RULING
YES.1
RATIO
Parents shall be liable for the tortious conduct of
their minor children living with them although at
the time of the tort, the children were under the
direct control or supervision of an academic
institution. (THIS IS A LANDMARK DOCTRINE,
WHICH WAS LATER MODIFIED BY J CRUZ IN
AMADORA VS. COURT OF APPEALS)
REASONING
The provision Teachers or directors of arts
and trades are liable for any damages caused
by their pupils or apprentices while they are
under their custody", only applies to an
institution of arts and trades and not to any
academic educational institution.
Dante Capuno was then a student of the
Balintawak Elementary School and as part of his
extra-curricular activity, he attended the parade
in honor of Dr. Jose Rizal upon instruction of the
city school's supervisor. And it was in connection
with that parade that Dante boarded a jeep with
some companions and while driving it, the
accident occurred. In the circumstances, it is
clear that neither the head of that school, nor the
city school's supervisor, could be held liable for
the negligent act of Dante because he was not
ISSUE
The case involves an interpretation of Article 1903 of the Spanish Civil Code, paragraph 1 and 5,
(schools liability versus parental liability) which provides:
"ART. 1903. The obligation imposed by the next preceding articles is enforceable not only for
personal acts and omissions, but also for those of persons for whom another is responsible.
1
The father, and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are liable for any damages caused
by the minor children who live with them.
xxx
xxx
xxx
Finally, teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for any damages caused by their pupils or
apprentices while they are under their custody."
Issue:
1. WON the father of Bonifacio (car) is
liable.
2. WON the owner of the truck is liable.
Held:
1. Yes. In the United States, it is uniformly
held that the head of a house, the owner
of an automobile, who maintains it for the
general use of his family is liable for its
negligent operation by one of his
children, whom he designates or permits
to run it, where the car is occupied and
being used at the time of the injury for
the pleasure of other members of the
owner's family than the child driving it.
The theory of the law is that the running
of the machine by a child to carry other
members of the family is within the scope
of the owner's business, so that he is
liable for the negligence of the child
because of the relationship of master
and servant.
2. Yes. The liability of Saturnino Cortez,
the owner of the truck, and of his
chauffeur Abelardo Velasco rests on a
different basis, namely, that of contract.
The reason for this conclusion reaches to
the findings of the trial court concerning
the position of the truck on the bridge,
the speed in operating the machine, and
the lack of care employed by the
chauffeur. In its broader aspects, the
case is one of two drivers approaching a
narrow bridge from opposite directions,
with neither being willing to slow up and
give the right of way to the other, with the
which she died on January 14,1979, was an 18year old first year commerce student of the
University of San Carlos, Cebu City; while
petitioners are the parents of Wendell Libi, then a
minor between 18 and 19 years of age living with
his aforesaid parents, and who also died in the
same event on the same date.
- More than 2 years before their deaths, Julie
Ann Gotiong and Wendell Libi were sweethearts
until December, 1978 when Julie Ann broke up
with Wendell after she found him to be sadistic
and irresponsible.
- January, 1979 - Wendell kept pestering Julie
Ann with demands for reconciliation but the Julie
refused, prompting him to resort to threats
against her. In order to avoid him, Julie Ann
stayed in the house of her best friend, Malou
Alfonso
- January 14,1979 - Julie and Wendell died from
a single gunshot wound inflicted with the same
firearm licensed under Cresencio Libi, father of
Wendell
- both set of parents came up with versions of the
story
Gotiongs:
> Wendell caused her death by shooting her and
thereafter turning the gun on himself to commit
suicide
Libis:
> an unknown third party, whom Wendell may
have displeased or antagonized by reason of his
work as a narcotics informer of the Constabulary
Anti-Narcotics Unit (CANU), must have caused
Wendell's death and then shot Julie Ann to
eliminate any witness and thereby avoid
identification
- CFI Cebu: Gotiongs filed civil case against the
parents of Wendell to recover damages arising
from the latter's vicarious liability under A2180
CC.
CFI dismissed the complaint for
insufficiency of the evidence.
- IAC: CFI decision set aside and found Libis
subsidiarily liable
ISSUE
WON A2180 CC is applicable in making Libis
liable for vicarious liability
HELD
YES
Ratio The diligence of a good father of a family
required by law in a parent and child relationship
consists, to a large extent, of the instruction and
supervision of the child. Had the defendantsappellees been diligent in supervising the
activities of their son, Wendell, and in keeping
said gun from his reach, they could have
prevented Wendell from killing Julie Ann Gotiong.
Therefore, appellants are liable under A2180 CC.
Reasoning
- undue emphasis was placed by the lower court
on the absence of gunpowder or tattooing around
the wound at the point of entry of the bullet. It
should be emphasized, however, that this is not
the only circumstance to be taken into account in
the determination of whether it was suicide or not
as the body was cleaned already in the funeral
parlor
- Amelita Libi, mother of Wendell, testified that
her husband, Cresencio Libi, owns a gun which
he kept in a safety deposit box inside a drawer in
their bedroom. Each of these petitioners holds a
key to the safety deposit box and Amelita's key is
always in her bag, all of which facts were known
to Wendell. They have never seen their son
Wendell taking or using the gun. She admitted,
however, that on that fateful night the gun was no
longer in the safety deposit box. We, accordingly,
NATURE
Petition for certiorari under RA5440 praying that
judgment be rendered setting aside the
questioned order dismissing the complaint as
against the respondent school and denying the
reconsideration of the questioned order of
dismissal.
FACTS
- A group of students walking inside Araneta
University were accosted and mauled by a group
of Muslim students led by Abdul Karin Madidis
alias Teng. Petitioner (Reynaldo) was
subsequently stabbed by Teng requiring him to
be hospitalized and to undergo surgery.
- Petitioner filed a complaint for damages against
Teng and Arante University based on Art 2190
CC
- Respondent school filed a MTD claiming that
the provision only applies to vocational schools
and not to academic institutions. They also claim
that the civil liability in this case arose from a
crime, which they did not commit. Since it was a
civil case, respondent school claims that a
demand should have been made by the plaintiff
rendering it premature to bring an action for
damages against respondent school. MTD was
granted by the CA.
- Petitioner mover to reconsider the Order of
Dismissal. Motion was denied due to insufficient
justification to disturb ruling.
ISSUE
WON the Art 2180 CC2 applies to academic
institutions
"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."
2
HELD
It is unnecessary to answer the issue. What the
petitioner wants to know is WON the school or
the university itself is liable. The answer is no
since the provision speaks of teachers or heads
Dispositive
WHEREFORE, this Petition is DISMISSED for
lack of merit.
YLARDE
vs.
GANCAYCO; 1988 July 29
AQUINO
NATURE
Petition for review on certiorari
FACTS
Private respondent Mariano Soriano was the
principal of the Gabaldon Primary School and
private respondent Edgardo Aquino was a
teacher therein. At that time, the school was
littered with several concrete blocks which were
remnants of the old school shop that was
destroyed in World War II. Realizing that the
huge stones were serious hazards to the
schoolchildren, another teacher by the name of
Sergio Banez stated burying them all by himself.
Deciding to help his colleague, private
respondent Edgardo Aquino gathered eighteen of
his male pupils, aged ten to eleven. Being their
teacher-in-charge, he ordered them to dig beside
a one-ton concrete block in order to make a hole
wherein the stone can be buried. The work was
left unfinished. The following day, also after
classes, private respondent Aquino called four of
the original eighteen pupils to continue the
digging. These four pupils ---- Reynaldo Alonso,
Fransico Alcantara, Ismael Abaga and Novelito
HELD
Only Aquino, the teacher, is liable.
Ratio: As regards the principal, We hold that he
cannot be made responsible for the death of the
child Ylarde, he being the head of an academic
school and not a school of arts and trades.
Reasoning:
"Art. 2180. . . .
xxx
xxx
xxx
HIGH
SCHOOL
FACTS
- PHIL RABBIT Bus Lines, Inc. and Felix
PANGALANGAN filed a complaint for damages
in an action based on quasi-delict or culpa
aquiliana
against
PHIL-AMERICAN
FORWARDERS, Inc., its manager BALINGIT
and the driver, PINEDA.
- It was alleged that Pineda drove recklessly a
freight TRUCK, owned by Phil-Am, along the natl
highway at Sto. Tomas, Pampanga. The truck
bumped the BUS driven by Pangalangan, owned
by Phil Rabbit. Pangalangan suffered injuries and
the bus was damaged and could not be used for
79 days. This deprived the company of earnings
of about P8,600.
- Among the defenses interposed by the
defendants 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.
- CFI dismissed their complaint against
BALINGIT on the ground that he was not the
manager of an establishment contemplated in
Art.2180 CC.
- In the appeal, the bus company also argued
that Phil-Am 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 P40T. This implied that the veil of
corporate fiction should be pierced and that PhilAm and Balingit and his wife should be treated as
one and the same civil personality. But this was
not alleged in their complaint.*
ISSUE
WON the terms "employers" and "owners and
managers of an establishment or enterprise"
3Art.
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
4Art. 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.
xxxxxxxxx
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.
xxxxxxxxx
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.
xxxxxxxxx
FILAMER V IAC
212 SCRA 637
GUTIERREZ SR; August 17, 1992
ISSUE
WON the employer of the janitor driving the
school jeep can be held liable
NATURE
Motion for Reconsideration
HELD
YES
- Driving the vehicle to and from the house of the
school president where both Allan and Funtecha
reside is an act in furtherance of the interest of
the petitioner-school. Allan's job demands that
he drive home the school jeep so he can use it to
fetch students in the morning of the next school
day.
- It is indubitable under the circumstances that
the school president had knowledge that the jeep
was routinely driven home for the said purpose.
Moreover, it is not improbable that the school
president also had knowledge of Funtecha's
possession of a student driver's license and his
desire to undergo driving lessons during the time
that he was not in his classrooms.
- In learning how to drive while taking the vehicle
home in the direction of Allan's house, Funtecha
FACTS
- Funtecha is a scholar of FCI. He is also
employed as a janitor. The president of FCI is
Agustin Masa. Agustin has a son, Allan, who is
the school bus (bus na jeepney) driver. Allan
lives with his dad. Funtecha also lives in the
presidents house free of charge while a student
at FCI.
- It is the practice of the driver (Allan) after
classes to bring the kids home, then go back to
the school, then go home in the school jeep. He
is allowed to bring home the jeep because in the
morning hes supposed to fetch the kids and
bring them to school.
- One night, Funtecha wanted to drive home. He
has a student license. After a dangerous curb,
ISSUE
1. WON Li was grossly negligent in driving the
company issued car
2. WON Valenzuela was guilty of contributory
negligence
3. WON Alexander Commercial is liable as Lis
employer
HELD
1. YES
- The average motorist alert to road conditions
will have no difficulty applying the brakes to a car
traveling at the speed claimed by Li. Given a light
rainfall, the visibility of the street, and the road
conditions on a principal metropolitan
thoroughfare like Aurora Boulevard, Li would
have had ample time to react to the changing
conditions of the road if he were alert as every
driver should be to those conditions. Driving
exacts a more than usual toll on the senses.
Physiological "fight or flight" mechanisms are at
work, provided such mechanisms were not dulled
by drugs, alcohol, exhaustion, drowsiness, etc.
Li's failure to react in a manner which would have
avoided the accident could therefore have been
only due to either or both of the two factors: 1)
that he was driving at a "very fast" speed as
testified by one of the witneses; and 2) that he
was under the influence of alcohol. Either factor
working independently would have diminished his
responsiveness to road conditions, since
normally he would have slowed down prior to
reaching Valenzuela's car, rather than be in a
situation forcing him to suddenly apply his
brakes.
- Li was, therefore, negligent in driving his
company-issued Mitsubishi Lancer
2. NO