Amadora v. CA [1988]
head of school of arts & trades exercised closer tutelage over his students who
Cruz, J.
Facts:
• April 13, 1972: Alfredo Amadora, a high school graduating student of Colegio de San
Jose-Recoletos went to school to finish a Physics experiment. However, while he was in
the auditorium, his classmate Pablito Daffon fired a gun that hit him. He died at 17.
Daffon was convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence.
• Amadora’s parents filed a civil action for damages under CC Art. 2180 1 against the
school, its rector, HS principal, dean of boys & Physics teacher, plus Daffon & 2 other
students thru their parents. Complaint against students was later dropped.
• CFI Cebu: defendants were liable in the sum of P294,984.00 (death compensation, loss
of earning capacity, costs of litigation, funeral expenses, moral damages, exemplary
damages & attorney’s fees)
• CA: reversed, all defendants absolved completely.
1. As per Rules of Court (ROC) Rule 45, CC Art. 2180 is not applicable since the
school was an academic institution of learning & not a school of arts & trades.
2. Students were not in custody of the school at the time of the incident since the
semester had already ended.
3. No clear identification of the fatal gun.
4. Defendants exercised necessary diligence in preventing injury.
• Petitioners claim their son was still under school’s custody because he went to school
to comply w/a requirement for graduation.
• Respondents: Amadora went to school to submit a Physics report & he was no longer in
their custody since the semester was over.
• A gun was confiscated by Sergio Damaso, dean of boys, from Jose Gumban on April 7,
1972. It was an unlicensed pistol w/c was later on returned to Gumban w/o reporting
such to the principal or taking further action. Gumban was one Daffon’s companions
when the incident happened. Petitioners claim it was this gun that killed their son w/c
respondents rebutted by saying there was no proof that they were one and the same.
ISSUE & RATIO: WON respondents are liable. – NO.
• Exconde v Capuno: Capuno, a student of Balintawak Elementary School & a boy scout
attended a Rizal Day parade on city school supervisor’s instructions. Afterwards,
Capuno boarded a jeep & drove it recklessly that it turned turtle killing 2 passengers.
SC exculpated school in obiter dictum (it was not party to the case) since it was not a
school of arts & trades. Some justices dissented claiming that liability under CC Art.
2180 applied to teachers in general & heads of schools of arts & trades in particular.
• Mercado v. CA: a student cut a classmate w/a razor blade at the Lourdes Catholic
School, QC. Exconde ruling reiterated. Custody requirement was defined as a situation
where student lives & boards w/teacher such that control, direction & influences on
pupil supersede those of parents.
• Palisoc v. Brillantes: a 16-yr old student was killed by a classmate w/fist blows in the
lab of Manila Technical Institute. Court ruled that even if offender was already of age &
not boarding in the school, the head & teacher-in-charge were solidarily liable w/him.
Custody was defined as the protective & supervisory custody that school, its heads &
teachers exercise over students for as long as they are at the attendance in the school
including recess time. No such requirement as actual living & boarding in the school
before such liability is attached. It set aside Mercado ruling. Even students of age were
still covered by provision since they’re equally in custody of school & subj to its
discipline.
• CC Art. 2180 applies to all schools whether academic or non-academic. In the former,
teacher-in-charge of student is the person responsible (general rule). Whereas in the
latter (arts & trades), it is the head (exception). SC agrees w/dissent in Exconde,
saying that while the child is in school, parent is not supposed to interfere w/discipline
of school nor w/authority & supervision of teacher. W/o authority, there can be no
responsibility. No reason to differentiate the vigilance expected from teachers from
academic institutions and non-academic ones. History of disparity:
1 
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts & trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils & students
or apprentices so long as they remain in their custody. (CC Art. 2180)
a.
apprenticed to their master, the school head. He was personally involved in
teaching his students who usually boarded w/him & thus he exercised constant
control, supervision & influence.
b. Head of academic school: exercised only administrative duties over teachers who
were directly dealing w/students. Thus, teacher is liable.
• CC Art. 2180’s custody requirement is not limited to boarding w/school authorities. It’s
not co-terminous w/sem. It includes periods of registration or before graduation during
w/c, student is still subj to the disciplinary authority of the school. There is custody for
as long as he’s under control & influence of school & w/in its premises regardless of
time and for as long as student can show that he is in school in pursuance of a
legitimate student objective, exercise & enjoyment of a legitimate student rt/privilege.
It includes relaxing in the campus.
• Under similar circumstances, teacher-in-charge should be liable for his students’ torts.
He need not be physically present or in a position to prevent the injury. Custody refers
more to his influence on the child & the discipline instilled. Applicable as well to head of
school of arts & trade. Teacher is liable regardless of student’s age. Teacher should be
liable & not school itself unless he can prove that he exercised the diligence of a good
father such as by employing sufficient no. of security guards, etc. This defense is made
available to the teacher considering that his responsibility/influence over the child
cannot be equated to that of the parents. Parents can expect more obedience from the
child since kid depends more on parents. Parent can instill more lasting discipline on
child than teacher & thus, should be held to a greater accountability for tort committed
by kid. WRT liability for kids of the age of majority, leniency should be observed in
assessing teacher’s responsibility considering that parents are no longer liable for the
acts of their emancipated children.
HOLDING: Petition denied.
1. Rector, principal & dean – not liable because they are not teachers-in-charge. They only
had general authority over students.
2. Teacher-in-charge: not disclosed by evidence. Just because Amadora went to school in
connection w/a physics report doesn’t necessarily make physics teacher the teacher-in-
charge. Besides, there’s no showing that the teacher was negligent in any manner. He
was not even required to report to school on that day thus, his absence cannot be
considered as negligence. On the contrary, they have proven that they exercised due
diligence.
3. Dean of boys – no proof that the gun he released was the same gun that killed
Amadora.
4. School – only teacher or head is responsible
Maniago v. CA [253 SCRA 674 (1996)]
 A criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property and multiple physical
injuries was filed by Alfredo Boado (respondent in instant case) when a shuttle bus driven by
Herminio Andaya crashed with Boado’s passenger jeepney.
 After a month, a civil case for damages was filed by Boado against Ruben Maniago, employer
of Andaya and owner of the shuttle bus.
 Maniago moved for suspension of the proceedings in the civil case against him, citing the
pendency of the criminal case against his driver. TC denied motion.
 Maniago brought his case to the CA claiming that civil action could not proceed independently
of criminal case because no reservation of the right to bring it separately had been made in
the criminal case.
 CA dismissed his petition
Issue: WON Boado may bring an action for damages against Maniago under Art. 2176 and 2180,
CC despite failing to reserve his right to bring such action separately
 NO. Right to bring an action for damages under CC must be reserved as required by Rule
111, §1, Rev Rules of Crim Proc, otherwise it should be dismissed
 If no reservation is made, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability will be deemed to
have been instituted with the criminal case.
 Cases cited by the respondent showing the approval of the filing of separate civil action for
damages despite the absence of reservation of the right to institute such civil action actually
rest on other considerations than that no reservation is needed.
In these cases, the right to bring an action for damages even if he did not make a reservation
of his action in the criminal prosecution for physical injuries through reckless imprudence was
 upheld on the ground that by bringing the civil action the injured parties had in effect
abandoned their right to press for recovery of damages in the criminal case or on the ground
that filing of the civil case had the effect of vacating the decision in the criminal case so that
the injured parties could still reserve their right to institute a civil action while the criminal
case was pending in the CFI.
 In fact, the doctrine in the cases cited by the respondent was that a civil action for the
recovery of civil liability is, as a general rule, impliedly instituted with the criminal action,
except only
o When such action arising from the same act or omission, which is the subject of the
criminal action, is waived;
o The right to bring it separately is reserved; or
o Such action has been instituted prior to the criminal action.
 Respondent also contends that the question on whether the criminal action and the action for
recovery of the civil liability must be tried in a single proceeding is substantive in nature and
beyond the rule making power of the court. On the contrary, the Court held that such
question has always been regarded as a matter of procedure, even in its history of
amendments from Sec. 107, G.O. No. 58, Rules of Crim Proc under the American rule to Rule
106 of 1940 ROC and to all of its 3 amendments.
 Contrary to respondent’s contention, the reservation requirement does not impair, diminish or
defeat substantive rights, but only regulates their exercise in the general interest of orderly
procedure.
 Practical reason for reservation requirement: to avoid the filing of more than one action for
the same act or omission against the same party. It serves to implement the prohibition
against double recovery for the same act or omission.
 Nor does it matter that the action is against the employer to enforce his vicarious liability
under Art. 2180 of the CC. Since whatever is recoverable against the employer is ultimately
recoverable by him from the employee, the policy against double recovery requires that only
1 action be maintained for the same act or omission whether the action is brought against
employee or against his employer.