Teachers as Persons in Authority Who are teachers? Republic Act No.

4670 June 18, 1966 THE MAGNA CARTA FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS Sec. 2 Teachers" and shall apply to all public school teachers except those in the professorial staff of state colleges and universities. As used in this Act, the term "teacher" shall mean all persons engaged in classroom teaching, in any level of instruction, on full-time basis, including guidance counselors, school librarians, industrial arts or vocational instructors, and all other persons performing supervisory and/or administrative functions in all schools, colleges and universities operated by the Government or its political subdivisions; but shall not include school nurses, school physicians, school dentists, and other school employees. Presidential Decree No. 1006- promulgated on September 22, 1976 and made effective on January 1, 1972. According to this decree, teaching refers to the profession primarily concerned with the classroom instruction at the elementary and secondary levels in both public and private schools. The term teacher refers to all persons engaged in teaching, including guidance counselor, school librarians, industrial arts/vocational teachers and all other person performing supervisory and administrative functions. A professional teacher is one who has a permanent appointment under the Magna Carta for Public Scholl Teachers and all others who may qualify for registration. Who is a person in Authority? Commonwealth Act No. 578, June 8, 1940 This confers the status of persons in authority upon supervisor, principals, teachers, and professors of public or private school. This act also provides penalty to any person found guilty of assault upon these teaching personnel imprisonment ranging from 6 months and I day to 6 years and a fine of 500 to 1000 pesos. Batas Pambansa Blg. 232, Education Act of 1982, September 11, 2982 Sec. 11, Par. 3. Teachers shall be deemed persons in authority when in the discharge of lawful duties and responsibilities, and shall, therefore, be accorded due respect and protection.

Article 152. Persons in Authority and agents of persons in authority Any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as member of some court or governmental corporation, board, or commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. A Barangay captain and a Barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in authority. Any person who, by direct provision of aw or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property, such as barrio councilman and Barangay leader, and any person who comes to the aid of a person in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority. In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this code, teachers, professors and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance shall be deemed persons in authority. (As amended by B.P. Blg.873, approved June 12, 1985). The Revised Penal Code, 17th Edition. Luis B. Reyes 2008, Rex Book Store Inc. Manila, Philippines

CHAPTER 6 of the New Civil Code, Book I, Persons Substitute parental authority Art. 349. The following persons shall exercise substitute parental authority: (1) Guardians; (2) Teachers and professors; (3) Heads of children's homes, orphanages, and similar institutions; (4) Directors of trade establishments, with regard to apprentices; (5) Grandparents; (6) The oldest brother or sister. Art. 350. The persons named in the preceding article shall exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child. Art. 351. A general guardian or a guardian over the person shall have the same authority over the ward's person as the parents. With regard to the child's property, the Rules of Court on guardianship shall govern. Art. 352. The relations between teacher and pupil, professor and student, are fixed by government regulations and those of each school or institution. In no case shall corporal punishment be countenanced. The teacher or professor shall cultivate the best potentialities of the heart and mind of the pupil or student. Liability Book Two, Civil Code- Obligations and Contracts QUASI-DELICTS Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a) Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. 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.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. (1903a) Family Code of the Philippines Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution engaged in child care shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody. Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution. (349a) Art. 219. Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable. The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances. All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts.

Some Related Decided Cases Attacking a teacher who had inflicted corporal punishment on a pupil is direct assault.

The corporal punishment (for instance, slightly slapping) inflicted by the offended party upon her pupil does not in any way strip the teacher of her being a person in authority. A teacher in public elementary school has authority to inflict corporal punishment on a pupil if no bodily harm is cause and the punishment inflicted is moderate , is not dictated by any bad motive, is such as usual in school, and such as the parent of the child might expect that the child would receive if he did wrong. Such authority which is inherent to the position of a teacher, especially in grade schools is complement of the old adage-spare the rod and spoil the child. (People vs. Javier, C.A. G.R.No.6203, Oct 28, 1940; People vs. Padua C.A., 49 O.G 156) Reasons why teachers and professors are protected in Arts.148 and 151 The spirit and purpose behind Commonwealth Act No. 578 is to give teachers protection, dignity and respect while in the performance of their official duties. This protection extends not only against pupils or relatives of pupils, but against all persons who knowingly attack a teacher while engaged in the performance of his official duties. Respect for a teacher is required of all persons, whether pupils, parents, or otherwise, if we are to uphold and enhance the dignity of the teaching profession which the law similarly enjoins upon all persons for the sake of the pupils and the profession itself. (People vs. Ceprioso, C.A., 52 O.G. 2609) Exconde vs Capuno 101 Phil 843 Torts and Damages - Liability of Parents Facts: Dante Capuno was a 15 year old boy who was a pupil of Balintawak Elementary School. In March 1949, he attended a Boy Scout parade for Dr. Jose Rizal. While they were inside a jeep, he took control of the wheels which he later lost control of causing the jeep to go turtle thereby killing two other students, Isidoro Caperina and one other. Isidoros mother sued Dante Capuno for the death of her son. Pending the criminal action, the mother reserved her right to file a separate civil action which she subsequently filed against Dante and his dad, Delfin Capuno. ISSUE: Whether or not Delfin Capuno, as the father of Dante is liable for damages. HELD: Yes. The civil liability which the law imposes upon the father, and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, for any damages that may be caused by the minor children who live with them, is obvious. This is necessary consequence of the parental authority they exercise over them which imposes upon the parents the "duty of supporting them, keeping them in their company, educating them and instructing them in proportion to their means", while, on the other hand, gives them the "right to correct and punish them in moderation". The only way by which they can relieve themselves of this liability is if they prove that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage which Delfin failed to prove. On the other hand, the school is not liable. It is true that under the law, "teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for any damages caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody", but this provision only applies to an institution of arts and trades and not to any academic educational institution. Palisoc vs Brillantes et al 41 SCRA 548 Torts and Damages Liability of teachers/heads of establishments of arts and trades Facts: In March 1966, while Dominador Palisoc (16 years old) was watching Virgilio Daffon and Desiderio Cruz work on a machine in their laboratory class in the Manila Technical Institute (a school of arts and trades), Daffon scolded Palisoc for just standing around like a foreman. This caused Palisoc to slightly slap the face of Daffon and a fistfight ensued between the two. Daffon delivered blows that eventually killed Palisoc. The parents of Palisoc sued Daffon, the school president (Teodosio Valenton), the instructor (Santiago Quibulue), and the owner (Antonio Brillantes). The basis of the suit against Valenton, Quibulue, and Brillantes was Article 2180 of the Civil Code. The lower court, as well as the CA, ruled that only Daffon is liable for damages and that Valenton, Quibulue, and Brillantes are not liable because under Article 2180, they are only liable so

long as they [the students] remain in their custody. And that this means, as per Mercado vs Court of Appeals, that teachers or heads of establishments are only liable for the tortious acts of their students if the students are living and boarding with the teacher or other officials of the school which Daffon was not. ISSUE: Whether or not the ruling in the Mercado Case still applies. HELD: No. The SC abandoned the ruling in the Mercado Case as well as the ruling in the Exconde Case as they adopted Justice JBL Reyes dissenting opinion in the latter case. Valenton and Quibulue as president and teacher-in-charge of the school must be held jointly and severally liable for the quasi-delict of Daffon. The unfortunate death resulting from the fight between the students could have been avoided, had said defendants but complied with their duty of providing adequate supervision over the activities of the students in the school premises to protect their students from harm, whether at the hands of fellow students or other parties. At any rate, the law holds them liable unless they relieve themselves of such liability, in compliance with the last paragraph of Article 2180, Civil Code, by "(proving) that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage." In the light of the factual findings of the lower court's decision, said defendants failed to prove such exemption from liability. The SC reiterated that there is nothing in the law which prescribes that a student must be living and boarding with his teacher or in the school before heads and teachers of the school may be held liable for the tortious acts of their students. Salvosa vs Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-70458, October 5, 1988, 166 SCRA274 In the Salvosa case, the court clarified that recess does not include dismissal, andthus, being enrolled or being in the premises of the school without more, does not constitute attendingschool. St. Francis High School v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82465, February 25, 1991, 194 SCRA341. In the case of St. Francis , the Court still held some teachers responsible despite thefact that the parent permitted the child to go to the picnic.