ReserEdwin Giann Paul B.

Atienza
1-M

Legal Research
Dean Ulpiano P. Sarmiento III
LEGAL RESEARCH ACTIVITY
I

The first issue involves a scandal borne out of illicit relations between celebrities.
Research will show a number of applicable laws and provisions in the case of Hayden Kho,
Maricar Reyes and Katrina Halili, the celebrities involved in said scandal. One such law is R.A.
9262, also known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act. Section 2 of said
law states that:
It is hereby declared that the State values the dignity of women and children and
guarantees full respect for human rights. The State also recognizes the need to protect
the family and its members particularly women and children, from violence and threats
to their personal safety and security.
Towards this end, the State shall exert efforts to address violence committed against
women and children in keeping with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed under the
Constitution and the Provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
convention on the Elimination of all forms of discrimination Against Women,
Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international human rights instruments
of which the Philippines is a party.

This law defines violence against women and their children as:
any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife,
former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating
relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether
legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely
to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse
including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary
deprivation of liberty.

In the enumerations of the acts constituting violence against women, paragraph (8)
considers engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through another,
that alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman or her
child. Paragraph (9), on the other hand, considers Causing mental or emotional anguish,
public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated
verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children of
access to the woman's child/children. While the case at bar may not be explicitly stated in the
enumeration, it should be noted that the same is not limiting as to what acts constitute a
violation of said law. Considering the nature of the scandal the three are involved in, it may be
safely assumed that Hayden Khos actions caused substantial mental and emotional anguish in
the two women.

1|Page

Another applicable law is R.A. 9995, also known as the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism
Act of 2010. Section 2 of said law also upholds the dignity and privacy of every person, similar
to R.A. 9262. It states that:
The State values the dignity and privacy of every human person and guarantees full
respect for human rights. Toward this end, the State shall penalize acts that would
destroy the honor, dignity and integrity of a person.

For the purposes of said Act, Section 3 defines the following terms as such:
(a) "Broadcast" means to make public, by any means, a visual image with the intent
that it be viewed by a person or persons.
(b) Capture with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record
by any means, or broadcast
(c) Female breast means any portion of the female breast
(d) Photo or video voyeurism means the act of taking photo or video coverage of a
person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or of
capturing an image of the private area of a person or persons without the latter's
consent, under circumstances in which such person/s has/have a reasonable
expectation of privacy, or the act of selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting,
sharing, showing or exhibiting the photo or video coverage or recordings of such
sexual act or similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and similar
means or device without the written consent of the person/s involved,
notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage of same
was given by such persons.
(e) "Private area of a person" means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public
area, buttocks or female breast of an individual.
(f) "Under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy"
means believe that he/she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that
an image or a private area of the person was being captured; or circumstances in
which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the person would
not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or
private place.

And Section 4 enumerates the acts which would constitute a violation of the Act:
(a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual
act or any similar activity or to capture an image of the private area of a person/s
such as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female
breast without the consent of the person/s involved and under circumstances in
which the person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy;
(b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or video
or recording of sexual act or any similar activity with or without consideration;
(c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed, such photo or video or
recording of sexual act, whether it be the original copy or reproduction thereof; or
(d) (d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print
or broadcast media, or show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings
of such sexual act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular
phones and other similar means or device.

The instant case clearly falls under paragraph (1) of Section 4, for both women, Katrina
Halili and Maricar Reyes, were unaware that Hayden Kho had set up a video recording device to
allow him to record the sexual encounter between him and the two women separately.

2|Page

In the assumption that for the instant case, Hayden Kho, Maricar Reyes and Katrina
Halili are students of the College of Law of San Beda, the student handbook shall also be a
pertinent source of governing laws. Section 1 of Article (9), entitled Serious Offenses
Suspension, Exclusion, and Expulsion, it is stated that:
Any student found guilty of a serious external moral fault or whose conduct is found to
be subversive of the best interest of the College, or who is an unwholesome influence
on his fellow students may be dismissed, after due process, at any time during the
school year.

Section 3, on the other hand, enumerates the acts that would cause the expulsion or
exclusion of the student from the school. The acts are:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)

k)
l)

Gross misconduct in or outside of the College premises;

Assaulting a student, faculty member, or school personnel;
Hazing;
Carrying of any deadly weapon within the school premises;
Immorality;
Hooliganism or vandalism such as destruction or damaging of school property;
Dishonesty such as, but not limited to, stealing, swindling, cheating, or helping or
inducing others to commit the same offense;
Instigating or leading illegal strikes or activities resulting in the disruption of classes
Preventing or threatening any student or school personnel from entering the
school premises or attending classes or discharging their duties;
Violation of any school regulation or any misconduct in or within the vicinity of the
school premises while under the influence or smelling of liquor or any alcoholic
drink;
Violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002; and
Forging or Tampering with school records or school forms, certificates and the likes
and the use of the same.

Paragraphs (1) and (5) are applicable in the instant case. Immorality, as defined by
Merriem-Webster, is the quality or state of being immoral or conflicting with generally or
traditionally held moral principles. Thus, the act of Hayden Kho recording, through subterfuge,
an intimate encounter between him and the two women may be deemed as immoral and/or
gross misconduct and clearly in violation of the student handbook.
With regards to the two women, their involvement in the case must be qualified. Is the
act of engaging in carnal activities with a fellow student not restrained by marriage deemed
immoral and is considered a sufficient ground for expulsion? It must be noted that the two
women consented to the sexual intercourse and not the recording and broadcasting of said
video. While this may be true, it cannot be used as a defense in the case the school chooses to
expel all three students as the student handbook clearly states the grounds for expulsion.

3|Page

To further illustrate the point, the following cases, although of a different nature,
likewise involved students and commission of immoral acts or gross misconduct. The first
involves an altercation between two fraternities.

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY, INC. v THE COURT OF APPEALS

Facts:
While eating at Manangs restaurant near La Salle, James Yap overheard two men badmouthing his fraternity Domino Lux. He ignored the comments although he mentioned them to
his brods when he arrived at his boarding house. The three, accompanied by 4 more other
persons, confronted the two, who admitted that one of them was a member of the Tau Gamma
Phi Fraternity. No rumble or physical violence occurred then. A meeting was conducted
between the two heads of the fraternities through the intercession of the Student Council
where the Tau Gamma Phi asked for an apology, although none was made.
On March 29, 1995, ten minutes before his next class, James Yap was mauled and
beaten by at least 8 men in front of La Salle. The beating ended when people began shouting
notifying the guards of the commotion. Ericson Cano, Dennis Pascual and Michael Perez were
likewise involved in a tussle with members of the Tau Gamma Phi along Dagonoy Street. No
provocation was made on that part of Cano and company.
The following day, Yap, Cano and Pascual filed complaints against Alvin Lee, Richard
Reverente and Roberto Valdes, Jr., Malvin Papio, Alvin Aguilar and James Paul Bungubung.
The DLSU-CSB Joint Discipline Board acquitted Papio and expelled the rest for violation
of CHED Order No. 4 and continuously denied readmission. Private respondents assailed the
decision.
Issue:
The issue here is whether or not petitioner DLSU is within its rights in expelling private
respondents.
Held:
The decision cited Section 5(2), Article XIV of the Constitution. Said section guaranties all
institutions of higher learning academic freedom, which includes the right of the school or
4|Page

college to decide for itself, its aims and objectives, and how best to attain them free from
outside coercion or interference save possible when the overriding public interest calls for
some restraint. This freedom includes
1.
2.
3.
4.

Who may teach

What may be taught
How it shall teach
Who may be admitted to study

Taken as such, it is within the right of DLSU to choose who may or may not be admitted
to their school.it is perfectly within their right in disciplining their students.
A much older case involving a fraternity neophyte who died during the initiation rites
also questioned whether a school has the right to expel its students in pursuant of their
disciplinary rules and moral standards.

ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY v CAPULONG

Facts:
The Aquila Legis Fraternity organized in the Ateneo Law School requires its neophytes to
undergo initiation rites. In the instant case, the rites were held on February 8, 9, 10, 1991. As a
result of such rites, freshmen Leonardo Lennie H. Villa died due to serious physical injuries.
Furthermore, another freshman, Bienvenido Marquez, was also hospitalized for acute renal
failure occasioned by serious physical injuries. After affording respondent students due process,
dismissed the same for acting as master auxiliaries in the hazing rites which led to Lennies
death.
Issue:
Is it within a schools rights to expel students from its academic community in pursuant
to its disciplinary rules and moral standards?
Held:
In its ruling, the Court also cited Section 5(2) of Article XIV of the Constitution. It was
also stated that admission to an institution of higher learning is discretionary upon a school, the
same being a privilege on the part of the student rather than a right. Although students may
have the right to choose their field of study, such right is subject to the established academic
and disciplinary standards laid down by the academic institution.
5|Page

To reiterate, in view of the foregoing laws and decided cases, it may be assumed that
Hayden Kho shall be held liable for his actions and be dismissed from the College of Law for
clear violation of its disciplinary rules, as stated in the Students Handbook, and for violation of
R.A. 9995 and R.A. 9262. Maricar Reyes and Katrina Halili, on the other hand, may be held liable
insofar as they have engaged in illicit relations with Hayden Kho, which in a pre-dominantly
Catholic country, may be viewed as immoral and taboo. It will depend on the schools discretion
whether they shall likewise be held accountable.
II
The second issue involves the negligence of a teacher in the administration of her duties
and ensuring the safety of the children entrusted to his or her care. Can a teacher be held
accountable for her negligence resulting in some form of harm that befell students while under
her custody?
In this issue, a science teacher of St. Andrews Parochial School brought a sample of
mercury enclosed in a jar to show her grade 6 students. When the jar was passed around, one
student opened the jar and accidentally dropped the same causing the mercury to scatter. The
students were exposed and several fell seriously ill. The parents of the victims are holding the
school and the teacher liable.
Pertinent to the case is Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that:
Imprudence and negligence. Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit
any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the
penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its medium
period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in
its minimum and medium periods shall be imposed; if it would have constituted a light
felony, the penalty of arresto menor in its maximum period shall be imposed.
Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall commit an act which would
otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its
medium and maximum periods; if it would have constituted a less serious felony, the
penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed.
When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have only resulted in damage
to the property of another, the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging from an
amount equal to the value of said damages to three times such value, but which shall in
no case be less than twenty-five pesos.
A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall be imposed upon any person
who, by simple imprudence or negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if done
maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.

6|Page

In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall exercise their sound discretion,
without regard to the rules prescribed in Article sixty-four.
The provisions contained in this article shall not be applicable:
1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal to or lower than those provided in
the first two paragraphs of this article, in which case the court shall impose the penalty
next lower in degree than that which should be imposed in the period which they may
deem proper to apply.
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with violation of the Automobile Law, to
death of a person shall be caused, in which case the defendant shall be punished by
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without malice, doing or falling to do an
act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on
the part of the person performing of failing to perform such act, taking into
consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition
and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases in which
the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.
The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in this article shall be imposed
upon the offender who fails to lend on the spot to the injured parties such help as may
be in this hand to give.

The instant case is clearly a violation of said Article, which penalizes negligence that
would result in some form of damage, whether to another person or to property. Introducing a
dangerous element like Mercury to class and allowing the students to handle said substance is
grossly negligent, considering that no safety or precautionary measures were taken to ensure
that the substance is properly contained. Grade 6 students will naturally be curious and
considering the appeal of the element due to its peculiar nature and appearance. Aside from
that, Mercury is extremely toxic and it should have prompted the teacher to avail of every
safety measure possible. Not doing so is indicative of his or her gross negligence.
Consequently, the teacher may be held civilly liable. Chapter 2 of Book 4 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines discusses Quasi-delicts. Article 2176 states that:
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 preexisting contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed
by the provisions of this Chapter.

Article 2177, on the other hand, differentiates negligence as discussed in this Article from the
liability arising from the Revised Penal Code. It states that:
Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and
distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the
plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.

Article 2180 discusses the responsibility and liability of the school-employer involved, in this
case St. Andrews Parochial, in relation to the negligent teacher. It is stated that:
7|Page

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.

Employers, as provided for in this Article, may be held accountable for the actions of their
employees. In the case at bar, the two may be solidary held accountable for the actions of the negligent
teacher. Consequently, the actions of the teacher may be used by the school as grounds for the
termination of employment. Under Article 282 of the Labor Code of the Philippines the following are the
grounds for termination by employer:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of
his employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer
or duly authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his
employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized
representatives; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.

In relation to the issue, the following cases decided by the Supreme Court may assist in
further understanding of the liabilities of the teacher and the school.

8|Page

SCHOOL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT OF QUEZON CITY v TAGUIAM

Facts:
Corazon P. Taguiam, the class adviser of Grade 5-Esmeralda of petitioner-school,
accompanied the class in their year-end celebration at the swimming pool located in the school
grounds. Chiara Mae Federicos permit form was unsigned but respondent concluded that the
former was allowed to join in the festivities since her mother personally brought her to school
with her packed lunch and swimsuit. Before the activity started, respondent warned the
students who did not know how to swim to avoid the deeper area. During the activity, 2
students sneaked out prompting the respondent to follow them to verify where they were
going. While respondent was away, Chiara Mae drowned. When she returned, the maintenance
man was already attempting to resuscitate Chiara Mae. She was rushed to a hospital where she
was proclaimed dead on arrival.
Petitioner dismissed respondent on the ground of gross negligence resulting to loss of
trust and confidence. Likewise, Chiara Maes parents filed a P7 million damage suit against
petitioner and respondent and a criminal complaint for reckless imprudence resulting to
homicide. In response, respondent filed a case against petitioner for illegal dismissal. She
prayed for reinstatement with backwages and other money claims, damages and attorneys
fees.
Issue:
Did the respondent act negligently, validating claims against her for her negligence?
Held:
The Supreme Court concluded that respondent had been grossly negligent. Chiara Maes
permit was unsigned yet she allowed the former to join the activity because of her assumption
that the mother impliedly consented to let Chiara Mae participate. The purpose of such a form
is to ensure the consent of the parents to let their child join the school activity. She should not
have ignored this and relied on mere assumptions.
Furthermore, as Class Adviser, it was her responsibility to supervise her class in schoolsanctioned activities. She should have coordinated with the school to ensure proper safeguards

9|Page

were present during the activity. She should have realized that with the number of students
involved, it would be impossible for her alone to keep an eye on each of them.
Moreover, the Assistant City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict respondent for
the criminal charge filed against her. It was held that respondent "should have foreseen the
danger lurking in the waters." By leaving her pupils in the swimming pool, respondent
displayed an "inexcusable lack of foresight and precaution."

YLARDE v AQUINO
Facts:
In 1963, private respondent Mariano Soriano was the principal of the Gabaldon Primary
School where private respondent Edgardo Aquino served as a teacher. The school was fittered
with several concrete blocks which were perceived to be serious hazards to the schoolchildren.
Another teacher, Sergio Banez, started buying them as early as 1962. To help his colleague,
Aquino gathered 18 male students, aged ten to eleven, and ordered them to dig beside a oneton concrete block in order to make a hole where the stone may be buried. The following day,
four of the original eighteen were tasked to continue the unfinished work. These pupils,
Reynaldo Alonso, Francisco Alcantara, Ismael Abaga and Novelito Ylarde, dug until the
excavation was one meter and forty centimeters deep. Aquino then continued digging while the
pupils remained inside the pit throwing out the loose soil.
When the depth was enough to accommodate the concrete block, Aquino and the four
students got out of the hole. Aquino then left the children to level the loose soil around the
hole while he went to see Banez to borrow the key to the school workroom where he could get
some rope. Before leaving, Aquino allegedly told the children not to touch the stone.
When Aquino left, three of the kids, Alonso, Alcantara and Ylarde, playfully jumped into
the pit while Abaga, without any warning, jumped on top of the concrete block causing it to
slide down into the opening. While Alonso and Alcantara were able to escape on time, Ylarde
was caught by the concrete block, pinning him to the wall in a standing position. Ylarde died
after three days.

10 | P a g e

Issue:
Can both private respondents be held liable for damages?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the principal cannot be held liable for he is the head of an
academic school and not a school of arts and trades, as mentioned in Article 2180 of the Civil
Code. Furthermore, respondent Soriano did not give respondent Aquino any instruction
regarding the digging. While it may be evident that Aquino can be held liable under Article 2180
of the Civil Code as the teacher-in-charge of the children for being negligent in his supervision,
the action initiated against him was based on Article 2176, which is separate and distinct from
the Article 2180. Article 2176 states:
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.

As such, the proper question to ask would be whether there were any acts and omission
on the part of Aquino which have direct causal relation to the death of Ylarde. The Supreme
Court answered in the affirmative. Aquino exhibited negligence when he committed the
following acts: (1) failed to avail himself of serves of adult manual laborers; (2) required the
children to remain inside the pit even after they had finished digging; (3) ordered them to level
the soil around the excavation when it was so apparent that the huge stone was at the brink of
falling; (4) went to a place where he would not be able to check up on the children; (5) left the
children close to the excavation.
Based on the foregoing provisions and jurisprudence, one can assume that a teacher,
being a figure of authority, is expected to ensure the security of the children while under his or
her custody. The teacher must avail of every available safety precautions and must act with due
diligence and care. Any untoward incidents that may happen while the children are under the
teachers supervision, if caused by said teachers negligence, shall be pinned on the same.
III
The third and final issue questions the liability of a child who commits an act, or any
omission, that caused damage to others. In the issue involved, Jack, a grade 1 elementary
student stabbed his classmate Jill in the right eye with his pencil. As a consequence, Jill lost the
11 | P a g e

eye permanently. Jills parents are now holding the school liable, while the school is charging
the parents of Jack liable.
In determining who shall be held liable for the acts of a child, one may refer to
aforementioned Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which states that:
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 preexisting contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed
by the provisions of this Chapter.

Also pertinent is Article 2180, specifically paragraphs (1), (2) and (3). It states:
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.

Furthermore, Articles 221, 218 and 219 of the Family Code of the Philippines shall apply
insofar as they conform to the specific circumstances of the issue. Article 221 states:
Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the
injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children
living in their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate
defenses provided by law.

Articles 218 and 219, on the other hand, state:

Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or
institution engaged in child are 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.
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.

The reason why the liability of minors is passed on to their parents, guardians, or the
school, its administrators and teachers is based on Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines. It states:
Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. the following are exempt from
criminal liability:

12 | P a g e

1.

An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a
felony (delito), the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums
established for persons thus afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without
first obtaining the permission of the same court.

2.

A person under nine years of age.

3.

A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with
discernment, in which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with
the provisions of Art. 80 of this Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformably
with the provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care
and custody of his family who shall be charged with his surveillance and education
otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of some institution or person mentioned in
said Art. 80.

4.

Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere
accident without fault or intention of causing it.

5.

Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.

6.

Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
injury.

7.

Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful
insuperable cause.

In the instant case, paragraphs (2) and (3) discuss the exemption of minors from criminal
liability. This provision, however, has been repealed by R.A. 9344, also known as the Juvenile
Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.Section 6 of said Act states that:
Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - A child fifteen (15) years of age or under at
the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability.
However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program pursuant to Section 20
of this Act.
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be
exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless
he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the
appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption
from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing laws.

Thus, in the case provided, Jack cannot be held liable for his act of stabbing Jill in the
eye. As stated in Article 219 of the Family Code, the school shall be held solidarily liable while
Jacks parents shall be held subsidiarily liable. The following cases should further support these
claims.

13 | P a g e

ST. MARYS ACADEMY v CARPITANOS

Facts:
From February 13 to 20 1995, St. Marys Academy of Dipolog City conducted an
enrolment drive. It included visitation of school from where prospective enrolees were
studying. Sherwin Carpitanos, along with other high school students, were riding a Mitsubishi
jeep owned by Vivencio Villanueva or their way to Larayan Elementary School. The jeep was
driven by James Daniel II, then 15 years old, who allegedly drove the jeep recklessly and as a
result the jeep turned turtle. Sherwin Carpitanos died due to the injuries sustained from the
accident.
Sherwins parents, spouses William and Lucia Carpitanos filed on June 9, 1995 a case
against James Daniel II and his parents, James Daniel Sr. and Guada Daniel, the vehicle owner
Villanueva, and St. Marys Academy. On February 20, 1997, the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog
City rendered its decision awarding damages to the Carpitanos family and holding St. Marys
Academy as liable. This decision is assailed.
Issue:
The issue is whether petitioner-school should be held liable for damages for the death
of Sherwin Carpitanos.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that in this case, the respondents failed to show that the
negligence of the petitioner was the proximate cause of the death of the victim. Rather, the
immediate cause of the accident was the detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep
and not the negligence of the petitioner or the reckless driving of James Daniel II.
Further, no evidence was shown to prove that petitioner school in fact allowed the
minor James Daniel II to drive the jeep of respondent Vivencio Villanueva. It was Ched
Villanueva, grandson of respondent Villanueva, who had possession and control of the jeep at
the time and allowed James Daniel II to drive the same at the time of the accident.
Thus, liability for the accident, whether caused by the negligence of the minor driver or
mechanical detachment of the steering wheel guide, must be pinned primarily on the minors

14 | P a g e

parents. St. Marys negligence was only a remote cause of the injury, where the negligence of
the minors parents or the detachment of the steering wheel guide intervened.
It was also held that the registered owner of any vehicle, even if not used for public
service, would primarily be responsible to the public or to third persons for injuries caused
while the vehicle was being driven on the highways or streets. In consideration of the evidence
showing that the accident occurred because of the detachment of the steering wheel guide, it is
not the school, but the registered owner who shall be held responsible for damages for the
death of Sherwin Carpitanos.

TAMARGO v COURT OF APPEALS

Facts:
On October 20, 1982, Adelberto Bundoc, then 10 years of age, shot Jennifer Tamargo
with an air rifle causing her injuries which resulted in her death. A civil complaint for damages
was filed by petitioner Macario Tamargo, Jennifers adopting parent, and petitioner-spouses
Celso and Aurelia Tamargo, Jennifers natural parents against respondent-spouses Victor and
Clara Bundoc, Adelbertos natural parents. Prior to the incident, or on December 10, 1981, the
spouses Sabas and Felisa Rapisura had filed a petition to adopt Adelberto. Said petition was
granted on November 18, 1982, after Adelberto had shot and killed Jennifer.
In response to the charges filed, respondent-spouses claimed that the adopting parents,
not they, were indispensable parties to the action since parental authority had shifted to the
adopting parents. Petitioners contended since Adelberto was then actually living with his
natural parents, and parental authority had not ceased or been relinquished by the mere filing
and granting of a petition for adoption.
Issue:
Who shall be held liable for minor Adelberto Bundocs actions?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that according to Article 2180 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, civil liability is imposed upon the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the
mother, for any damages that may be caused by a minor child who lives with them. It was held
15 | P a g e

that the shooting of Jennifer by Adelberto occurred when parental authority was still lodged in
respondent Bundoc spouses. It follows that the natural parents are the indispensable parties to
the suit for damages.
The Court is likewise not persuaded by the argument of the natural parents that the
decree of adoption vested parental authority upon the adopting parents as of the time of the
filing of the petition for adoption which was before the Adelberto had shot Jennifer. The Court
stated that the basis of parental liability is the relationship existing between the parents and
the minor child living with them.

AMADORA v COURT OF APPEALS

Facts:
On April 16, 1972, during the commencement exercises of Colegio de San JoseRecoletos, Pablito Daffon fired a gun that mortally hit seventeen year old Alfredo Amadora.
Alfredo Amadora allegedly went to school to show his physics experiment as a prerequisite to
his graduation; hence, he was under the custody of private respondents. Private respondents,
on the other hand, maintain that Amadora had gone to the school only for the purpose of
submitting his physics report and that he was no longer under their custody for the semester
had already ended.
The identitiy of the used was also questioned because of an earlier incident wherein
Sergio Damaso, Jr., the dean of boys, confiscated from Jose Gumban an unlicensed pistol but
later returned the same to him without making a report to the principal or taking any further
action. It was contended that since Gumban was one of the companions of Daffon during the
shooting, that the pistol used was the same one confiscated and that the shooting would have
been impossible if Damaso had not returned the pistol. This claim was contested by the
respondents due to the lack of evidence to prove such.
Daffon was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide while petitioners
filed a civil action for damages against the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, its rector and the high
school principal, the dean of boys, and the physics teacher together with Daffon and two other
students through their respective parents.
16 | P a g e

Issue:
Who shall be held liable for Daffons actions?
Held:
The Supreme Court that 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, and even in the enjoyment of a
legitimate student privilege, the responsibility of the school authorities over the student
continues. During these occasions, it was held that it is the teacher-in-charge who must answer
for his students torts, in the same way that the parents are responsible for the child when he is
in their custody.
The rector, high school principal and the dean of boys cannot be held liable because
none of them was the teacher-in-charge. Each was exercising only a general authority over the
student body. The evidence of the parties, unfortunately, does not show who the teacher-incharge of the student was. Furthermore, no evidence was submitted that would support the
claim that the pistol used by Daffon was in fact the same one previously confiscated by
Damaso. While he may be deserving of sanctions from the school, he cannot be held liable for
Daffons actions as it has not been proven that his negligence directly resulted in Amadors
death. In this case, the petition was denied for lack of sufficient evidence to support their
claims.

17 | P a g e