Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

Amadora v Court of Appeals

April 15, 1988


Cruz, J.:
PETITIONERS
Parents of Alfred Amadora
RESPONDENTS
Court of Appeals

Celstino Dicon

Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos

Aniano Abellana

Victor Lluch

Pabito Daffon (through his guardian)

Sergio Damaso Jr.

Rolando Valencia (through his guardian)

NATURE
Certiorari of CA
FACTS
At the auditorium of Colegio de San Jose-Recoletes, student Alfredo Amadora was shot by another student Pablito
Daffon.
Daffon was convict of homicide thru reckless imprudence. Victims parents filed for damages under Article 2180
against Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, its rector, high school principal, the dean of boys, and the physics teacher
together with Pablo Daffon and two to other students. Complaint against the students was later dropped.
CFI- held defendants liable.
Appellate court- reversed decision and defendants were completely absolved.
Petitioners and respondent both invoked Art 2180 CC in support of their conflicting positions.
Art 2180 Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages
caused by their pupils and students or apprentices so long as they remain in their custody.

Art 2180

Petitioners
School is liable for damages

Under whose
custody?

Son was in school to finish his physics


experiment, then under the custody of the
respondents

Identity of the
gun in question

Negligence of the school since a week earlier,


the Dean of boys confiscated an unlicensed
pistol but later returned it. It was contended
that this was the same pistol that killed
Alfredo

Respondents
Respondent Court found that Art 2180 is not
applicable since the school was not a school of
arts and trades but an academic institution
No longer in custody, since semester had
ended

No proof that the gun was the same that killed


Alfredo

ISSUES x RULING x RATIO/BASIS


Article 2180 of the Civil Code should apply to all schools, academic as well as non-academic.

Canon of reddundo singular singulis- referring each to each


For academic in nature, Teacher should apply to the words pupils and students
For technical or vocational in nature, Heads of establishments should apply to the words apprentices
No plausible reason why different degrees of vigilance should be exercised by the school
authorities.
Reason for the disparity, historically, head of school of arts and trades exercised a closer tutelage over his
pupils than the head of the academic school. Ex. Training of artisans apprenticed to their master.
As long as the student is in the school premises in pursuance of a legitimate purpose, the
responsibility of the school authorities over the student continues. Even if doing nothing more than
relaxing in the campus, he is still within the custody and subject to the discipline of the school
authorities under the provisions of Article 2180.
Court concluded:
1. At the time Alfredo was shot, he was still in the custody of the authorities of Colegio de SanRecoletos
2. The rector, the high school principal and dean of boys cannot be held liable. It should be the
teacher-in-charge, which the evidence does not disclose.
3. No showing that Mr Dicon, physics teacher was negligent. Although absent, it cannot be taken
against him since he was not supposed or required to report to school that day.
4. In the absence of a teacher-charge, it is probably the dean of boys who should be held liable.
Earlier confiscated but return an unlicensed gun without taking disciplinary actions. But it does
not necessary link him to the shooting of Alfredo.
5. Colegio de San Jose Roceletos cannot be held directly liable because only the teacher is made
responsible. Neither can it be held to answer for the tort committed by any of the other
private respondents for none of them has been found to have been charged with the custody
of the offending student or has been remiss in the discharge of his duties in connection with
such custody.

DISPOSITIVE
None of the respondents is liable for the injury.
Petition denied