G.R. No.

L-10134
June 29, 1957
EXCONDE vs. CAPUNO
FACTS
Dante Capuno was a 15 year old boy who was a pupil of Balintawak Elementary School.
In March 1949, he attended a boy scout parade for Dr. Jose Rizal. While they were inside a
jeep, he took control of the wheels which he later lost control of causing the jeep to go turtle
thereby killing two other students, Isidoro Caperina and one other. Isidoros mother, Sabina
Exconde, sued Dante Capuno for the death of her son. Pending the criminal action, the mother
reserved her right to file a separate civil action which she subsequently filed against Dante and
his dad, Delfin Capuno.
ISSUE
Whether or not Delfin Capuno, as the father of Dante is liable for damages.
RULING
Yes. The civil liability which the law imposes upon the father, and, in case of his death or
incapacity, the mother, for any damages that may be caused by the minor children who live with
them, is obvious. This is necessary consequence of the parental authority they exercise over
them which imposes upon the parents the duty of supporting them, keeping them in their
company, educating them and instructing them in proportion to their means, while, on the other
hand, gives them the right to correct and punish them in moderation. The only way by which
they can relieve themselves of this liability is if they prove that they exercised all the diligence of
a good father of a family to prevent the damage which Delfin failed to prove.
On the other hand, the school is not liable. It is true that under the law, teachers or
directors of arts and trades are liable for any damages caused by their pupils or apprentices
while they are under their custody, but this provision only applies to an institution of arts and
trades and not to any academic educational institution.

G.R. No. L-14342

May 30, 1960
MERCADO v. THE COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS
This is a petition to review a decision of the Court of Appeals, which condemned
petitioner to pay P2,000 as moral damages and P50 for medical expenses, for a physical injury
caused by the son of petitioner, Augusto Mercado, on a classmate, Manuel Quisumbing, Jr.,
both pupils of the Lourdes Catholic School, Kanlaon, Quezon City.
Plaintiff-appellant Manuel Quisumbing, Jr. is the son of his co-plaintiff-appellants Ana
Pineda and Manuel L. Quisumbing, while Augusto Mercado is the son of defendant-appellee
Ciriaco L. Mercado, Manuel Quisumbing, Jr. and Augusto Mercado were classmates in the
Lourdes Catholic School on Kanlaon, Quezon City. A "pitogo", which figures prominently in this
case, may be described as an empty nutshell used by children as a piggy bank. On February
22, 1956, Augusto Mercado and Manuel Quisumbing, Jr. quarrelled over a "pitogo". As a result,
Augusto wounded Manuel, Jr. on the right cheek with a piece of razor.
The facts of record clearly show that it was Augusto Mercado who started the
aggression. Undeniably, the "pitogo" belonged to Augusto Mercado but he lent it to Benedicto P.
Lim and in turn Benedicto lent it to Renato Legaspi. Renato was not aware that the "pitogo"
belonged to Augusto, because right after Benedicto gave it to him, Benedicto ran away to get a
basket ball with which they could play. Manuel Quisumbing, Jr. was likewise unaware that the
"pitogo" belonged to Augusto. He thought it was the "pitogo" of Benedicto P. Lim, so that when
Augusto attempted to get the "pitogo" from Renato, Manuel, Jr. told him not to do so because
Renato was better at putting the chain into the holes of the "pitogo". However, Augusto resented
Manuel, Jr.'s remark and he aggresively pushed the latter. The fight started then. After Augusto
gave successive blows to Manuel, Jr., and the latter was clutching his stomach which bore the
brunt of Augusto's anger, Augusto seeing that Manuel, Jr. was in a helpless position, cut him on
the right check with a piece of razor.
ISSUE
Whether or not the Lourdes Catholic School should be made liable for the damage
caused
RULING
The Court ruled "teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for any damage
caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody", but this provision only
applies to an institution of arts and trades and not to any academic educational institution. ART.
2180 provides that 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. It would be seem that the clause "so long as they remain in their custody,"
contemplates a situation where the pupil lives and boards with the teacher, such that the control,
direction and influence on the pupil supersedes those of the parents. In these circumstances the
control or influence over the conduct and actions of the pupil would pass from the father and
mother to the teacher; and so would the responsibility for the torts of the pupil. Such a situation
does not appear in the case at bar; the pupils appear to go to school during school hours and go
back to their homes with their parents after school is over. The situation contemplated in the last
paragraph of Article 2180 does not apply, nor does paragraph 2 of said article, which makes
father or mother responsible for the damages caused by their minor children. The claim of
petitioner that responsibility should pass to the school must, therefore, be held to be without
merit.

G.R. No. L-29025

October 4, 1971
PALISOC vs. BRILLANTES
FACTS
In March 1966, while Dominador Palisoc (16 years old) was watching Virgilio Daffon and
Desiderio Cruz work on a machine in their laboratory class in the Manila Technical Institute (a
school of arts and trades), Daffon scolded Palisoc for just standing around like a foreman. This
caused Palisoc to slightly slap the face of Daffon and a fistfight ensued between the two. Daffon
delivered blows that eventually killed Palisoc. The parents of Palisoc sued Daffon, the school
president (Teodosio Valenton), the instructor (Santiago Quibulue), and the owner (Antonio
Brillantes). The basis of the suit against Valenton, Quibulue, and Brillantes was Article 2180 of
the Civil Code.
The lower court, as well as the CA, ruled that only Daffon is liable for damages and that
Valenton, Quibulue, and Brillantes are not liable because under Article 2180, they are only liable
so long as they [the students] remain in their custody. And that this means, as per Mercado vs
Court of Appeals, that teachers or heads of establishments are only liable for the tortious acts of
their students if the students are living and boarding with the teacher or other officials of the
school which Daffon was not.
ISSUE
Whether or not the ruling in the Mercado Case still applies.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court abandoned the ruling in the Mercado Case as well as the ruling
in the Exconde Case as they adopted Justice JBL Reyes dissenting opinion in the latter case.
Valenton and Quibulue as president and teacher-in-charge of the school must be held jointly
and severally liable for the quasi-delict of Daffon. The unfortunate death resulting from the fight
between the students could have been avoided, had said defendants but complied with their
duty of providing adequate supervision over the activities of the students in the school premises
to protect their students from harm, whether at the hands of fellow students or other parties. At
any rate, the law holds them liable unless they relieve themselves of such liability, in compliance
with the last paragraph of Article 2180, Civil Code, by (proving) that they observed all the
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. In the light of the factual findings of
the lower courts decision, said defendants failed to prove such exemptionfrom liability. The SC
reiterated that there is nothing in the law which prescribes that a student must be living and
boarding with his teacher or in the school before heads and teachers of the school may be held
liable for the tortious acts of their students.

G.R. No. L-47745

April 15, 1988
AMADORA vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS
In April 1972, while the high school students of Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos were in
the school auditorium, a certain Pablito Daffon fired a gun. The stray bullet hit Alfredo Amadora.
Alfredo died. Daffon was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The parents of
Alfredo sued the school for damages under Article 2180 of the Civil Code because of the
schools negligence.
The trial court ruled in favor of Amadora. The trial court ruled that the principal, the dean
of boys, as well as the teacher-in-charge are all civilly liable. The school appealed as it averred
that when the incident happened, the school year has already ended. Amadora argued that
even though the semester has already ended, his son was there in school to complete a school
requirement in his Physics subject. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the school. The CA
ruled that under the last paragraph of Article 2180, only schools of arts and trades (vocational
schools) are liable not academic schools like Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos.
ISSUE
Whether or not Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, an academic school, is liable under
Article 2180 of the Civil Code for the tortuous act of its students.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court made a re-examination of the provision on the last paragraph
of Article 2180 which provides:
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 Supreme Court said that it is time to update the interpretation of the above law due
to the changing times where there is hardly a distinction between schools of arts and trade and
academic schools. That being said, the Supreme Court ruled that ALL schools, academic or not,
may be held liable under the said provision of Article 2180. 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.
The Supreme Court also ruled that such liability does not cease when the school year
ends or when the semester ends. Liability applies whenever the student is in the custody of the
school authorities as long as he is under the control and influence of the school and within its
premises, whether the semester has not yet begun or has already ended at the time of the
happening of the incident. 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. Indeed,
even if the student should be doing nothing more than relaxing in the campus in the company of
his classmates and friends and enjoying the ambience and atmosphere of the school, he is still
within the custody and subject to the discipline of the school authorities under the provisions of
Article 2180.
At any rate, the REMEDY of the teacher, to avoid direct liability, and for the school, to
avoid subsidiary liability, is to show proof that he, the teacher, exercised the necessary

precautions to prevent the injury complained of, and the school exercised the diligence of
a bonus pater familias.
In this case however, the Physics teacher in charge was not properly named, and there
was no sufficient evidence presented to make the said teacher-in-charge liable. Absent the
direct liability of the teachers because of the foregoing reason, the school cannot be held
subsidiarily liable too.

SYNTHESIS OF CASES

In Exconde vs. Capuno case, Delfin Capuno is liable for the damage cause by his son
Dante, he is civilly liable which the law imposes upon the father, and, in case of his death or
incapacity, the mother, for any damages that may be caused by the minor children who live with
them. This is necessary consequence of the parental authority they exercise over them which
imposes upon the parents the duty of supporting them, keeping them in their company,
educating them and instructing them in proportion to their means. On the other hand, the
school is not liable. It is true that under the law, teachers or directors of arts and trades are
liable for any damages caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody,
but this provision only applies to an institution of arts and trades and not to any academic
educational institution.
In Mercado vs. Court of Appeals case, The Court ruled "teachers or directors of arts and
trades are liable for any damage caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are under their
custody", but this provision only applies to an institution of arts and trades and not to any
academic educational institution. ART. 2180 provides that 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 claim of petitioner that
responsibility should pass to the school must, therefore, be held to be without merit.
In Palisoc vs. Brillantes case, the Supreme Court abandoned the ruling in the Mercado
Case as well as the ruling in the Exconde Case as they adopted Justice JBL Reyes dissenting
opinion in the latter case. Valenton and Quibulue as president and teacher-in-charge of the
school must be held jointly and severally liable for the quasi-delict of Daffon.
In Amadora vs. Court of Appeals case, the Supreme Court said that it is time to update
the interpretation of Article 2180 which provides 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 due to the changing times where there is hardly a
distinction between schools of arts and trade and academic schools. That being said, the
Supreme Court ruled that ALL schools, academic or not, may be held liable under the said
provision of Article 2180.The Supreme Court however clarified that the school, whether
academic or not, should not be held directly liable. Its liability is only subsidiary. even if the
student should be doing nothing more than relaxing in the campus in the company of his
classmates and friends and enjoying the ambience and atmosphere of the school, he is still
within the custody and subject to the discipline of the school authorities under the provisions of
Article 2180. This case abandoned fully the cases of Exconde vs Capuno and Mercado vs Court
of Appeals