Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

FACTS: Alfredo Amadora, while in the auditorium of the school, was mortally hit by

a gun by Pablito Daffon resulting to the former’s death. Daffon was convicted of
homicide through reckless imprudence. The victim’s parents, herein petitioners,
filed a civil action for damages against Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, its rectors,
high school principal, dean of boys, the physics teacher together with Daffon and 2
other students. Complaints against the students were dropped. Respondent Court
absolved the defendants completely and reversed CFI Cebu’s decision for the
following reasons:

1. Since the school was an academic institution of learning and not a school of
arts and trades.
2. That students were not in the custody of the school since the semester has
already ended
3. There was no clear identification of the fatal gun; and
4. In any event, defendants exercised the necessary diligence through
enforcement of the school regulations in maintaining discipline.

Petitioners on othe other hand claimed their son was under school custody because
he went to school to comply with a requirement for graduation which is the
submission of a Physics reports.

ISSUE: Whether or not Collegio de San Jose-Recoletos should be held liable.

HELD: The time Alfredo was fatally shot, he was in the custody of the authorities of
the school notwithstanding classes had formally ended when the incident
happened. It was immaterial if he was in the school auditorium to finish his physics
requirement. What was important is that he was there for a legitimate purpose. On
the other hand, the rector, high school principal and the dean of boys cannot be held
liable because none of them was the teacher-in-charge as defined in the
provision. Each was exercising only a general authority over the students and not
direct control and influence exerted by the teacher placed in-charge of particular
classes.

In the absence of a teacher- in charge, dean of boys should probably be held liable
considering that he had earlier confiscated an unlicensed gun from a student and
later returned to him without taking disciplinary action or reporting the matter to
the higher authorities. Though it was clear negligence on his part, no proof was
shown to necessarily link this gun with the shooting incident.

Collegio San Jose-Recoletos cannot directly be held liable under the provision
because only the teacher of the head of school of arts and trade is made responsible
for the damage caused by the student. Hence, under the facts disclosed, none of the
respondents were held liable for the injury inflicted with Alfredo resulting to his
death.

Petition was denied.