TORTS (Case Digest)

First Assignment

CASE 13,14,15

AQUINAS SCHOOL vs. SPS. JOSE INTON and MA. VICTORIA S. INTON G.R. No. 184202 (January 26, 2011) FACTS: This case is about the private schools liability for the outside catechists act of shoving a student and kicking him on the legs when he disobeyed her instruction to remain in his seat and not move around the classroom. In 1998, Jose Luis Inton (Jose Luis) was a grade three student at Aquinas School (Aquinas). Respondent Sister Margarita Yamyamin (Yamyamin), a religion teacher who began teaching at that school only in June of that year, taught Jose Luis grade three religion class. Jose Luis left his seat and went over to a classmate to play a joke of surprising him. Yamyamin noticed this and sent him back to his seat. After a while, Jose Luis got up again and went over to the same classmate. Yamyamin approached the Jose Luis and kicked him on the legs several times. She also pulled and shoved his head on the classmates seat. She also made the child copy the notes on the blackboard while seating on the floor. Respondents Jose and Victoria Inton (the Intons) filed an action for damages on behalf of their son Jose Luis against Yamyamin and Aquinas before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City in Civil Case 67427. The Intons also filed a criminal action against Yamyamin for violation of Republic Act 7610 to which she pleaded guilty and was sentenced accordingly. With regard to the action for damages, the Intons sought to recover actual, moral, and exemplary damages, as well as attorneys fees, for the hurt that Jose Luis and his mother Victoria suffered. The RTC dismissed Victorias personal claims but ruled in Jose Luis favor, holding Yamyamin liable to him for moral damages of P25,000.00, exemplary damages of P25,000.00, and attorneys fees of P10,000.00 plus the costs of suit. They elevate the case to the CA to increase the award of damages and hold Aquinas solidarily liable with Yamyamin. ISSUE: Whether or not the CA was correct in holding Aquinas solidarily liable with Yamyamin for the damages awarded to Jose Luis. HELD: No. The school directress testified that Aquinas had an agreement with a congregation of sisters under which, in order to fulfill its ministry, the congregation would send religion teachers to Aquinas to provide catechesis to its students. Aquinas insists that it was not the school but Yamyamins religious congregation that chose her for the task of catechizing the schools grade three students, much like the way bishops designate the catechists who would teach religion in public schools. Aquinas did not have control over Yamyamins teaching methods. The Intons had not refuted the school directress testimony in this regard. Aquinas still had the responsibility of taking steps to ensure that only qualified outside catechists are allowed to teach its young students. In this regard, it cannot be said that Aquinas took no steps to avoid the occurrence of improper conduct towards the students by their religion teacher. They showed records, certificates and diploma that Yamyamin is qualified to teach. There is no question that she came from a legitimate congregation of sisters. They provided Faculty Staff Manual in handling the students. They pre-approved the content of the course she wanted to teach. They have a classroom evaluation program for her unfortunately, she was new, therefore do not have sufficient opportunity to observe her. WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition, SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 88106 dated August 4, 2008, and HOLDS petitioner Aquinas School not liable in damages to respondent Jose Luis Inton.

TORTS (Case Digest) First Assignment

CASE 13,14,15
ST. JOSEPHS COLLEGE vs. JAYSON MIRANDA G.R. No. 182353 (June 29, 2010) employees because it had full information on the nature of dangerous science experiments but did not take affirmative steps to avert damage and injury to students. The fact that there has never been any accident in the past during the conduct of science experiments is not a justification to be complacent in just preserving the status quo and do away with creative foresight to install safety measures to protect the students. Schools should not simply install safety reminders and distribute safety instructional manuals. More importantly, schools should provide protective gears and devices to shield students from expected risks and anticipated dangers.

FACTS: While inside the premises of St. Josephs College, the class where respondent Miranda belonged was conducting a science experiment about fusion of sulphur powder and iron fillings under the tutelage of Rosalinda Tabugo, she being the teacher and the employee, while the adviser is Estafania Abdan.

Tabugo left her class while it was doing the experiment without having adequately secured it from any untoward incident or occurrence. In the middle of the experiment, [Jayson], who was the assistant leader of one of the class groups, checked the result of the experiment by looking into the test tube with magnifying glass. The test tube was being held by one of his group mates who moved it close and towards the eye of [Jayson]. At that instance, the compound in the test tube spurted out and several particles of which hit [Jaysons] eye and the different parts of the bodies of some of his group mates. As a result thereof, [Jaysons] eyes were chemically burned, particularly his left eye, for which he had to undergo surgery and had to spend for his medication. Upon filing of this case [in] the lower court, his wound had not completely healed and still had to undergo another surgery. Upon learning of the incident and because of the need for finances, [Jaysons] mother, who was working abroad, had to rush back home for which she spent P36,070.00 for her fares and had to forego her salary from November 23, 1994 to December 26, 1994, in the amount of at least P40,000.00. Jason and his parents suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish and wounded feelings as a result of his injury due to the petitioners fault and failure to exercise the degree of care and diligence incumbent upon each one of them. Thus, they should be held liable for moral damages. ISSUE: Whether accident. HELD: Yes. As found by both lower courts, proximate cause of the Jasons injury was the concurrent failure of petitioners to prevent to foreseeable mishap that occurred during the conduct of the science experiment. Petitioners were negligent by failing to exercise the higher degree of care, caution and foresight incumbent upon the school, its administrators and teachers. "The defense of due diligence of a good father of a family raised by [petitioner] St. Joseph College will not exculpate it from liability because it has been shown that it was guilty of inexcusable laxity in the supervision of its teachers (despite an apparent rigid screening process for hiring) and in the maintenance of what should have been a safe and secured environment for conducting dangerous experiments. [Petitioner] school is still liable for the wrongful acts of the teachers and the petitioners were liable for the

TORTS (Case Digest) First Assignment

CASE 13,14,15
injury to another.

JOSEPH SALUDAGA vs. FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY G.R. NO. 179337 (April 30, 2008) FACTS: Joseph Saludaga was a sophomore law student of respondent Far Eastern University when he was shot by Alejandro Rosete, one of the security guards on duty at the school premises on August 18, 1996. He was rushed to FEU-Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation (FEU-NRMF) due to the wound he sustained. Meanwhile, Rosete was brought to the police station where he explained that the shooting was accidental. He was eventually released considering that no formal complaint was filed against him. Salduga thereafter filed a complaint for damages against respondents on the ground that they breached their obligation to provide students with a safe and secure environment and an atmosphere conducive to learning. Far Eastern University and Edilberto De Jesus (as president) in turn, filed a Third-Party Complaint against Galaxy Development and Management Corporation, the agency contracted by respondent FEU to provide security services within its premises and Mariano D. Imperial (Galaxy's President,) to indemnify them. On the other hand, Galaxy and Imperial filed a Fourth-Party Complaint against AFP General Insurance. On November 10, 2004, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of petitioner, Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals which rendered the assailed Decision. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied hence, the instant petition. ISSUES: Whether or not the school is liable for breach of contract? HELD: YES, It is settled that in culpa contractual, the mere proof of the existence of the contract and the failure of its compliance justify, prima facie, a corresponding right of relief. In the instant case, we find that, when petitioner was shot inside the campus by no less the security guard who was hired to maintain peace and secure the premises, there is a prima facie showing that respondents failed to comply with the defense of Caso Fortuito cannot be sustained. After a thorough review of the records, we find that respondents failed to discharge the burden of proving that they exercised due diligence in providing a safe learning environment for their students. They failed to prove that they ensured that the guards assigned in the campus met the requirements stipulated in the Security Service Agreement. also failed to show that they understood steps to ascertain and confirm that the security guards assigned to them actually possess the qualifications required in the Security Service Agreement. Consequently, respondents' defense of force majeure must fail. In order for force majeure to be considered, respondents must show that no negligence or misconduct was committed that may have occasioned the loss. An act of God cannot be invoked to protect a person who has failed to take steps to forestall the possible adverse consequences of such a loss. One's negligence may have concurred with an act of God in producing damage and