Amadora v CA | G.R. No. L-47745 April 15, 1988 | Cruz, J.  It was averred that the dean, Damaso Jr.

,
| by Jasper confiscated from gum ban an unlicensed pistol but
later returned it to him without making a report to
FACTS: the principal or taking any further action.
● Amadora was in the school to finish his physics  As Gumban was one of Daffon’s companions, it was
experiment when he was shot by Daffon, causing contended that it was the same gun used to kill
his death. The latter was convicted of reckless Amadora.
imprudence resulting to homicide.  However, the Court held that it does not necessarily
● Amadora’s parents then filed a civil action for link him to the shooting of Amador as it has not
damages against Colegio de San Jose- Recoletos, its been shown that the confiscated and returned
rector, the high school principal, the dean of boys, pistol was the gun that killed the petitioners' son.
and the physics teacher, together with Daffon and 4. WON Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos can be held
two other students, through their respective liable — NO
parents. The complaint against the students were  Only the teacher or the head of the school of arts
dropped later on. and trades is made responsible for the damage
● CFI held the remaining defendants liable, but this caused by the student or apprentice, and not the
was reversed by the CA, which held that Art. 2180 school. However, the school may be made liable for
was not applicable as Colegio de San Jose Recoletos the acts of its teachers or even of the head.
was not a school of arts and trades but an academic  In this case, none of the teachers were held liable.
institution of learning. It also held that the students Therefore, school cannot be imputed
were not in the custody of the school at the time of RULING: Petition Denied
the incident as the semester had already ended.
ISSUES/RATIO: NOTE:
1. WON the rector and high school principal can be • Art. 2180: Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of
held liable — NO arts and trades shall be liable for
● Contrary to the ruling of the CA, Art. 2180 applies damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices,
regardless of the nature of the school be it an so long as they remain in their
academic or non-academic. custody.
● Where the school is academic, the liability will The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when
attach to the teacher-in-charge, but in the case of the persons herein mentioned
establishments of arts and trades, it will be the prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of
head. a family to prevent damage.
● This was due to the fact that historically, the head • Court also held that regardless of the age of the injured
of the school of arts and trades exercised a closer party, liability still attaches to the
tutelage over his pupils than the head of the teacher-in-charge or head.
academic school. They personally and directly • Both the teacher-in-charge or head and the school can
instructed them on the techniques of their crafts. avail the defense of exercising
● Contrarily, the head of the academic school was not diligence of good father
as involved with his students and exercised only
administrative duties over the teachers who were
the persons directly dealing with the students.
● Art. 2180 provides that liability will attach so long
as the students remain in custody. The Court held
that as long as it can be shown that the student is in
the school premises in pursuance of a legitimate
student objective, in the exercise of a legitimate
student right, and even in the enjoyment of a
legitimate student privilege, the responsibility of
the school authorities over the student continues.
● In the case at bar, Amadora was still in custody even
if classes had already ended.
2. WON the physics teacher can held liable — NO
 The teacher-in-charge was not disclosed by the
parties. The fact that a physics report was to be
submitted doesn’t mean that the physics teach was
the teacher-in-charge of Daffon.
 Assuming he was teacher-in-charge, there is no
showing that Dicon was negligent in enforcing
discipline upon Daffon or that he had waived
observance of the rules and regulations of the
school or condoned their non-observance.
3. WON the dean of boys can be held liable — NO