Jose S. Amadora, Loreta A. Amadora,
Jose S. Amadora, Jr., Norma A. ylaya, Pantaleon A. Amadora, Jose A. Amdora III,
Lucy A. Amadora, Rosalinda A. Amadora, Perfedto A. Amadora, Serreca A. Amadora,
Vicente A. Amadora and Maria Tiscalina A. Amdora, petitioners, vs. Court of
Appeals, Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, Victor Lluch Sergio P. Damaso Jr.,
Celistino Dicon, Aniano Abellana, Pablito Damon thru his parents and natural
guardians, Mr. and Mrs. Nicanor Gumban, and Rolando Valencia, thru his
guardian, A. Francisco, respondents.
________________________________________________________________________
Facts: Alfredo Amadora, seventeen years old
was about to graduate, however while in the school, Colegion de San
Jose-Recoletos, a classmate, Pablito Damon, fired a gun that mortally hit
Alfredo, ending all his expectations and his life as well. Damon was convicted
of homicide thru reckless imprudence.Herein petitioners, as the victim's
parents, filed a civil action for damages under Article 2180 of the Civil Code
against the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, its rector the high school
principal, the dean of boys, and the physics teacher, together with Damon and
two other students, through their respective parents. The complaint against the
students was later dropped
The
trial court held the remaining defendants liable to the plaintiffs. On appeal
to the respondent court, however, the decision was reversed and all the defendants
were completely absolved. The petitioners
contend that their son was in the school to show his physics experiment as a
prerequisite to his graduation; hence, he was then under the custody of the
private respondents. The private respondents submit that Alfredo had
gone to the school only for the purpose of submitting his physics report and
that he was no longer in their custody because the semester had already ended.
Issue: Whether or not Article 2180 covers even establishments which are
technically not school of arts and trades, and, if so, when the offending
student is supposed to be in its custody.
Ruling: The provision in
question should apply to all schools, academic as well as
non-academic. Where the school is academic rather than technical or vocational
in nature, responsibility for the tort committed by the student will attach to
the teacher in charge of such student, following the first part of the
provision. This is the general rule. In the case of establishments of arts and
trades, it is the head thereof, and only he, who shall be held liable as an
exception to the general rule. In other words, teachers in general shall be
liable for the acts of their students except where the school is technical in
nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable. Following
the canon ofreddendo singula singulis "teachers"
should apply to the words "pupils and students" and "heads of
establishments of arts and trades" to the word "apprentices."
In sum, the Court finds under the facts as disclosed by the
record and in the light of the principles herein announced that none of the
respondents is liable for the injury inflicted by Pablito Damon on Alfredo
Amadora that resulted in the latter's death at the auditorium of the Colegio de
San Jose-Recoletos. While the court deeply sympathize with the petitioners over the
loss of their son under the tragic circumstances here related, the court nevertheless
are unable to extend them the material relief they seek, as a balm to their
grief, under the law they have invoked. Wherefore, the petition is denied.
No comments:
Post a Comment