Tamargo vs CA

 Tamargo  T amargo vs CA Tamargo vs CA GR No. 85044, June 3, 1992 FACTS: In October 1982, Adelberto Bundoc, minor, 10 years of age, sot !ennifer  Tamargo  T amargo "it "it an air ri#e ri#e causing in$uries in$uries tat tat resulted resulted in er deat% deat% Te &etitioners, natural &arents of Tamargo, 'led a com&laint for damages against te natural &arents of Adelberto "it "om e "as living te time of te tragic incident% In (ecember 1981, te s&ouses )a&isura 'led a &etition to ado&t Adelberto Bundoc% *uc &etition "as granted on +ovember 1982 after te tragic incident% ISSUE: O+ &arental autority concerned may be given retroactive e-ect so as to ma.e ado&ting &arents te indis&ensable &arties in a damage case 'led against te ado&ted cild "ere actual custody "as lodged "it te biological &arents% HELD: /arental liability is a natural or logical conseuence of duties and res&onsibilities of &arents, teir &arental autority "ic includes instructing, controlling and disci&lining te te cild% In te case at bar, during during te sooting incident, incident, &arental &arental autority over Adelberto "as still lodged "it te natural &arents% It follo"s tat tey are te indis&ensable &arties to te suit for damages% / /arents arents and guardians are res&onsible for te damage caused by te cild under teir &arental autority in accordance "it te civil code% *C did not consider tat retroactive e-ect may be given to te decree of ado&tion so as to im&ose a liability u&on te ado&ting &arents accruing at te time "en tey ad no actual or &ysical custody over te ado&ted cild% )etroactivity may be essential if it &ermits accrual of some bene't or advantage in favor of te ado&ted cild% 3nder Article 45 of te Cild and 6out 6out elfare Code, &arental autority is &rovisionally vested in te ado&ting &arents during te &eriod of trial custody o"ever in tis case, trial custody &eriod eiter ad not yet begin nor ad been com&leted at te time of te sooting incident% 7ence, actual custody "as ten "it te natural &arents of Adelberto% /etition for revie" "as ereby granted%

ibi vs IAC Libi vs. AC FACTS:  !ulie Ann otiong and endell ibi "ere a s"eeteart until te former bro.e u& "it te latter after se found out te endell "as irres&onsible and sadistic% endell "anted reconciliation but "as not granted by !ulie so it &rom&ted im to resort to treats% One day, tere "ere found dead from a single gunsot "ound eac coming from te same gun% Te &arents of !ulie erein &rivate res&ondents 'led a civil case against te &arents of endell to recover damages% Trial court dismissed te com&laint for insu:ciency of evidence but "as set aside by CA% ISSUE: O+ te &arents sould be eld liable for suc damages% HELD:  Te subsidiary liability of &arents for damages caused by teir minor cildren im&osed under Art 2180 of te Civil Code and Art% 101 of )evised /enal Code covered obligations arising from bot uasi;delicts and criminal o-enses% Te court eld tat te civil liability of te &arents for uasi;delict of teir minor cildren is &rimary and not subsidiary and tat res&onsibility sall cease "en te &ersons can &rove tat tey observe all te diligence of a good fater of a family to &revent damage% 7o"ever, endellac of te s&ouses ad teir o"n .ey% *e li.e"ise admitted tat during te incident, te gun "as no longer in te safety de&osit bo=% endell could not ave gotten old of te gun unless te .ey "as left negligently lying around and tat e as free access of te moter
Amadora vs CA  Ama!ora vs. CA GR No. L4""45, A#ri$ 15, 1988 FACTS? Alfredo Amadora, "ile in te auditorium of te scool, "as mortally it by a gun by /ablito (a-on resulting to te formerac "as e=ercising only a general autority over te students and not direct control and in#uence e=erted by te teacer &laced in; carge of &articular classes%

In te absence of a teacer; in carge, dean of boys sould &robably be eld liable considering tat e ad earlier con'scated an unlicensed gun from a student and later returned to im "itout ta.ing disci&linary action or re&orting te matter to te iger autorities% Toug it "as clear negligence on is &art, no &roof "as so"n to necessarily lin. tis gun "it te sooting incident% Collegio *an !ose;)ecoletos cannot directly be eld liable under te &rovision because only te teacer of te ead of scool of arts and trade is made res&onsible for te damage caused by te student% 7ence, under te facts disclosed, none of te res&ondents "ere eld liable for te in$ury in#icted "it Alfredo resulting to is deat% /etition "as denied%

I. MEANING OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND QUASI-DELICT Dicarious iability is a legal doctrine in tort la" tat im&oses res&onsibility u&on one &erson for te failure of anoter or assigns liability for an in$ury to a &erson "o did not cause te in$ury but "it "om te &erson as a s&ecial legal relationsi& to e=ercise suc care as a reasonably &rudent &erson "ould use under similar circumstances% It is also referred to as im&uted negligence%

egal relationsi&s tat can lead to im&uted negligence include te relationsi& bet"een &arent and cild, usband and "ife, o"ner of a veicle and driver, and em&loyer and em&loyee and te li.es% Ordinarily te inde&endent negligence of  one &erson is not im&utable to anoter &erson%E1F Sample Illus!a"#$ >ager to start your day, you run into te local diner to grab a cu& of co-ee and a donut% en te "aitress arrives to &our your co-ee, you notice tat se is a bit "obbly on er feet% 6ou also notice se is "earing a medical alert bracelet, but don
on te table and even your la&% After letting out a loud yel&, it becomes &ainfully obvious tat you reuire medical attention to treat your 'rst;degree burns% Tis means you "ill be out of "or., unable to "ear &ants and need costly follo";u& care%

 Te "aitress "as unable to &erform er $ob due to "at could ave been a medical condition% *omeone must &ay, but it is te em&loyer tat "ill bear te brunt of tis "aitress
A uasi;delict may be &ublic or &rivateH te neglect of te a-airs of a community, "en it is our duty to attend to tem, may be a crimeH te neglect of a &rivate matter, under similar circumstances, may be te ground of a civil action%EF II.LEGAL BASIS OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY Article 2180 of te Civil Code enumerates tose "o are sub$ect to tis vicarious liability, among tem are teacers and eads of establisments of arts and trades "it res&ect to teir &u&ils and students  and apprentices so long as they remain in their custodyE5F% In order tat one may not be made to satisfy tis liability, one

needs to &rove tat te diligence of a good fater of a family "as observed to &revent damage% Mea$"$& O' Cus#() As Use( I$ A!"%le *+,

 Te *u&reme Court re'ned te de'nition of custody as used in Article 2180% In Amadora v% CA it "as eld not to mean te student must be boarding "it te scool autorities, but it does signify tat te student sould be "itin te control and under te in#uence of te scool autorities at te time of te occurrence of te in$ury, "eter te semester or scool term as not yet begun or as already ended% As long as te student is still sub$ect to te disci&linary autority of te scool and cannot consider imself released altogeter from observance of its rules, e is in te custody of te scool%

Also, as long as te student is in te scool &remises in &ursuance of a legitimate student ob$ective, in te e=ercise of a legitimate student rigt, and even in te en$oyment of a legitimate student &rivilege Eli.e doing noting but rela=ing in te cam&us in te com&any of is classmatesF te res&onsibility of te scool autorities over te student continues%

III. D#%!"$e #' in $o%o #aren&is *cool eads and teacers are sub$ect to tis vicarious liability because tey stand, to a certain e=tent, as to teir &u&ils or students, in loco parentis or as substitute &arents, as e=&ressly &rovided under Article 218 of te @amily Code% *cools

e=ercise

teir

educational

functional

&rinci&ally

troug

teir

administrators and teacers, "ile &arents e=ercise teir &arental autority by sending teir cildren to scool to com&ly "it teir duty to educate tem according to teir means, as &rovided in Article 220 of te @amily Code, and Article 2 of te Cild and 6out elfare Code, as amended%

Conseuently, "en &arents send teir minor cild to scool, tey must necessarily &ass on or sare teir &arental autority, teir custody over te cild, and te res&onsibility to educate teir cild &ro&erly "it te scool, its administrators and teacers tem&orarily, as te latter sall assume suc during all te time te cild is under teir su&ervision and instruction% Tis, in essence, is te &rinci&le of substituted &arental autority% EJF

A teacer
deat of (ominador /alisoc% Te trial court found (a-on res&onsible for (ominador
In tis &articular case te action "as instituted directly against te scool o:cials, and te *u&reme Court ad te occasion to decide directly on te uestion of te liability of teacers and eads of scools under Article 2180, Civil Code for damages caused by teir &u&ils and students against fello" students on te scool &remises% Te *u&reme Court eld tat defendants Dalenton /resident of KTI and Guibulue teacer in carge "ere liable%

According to te 7ig Tribunal, te deat resulting from te 'gt of te students could ave been avoided if Dalenton and Guibulue ad com&lied "it teir duty of &roviding adeuate su&ervision over te activities of te students in te scool &remises to &rotect teir students from arm, "eter at te ands of  fello" students or oter &arties%

 Te construction of te &rase so long as te students remain in teir custody &reviously it "as understood to mean tat te student actually boarded in te scool,E15F no" it "as understood to mean te &rotective and su&ervisory custody tat te scool and its eads and teacers e=ercise over te &u&ils and students for as long as tey are at attendance in te scool, including recess time% In oter "ords it is not necessary tat te student actually boarded in te scoolH as long as tey are at attendance in scool, te scool autorities "ill be liable%  Te scool ead and te teacer;in;carge "ere found liable, even if (a-on "as already of age at te time of te commission of te o-ense% Tere "as intent tat te liability be not restricted to te case of &ersons under age% @urtermore, teacers and eads of scolarly establisments are not grou&ed "it &arents

and guardians but ranged "it o"ners and managers of enter&rises, em&loyers and te state, as to "om no reason is discernible to im&ly tat tey sould ans"er only for minors% Te res&onsibility of te teacers and scool eads are more &lenary tan tat of te &arents%E1JF According to !ustice )eyes in is concurring o&inion?

“While in the case of parents and guardians, their authority and supervision over the children and wards end by law upon the latter reaching majority age, the authority and custodial supervision over pupils exist regardless of the age of  the latter.  A student over twenty-one, by enrolling and attending a school, places himself  under the custodial supervision and disciplinary authority of the school authorities, which is the basis of the latter’s correlative responsibility for his torts, committed while under such authority. f course, the teachers’ control is not as plenary as when the student is a minor! but that circumstance can only  a"ect the decree of the responsibility but cannot negate the existence thereof. #t is only a factor to be appreciated in determining whether or not the defendant  has exercised due diligence in endeavoring to prevent the injury, as prescribed in the last paragraph of Article $%&'.( 

V. LIABILITIES OF ACADEMIC AND TECHNICAL SCHOOLS

 Te /alisoc doctrine a&&lies to all scools, "eter academic or non;academic% E1F Tis "as settled in te Amadora case%E18F Te *u&reme Court did not see any substantial distinction bet"een an academic scool and a non;academic scool "it res&ect to torts committed by teir students% @or tem, te same vigilance of te teacer "it res&ect to te safety of is students sould be e=&ected, "eter it te scool is academic or tecnical%  In academic scools, te liability attaces to te teacer, "ile in a tecnical scool, te liability attaces to te eadE19F According to te *u&reme Court?

)he reason for the disparity can be traced to the fact that historically the head of the school of arts and trades exercised a closer tutelage over his pupils than the head of the academic school. )he old schools of arts and trades were engaged in the training of artisans apprenticed to their master who personally  and directly instructed them on the techni*ue and secrets of their craft. )he head of the school of arts and trades was such a master and so was  personally involved in the tas+ of teaching his students, who usually even boarded with him and so came under his constant control, supervision and inuence. y contrast, the head of the academic school was not as involved with his students and exercised only administrative duties over the teachers who were the persons directly dealing with the students. )he head of the academic school then has only a vicarious relationship with the students. onse*uently, while he could not be directly faulted for the acts of the students, the head of the school of arts and trades, because of his closer ties with them, could be so blamed.  Te Court conceded o"ever tat te distinction no longer obtains at &resent because of te e=&ansion of tecnological scools, te increase in teir enrolment, and te decrease of te direct and &ersonal contact of vocational scool eads "it teir students%

e no longer ave masters and a&&rentices toiling in scools of arts and trades% *tudents in tecnological  colleges and universities are no different from students in liberal arts or professional schools. Apprentices now work in regular shops and factories and their

relationsi& to te em&loyer is covered by la"s governing te em&loyment relationsi& and not by la"s governing te teacer student relationsi&% E20F VI. LIABILITY OF THE SCHOOL ON ACTS OF A STRANGER AND ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE OF THE SCHOOL In te /*BA caseE21F altoug te &erson in$ured "as a student of /*BA, te &erson tat caused te in$ury "as not a student of /*BA% Art% 2180 on uasi; delict "ould naturally not a&&ly as it reuires tat te damage sould be caused

by a student of te educational institution% 7o"ever, te Court eld tat altoug 2180 does not a&&ly, te scool
 Te case of Amadora and *t @rancis,E2JF te accused &arties ave &roven tat tey ave e=ercised te diligence reuired of tem by la" under te circumstances to guard against te arm tey ad foreseen%  Te court eld?

“)he school can show that it exercised proper measure in selecting the head or  its teachers and the appropriate supervision over them in the custody and instruction of pupils pursuant to its rules and regulations for the maintenance among them. #n fact, these measures are a"ected through the assistance of an ade*uate security force to help the teacher physically enforce the rules upon the students. #t bolster the claim of the school that it has ta+en ade*uate steps to prevent any injury that may be committed by the students.(  VIII. 0AIVERS

Can a teacer or scool esca&e res&onsibility by as.ing &arents to 'le a "aiver during 'eld tri&s and outingsM Tis issue is closely related to liabilities outside scool and Art 218 is clear tat autority and res&onsibility sall a&&ly to all autoriLed activities "eter inside or outside te &remises of te scool, entity or institution% In te case of *t% @rancis, te Court still eld some teacers res&onsible des&ite te fact tat te &arent &ermitted te cild to go to te &icnic%

I1. ILLUSTRATIVE CASES S%##l #' e H#l) Sp"!" 2s C#!a3#$ /. Ta&u"am4*56 )es&ondent CoraLon /% Taguiam "as te Class Adviser of te &etitioner, *cool of te 7oly *&irit of GueLon City% On Karc 10, 2000, te class &resident, "rote a letter to te grade scool &rinci&al reuesting &ermission to old a year;end celebration at te scool grounds% Te &rinci&al autoriLed te activity and allo"ed te &u&ils to use te s"imming &ool% In tis connection, res&ondent distributed te &arent
)es&ondent admitted tat Ciara Kae @ederico
Before te activity started, res&ondent "arned te &u&ils "o did not .no" o" to s"im to avoid te dee&er area% 7o"ever, "ile te &u&ils "ere s"imming, t"o of tem snea.ed out% )es&ondent "ent after tem to verify "ere tey "ere going%

3nfortunately, "ile res&ondent "as a"ay, Ciara Kae dro"ned% res&ondent

returned,

te

maintenance

man

cardio&ulmonary resuscitation on Ciara Kae%

"as

already

en

administering

*e "as still alive "en

res&ondent rused er to te eneral Kalvar 7os&ital "ere se "as &ronounced dead on arrival%

/etitioners dismissed res&ondent on te ground of gross negligence resulting to loss of trust and con'dence% Kean"ile, Ciara Kae
 Te Court eld tat As a teacer "o stands in loco &arentis to er &u&ils, res&ondent sould ave made sure tat te cildren "ere &rotected from all arm "ile in er com&any% )es&ondent sould ave .no"n tat leaving te &u&ils in te s"imming &ool area all by temselves may result in an accident% A sim&le reminder not to go to te dee&est &art of te &ool"as insu:cient to cast a"ay all te serious dangers tat te situation &resented to te cildren, es&ecially "en res&ondent .ne" tat Ciara Kae cannot s"im% (ismally, res&ondent created an unsafe situation "ic e=&osed te lives of all te &u&ils concerned to real danger% Tis is a clear violation not only of te trust and con'dence re&osed on er by te &arents of te &u&ils but also of te scool%

1. CONCLUSION

 Te essence of te &rinci&le of substituted &arental autority is tat "en &arents send teir minor cild to scool, tey must necessarily &ass on or sare teir &arental autority, teir custody over te cild, and te res&onsibility to educate teir cild &ro&erly "it te scool, its administrators and teacers tem&orarily, as te latter sall assume suc during all te time te cild is under teir su&ervision and instruction%

A teacer, "o stands in loco &arentis to er &u&ils, sould ma.e sure tat te cildren "ere &rotected from all arm "ile in er com&any% An academic institution acce&ts students for enrollment, tere is establised a contract bet"een tem, resulting in bilateral obligations "ic bot &arties are bound to com&ly "it% Te contract bet"een scool and student is one imbued "it &ublic interest but a contract noneteless%

 Te la" olds te teacers and eads of te scool sta- liable unless tey relieve temselves of suc liability &ursuant to te last &aragra& of Article 2180 by &roving tat tey observed all te diligence to &revent damage%

E1F 3* Tort a" (ictionary E2F Taugt by Pat Padian;Baumeyer E4F Article 21J, Civil Code of te /ili&&ines EF Bo"y% Kod% C% % c% 4, &% 2J5 E5F /aragra&  of Article 2180 of te Civil Code EJF *angco, /ili&&ine a" on Torts and (amages, 502 199% EF *angco, /ili&&ine a" on Torts and (amages, 502 199 E8F A% Tolentino, Commentaries and !uris&rudence on te Civil Code of te /ili&&ines, J181992 E9F )ollo, &% 5 E10F /*BA vs CA %)% +o% 8J98 @ebruary , 1992 E11F In +on vs% (ames II, %)% +o% 8941, 20 Kay 1990, 185 *C)A 545, E12F /*BA vs CA %)% +o% 8J98 @ebruary , 1992

E14F Amadora vs% Court of A&&eals, %)% +o% ;5, 15 A&ril 1988, 1J0 *C)A 415 E1F %)% +o% ;29025, October , 191 E15F as enunciated in >=conde and Kerc E1JF !ustice )eyes in is concurring o&inion in /alisoc case %)% +o% ;29025, October , 191 E1F Amadora case, %)% +o% ;5, A&ril 15, 1988 E18F %)% +o% ;5, A&ril 15, 1988 E19F *u&reme Court in Amadora Case E20F !% uttierreL, in er concurring o&inion E21F /ili&&ine *cool of Business Administration v% Court of A&&eals, %)% +o%8J98, @ebruary, 1992,205 *C)A 29 E22F )egino v% /angasinan Colleges of *cienceand Tecnology, %)% +o% 15J109, +ovember18, 200, 4 *C)A 5J E24F *oliman, !r v% TuaLon, %)% +o% JJ20, Kay 18, 1992, 209 *C)A 1 E2F @amily Code E25F *t% Kary
•

 T"itter

•

@aceboo.

•

oogle

•

 Torts, vicarious liability, DICA)IO3* IABIIT6 O@ T>AC7>)* A+( >(3CATIO+A I+*TIT3TIO+*custody, (octrine of in loco &arentis, &alisoc doctrine, uasi delict, scool liabilities , vicarious liability