the Municipality
The accident was caused by manhole where the of San Juan can "regulate" the drilling and
workers of KC had earlier made excavations. It excavation of the ground for the laying of gas,
was found out in an investigation that o there water, sewer, and other pipes within its
territorial jurisdiction. Doubtless, the term Delfin Capuno asking for P2,959 for the death
"regulate" found in the aforequoted provision of of her son.
Section 149 can only mean that petitioner
municipality exercises the power of control, or, Issue #1: Can parents be held civilly liable for
at the very least, supervision over all the damages caused by their minor children?
excavations for the laying of gas, water, sewer How can they be relieved of such liability?
and other pipes within its territory.
We must emphasize that under paragraph Yes. The civil liability which the law imposes
[1][bb] of Section 149, supra, of the Local upon the father, and, in case of his death or
Government Code, the phrases "regulate the incapacity, the mother, for any damages that
drilling and excavation of the ground for the may be caused by the minor children who live
laying of gas, water, sewer, and other pipes," with them is a necessary consequence of the
and "adopt measures to ensure public safety parental authority they exercise over them
against open canals, manholes, live wires and which imposes upon the parents the "duty of
other similar hazards to life and property," are supporting them,
not modified by the term "municipal road". And keeping them in their company, educating them
neither can it be fairly inferred from the same and instructing them in proportion to their
provision of Section 149 that petitioner's power means" while, on the other hand, gives them
of regulation vis-à-vis the activities therein the "right to correct and punish them in
mentioned applies only in cases where such moderation.” In the case at bar, Dante and
activities are to be performed in municipal Delfin Capuno shall jointly and severally pay the
roads. To our mind, the municipality's liability sum of P2,959 as damages.
for injuries caused by its failure to regulate the
drilling and excavation of the ground for the The only way by which they can relieve
laying of gas, water, sewer, and other pipes, themselves of such liability is if they prove that
attaches regardless of whether the drilling or they exercised all the diligence of a good father
excavation is made on a national or municipal of a family to prevent the damage.
road, for as long as the same is within its
territorial jurisdiction. Issue #2: Can the school supervisor be held
liable for the damages caused by its pupil?
17. Sabina Exconde v. Delfin Capuno and
Dante Capuno Ruling:
GR L-10134, June 29, 1957 No. The civil liability imposed by Article 1903 of
the old Civil Code on teachers or directors of
15 y.o. Dante, son of Delfin Capuno, a student arts and trades for damages caused by pupils
of the Balintawak Elementary School, attended or apprentices under their custody, only applies
a parade in honor of Dr. Jose Rizal upon to an institution of arts and trades and not to
instruction of the city school's supervisor. Dante any academic educational institution.
and the other students boarded a jeep from the
school; he took hold of the wheel and drove it 18. Mercado v. Court of appeals
while the driver sat on his left side. They have Liability of Teachers/Heads of
not gone far when the jeep turned turtle and Establishments
two of its passengers, Amado Ticzon and FACTS:
Isidoro Caperiña, died as a consequence. Manuel Quisumbing, Jr. and Augusto Mercado
were classmates in the Lourdes Catholic School.
Dante was found guilty for double homicide A "pitogo"in this case was used by children as a
through reckless imprudence. Sabina Econde, piggy bank. The "pitogo" belonged to Augusto
mother of the deceased Isidoro, filed a separate Mercado but he lent it to Benedicto P. Lim and
civil action for damages against Dante and in turn Benedicto lent it to Renato Legaspi.
Renato was not aware that the "pitogo" situation contemplated in the last paragraph of
belonged to Augusto, because right after Article 2180 does not apply, nor does paragraph
Benedicto gave it to him, Benedicto ran away to 2 of said article, which makes father or mother
get a basket ball with which they could play. responsible for the damages caused by their
Manuel Quisumbing, Jr. was likewise unaware minor children. The claim of petitioner that
that the "pitogo" belonged to Augusto. He responsibility should pass to the school must,
thought it was the "pitogo" of Benedicto P. Lim, therefore, be held to be without merit.
so that when Augusto attempted to get the
"pitogo" from Renato, Manuel, Jr. told him not 19. PALISOC v. BRILLANTES
to do so because Renato was better at putting
the chain into the holes of the "pitogo". G.R. No. L-29025 [October 4, 1971]
However, Augusto resented Manuel, Jr.'s
remark and he aggresively pushed the latter. FACTS:
The fight started then. After Augusto gave
successive blows to Manuel, Jr., and the latter Deceased Dominador Palisoc and defendant
was clutching his stomach which bore the brunt Virgilio Daffon were automotive mechanics
of Augusto's anger, Augusto seeing that students at the Manila Technical Institute
Manuel, Jr. was in a helpless position, cut him (MTI). In the afternoon of March 10, 1966
on the right check with a piece of razor. Counsel during recess, an altercation transpired
for petitioner argues that since the incident of between the deceased and the defendant. At
the inflicting of the wound on respondent the time of the incident, Dominador was sixteen
occurred in a Catholic School, through no fault years old while Virgilio was already of age.
of the father, petitioner herein, the teacher or Virgilio was working on a machine with
head of the school should be held responsible Dominador looking at them. The situation
instead of the latter. prompted Virgilio to remark that Dominador
ISSUE: was acting like a foreman. As a result,
Should the teacher or head of the school be Dominador slapped Virgilio on the face. Virgilio
held responsible? retaliated by inflicting severe blows upon
RULING: Dominador’s stomach, which caused the latter
NO. The last paragraph of Article 2180 of the to stumble upon an engine block and faint. The
Civil Code, upon which petitioner rests his claim latter died, the cause of death being “shock due
that the school should be made liable provides to traumatic fracture of the ribs”. The parents
that " teachers or heads of establishments of of Dominador filed an action for damages
arts and trades shall be liable for damages against (1) Virgilio, (2) Valenton, the
caused by their pupils and students or head/president of MTI, (3) Quibule who was the
apprentices, so long as they remain in their teacher in charge at the time of the incident,
custody." It would be seem that the clause "so and (4) Brillantes who is a member of the board
long as they remain in their custody," of directors and former sole proprietor of MTI.
contemplates a situation where the pupil lives The trial court held Virgilio liable but absolved
and boards with the teacher, such that the the other defendants-officials. It stated that the
control, direction and influence on the pupil clause “so long as they remain in their custody”
supersedes those of the parents. In these contained in Article 2180 of the Civil Code
circumstances the control or influence over the applies only where the pupil lives and boards
conduct and actions of the pupil would pass with the teachers, such that the control or
from the father and mother to the teacher; and influence on the pupil supersedes those of the
so would the responsibility for the torts of the parents., and such control and responsibility for
pupil. Such a situation does not appear in the the pupil’s actions would pass from the father
case at bar; the pupils appear to go to school and mother to the teachers. This legal
during school hours and go back to their homes conclusion was based on the dictum in Mercado
with their parents after school is over. The v. CA, which in turn based its decision in
Exconde v. Capuno. The trial court held that cannot likewise avail of the exemption to the
Article 2180 was not applicable in this case, as liability. The judgment of the appellate court
defendant Virgilio did not live with the was modified, while claim for compensatory
defendants-officials at the time of the incident. damages was increased in accordance with
Hence, this petition. recent jurisprudence and the claim for
exemplary damages denied in the absence of
ISSUE: gross negligence on the part of the said
Who must be held liable for damages for the
death of Dominador together with the 20. Ylarde vs. Aquino
defendant? GR No. L33722, July 29, 1988

HELD: FACTS: Private respondent Mariano Soriano

was the principal of the Gabaldon Primary
The head/president and teacher of MTI School in Pangasinan. Defendant Edgardo
(Valenton and Quibule respectively) were held Aquino was a teacher therein. During that time,
liable jointly and severally with the Virgilio for the school had several concrete blocks which
damages. No liability attaches to Brillantes as a were remnants of the old school shop destroyed
mere member of the MTI board of directors. in World War II. Defendant decided to help
Similarly, MTI may not be held liable since it had clear the area so he gathered 18 of his male
not been properly impleaded as party students and ordered them to dig beside a one
defendant. ton concrete block in making a hole where the
The phrase used in Article 2180, “so long as the stone can be buried. It was left unfinished so
students remain in their custody” means the the following day he called 4 of the 18 students
protective and supervisory custody that the including the Novelito Ylarde to complete the
school and its heads and teachers exercise over excavation. Defendant left the children to level
the pupils and students for as long as they are the loose soil while he went to see Banez for the
at attendance in the school, including recess key to the school workroom where he can get
time. There is nothing in the law that requires some rope. It was alleged that before leaving,
that for such liability to attach the pupil or he told the children “not to touch the stone”.
student who commits the tortuous act must live After he left, the children playfully jumped into
and board in the school. The dicta in the cases the pit when suddenly the concrete block slide
of Mercado as well as in Exconde v. Capuno on down. Unfortunately, Novelito Ylarde was
which it relied are deemed to have been set pinned to the wall causing serious physical
aside. The rationale of such liability of school injuries which as a consequence led to his
heads and teachers for the tortious acts of their death, 3 days thereafter. The parents of the
pupils and students, so long as they remain in victim, herein petitioners, filed a suit for
their custody, is that they stand, in loco parentis damages against both Aquino and Soriano.
to a certain extent to their pupils and students
and are called upon to “exercise reasonable ISSUE: Are Soriano and Aquino both liable for
supervision over the conduct of the child.” In damages?
this case, The unfortunate death resulting from
the fight between the protagonists-students HELD:
could have been avoided, had said defendants
complied with their duty of providing adequate As held in Amadora vs CA, “it is only the teacher
supervision over the activities of the students in and not the head of an academic school who
the school premises to protect their students should be answerable for torts committed by
from harm. Since Valenton and Quibule failed to their students”. Where the school is academic
prove that they observed all the diligence of a rather than technical or vocational in nature,
good father of a family to prevent damage, they responsibility for the tort committed by the
student will attach to the teacher in charge of Jesus Salvosa (Executive Vice President of BCF),
such student, this is the general rule. However, Libertad D. Quetolio (Dean of the College of
in casea of establishments of arts and trades, it Education and Executive Trustee of BCF) and
is the head thereof, and only he, who shall be the Baguio Colleges Foundation, Inc. as party
held liable as an exception to the general rule. defendants.
In other words, teachers in general shall be After hearing, the Trial Court rendered a
liable for the acts of their students except where decision, (1) sentencing defendants Jimmy B.
the school is technical in nature, in which case Abon, Beiyamin Salvosa and Baguio Colleges
it is the head thereof who shall be answerable. Foundation, Inc., jointly and severally, to pay
Hence, Soriano as principal cannot be held private respondents, as heirs of Napoleon
liable for the reason that the school he heads is Castro: for the death of Napoleon Castro; moral
an academic school and he did not give any damages, actual damages and Attorney’s Fee,
instruction regarding the digging. plus cost. The other defendants were absolved.
Hence this petition.
A teacher who stands in loco parentis to his
tudents should make sure that the children are Issue: Whether or not petitioners can be held
protected from all harm. The excavation solidarity liable with Jimmy B. Abon for
instructed clearly exposed the students to risk damages under Article 2180 of the Civil Code,
and should not be placed under the category of as a consequence of the tortious act of Jimmy
Work Education such as school gardening, B. Abon.
planting trees etc. Aquino acted with fault and
gross negligence where instead of availing Ruling: No. Under the penultimate paragraph of
himself of adult manual laborers he instead Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, teachers or heads
utilized his students. Furthermore, the warning of establishments of arts and trades are liable
given is not sufficient to cast away all serious for "damages caused by their pupils and
danger that the concrete block adjacent to the students or apprentices, so long as they remain
excavation would present to the children. He is in their custody." The rationale of such liability
therefore ordered to pay damages to the is that so long as the student remains in the
petitioners. custody of a teacher, the latter "stands, to a
certain extent, in loco parentis [as to the
21. Case: Salvosa vs IAC, No. L-70458. student] and [is] called upon to exercise
October 5, 1988. reasonable supervision over the conduct of the
Facts: The Baguio Colleges Foundation ROTC [student]." Likewise, "the phrase used in [Art.
Unit had Jimmy B. Abon as its duly appointed 2180.'so long as (the students) remain in their
armorer. As an armorer Jimmy Abon is both an custody' means the protective and supervisory
employee and officer of the AFP. Jimmy was custody that the school and its heads and
also a commerce student of BCF. teachers exercise over the pupils and students
On 3 March 1977, at around 8:00 p.m., in the for as long as they are at attendance in the
parking space of BCF, Jimmy B. Abon shot school, including recess time."
Napoleon Castro a student of the University of In the case at bar, the respondent court ruled
Baguio with an unlicensed firearm which the that Jimmy Abon was still in protective custody
former took from the armory of the ROTC Unit and supervisory custody of the BCF when they
of the BCF. As a result, Napoleon Castro died ruled that,
and Jimmy B. Abon was prosecuted for, and “it is true that Abon was not attending any class
convicted of the crime of Homicide by Military or school function at the
Commission No. 30, AFP. Subsequently, the time of the shooting incident, which was at
heirs of Napoleon Castro sued for damages, about 8 o’clock in the
impleading Jimmy B. Abon, Roberto C. Ungos evening; but considering that Abon was
(ROTC Commandant), Benjamin Salvosa employed as an armorer and
(President and Chairman of the Board of BCF), property custodian of the BCF ROTC unit, he
must have been attending experiment as a prerequisite to his graduation;
night classes and therefore that hour in the hence, he was then under the custody of the
evening was just about private respondents. The private respondents
dismissal time for him or soon thereafter. The submit that Alfredo Amadora had gone to the
time interval is safely school only for the purpose of submitting his
within the “recess time” that the trial court physics report and that he was no longer in their
spoke of and envisioned by custody because the semester had already
the Palisoc case”. ended. Petitioners filed an civil action for
The SC court however shed light that, in line damages based on Article 2180 Civil Code. In its
with the case of Palisoc, a student not “at decision, which is now the subject of this
attendance in the school” cannot be in “recess” petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
thereat. A “recess,” as the concept is embraced of Court, the respondent court found that Article
in the phrase “at attendance in the school,” 2180 was not applicable as the Colegio de San
contemplates a situation of temporary Jose-Recoletos was not a school of arts and
adjournment of school activities where the trades but an academic institution of learning.
student still remains within call of his mentor It also held that the students were not in the
and is not permitted to leave the school custody of the school at the time of the incident
premises, or the area within which the school as the semester had already ended, that there
activity is conducted. Recess by its nature does was no clear identification of the fatal gun, and
not include dismissal. Likewise, the mere fact of that in any event the defendants had exercised
being enrolled or being in the premises of a the necessary diligence in preventing the injury.
school without more does not constitute
“attending school” or being in the “protective ISSUE 1: Does the liability under Article 2180
and supervisory custody” of the school, as cover academic insitutions of learning?
contemplated in the law. Furthermore, the
record shows that that Jimmy B. Abon was ISSUE 2: When is a student considered under
supposed to be working in the armory with the custody of the school?
definite instructions from his superior, the ROTC
Commandant, when he shot Napoleon Castro. ISSUE 3: Who is liable in this case for the tort
Upon the foregoing considerations, we hold that committed by the student under the custody of
Jimmy B. Abon cannot be considered to have the school?
been “at attendance in the school,” or in the
custody of BCF, when he shot Napoleon Castro. RULING 1: YES. Teachers in general shall be
Logically, therefore, petitioners cannot under liable for the acts of their students except where
Art. 2180 of the Civil Code be held solidarity the school is technical in nature, in which case
liable with Jimmy B. Abon for damages resulting it is the head thereof who shall be answerable.
from his acts. Following the canon of reddendo singula
singulis, "teachers" should apply to the words
22. AMADORA vs COURT OF APPEALS, No. L- "pupils and students" and "heads of
47745, 15 April 1988. establishments of arts and trades" to the word
There is no substantial distinction between an
FACTS: Alfredo Amadora went to the San Jose- academic and non-academic schools insofar as
Recoletos on April 13, 1972, and while in its torts committed by their students are
auditorium was shot to death by Pablito Daffon, concerned. The injury subject of liability is
a classmate. On the implications and caused by the student and not by the school
consequences of these facts, the parties sharply itself nor is it a result of the operations of
disagree. The petitioners contend that their son the,school or its equipment.
was in the school to finish his physics
RULING 2: As long as it can be shown that the
student is in the school premises in pursuance Issue: Whether the provision of the penultimate
of a legitimate student objective, in the exercise paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code
of a legitimate student right, and even in the which states:
enjoyment of a legitimate student privilege, the Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of
responsibility of the school authorities over the arts and trades shall be liable for damages
student continues. caused by their pupils and students or
apprentices, so long as they remain in their
RULING 3: The teacher-in-charge assigned by custody.
the dean, principals or other administrative is equally applicable to academic institutions?
superior to exercise supervision over the Ruling. No.
students. It is not necessary that at the time of We find no necessity of discussing the
the injury, the teacher be physically present and applicability of the Article to educational
in a position to prevent it. Custody does not institutions (which are not schools of arts and
connote immediate and actual physical control trades) for the issue in this petition is actually
but refers more to the influence exerted on the whether or not, under the article, the school or
child and the discipline instilled in him as a the university itself (as distinguished from the
result of such influence. Thus, for the injuries teachers or heads) is liable. We find the answer
caused by the student, the teacher and not the in the negative, for surely the provision
parent shall be held responsible if the tort was concerned speaks only of "teachers or heads."
committed within the premises of the school at
any time when its authority could be validly (not necessary: only for recitation if ask by
exercised over him. ma’am)
SARMIENTO, J., dissenting:
23. REYNALDO PASCO, assisted by his father I dissent. Paragraph 5 of Art. 2180 may be
PEDRO PASCO, petitioner, construed as the basis for the liability of the
vs. school as the employer for the failure of its
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN, teachers or school heads to perform their
BRANCH V, STA. MARIA and ARANETA mandatory legal duties as substitute parents.
UNIVERSITY, respondents. Herrera, J. concurring (Amadora et al. vs. Court
G.R. No. L-54357 April 25, 1988 of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-47745, citing
Sangco, Philippine Law on Torts & Damages,
Facts: On August 24, 1979 at about 5:00 o'clock 1978 ed., p. 201).
in the afternoon, petitioner, together with two MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., dissenting:
companions, while walking inside the campus of I join Justice Sarmiento in his dissent.
the private respondent Araneta University, after As stated by him, my view is that while the
attending classes in said university, was educational institution is not directly liable, yet
accosted and mauled by a group of Muslim the school, as the employer, may be held liable
students led by Abdul Karim Madidis alias for the failure of its teachers or school heads to
"Teng." Said Muslim group were also students perform their mandatory legal duties as
of the Araneta University. Petitioner was substitute parents (Article 2180, Civil Code).
subsequently stabbed by Abdul and as a The school, however, may exculpate itself from
consequence he was hospitalized at the Manila liability by proving that it had exercised the
Central University (MCU) Hospital where he diligence of a good father of the family.
underwent surgery to save his life.
On October 5, 1979, petitioner, assisted by his 24. ST. MARY'S ACADEMY, petitioner
father Pedro Pasco, filed a complaint for vs
damages against Abdul Karim Madidis and WILLIAM CARPITANOS and LUCIA S.
herein private respondent Gregorio Araneta CARPITANOS, GUADA DANIEL, JAMES
University. DANIEL II, JAMES DANIEL, SR., and
VIVENCIO VILLANUEVA, respondents. that the cause of the accident was the
detachment of the steering wheel guide that
G.R. No. 143363. February 6, 2002 caused the jeep to turn turtle.
Significantly, respondents did not present any
Facts: From 13 to 20 February 1995, St. Mary’s evidence to show that the proximate cause of
Academy of Dipolog City conducted an the accident was the negligence of the school
enrollment drive for the school year 1995-1996. authorities, or the reckless driving of James
A facet of the enrollment campaign was the Daniel II. Hence, the respondents’ reliance on
visitation of schools from where prospective Article 219 of the Family Code that those given
enrollees were studying. As a student of St. the authority and responsibility under the
Mary’s Academy, Sherwin Carpitanos was part preceding Article shall be principally and
of the campaigning group. Accordingly, on the solidarily liable for damages caused by acts or
fateful day, Sherwin, along with other high omissions of the unemancipated minor was
school students were riding in a Mitsubishi jeep unfounded.
owned by defendant Vivencio Villanueva on Further, there was no evidence that petitioner
their way to Larayan Elementary School, school allowed the minor James Daniel II to
Larayan, Dapitan City. The jeep was driven by drive the jeep of respondent Vivencio
James Daniel II then 15 years old and a student Villanueva. It was Ched Villanueva, grandson of
of the same school. Allegedly, the latter drove respondent Vivencio Villanueva, who had
the jeep in a reckless manner and as a result possession and control of the jeep. He was
the jeep turned turtle. driving the vehicle and he allowed James Daniel
Sherwin Carpitanos died as a result of the II, a minor, to drive the jeep at the time of the
injuries he sustained from the accident. accident.
Hence, liability for the accident, whether caused
Issue: Whether the petitioner (St. Mary’s by the negligence of the minor driver or
Academy) is liable for damages for the death of mechanical detachment of the steering wheel
Sherwin Carpitanos? guide of the jeep, must be pinned on the
minor’s parents primarily. The negligence of
Ruling: No. petitioner St. Marys Academy was only a remote
For petitioner to be liable, there must be a cause of the accident. Between the remote
finding that the act or omission considered as cause and the injury, there intervened the
negligent was the proximate cause of the injury negligence of the minor’s parents or the
caused because the negligence must have a detachment of the steering wheel guide of the
causal connection to the accident. jeep.
In this case, the respondents failed to show that
the negligence of petitioner was the proximate 25. Child Learning Center, Inc. vs Tagorio,
cause of the death of the victim. G.R. No. 150920, 25 November 2005.
Respondents Daniel spouses and Villanueva
admitted that the immediate cause of the AZCUNA, J.:
accident was not the negligence of petitioner or
the reckless driving of James Daniel II, but the FACTS: Tagorio spouses are the parents of
detachment of the steering wheel guide of the Timothy, student of Child Learning Center
jeep. (CLC), who was injured when he tried to escape
Hence, the cause of the accident was not the a lock bathroom stall through its window and
recklessness of James Daniel II but the fell down three (3) stories. An action for torts
mechanical defect in the jeep of Vivencio under Article 2176 of the Civil code was filed
Villanueva. Respondents, including the spouses against CLC, with the negligent acts being
Carpitanos, parents of the deceased Sherwin installing defective locks and failure to install
Carpitanos, did not dispute the report and safety grills on the bathroom window. In its
testimony of the traffic investigator who stated defense, CLC maintained that there was nothing
defective about the locking mechanism of the have been caused by an agency or
door and that the fall of Timothy was not due instrumentality within the exclusive
to its fault or negligence (the lock on the door management or control of the person charged
was removed after the incident.) CLC further with the negligence complained of; and (3) the
maintained that it had exercised the due care accident must not have been due to any
and diligence of a good father of a family to voluntary action or contribution on the part of
ensure the safety, well-being and convenience the person injured.
of its students.
Petitioners are clearly answerable for failure to
ISSUE 1: How is tort under Article 2176 proven? see to it that the doors of their school toilets are
What is the difference between Fault and at all times in working condition. The fact that
Negligence? a student had to go through the window,
instead of the door, shows that something was
ISSUE 2: Is CLC liable for tort under 2176? wrong with the door.

RULING 1: In every tort case filed under Article As to the failure to install safety grills,
2176 of the Civil Code, plaintiff has to prove by petitioners claim that such was not required
a preponderance of evidence: (1) the damages under the building code, nevertheless, the
suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or window was 1.5m from the floor and it was
negligence of the defendant or some other within the reach of students when they could
person for whose act he must respond; and (3) not use the regular exit. Petitioners, with the
the connection of cause and effect between the due diligence of a good father of the family,
fault or negligence and the damages incurred. should have anticipated that a student, locked
in the toilet by a non-working door, would
Fault, in general, signifies a voluntary act or attempt to use the window to call for help or
omission which causes damage to the right of even to get out.
another giving rise to an obligation on the part
of the actor to repair such damage. Negligence 26. Saludaga v. FEU and De Jesus, G.R. No.
is the failure to observe for the protection of the 179337, 30 April 2008
interest of another person that degree of care, FACTS: Petitioner Saludaga was a sophomore
precaution and vigilance which the law student of Far Eastern University (FEU)
circumstances justly demand. Fault requires the when he was shot by Alejandro Rosete
execution of a positive act which causes (Rosete), one of the security guards on duty at
damage to another while negligence consists of the school premises. Petitioner was rushed to
the omission to do acts which result in damage the hospital due to the wound he sustained.
to another. Rosete was brought to the police station where
he explained that the shooting was accidental.
RULING 2: YES. Although there was no direct Saludaga thereafter filed a complaint for
evidence to prove that the doorknobs were damages against respondents on the ground
defective on the date in question, the fact that that they breached their obligation to provide
Timothy fell out through the window shows that students with a safe and secure environment
the door could not be opened from the inside. and an atmosphere conducive to learning.
That sufficiently points to the fact that Respondents, in turn, filed a Third-Party
something was wrong with the door, if not the Complaint against Galaxy Development and
door knob, under the principle of res ipsa Management Corporation (Galaxy), the agency
loquitor. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor contracted by respondent FEU to provide
applies where (1) the accident was of such security services within its premises and
character as to warrant an inference that it Mariano D. Imperial (Imperial), Galaxys
would not have happened except for the President, to indemnify them for whatever
defendant's negligence; (2) the accident must would be adjudged in favor of petitioner, if any;
and to pay attorneys fees and cost of the suit. respondents Security Consultant to Galaxy and
its security guards are ordinarily no more than
ISSUE #1: What is the source of FEU’s requests commonly envisaged in the contract
obligation to indemnify Saludaga? for services entered into by a principal and a
What is needed to prove that this obligation of security agency. They cannot be construed as
FEU exists? the element of control as to treat respondents
as the employers of Rosete.
RULING #1: Culpa contractual. As to the Third Party Claim against Galaxy,
It is settled that in culpa contractual, the mere evidence duly supports that Galaxy is negligent
proof of the existence of the contract and the not only in the selection of its employees but
failure of its compliance justify, prima facie, a also in their supervision. Indeed, no
corresponding right of relief. In the instant administrative sanction was imposed against
case, we find that, when petitioner was shot Rosete despite the shooting incident; moreover,
inside the campus by no less the security guard he was even allowed to go on leave of absence
who was hired to maintain peace and secure the which led eventually to his disappearance.
premises, there is a prima facie showing that Galaxy also failed to monitor petitioner's
respondents failed to comply with its obligation condition or extend the necessary assistance.
to provide a safe and secure environment to its For these acts of negligence and for having
students. supplied respondent FEU with an unqualified
After a thorough review of the records, the SC security guard, which resulted to the latter's
found that FEU failed to discharge the burden breach of obligation to petitioner, it is proper to
of proving that they exercised due diligence in hold Galaxy liable to respondent FEU for such
providing a safe learning environment for their damages equivalent to the above-mentioned
students. They failed to prove that they ensured amounts awarded to petitioner.
that the guards assigned in the campus met the Unlike respondent De Jesus, we deem Imperial
requirements stipulated in the Security Service to be solidarily liable with Galaxy for being
Agreement. Certain documents about Galaxy grossly negligent in directing the affairs of the
were presented during trial; however, no security agency. It was Imperial who assured
evidence as to the qualifications of Rosete as a petitioner that his medical expenses will be
security guard for the university was offered. shouldered by Galaxy but said representations
FEU also failed to show that they undertook were not fulfilled.
steps to ascertain and confirm that the security
guards assigned to them actually possess the 27. ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL vs CA, G.R.
qualifications required in the Security Service No. 82465. February 25, 1991
Article 1170 of the Civil Code provides that PARAS, J.:
those who are negligent in the performance of
their obligations are liable for damages. FACTS: Ferdinand Castillo was a fresh-man
Accordingly, for breach of contract due to student of St. Francis High School. He joined a
negligence in providing a safe learning school picnic undertaken by 2 classes in a
environment, respondent FEU is liable to nearby beach. His parents did not allow him to
petitioner for damages. join however due to short notice but allowed
him to bring food to the teachers for the picnic.
ISSUE #2: Is FEU vicariously liable under Article However, because of the persuasion of the
2180 of the Civil Code? teachers Ferdinand joined the picnic. During
RULING #2: NO. Respondents cannot be held such, one of the teachers was drowning and
liable for damages under Article 2180 of the apparently Ferdinand attempted to rescue said
Civil Code because respondents are not the teacher which led to him drowning instead. An
employers of Rosete. The latter was employed action for damages was filed by the parents
by Galaxy. The instructions issued by against the school, its principal, and the
teachers on the ground of negligence. the said rule does not cover academic
institutions. The trial court denied the motion to
The trial court favored the parents and held the dismiss. Their motion for reconsideration was
teachers liable. First, because the latter did not likewise dismissed, and was affirmed by the
test the depth of the particular area where the appellate court. Hence, the case was forwarded
children should swim and second, because the to the Supreme Court.
male teachers were somewhere away having a ISSUE:
drinking spree. The trial court however, Whether or not PSBA is liable for the death of
dismissed the case against the school since the student.
there was no finding that the picnic was a RULING:
school sanctioned one. There is a contractual relation between the
PSBA and Carlitos Bautista, the rules on quasi-
ISSUE: Is the school liable and the teachers delict do not really govern. A perusal of Article
liable? 2176 shows that obligations arising from quasi-
delicts or torts, also known as extra-contractual
RULING: No. Under Art. 2180 the negligence of obligations, arise only between parties not
the employee holds the employer liable only otherwise bound by contract, whether express
when the employee was in the performance of or implied. However, this impression has not
his assigned tasks. The teachers and students prevented this Court from determining the
held a purely private affair, which is the picnic, existence of a tort even when there obtains a
without permit from the school head or its contract.
principal. Mere knowledge of the principal does Article 2180, in conjunction with Article 2176 of
not in any way show acquiescence or consent. the Civil Code, establishes the rule in loco
parentis. Article 2180 provides that the damage
Also, no negligence can be attributed to the should have been caused or inflicted by pupils
teacher defendants, the court is of the view that or students of the educational institution sought
they exercised due diligence as required by law. to be held liable for the acts of its pupils or
First, PE instructors and scout masters with students while in its custody. However, this
knowledge of first aid application and swimming material situation does not exist in the present
were invited. And Second, they did all that is case for, as earlier indicated, the assailants of
humanly possible to save and revive the child Carlitos were not students of the PSBA, for
(back to back pressure, first aid, mouth to whose acts the school could be made liable. But
mouth resuscitation). it does not necessarily follow that PSBA is
absolved from liability.
28. PSBA v CA When an academic institution accepts students
FACTS: for enrollment, there is established a contract
Carlitos Bautista was a third year student of the between them, resulting in bilateral obligations
Philippine School of Business Administration. which both parties is bound to comply with. For
Assailants, who were not members of the its part, the school undertakes to provide the
school’s academic community, while in the student with an education or a profession. This
premises of PSBA , stabbed Bautista to death. includes ensuring the safety of the students
This incident prompted his parents to file a suit while in the school premises. On the other
against PSBA and its corporate officers for hand, the students covenant to abide by the
damages due to their alleged negligence, school’s academic requirements and observe its
recklessness and lack of security precautions, rules and regulations.
means and methods before, during and after Failing on its contractual and implied duty to
the attack on the victim. ensure the safety of their student, PSBA is
The defendants filed a motion of dismiss, therefore held liable for his death.
claiming that the complaint states no cause of
action against them based on quasi-delicts , as
29. MAXIMO SOLIMAN JR. represented by been injured by one who was an outsider or by
guardian VIRIGINIA SOLIMAN vs. HON. one over whom the school did not exercise any
JUDGE TUAZON and REPUBLIC CENTRAL custody or control or supervision. At the same
COLLEGES time, however, the Court stressed that an
G.R. No. 66207 May 18, 1992 implied contract may be held to be established
between a school which accepts students for
FACTS: Jimmy Solomon, a security guard of enrollment, on the one hand, and the students
Republic Central Colleges under the who are enrolled, on the other hand, which
employment, supervision and control of his contract results in obligations for both parties.
employer-defendant R.L. SECURITY AGENCY, In the case at bar, the court a quo granted the
INC., shot petitioner Maximino a student of said motion to dismiss filed by respondent Colleges,
school on the abdomen. Maximino was treated upon the assumption that petitioner's cause of
at the Angeles Medical Center and as per action was based, and could have been based,
doctor’s opinion, he may not be able to attend only on Article 2180 of the Civil Code. As PSBA,
to his regular classes and will be incapacitated however, states, acts which are tortious or
in the performance of his usual work for a allegedly tortious in character may at the same
duration of three to four months before his time constitute breach of a contractual, or other
wounds would be completely healed. Petitioner legal, obligation. Respondent trial judge was in
Maximino filed a civil complaint for damages serious error when he supposed that petitioner
against Republic Central Colleges and Jimmy could have no cause of action other than one
Solomon. Private respondent Colleges filed a based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
motion to dismiss stating that the complaint Respondent trial judge should not have granted
stated no cause of action against it. Private the motion to dismiss but rather should have, in
respondent argued that it is free from any the interest of justice, allowed petitioner to
liability for the injuries sustained by petitioner prove acts constituting breach of an obligation
student for the reason that private respondent ex contractu or ex lege on the part of
school was not the employer of the security respondent Colleges.
guard charged, Jimmy Solomon, and hence was
not responsible for any wrongful act of
Solomon. Private respondent school further
argued that Article 2180, 7th paragraph, of the
Civil Code did not apply, since said paragraph
holds teachers and heads of establishment of
arts and trades liable for damages caused by
their pupils and students or apprentices, while
security guard Jimmy Solomon was not a pupil,
student or apprentice of the school. The lower
court granted the motion to dismiss. Hence this
petition. It is contended that the trial judge
committed GAD when he refused to apply the
provisions of Article 2180 as well as 349, 350
and 352 of the Civil Code.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Colleges is


HELD: YES. School is liable on the basis of its

contractual obligation. In the case of PSBA vs.
CA, the Court held that Article 2180 of the Civil
Code was not applicable where a student had