Mercado vs. CA and Manuel Quisumbing, Jr. et al.

Facts:
Manuel Quisumbing, Jr. and Augusto Mercado were classmates in Lourdes
Catholic School in QC.
They had a quarrel over the pitogo (an empty nutshell used as a piggy bank by
children) which belonged to Manuel, Jr.
Manuel, Jr. lent the pitogo to Benedicto Lim, who in turn, lent it to Renato
Legaspi.
Renato was unaware that the pitogo actually belonged to Manuel, Jr.
Manuel, Jr. tried to get it from Renato but Augusto, also unaware of the owner,
told him not to because Renato was better at putting the chains on it.
Manuel, Jr. resented the remark by Augusto so he pushed him and started a
fight.
Augusto later slashed Manuel, Jr.s face with a razor.
Manuels parents filed a complaint against Augustos father, Ciriaco Mercado.
Ciriaco contended that since the incident happened at school during recess
time, without fault on his part, the teacher or head of school should be
responsible
CFI: dismissed, CA: awarded moral damages (P2,000) and medical fees (P50)
Issue: W/N the teacher or head of school should be responsible instead of Ciriaco.
Holding: NO.
Last paragraph of Art. 2180 states that the teacher of heads of establishments
of arts and trades shall be responsible for damages caused by their pupils,
students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody
o The last phrase presupposes a situation wherein the pupil lives with the
teacher or the head of establishment of arts and trades insofar as the
control, direction, and influence supersedes that of the parents and so
the responsibility passes on from the parents to the teacher.
In this case, the students go to school and come home to the parents.
Therefore, the claim of Ciriaco to hold the school responsible was held to be
without merit.
As for the moral damages claimed, SC said it was excessive. If death calls for
the award of 3K-6K, then an incised wound that did not require hospitalization
could not cause mental suffering at 2K. Moreover, Mercado was not found guilty
of any offense nor was the scar on Manuel, Jr.s face caused a deformity.
o Moral damages may only be claimed when a criminal offense or a quasidelict has been committed.
Ruling: Reversed CA. Held Mercado free from liability. Affirmed P50 medical expenses.

Palisoc vs. Brillantes

Facts:
Dominador Palisoc, 16y/o, and Virgilio Daffon were classmates in Manila
Technical Institute studying automotive mechanics.
One afternoon, during recess, Dominador and Virgilio, together with another
classmate, Desiderio Cruz, worked on a machine at a laboratory of the Institute.
Virgilio made a remark on Dominador telling him that he looked like a foreman.
Dominador gave Virgilio a slight slap on the face.
Virgilio then punched Dominador on the face followed by successive blows to
the stomach.
Dominador kept retreating to avoid the blows but Virgilio kept following him
until he stumbled upon an engine block causing him to fall face first.
Dominador lost consciousness. He was given first aid and was taken to the
hospital but he never regained consciousness until he died.
Dominadors parents filed a complaint against the following defendants for the
death of their son: Antonio Brillantes, member of the Board of Directors of MTI;
Teodioso Valenton, President of MTI; Santiago Quibulue, instructor of their class;
and, Virgilio Daffon.
TC:
o found Daffon liable for quasi-delict under Art. 2176 for the death of
Palisoc. Basis: post-mortem findings that the cause of death was shock
due to traumatic fractures on the ribs probably caused by strong fist
blows, and the testimony of Cruz
o Absolved from liability the defendant-officials of MTI. Basis: 2180,
custody
Appeal in forma pauparis to the SC.
Issue: W/N the defendant-officials should be held solidarily liable with Daffon
Holding: YES.
Last paragraph of 2180, as applied in Exconde vs. Capuno, provides that the
institution contemplated are only institutions of arts and trades and not
academic educational institutions.
The parents of Daffon were not implicated as he was of age during the incident.
The school involved was not an academic one as it was a technical, vocational,
and industrial school.
o President and the instructor were held to be solidarily liable for the
tortious act of Daffon based on 2180.
o Brillantes could not be held responsible because he was only a member
of the Board. The fact that he was the sole proprietor of the school was of
no moment because the school was incorporated sometime before the
incident.
o The school could also be not held liable because it was not implicated as
a party therein.
Rationale for the liability of teachers and heads of establishments: their
protective custody is substituted for that of the parents, hence it becomes their
obligation to supervise the activities of their students during the whole time
of their attendance in school, including recess time, as well as to

protect their students from dangers and hazards that would

reasonably be anticipated including injuries that may be inflicted by
other students willfully or negligently on their fellow students.
JBL Reyes dissent in Exconde: the teacher should be liable for the tort of the
student for the reason that the parent may not even interfere with the
discipline of the school nor with the authority and supervision of the teacher
while the child is under their instruction.
so long as they remain in their custody means the protective and
supervisory custody that the school and its heads and teachers exercise over
the pupils and students for as long as they are in attendance in school.
o Nothing in the law requires that the student live and board with the
teachers/heads. Mercado and Exconde doctrine was overturned for being
erroneous.
Liability of Valenton and Quibulue: the unfortunate death of Palisoc could have
been avoided had they complied with their duty to provide adequate
supervision over the activities of the students in school premises to protect
their students from harm.
Moral damages: SC adjusted the minimum compensatory damages for death
caused by a crime or quasi delict from 3K to 12K because of the decline in the
purchasing power of peso.

Ruling: Found Valenton and Quibulue solidarily liable with Daffon.

JBL Reyes concurring opinion: liability of teachers and heads should only be limited to
tortious acts of minors under 2180 is not in accord with 2180. Their liability is based
on w/n theyexercised due diligence in preventing the injury.
Makalintal dissenting opinion: vicarious liability of the teacher only applies if the
student is a minor. Rationale: teachers stand in loco parentis with the parents yo
exercise reasonable supervision over the acts of the minor student.

Amadora vs. CA
Facts:
Alfredo Amadora, 17 years old, was a graduating student of Colegio San JoseRecolectos.
He went to school at the end of the semester to submit a physics project as a
pre-requisite to his graduation.
While at the auditorium of the school, he was shot dead by Pablito Daffon, a
classmate.
The gun was allegedly confiscated from Jose Gumban by Sergio Damaso, Jr,
dean of the boys, but was returned to him without making a report to the
principal or taking further action.
Gumban was one of the companions of Daffon when he shot Amadora.
Daffon was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence.
Parents of Amadora filed a complaint for damages against the school, its rector,
the HS principal, dean of the boys, physics teacher, Daffon and two other
students through their parents. (dropped)
CFI: defendants were found liable
CA: reversed
Issue: W/N the defendants could be made liable even though the school was an
academic institution
Holding: YES.
Cited Exconde, Mercado, and Palisoc.
The article will apply to teachers for their students and pupils, and to heads of
establishments of arts and trades for their apprentices following reddendo
singula singulis.
There is no distinction between academic and non-academic institutions insofar
as torts committed by their students are concerned. The same vigilance is
expected from teachers of both over the students under their control and
supervision.
o The injury is caused by the student, and not by the school itself as a
result of its operations or equipment.
Basis for the disparity: heads of establishments of arts and trades exercise
closer supervision to their apprentices, while teaches exercise closer
supervision to their pupils and students than that of the head of the academic
schools. Those apprentices, historically, usually boarded with the master. In
contrast, heads of academic schools only exercise administrative duties over
their teachers who are directly and personally responsible for their students.
However, the distinction is no longer applicable in view of the expansion of
schools for arts and trades that cause diminution of their direct and personal
contact with the students. The provision remained unchanged, and so the Court
may only interpret it in its original mandate until the legislature changes it.
Issue: W/N the responsibility of the teacher or heads of establishments is coextensive with the period for which the student is actually undergoing studies during
the school term.

Holding: NO.
The student is in custody of the school as long as he is under the control and
influence of the school and within its premises, whether the semester has not
yet begun or has already ended.
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 legitimate
student right, and even the enjoyment of a legitimate student privilege, the
responsibility of the school authorities over the student continues.
Custody does not connote immediate and actual physical control but refers
more to the influence exerted on the child and the discipline exerted on him by
virtue of the influence. Thus, the teacher-in-charge shall be held responsible for
the tortious act of the student.
The liability falls directly on the teacher or head of establishment. The school
may also be held liable for the acts of their teachers under respondeat superior
but they may dispute this using proof that they exercised the diligence of a
bonus paterfamilias. Said defense is also available to the teachers.
In Palisoc, teachers are liable even though the students are not anymore
minors. This was affirmed in this decision. As to the fear of holding the school
unduly liable in view of the increasing activism, they can still raise the defense
of diligence.
In this case:
Amadora was under the custody of the school
Rector, HS principal, and dean of boys could not be held liable because they
were not the teacher in charge. Physics teacher was also not the teacher in
charge for Daffon.
Assuming he was, it could not be said that he failed in the exercise of diligence.
In the absence of teacher-in-charge, the dean of boys could be held liable.
However, there was no evidence linking him to the death of Alfredo.
Colegio de San Jose-Recolectos could not be held liable under 2180. Only
teachers and heads of establishments of arts and trades are contemplated in
the article.
Ruling: denied petition
Melencio-Herrera concurring and dissenting opinion:
Gutierrez, concurring opinion:

Ylarde vs. Aquino

Facts:
Mariano Soriano was the principal of Gabaldon Primary School, a public school
in Pangasinan, while Edgardo Aquino was a teacher therein.
The school was littered with concrete blocks which were remnants of an old
school shop which was destroyed in WWII.
Mariano Soriano thought that the blocks were serious hazard to the children so
he decided to bury them. In fact, he was able to bury 10 of them since the
following year.
Aquino decided to help Soriano so he assigned 18 of his students to dig next to
a huge block of stone. It was left unfinished.
The next day, he called 4 of the students to continue on with the digging.
They were able to dig enough to fit the stone. He got out of the pit and looked
for Banes whom he could borrow a rope from. He left the students there,
allegedly telling them not to touch the stone.
The 3 of the children playfully jumped into the pit. One of them jumped on the
stone which caused it to slide into the hole.
2 of them were able to get out in time. Ylarde, however, was unfortunate and
was caught by the stone, pinning him to a wall in standing position.
He suffered from multiple injuries and died three days after.
A complaint for damages was filed against Aquino and Soriano was filed by the
Ylardes.
TC: dismissed, CA: affirmed
Issue: W/N both respondents could be held liable for damages
Holding:
Amadora: only teachers, and not the heads of academic institution may be held
answerable for the tort committed by their students.
o Soriano, the principal, could not be held liable under the doctrine in
Amadora.
Aquino, on the other hand may be held liable under 2180.
However, the petitioners based the alleged liability of Aquino under 2176 which
is separate and distinct from the liability under 2180.
o Q: W/N the act or omission of Aquino constituted a direct causal relation
to the death of Ylarde? YES.
o It was clear that he acted with fault and gross negligence. 1. He
shouldve hired adult laborers for the dangerous task instead of requiring
his students aged 10-11 to do it; 2. Required them to remain in the pit
despite the danger of the stone being pushed inside it; 3. Ordered the
students to level the soil despite the hazard of the stone falling inside the
pit; 4. Went to a place where he could not check the safety of his
students; and, 5. He left the children close to the excavation.
o Ylarde would not have died if not for the unsafe situation created by
Aquino. Thus, it could be said that there was direct causal relation
between his act and the death of Ylarde.
Ylarde did not act imprudently given his age and maturity. He was 10 and that
he only did what a normal 10-year old would have done in the situation.

The work done by the children could not have been under Work Education. It
was dangerous and it was not in their lesson plan.

Ruling: Granted petition. TC and CA decision set aside. Aquino liable for damages.

Salvosa vs. IAC

Facts:
Baguio Colleges Foundation (BCF) is an academic institution and also an
institution of arts and trade offering technical and vocational courses.
BCF also has an ROTC Unit which is under the control of AFP. They were
provided by BCF with an office and armory which is guarded by Jimmy Abon.
Jimmy Abon was a student of BCF studying commerce. He was appointed by
AFP as the armorer of the ROTC Unit in BCF. He was employed by AFP, not BCF.
Jimmy Abon shot Napoleon Castro at around 8PM one night with an unlicensed
firearm which he took in the armory of BCF. Castro died and Napoleon was
convicted of Homicide.
Heirs of Castro filed complaint for damages impleading Abon, Ungos (ROTC
Commandant), Benjamin Salvosa (President and Chairman of the Board of BCF),
Jesus Salvosa (EVP of BCF), Quetolio (Dean of College of Education and
Executive Trustee of BCF), and the BCF, Inc. as party defendants.
TC: Abon, Benjamin Salvosa, and BCF solidarily liable.
IAC: affirmed with modification which reduced the award for loss of earning
capacity.
Issue: W/N the petitioners can be held solidarily liable with Jimmy Abon for damages
under 2180
Holding: NO.
2180: So long as the teacher stands in loco parentis to a certain extent is called
upon to exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the student so
long as the student is under the custody of the teacher, meaning as long as
they are in attendance in school, even during recess.
Recess means a temporary adjournment of school activities where the student
remains within the call of his mentor and is not allowed to leave the premises
of the school. It is different from dismissal. Being enrolled in the school is not
what attendance in school means.
In this case, Abon could not be considered in attendance in school when he
shot Castro. Before shooting, he was instructed by the ROTC Commandant not
to leave the armory and to guard it well. (IAC said that since he was employed
as armorer of BCF ROTC unit, he must have attended night classes and thus the
shooting at 8PM was within recess time as it was just about during his dismissal
or shortly thereafter)
Abon was supposed to be working when he shot Castro!
There was also an issue raised as to the liability of the school that is both
educational and technical-vocational in nature for a tort committed by a
student enrolled in the academic program. However, since Abon was held not
in custody of BCF at the time of the shooting, the Court deemed it not
necessary to pass upon other issues.

PSBA vs. CA
Facts:
Carlitos Bautista was enrolled as a third year commerce student in PSBA.
He was stabbed in the second floor of the premises of PSBA by non-elements of
the school.
His heirs filed a suit for damages against the school, its president, VP, and
other school authorities for the death of Carlitos because of the alleged
negligence, recklessness and lack of security precautions.
The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action as
jurisprudence provides that institutions like PSBA are beyond the ambit of
2180.
TC: denied MTD because to prove alleged negligence, trial based on merits is
necessary.
CA: affirmed.
Issue: W/N petitioners may be held liable under 2180
Holding: NO
In the cases of Exconde, Mercado and Palisoc, it was stressed that 2180 applies
to damages caused by the students and pupils of the educational institution
sought to be made liable.
What they should have done was to implead PSBA for breach of contractual
obligation to provide their students with an atmosphere that promotes or
assists in attaining it primary undertaking of imparting knowledge, corollary to
its main obligation to provide education.
Because of the contractual relation between PSBA and Bautista, rules on quasidelict cannot govern. Extra-contractual obligation arise only between parties
not bound by a contract, however, the same does not preclude the Court from
determining the existence of tort between the parties as in the case of Air
France vs. Carrascoso
In Cangco vs. Manila Railroad: it was held that the breach of a contractual
obligation may also be the source of a extra-contractual obligation.
There is a quasi-delict if the act which constitutes the breach of contract is
done in bad faith pursuant to Art. 21 of the CC.
In this case: there was no finding of breach of contract between PSBA and
Bautista. Even if there was negligence, the same would only constitute a
breach of contractual obligation.
Applying the Cangco test, the negligence of the school would not be relevant
without a contractual obligation.
Like common carriers, PSBA could not be an insurer its students against all
risks.
Ruling:

Soliman, Jr. vs. Tuason

Facts:
Maximo Soliman, Jr. was a regular student of Republic Central Colleges taking
his morning classes.
One day, he was shot by Jimmy B. Solomon, a security guard of the school
employed by RL Security Agency owned by Benjamin Serrano, in the abdomen
without any provocation on his part.
He was taken to the hospital where he was told that he would be incapacitated
to work for three to four months.
He filed a civil complaint against Republic Central Colleges, RL Security Agency
and Solomon.
The college filed a motion to dismiss citing lack of cause of action being that
Solomon was not their employee, so they were not responsible for his acts.
Moreover, 2180 (7) could not apply to their case because such holds teachers
or heads of establishments of arts and letter responsible only for damages
caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, while Solomon was neither
a student or apprentice of the school.
Respondent judge granted MTD. MFR denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari
and prohibition
Issue: W/N Colleges could be held liable under 2180
Holding: NO
The first paragraph applies to employers for the tortious acts and omissions of
their employees. This situation presupposes an employer-employee relationship
which is lacking in this case.
o In this case, Solomon is employed by RL Security Agency whose client is
Republic Central Colleges. The liability attaches to the employer and not
the client, as they cannot even choose among the pool of security guards
available as to who is going to be assigned in their premises. They cannot
observe due diligence in the selection.
The seventh paragraph, on the other hand, could also not be applied because
the 7th paragraph provides liability on the part of teachers and heads of
establishments for the acts of their students or pupils, or apprentices. The basis
is the substitute parental authority as provided by Art. 349, 350, and 352.
In Palisoc vs. Brillantes, it was stressed that the liability of MTI was due to the
act of another student of the institute.
o In this case, Solomon was not a student or apprentice of the school. The
school does not exercise substitute parental authority over him.
Issue: W/N the Colleges could not be held liable upon any other basis in law for the
damage?
Holding: THEY COULD BE.
In PSBA: there is an implied contract between an enrolled student and the
school wherein the school undertakes to impart knowledge and training to the
student, and the student, on the other hand, to follow rules and regulations of
the school. Corollary to this is the obligation of the school to provide and
environment conducive for proper learning.

o In this case, even though the assault was conducted by a non-student of

the Colleges, the respondent Judge should not have dismissed the case
based only on such ground and should have proceeded with the trial
based on merits of the case to afford the petitioner the chance to prove
the negligence on the part of the Colleges because the existence of a
contractual obligation does not preclude an action for an extracontractual obligation that may have arisen from the breach of
contractual obligation.
Ruling: Reversed TC. Remanded the case to the court a quo for further proceedings.

St. Francis High School vs. Court of Appeals

Facts:
Ferdinand Castillo was a freshman student of St. Francis HS, Section 1-C. He
wanted to join a picnic with Section 1-B at a beach in Quezon. His parents,
however, allegedly did not allow him to go because of short notice. They,
however, allowed him to bring food for his teachers and classmates to bring to
the picnic but to go home after he delivers it.
However, due to the persuasion of the teachers, he still went with them.
While on the beach, a female teacher appeared to be drowning. A lot helped,
including Ferdinand. However, It was Ferdinand who drowned instead in the
course of trying to rescue her.
His body was recovered and was subjected to first aid as well as mouth to
mouth resuscitation but he still did not respond so he was taken to a hospital.
He was pronounced dead upon arrival.
His parents filed a complaint for damages for the death of Ferdinand against
the St. Francis HS represented by Sps. Nantes and Lacandula, Benjamin Illumin
(principal), and the teachers, de Chaves, Vinas, Arquio, Aragones, Jaro, and
Cadiz, who participated therein.
TC: in favor of Castillo, against the teachers. Dismissed against St. Francis
School, the picnic not being a school sanctioned one, Illumin for not having
consented to the picnic, as well as the case against Cardona, adviser of
Ferdinand for ot being invited to supervise the picnic.
CA: Reversed. Petitioners liable under 2176 in conjunction with 2180 pars. 1, 4,
and 5.
Issue: W/N the petitioners were guilty of negligence
Holding: NO.
In the first place, the parents of Ferdinand allowed him to go evidenced by the
fact that he was given money without much questions by his father as to the
picnic, and that his mother even cooked adobo for Ferdinand to bring to the
picnic.
Art. 2180 (4) liability of the school as the employer of negligent teachers
cannot be given merit because under the provision, before an employee could
be held liable for the negligent act, he must be engaged in the performance of
his official function. In this case, the teachers were not engaged in their
capacity as teachers: the incident happened NOT in school premises, NOT on a
school day, and DURING a purely private affair of a picnic. The picnic also had
no permit from the school. It was not a school activity or an extra-curricular
one. Mere knowledge of Illumin, the principal, does not necessarily mean that
he gave consent to it.
As to the alleged negligence of the teachers: THERE WAS NO NEGLIGENCE ON
THEIR PART. The organizer of the event, the adviser of 1-C, even invited two PE
teachers and scout masters who had knowledge in first aid application and
swimming. They even had lifesavers in case of emergency. This shows that she
had exercised due diligence of a good father of a family to prevent untoward
incidents to everyone who joined the picnic.
They also tried every possible means to save the child by applying first aid
methods to resuscitate him.

Based on the foregoing, moral damages could not be awarded under Art. 2217
mandating moral damages for suffering as a proximate result of a wrongdoing
of the defendant.

Ruling: REVERSED. No liability. Counterclaim dismissed.

Padilla dissent:

St. Marys Academy vs. Carpitanos

Facts:
Sherwin Carpitanos was a student of St. Marys Academy which conducted an
enrollment drive for the school year 1995-1996 for which he was a part of the
campaigning group.
What they did during the enrollment drive was to visit schools where the
prospective enrollees were studying.
During that day, on the way to Larayan Elementary School, the jeep they were
riding, driven by James Daniel II, 15 years old then, met an accident which
caused it to turn turtle.
Sherwin Carpitanos died as a result of the accident.
His parents filed a complaint for damages against St. Marys, James Daniel II
and his parents, Vivencio Villanueva, the owner of the jeep for the death of
Sherwin.
TC: St. Marys principally liable. Daniel spouses subsidiarily liable. James Daniel
II, a minor absolved. Villanueva absolved.
CA: affirmed but reduced moral damages award.
Issue: W/N St. Marys was liable for the death of Sherwin Carpitanos
Holding: NO.
In holding St. Marys liable, CA applied Art. 218 and 219 of the FC providing for
special parental authority of the school. This special parental authority and
responsibility applies to all authorized activities of the school, whether inside or
outside school. If the person under custody was a minor, then those exercising
special parental authority over him shall be principally and solidarily liable for
the damages caused by acts and omissions of the unemancipated minor.
However, the act of omission MUST BE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE of the injury or
damage caused because the negligence must have a causal connection to the
accident.
o Proximate cause is defined as the cause which in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury, and without which, the result would not have occurred.
In this case, the respondents failed to prove that the negligence of the
petitioner was the proximate cause of the accident.
o In the first place, the accident report indicated that the cause of the
accident was the detachment of the steering wheel which was
undisputed and admitted by the respondents.
o There was no evidence that the school allowed James Daniel II to drive
the car. It was the grandson of Villanueva who allowed James Daniel II to
drive.
The liability of St. Marys was only remote, and thus the liability must be pinned
on the parents of James Daniel II because their own negligence and/or the
detachment of the steering wheel intervened with the negligence of St.
Marys.
As to Villanueva, since he was the registered owner of the jeep, he should be
responsible for the injuries caused by it while it is being driven on the streets.

Ruling: REVERSED. REMANDED the case for the determination of the liability of
defendants excluding St. Marys

St. Josephs College vs. Miranda

Facts:
Respondent Jayson Val Miranda was conducting a science experiment about
fusing of sulphur powder and iron fillings for his class in SJC.
His Science teacher, Rosalinda Tabugo, went out without securing the class
from any untoward incident.
During which, he inspected the experiment in a test tube with a magnifying
glass.
His classmate moved it closer to his eye but at that instance, the experiment
spurted out particles which hit his eye and several parts of the bodies of his
classmates.
His eye was chemically burned which needed surgeries.
His mother, who was working abroad, even had to rush back home.
On the other hand, petitioners alleged that Jayson and his classmates, even
before conducting the experiment, were given strict instructions to follow the
written procedure for the experiment and not to look into the test tube until the
heated compound had cooled off.
Jayson was rushed by the school employees to the school clinic and thereafter
transferred to St. Lukes Medical Center for treatment. At the hospital, when
Tabago visited Jayson, the latter cried and apologized to his teacher for
violating her instructions not to look into the test tube until the compound had
cooled off.
At first, Jaysons father requested SJC to shoulder the expenses until his wife
pays them back.
However, sometime after, he demanded from SJC that it should shoulder all the
medical expenses they incurred arising from the accident.
SJCs counsel, represented by Sr. Josephini Ambatali, explained that it could not
because the accident occurred because of Jaysons failure to follow instructions
and his teachers repeated warnings.
RTC rendered judgment in favor of Miranda. CA affirmed.
Rodolfo Miranda, Jaysons father then sued SJC for damages.
RTC: for Jayson; CA: affirmed in toto
Issue: W/N the proximate cause of Jaysons injury was his own negligence
W/N the contributory negligence of Jayson should exculpate SJC from liability
Holding: NO and NO.
SJC failed to show that the negligence of Jayson was the proximate cause of the
latters injury. The immediate cause of the accident was not Jaysons
negligence when he curiously looked into the test tube when the chemicals
suddenly exploded which caused his injury, but the sudden and unexpected
explosion of the chemicals independent of any intervening cause. SJC could
have prevented the mishap if they exercised a higher degree of care, caution
and foresight.
Jayson insisted that said Tabugo left the classroom. No evidence, however, was
presented to establish that Tabugo was inside the classroom for the whole
duration of the experiment. It was unnatural in the ordinary course of events

that Jayson was brought to the school clinic for immediate treatment not by
[petitioner] subject teacher Rosalinda Tabugo but by somebody else.
None of the other students (who were eyewitnesses to the incident) testified in
Court to corroborate the story of SJC. The Court, however, understands that
these other students cannot testify for Jayson because he is no longer enrolled
in said school and testifying for him would incur the ire of school authorities.
Estefania Abdan is equally at fault as the subject adviser or teacher in charge
because she exercised control and supervision over Tabugo and the students
themselves. It was her obligation to insure that nothing would go wrong and
that the science experiment would be conducted safely and without any harm
or injury to the students.
Sr. Josephini Ambatali is likewise culpable under the doctrine of command
responsibility because the other individual petitioners were under her direct
control and supervision. The negligent acts of the other individual petitioners
were done within the scope of their assigned tasks. [2180 (4)]
The defense of due diligence of a good father of a family will not exculpate SJC
from liability because it has been shown that it was guilty of inexcusable laxity
in the supervision of its teachers (despite an apparent rigid screening process
for hiring) and in the maintenance of what should have been a safe and
secured environment for conducting dangerous experiments.
Proximate cause was the concurrent failure of the petitioner to prevent
foreseeable mishap that occurred during the experiment.
Article 218 of the Family Code, in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code,
bestows special parental authority on the following persons with the
corresponding obligation.
The neglect in preventing a foreseeable injury and damage equates to neglect
in exercising the utmost degree of diligence required of schools, its
administrators, and teachers, and, ultimately was the proximate cause of the
damage and injury to Jayson.

Ruling: Affirmed CA