G.R. No.

L-47745 April 15, 1988

JOSE S. AMADORA, LORETA A. AMADORA, JOSE A. AMADORA JR.,
NORMA A. YLAYA PANTALEON A. AMADORA, JOSE A. AMADORA III,
LUCY A. AMADORA, ROSALINDA A. AMADORA, PERFECTO A.
AMADORA, SERREC A. AMADORA, VICENTE A. AMADORA and MARIA
TISCALINA A. AMADORA, petitioners
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, COLEGIO DE SAN JOSERECOLETOS, VICTOR LLUCH SERGIO P. DLMASO JR., CELESTINO
DICON, ANIANO ABELLANA, PABLITO DAFFON thru his parents and
natural guardians, MR. and MRS. NICANOR GUMBAN, and ROLANDO
VALENCIA, thru his guardian, A. FRANCISCO ALONSO, respondents.

Topic: Reddendo Singula Singulis

Facts of the Case:
1. Three days before his graduation, Alfredo Amadora, a 17-year
old prospective graduate, was in the auditorium of his high
school, Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, when his classmate,
Pablito Damon, fired a gun that mortally hit Alfredo.
2. Damon was convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence.
3. Petitioners herein filed a civil action for damages under Article
2180 (Note 1-PLEASE READ THIS FIRST) against the high
school principal, dean of boys and physics teacher together with
Daffon and two other students, through their respective parents
(charge against students was later dropped)
4. CFI held remaining defendants liable for damages representing
death compensation, loss of earning capacity, et.al.
5. CA reversed the decision of CFI
6. Petitioners contend that Alfredo was in the school to show his
required physics project hence under the custody of respondents.
Respondents argue that semester has already ended, hence no
longer in their custody.
7. In addition to the facts, Sergio Damaso, dean of boys,
confiscated a gun from Jose Gumban but later returned it without
making a report to the principal or taking further action. Gumban
was one of the companions of Damon when he fired the gun.
8. Petitioners states that this is important because petitioners
contend that this was the same gun that Damon shot and Alfredo

would not have been killed if it not had been returned by

Damaso.
9. Respondents replies that there is no proof that it was the same
firearm that killed Alfredo.
10. Both parties invoked Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
Primary Issue:
Whether or not the interpretation of Article 2180 covers even
establishments which are not school of arts and trades
Ruling: Yes.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Authors note: Since the case cited three cases which I think are
important, those cases are summarized below even before the ruling. You
can skip but just putting this as reference.)
Exconde v Capuno
A 15-year old student of Balintawak Elem School, in a Rizal Day
parade on the instructions of the school supervisor, boarded a jeep and
drove it recklessly that it turtle flipped, resulting to the death of two of its
passengers. Dante was found guilty of double homicide with reckless
imprudence. In the civil case, his father was held solidarily liable for
damages (under Art 2180).
School was exculpated on the grounds that it was not a school of
arts and trades. Here, Justice Reyes dissented stating the school
authorities should be held liable under this rule, specifically to: (1)
teachers in general; and (2) heads of schools of arts and trades in
particular. Justic Reyes opined that of establishments of arts and trades
under Art 2180 should only apply to heads only and not teachers.
Mercado v CA
Exconde was reiterated in this case. A student of Lourdes School
cut a classmate with a razorblade during recess. The parents sued the
culprits parents for damages. Court declared that the school was not
liable since it was not an establishment of arts and trades.
Palisoc v Brillantes

Lopez, AMC

A 16-year old student was killed by a classmate with fistblows in

the lab of Manila Technical Institute. Although wrongdoer was already of
age and was not boarding in the school, the head and the teacher in
charge was held liable with him. Custody in Article 2180 means
custody exercised over pupils as long as they are attendance in school,
including recess time. The law does not require for the pupil or student
who commits the tortious act to be living and boarding in the school for
them to have liability. Court erred in Exconde and Mercado. These
previous cases must be deemed to have been set aside by present
decision.
Justice Makalintal dissented that law should only be applied to
pupils not yet of age as teachers are acting only in loco parentis.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1. Article 2180 should apply to all schools. Where school is
academic, tort committed by student will attach to teacher in
charge. Where school is of arts and trades, then it is the head that
is liable.
2. STATCON Doctrine: reddendo singula singulis
a. In the provision of Article 2180, the word teachers
should apply to the words pupils and students and the
phrase heads of establishments of arts and trades to the
word apprentices
b. The words arts and trades does not qualify teachers
but only heads of establishments
c. English of doctrine means referring to each phrase or
expression to its appropriate object
3. Where the parent places the child under the effective authority of
the teacher, the latter should be the one answerable for the torts
committed while under his custody.
a. Court does not find reason for relaxing vigilance in
academic schools and increasing vigilance in nonacademic school.
Custody Issue
4. The student is in custody of the school authorities as long as he
is under the control and influence of the school and within its
Lopez, AMC

premises, whether the semester has not yet begun or has already
ended.
5. 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 a legitimate student right, and even in the enjoyment
of a legitimate student right or privilege, the responsibility of the
school authorities over the student continues.
6. Even if student is just relaxing in the campus enjoying the
ambiance and atmosphere of the school, he is still within the
custody and subject to the discipline of school authorities.
7. Custody does not connote immediate physical presence but
refers more to the influence and discipline instilled in the
student. Therefore, the teacher in charge will be liable for tort,
regardless of age. But teacher or school can exonerate this
liability by proof that it had exercised diligence of a good father.
Courts Conclusions
8. Alfredo was in the custody of the school at the time he was
fatally shot.
9. The rector, principal and physics teacher are not liable as none of
them was the teacher-in-charge as defined. They were only
exercising a general authority over the student body. Mere fact
that Alfredo went to school to submit a physics report does not
make the physics teacher the teacher-in-charge.
10. There is no showing that Dicon was negligent in enforcing
discipline upon Damon. The private respondents have proved
that they had exercised due diligence through the enforcement of
the school regulations and maintaining that discipline.
11. Although dean of boys who should PROBABLY be liable for no
reporting to higher authorities, his negligence only deserves
sanctions from the school and does not necessarily link him to
the shooting as it was not proved that the confiscated gun was
the same gun that shot Alfredo.
12. School cannot be liable because under the Art 2180, only
teachers and heads of establishments of the school of arts and
trades is made responsible.
None of the respondents are liable. Petition is DENIED.