Amadora vs CA 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 JOSE-RECOLETOS, 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.

Amadora vs. CA

GR No. L47745, April 15, 1988

FACTS:

Alfredo Amadora, while in the auditorium of the school, was mortally hit by a gun by Pablito Daffon resulting to the
former’s death. Daffon was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence. The victim’s parents, herein petitioners,
filed a civil action for damages against Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, its rectors, high school principal, dean of boys, the
physics teacher together with Daffon and 2 other students. Complaints against the students were dropped. Respondent
Court absolved the defendants completely and reversed CFI Cebu’s decision for the following reasons: 1. Since the school
was an academic institution of learning and not a school of arts and trades 2. That students were not in the custody of the
school since the semester has already ended 3. There was no clear identification of the fatal gun, and 4. In any event,
defendants exercised the necessary diligence through enforcement of the school regulations in maintaining
discipline. Petitioners on othe other hand claimed their son was under school custody because he went to school to
comply with a requirement for graduation (submission of Physics reports).

ISSUE: WON Collegio de San Jose-Recoletos should be held liable.

HELD:

The time Alfredo was fatally shot, he was in the custody of the authorities of the school notwithstanding classes had
formally ended when the incident happened. It was immaterial if he was in the school auditorium to finish his physics
requirement. What was important is that he was there for a legitimate purpose. On the other hand, the rector, high
school principal and the dean of boys cannot be held liable because none of them was the teacher-in-charge as defined in
the provision. Each was exercising only a general authority over the students and not direct control and influence exerted
by the teacher placed in-charge of particular classes.

In the absence of a teacher- in charge, dean of boys should probably be held liable considering that he had earlier
confiscated an unlicensed gun from a student and later returned to him without taking disciplinary action or reporting the
matter to the higher authorities. Though it was clear negligence on his part, no proof was shown to necessarily link this
gun with the shooting incident.

Collegio San Jose-Recoletos cannot directly be held liable under the provision because only the teacher of the head of
school of arts and trade is made responsible for the damage caused by the student. Hence, under the facts disclosed,
none of the respondents were held liable for the injury inflicted with Alfredo resulting to his death.

Petition was denied.