008 ST.

FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL, as represented by

SPS. FERNANDO NANTES AND ROSARIO
LACANDULA, BENJAMIN ILUMIN, TIRSO DE
CHAVEZ, LUISITO VINAS, CONNIE ARQUIO AND
PATRIA CADIZ, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
ELEVENTH DIVISION and DR. ROMULO
CASTILLO and LILIA CADIZ, respondents.
[G.R. No. 82465
February 25, 1991]
TOPIC:
PONENTE: PARAS, J.

AUTHOR:
NOTES: (if applicable)
Before an employer may be held liable for the negligence of
his employee, the act or omission which caused damage
must have occurred while an employee was in the
performance of his assigned tasks. In the case at bar, the
teachers/petitioners were not in the actual performance of
their assigned tasks. What was held was a purely private
affair, a picnic, which did not have permit from the school
since it was not a school sanctioned activity. Mere
knowledge by petitioner/principal of the planning of the
picnic does not in any way consent to the holding of the
same.
No negligence could be attributable to the petitionersteachers to warrant the award of damages to the
respondents-spouses. The class adviser of the section where
Ferdinand belonged, did her best and exercised diligence of
a good father of a family to prevent any untoward incident
or damages to all the students who joined the picnic.

FACTS: (chronological order)

Ferdinand Castillo, a freshman student at the St. Francis High School, wanted to join a school picnic. His parents,
respondents spouses Dr. Romulo Castillo and Lilia Cadiz Castillo, because of short notice, did not allow their son to join
but merely allowed him to bring food to the teachers for the picnic, with the directive that he should go back home after
doing so. However, because of persuasion of the teachers, Ferdinand went on with them to the beach. During the picnic,
one of the female teachers was apparently drowning. Some of the students, including Ferdinand, came to her rescue, but in
the process, it was Ferdinand himself who drowned. He died. Respondent spouses filed a civil case against petitioner and
some of their teachers. Trial court found teachers liable but dismissed complaint against the school.

ISSUE(S): WON Art 2180 in relation to Art. 2176 is applicable to the case at bar
HELD: (YES/NO, and a short explanation)
NO
RATIO:
Before the employer may be held liable for the negligence of his employee under Art 2180, the act or omission which
caused the damage must have occurred while the employee was in the performance of his assigned task.
In the case at bar, the teachers /petitioners were not in the performance of their actual task. The incident
happened not within school premises, not on a school day and while the teachers and students were holding a purely
private affair. Such picnic had no permit from the school head or the principal since it was not a school sanctioned activity.
It was also not an extra-curricular activity.
In addition, the negligence attributed to the teachers was not proven. The class adviser of 1-C did her best and
exercised diligence of a good father of a family to prevent any untoward incident or damage to all students who joined the
picnic as evidenced by:
1. inviting 2 P.E. teachers and scout masters who have knowledge first aid application and swimming.
2. life savers were especially brought by the teachers in case of emergency.
3. Both P.E. teachers did all what is humanely possible to save the child.

CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:

DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):
Padilla, J.:
The presumption in Art 2180 is not conclusive and should be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that
the owner or manager exercised the care and diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of
the employees causing the injury or damage.
In this case, the principal knew of the picnic, was in fact invited, but did nothing about it. Principal should have
taken appropriate measures to ensure the safety of his students. His silence and negligence