AQUINAS SCHOOL vs. SPS. JOSE INTON and MA. VICTORIA S.

INTON

FACTS:
This case is about the private school’s liability for the outside catechist’s 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 classmate’s 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 attorney’s fees, for the hurt that Jose Luis and his mother
Victoria suffered. The RTC dismissed Victoria’s 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 attorney’s 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 Yamyamin’s religious congregation that chose her for the task of
catechizing the school’s grade three students, much like the way bishops designate the
catechists who would teach religion in public schools. Aquinas did not have control over
Yamyamin’s 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.

ST. JOSEPH’S COLLEGE vs. JAYSON MIRANDA

FACTS:
While inside the premises of St. Joseph’s 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 [Jayson’s] eye and the different parts of the
bodies of some of his group mates. As a result, thereof, [Jayson’s] 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, [Jayson’s] 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 petitioner’s 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 the petitioners were liable for the accident.

HELD:
Yes. As found by both lower courts, proximate cause of the Jason’s injury was the
concurrent failure of petitioners to prevent the 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
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.

JOSEPH SALUDAGA vs. FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY

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. Saludaga
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 injury to another.