AMADORA vs.

CA
G.R. No. L47745, April 15, 1988
TOPIC: Sources of Obligations
Cruz, J:
FACTS:
Alfredo Amadora, 17 a graduating student of Colegio de San-Recoletos was mortally shot by his
classmate, Pablito Daffon while they were in the auditorium of their school. Amadora died instantly.
Daffon was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence. The victims parents, herein petitioners,
filed a civil action for damages against the school, its rector, the high school principal, the dean of boys,
and the physics teacher, together with Daffon and two other students, through their respective parents.
The complaint against the students was later dropped.
The Court of First Instance of Cebu held the remaining defendants liable to the plaintiffs in the sum of
P294,984.00, representing death compensation, loss of earning capacity, costs of litigation, funeral
expenses, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorneys fees.
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision and all defendants absolved completely. Under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, the Art. 2180 of the Civil Code is not applicable based on the following grounds:
(1) The school was an academic institution of learning and not a school of arts and trades.
(2) Students were not in custody of the school at the time of the incident since the semester had
already ended.
(3) There was no clear identification of the fatal gun; and
(4) Defendants exercised necessary diligence in preventing injury.
Petitioners claimed that Amadora went to school on that day, April 13, 1972 to show his physics
experiment as a requisite to graduation. The private respondents, however, submit that Amadora had
gone to the school only to submit his physics report, and that he was no longer in their custody because
the semester had already ended.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents are liable for the death of Amador based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code
HELD:
The Supreme Court held that none of the respondents is liable for the injury inflicted by Pablito
Damon on Alfredo Amadora that resulted in the latters death at the auditorium of the Colegio de San
Jose-Recoletos on April 13, 1972.
The Supreme Court however clarified that the school, whether academic or not, should not be held
directly liable. Its liability is only subsidiary.

FOR NON-ACADEMIC SCHOOLS, it would be the principal or head of school who should be
directly liable for the tortuous act of its students. This is because historically, in non-academic
schools, the head of school exercised a closer administration over their students than
heads of academic schools. In short, they are more hands on to their students.
FOR ACADEMIC SCHOOLS, it would be the teacher-in-charge who would be directly liable for
the tortuous act of the students and not the dean or the head of school.

Finally, as previously observed, the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos CANNOT BE HELD DIRECTLY
LIABLE under the article because only the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades is made
responsible for the damage caused by the student or apprentice. Neither can it be held to answer for the
tort committed by any of the other private respondents for none of them has been found to have been

charged with the custody of the offending student or has been remiss in the discharge of his duties in
connection with such custody.
Jurisprudence mentioned:
Exconde v Capuno: Capuno, a student of Balintawak Elementary School and a boy scout attended a
Rizal Day parade on city school supervisors instructions. Afterwards, Capuno boarded a jeep & drove it
recklessly that it turned turtle killing 2 passengers. The Supreme Court exculpated school in obiter
dictum (it was not party to the case) since it was not a school of arts & trades. Some justices dissented
claiming that liability under Art. 2180 applied to teachers in general & heads of schools of arts & trades in
particular.
Mercado v. CA: A student cut a classmate w/a razor blade at the Lourdes Catholic School, QC. Exconde
ruling reiterated. Custody requirement was defined as a situation where student lives & boards with
teacher such that control, direction and influences on pupil supersede those of parents.
Palisoc v. Brillantes: A 16-yr old student was killed by a classmate with fist blows in the lab of Manila
Technical Institute. Court ruled that even if offender was already of age and not boarding in the school,
the head & teacher-in-charge were solidarily liable with him. Custody was defined as the protective and
supervisory custody that school, its heads and teachers exercise over students for as long as they are at
the attendance in the school including recess time. No such requirement as actual living & boarding in the
school before such liability is attached. It set aside Mercado ruling. Even students of age were still
covered by provision since they are equally in custody of school and subject to its discipline.
*** This case has fully abandoned the rulings of Exconde vs Capuno and Mercado vs Court of
Appeals.
Person Vicariously Liable for Acts of Others (Art 2180)
The basis of vicarious liability is responsibility of a person over other persons under their legal authority,
control or influence. Violation or remission of duty arising from such relationship makes them liable for
damages caused by other person under their care or charge.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Parent father, if dead or incapacitated, mother are responsible for damages caused by minor
children living in their company
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated person who are
under their authority and live in their company.
Teachers or Heads of school of arts and trade (non-academic) are liable for damages caused
by their pupils and students or apprentices remaining under custody
The state is responsible when it acts thru a special agent but not when the damage has been
caused by the official to whom the task is done properly pertains (i.e. function or duty) in which
case Art 2176 is applied.
Employers: Master