You are on page 1of 10

Sabina Exconde vs Delfin and Dante Capuno

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. Isidoro’s 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.

HELD: 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.
JUSTICE J.B.L. REYES Dissenting:
Delfin Capuno should be relieved from liability. There is no sound reason for limiting the
liability to teachers of arts and trades and not to academic ones. What substantial difference
is there between them in so far as, concerns the proper supervision and vigilance over their
pupils? It cannot be seriously contended that an academic teacher is exempt from the duty
of watching do not commit a tort to the detriment of third persons, so long as they are in a
position to exercise authority and supervision over the pupil.
Cuadra v. Monfort
Maria Teresa Cuadra and Maria Teresa Monfort were schoolmates in Grade Six at the Mabini
Elementary School in Bacolod City. On July 9. 1962 their instructor assigned them. together
with three other schoolmates. to weed the grass in the school premises. While therefore
engaged Maria Teresa Monfort found a fictile headband. an cosmetic object normally worn by
immature misss over their hair. Jokingly she said aloud that she had found an angleworm and.
obviously to scare the Cuadra miss. tossed the object at her. At that precise minute the latter
turned around to confront her friend. and the object hit her right oculus. Aching from the hurting.
she rubbed the injured portion and treated it with some pulverization. The following twenty-four
hours. July 10. the oculus became conceited and it was so that the miss related the incident to
her parents. who thereupon took her to a physician for intervention. She underwent surgical
operation twice. on July 20 and August 4. 1962 severally. and stayed in the infirmary for a sum
of 23 yearss. for all of which the parents spent the amount of P1. 703. 75. Despite the medical
attempts. nevertheless. Maria Teresa Cuadra wholly lost the sight of her right oculus. Maria
Teresa Cuadra’s parents sued Alfonso Monfort ( Maria Teresa Monfort’s male parent ) based on
Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

Issues:

Whether or non Alfonso Monfort should be held apt under Article 2180.

Business Law
Opinion of the tribunal:

The suspect is non apt and hence can non be sued under Article 2180. This article provides that
the male parent and. in instance of his decease or incapacity. the female parent. are
responsible for the amendss caused by the minor kids who live in their company. The footing of
this vicarious. although primary. liability is. as in Article 2176. mistake or carelessness. which is
presumed from that which accompanied the causative act or skip. The given is simply based on
the ?rst feeling ( leading facie ) and may hence be rebutted. This is the clear and logical illation
that may be drawn from the last paragraph of Article 2180. which provinces “that the duty
treated of in this Article shall discontinue when the individuals herein mentioned prove that they
observed all the diligence of a good male parent of a household to forestall harm. ”

In this instance. there is nil from which it may be inferred that the suspect. Alfonso Monfort.
could hold prevented the harm by the observation of due attention. or that he was in any
manner remiss in the exercising of his parental authorization in neglecting to anticipate such
harm. or the act which caused it. On the contrary. his kid was at school. where it was his
responsibility to direct her and where she was. as he had the right to anticipate her to be. under
the attention and supervising of the instructor. And every bit far as the act which caused the hurt
was concerned. it was an guiltless buffoonery non unusual among kids at drama and which no
parent. nevertheless careful. would hold any particular ground to expect much less guard
against. Nor did it uncover any arch leaning. or so any trait in the child’s character which would
re?ect unfavourably on her upbringing and for which the incrimination could be attributed to her
parents.
TAMARGO vs CA
FACTS:

In October 1982, Adelberto Bundoc, minor, 10 years of age, shot Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle
causing injuries that resulted in her death. The petitioners, natural parents of Tamargo, filed a
complaint for damages against the natural parents of Adelberto with whom he was living the time of
the tragic incident.

In December 1981, the spouses Rapisura filed a petition to adopt Adelberto Bundoc. Such petition
was granted on November 1982 after the tragic incident.

ISSUE: WON parental authority concerned may be given retroactive effect so as to make adopting
parents the indispensable parties in a damage case filed against the adopted child where actual
custody was lodged with the biological parents.

HELD:

Parental liability is a natural or logical consequence of duties and responsibilities of parents, their
parental authority which includes instructing, controlling and disciplining the child. In the case at
bar, during the shooting incident, parental authority over Adelberto was still lodged with the natural
parents. It follows that they are the indispensable parties to the suit for damages. “Parents and
guardians are responsible for the damage caused by the child under their parental authority in
accordance with the civil code”.

SC did not consider that retroactive effect may be given to the decree of adoption so as to impose a
liability upon the adopting parents accruing at the time when they had no actual or physical custody
over the adopted child. Retroactivity may be essential if it permits accrual of some benefit or
advantage in favor of the adopted child. Under Article 35 of the Child and Youth Welfare Code,
parental authority is provisionally vested in the adopting parents during the period of trial custody
however in this case, trial custody period either had not yet begin nor had been completed at the time
of the shooting incident. Hence, actual custody was then with the natural parents of Adelberto.
G.R. No. L-25142 March 25, 1975

PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES, INC. and FELIX PANGALANGAN, plaintiffs-appellants,


vs.
PHIL-AMERICAN FORWARDERS, INC., ARCHIMEDES J. BALINGIT and FERNANDO
PINEDA, defendants-appellees.

Angel A. Sison for plaintiffs-appellants.

Fidel Zosimo U. Canilao for defendants-appellees.

AQUINO, J.: ñé+.£ªwph!1

Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. and Felix Pangalangan appealed on pure questions of law from the order of
the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, dismissing their complaint against Archimedes J. Balingit.

The dismissal was based on the ground that Balingit as the manager of Phil-American Forwarders, Inc., which
together with Fernando Pineda and Balingit, was sued for damages in an action based on quasi-delict or culpa
aquiliana, is not the manager of an establishment contemplated in article 2180 of the Civil Code (Civil Case No.
3865).

In the complaint for damages filed by the bus company and Pangalangan against Phil-American Forwarders,
Inc., Balingit and Pineda, it was alleged that on November 24, 1962, Pineda drove recklessly a freight truck,
owned by Phil-American Forwarders, Inc., along the national highway at Sto. Tomas, Pampanga. The truck
bumped the bus driven by Pangalangan, which was owned by Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. As a result of
the bumping, Pangalangan suffered injuries and the bus was damaged and could not be used for seventy-nine
days, thus depriving the company of earnings amounting to P8,665.51. Balingit was the manager of Phil-
American Forwarders, Inc.

Among the defenses interposed by the defendants in their answer was that Balingit was not Pineda's employer.

Balingit moved that the complaint against him be dismissed on the ground that the bus company and the bus
driver had no cause of action against him. As already stated, the lower court dismissed the action as to Balingit.
The bus company and its driver appealed.

The Civil Code provides: têñ.£îhqwâ£

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.

ART. 2180. 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.

xxx xxx xxx

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.

xxx xxx xxx

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.
(1903a)

The novel and unprecedented legal issue in this appeal is whether the terms "employers" and "owners and
managers of an establishment or enterprise" (dueños o directores de un establicimiento o empresa) used in
article 2180 of the Civil Code, formerly article 1903 of the old Code, embrace the manager of a corporation
owning a truck, the reckless operation of which allegedly resulted in the vehicular accident from which the
damage arose.

We are of the opinion that those terms do not include the manager of a corporation. It may be gathered from
the context of article 2180 that the term "manager" ("director" in the Spanish version) is used in the sense of
"employer".

Hence, under the allegations of the complaint, no tortious or quasi-delictual liability can be fastened on Balingit
as manager of Phil-American Forwarders, Inc., in connection with the vehicular accident already mentioned
because he himself may be regarded as an employee or dependiente of his employer, Phil-American
Forwarders, Inc.

Thus, it was held "que es dependiente, a los efectos de la responsabilidad subsidiaria establecida en el num
3.0 del (art.) 1903, el director de un periodico explotado por una sociedad, porque cualquiera que sea su jerarquia y aunque Ileve la direccion de determinadas
convicciones politicas no por eso deja de estar subordinado a la superior autoridad de la Empresa" (Decision of Spanish Supreme Court dated December 6, 1912
cited in 12 Manresa, Codigo Civil Español 5th Ed. 662; 1913 Enciclopedia Juridica Española 992).

The bus company and its driver, in their appellants' brief, injected a new factual issue which was not alleged in
their complaint. They argue that Phil- American Forwarders, Inc. is merely a business conduit of Balingit
because out of its capital stock with a par value of P41,200, Balingit and his wife had subscribed P40,000 and
they paid P10,000 on their subscription, while the other incorporators, namely, Rodolfo Limjuco, Ponciano
Caparas and Rafael Suntay paid P250.25 and P25, respectively.

That argument implies that the veil of corporate fiction should be pierced and that Phil-American Forwarders,
Inc. and Balingit and his wife should be treated as one and the same civil personality.

We cannot countenance that argument in this appeal. It was not raised in the lower court. The case has to be
decided on the basis of the pleadings filed in the trial court where it was assumed that Phil-American
Forwarders, Inc. has a personality separate and distinct from that of the Balingit spouses.

The legal issue, which the plaintiffs-appellants can ventilate in this appeal, is one which was raised in the lower
court and which is within the issues framed by the parties (Sec. 18, Rule 46, Rules of Court).

When a party deliberately adopts a certain theory and the case is decided upon that theory in the court below,
he will not be permitted to change his theory on appeal because, to permit him to do so, could be unfair to the
adverse party (2 Moran's Comments on the Rules of Court, 1970 Ed. p. 505).

WHEREFORE, the lower court's order of dismissal is affirmed. Costs against the plaintiffs-appellants.

SO ORDERED.
J.H. Chapman vs James
Underwood
The facts of the case took place in the 1910’s. J.H. Chapman visited a friend in Santa Ana
and while he was about to ride a vehicle to take him home he was struck by a car owned by
James Underwood and driven by his chauffeur. Chapman was on the correct lane.
Underwood was riding in the car when the incident happened. Apparently, the chauffeur,
coming from the opposite direction and was driving straight ahead and when the automobile
about to be boarded by Chapman was in front of him, he [the chauffeur] instead of swerving
left he suddenly swerved right to the direction of Chapman thereby hitting and running over
him.
ISSUE: Whether or not Underwood is liable for the negligent act of his chauffeur.
HELD: No. The general rule is that an owner who sits in his automobile, or other vehicle, and
permits his driver to continue in a violation of the law by the performance of negligent acts,
after he has had a reasonable opportunity to observe them and to direct that the driver cease
therefrom, becomes himself responsible for such acts. On the other hand, if the driver, by a
sudden act of negligence, and without the owner having a reasonable opportunity to prevent
the acts or its continuance, injures a person or violates the criminal law, the owner of the
automobile, although present therein at the time the act was committed, is not responsible,
either civilly or criminally, therefor. The act complained of must be continued in the presence
of the owner for such a length a time that the owner, by his acquiescence, makes his driver’s
act his own. In the case at bar, it was not shown that there was a sufficient period for
Underwood to dissuade the chauffeur from the negligent act as the swerving of the vehicle
by the chauffeur was sudden.
ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL VS. CA
ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL VS. CA

FACTS: Ferdinand Castillo, a freshman student at the St. Francis High School, wanted to join a school
picnic. His parents, respondents spouses Dr. Romulo Castillo and Lilia Cadiz Castillo, because of short
notice, did not allow their son to join but merely allowed him to bring food to the teachers for the picnic,
with the directive that he should go back home after doing so. However, because of persuasion of the
teachers, Ferdinand went on with them to the beach. During the picnic, one of the female teachers was
apparently drowning. Some of the students, including Ferdinand, came to her rescue, but in the process, it
was Ferdinand himself who drowned. He died. Respondent spouses filed a civil case against petitioner
and some of their teachers. Trial court found teachers liable but dismissed complaint against the school.

ISSUE: W/N petitioner school and teachers are liable.

RULING: Petition granted.

RATIO: Before an employer may be held liable for the negligence of his employee, the act or omission
which caused damage must have occurred while an employee was in the performance of his assigned
tasks. In the case at bar, the teachers/petitioners were not in the actual performance of their assigned
tasks. What was held was a purely private affair, a picnic, which did not have permit from the school since
it was not a school sanctioned activity. Mere knowledge by petitioner/principal of the planning of the
picnic does not in any way consent to the holding of the same.
No negligence could be attributable to the petitioners-teachers to warrant the award of damages to the
respondents-spouses. The class adviser of the section where Ferdinand belonged, did her best and
exercised diligence of a good father of a family to prevent any untoward incident or damages to all the
students who joined the picnic.
Jose Amadora vs Court of Appeals
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 school’s 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.
HELD: 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
Ylarde vs Aquino
Ylarde vs. Aquino

GR No. L33722, July 29, 1988

FACTS:

Private respondent Mariano Soriano was the principal of the Gabaldon Primary School in
Pangasinan. Defendant Edgardo Aquino was a teacher therein. During that time, the school had several
concrete blocks which were remnants of the old school shop destroyed in World War II. Defendant decided to
help clear the area so he gathered 18 of his male students and ordered them to dig beside a one ton concrete
block in making a hole where the stone can be buried. It was left unfinished so the following day he called 4
of the 18 students including the Novelito Ylarde to complete the excavation. Defendant left the children to
level the loose soil while he went to see Banez for the key to the school workroom where he can get some
rope. It was alleged that before leaving, he told the children “not to touch the stone”. After he left, the
children playfully jumped into the pit when suddenly the concrete block slide down. Unfortunately, Novelito
Ylarde was pinned to the wall causing serious physical injuries which as a consequence led to his death, 3 days
thereafter. The parents of the victim, herein petitioners, filed a suit for damages against both Aquino and
Soriano.

ISSUE: WON both Soriano and Aquino can be held liable for damages.

HELD:

As held in Amadora vs CA, “it is only the teacher and not the head of an academic school who should be
answerable for torts committed by their students”. Where the school is academic rather than technical or
vocational in nature, responsibility for the tort committed by the student will attach to the teacher in charge of
such student, this is the general rule. However, in casea of establishments of arts and trades, it is the head
thereof, and only he, who shall be held liable as an exception to the general rule. In other words, teachers in
general shall be liable for the acts of their students except where the school is technical in nature, in which case
it is the head thereof who shall be answerable. Hence, Soriano as principal cannot be held liable for the reason
that the school he heads is an academic school and he did not give any instruction regarding the digging.

A teacher who stands in loco parentis to his tudents should make sure that the children are protected from all
harm. The excavation instructed clearly exposed the students to risk and should not be placed under the
category of Work Education such as school gardening, planting trees etc. Aquino acted with fault and gross
negligence where instead of availing himself of adult manual laborers he instead utilized his
students. Furthermore, the warning given is not sufficient to cast away all serious danger that the concrete
block adjacent to the excavation would present to the children. He is therefore ordered to pay damages to the
petitioners.

You might also like