Hazel Gonzaga, 2021-019

ASSIGNMENT NO.1: INTRO TO LAW ON OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

[G.R. No. L-47745. April 15, 1988]

JOSE S. AMADORA, LORETA A. AMADORA, JOSE A. AMADORA JR.,

NORMA A. YLAYA PANTALEON A. AMADORA, JOSE A. AMADORA III, LUCY
A. AMADORA, ROSALINDA A. AMADORA, PERFECTO A. AMADORA,
SERREC A. AMADORA, VICENTE A. AMADORA and MARIA TISCALINA A.
AMADORA, petitioners vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, COLEGIO
DE SAN JOSERECOLETOS, VICTOR LLUCH SERGIO P. DLMASO JR.,
CELESTINO DICON, ANIANO ABELLANA, PABLITO DAFFON thru his
parents and natural guardians, MR. and MRS. NICANOR GUMBAN, and
ROLANDO VALENCIA, thru his guardian, A. FRANCISCO ALONSO,
respondents.

FACTS:
1. Petitioner’s/Plaintiff’s claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)
Petitioners, as the victim's parents, filed a civil action for damages against
the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, its rector, the high school principal, the dean
of boys, and the physics teacher, as well as Daffon and two other students, through
their respective parents, under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. The petitioners claim
that their son was in school to perform his physics experiment, which was a
requirement for graduation, and that he was thus in the custody of the private
respondents.
2. Respondent’s/Defendant’s claim/s (no more than 3 sentences)
The private respondents submit that Alfredo Amadora had gone to the school
only for the purpose of submitting his physics report and that he was no longer in
their custody because the semester had already ended. The respondents say,
however, that there is no proof that the gun was the same firearm that killed
Alfredo.
3. Decision of the lower courts
The students' charges against them were later dropped. The remaining
defendants were found guilty by the CFI of Cebu after a trial. Death compensation,
loss of earning ability, litigation costs, funeral expenses, moral damages,
exemplary damages, and attorney's fees were awarded to the plaintiffs in the
amount of P294,984.00. The decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals on
appeal to the respondent court, and all defendants were totally exonerated.
ISSUE:
4. Issue/s (one sentences)
Whether or not the respondents may be held liable under Article 2180 of the
Civil Code.
HELD
5. Disposition of the case (one sentence)
The plaintiff’s petition is denied without any pronouncement as the cost.
6. Dictum (no more than five sentences addressing the issue relevant to the
topic under discussion)
No. The rector, the high school principal, and the dean of boys cannot be
held liable because none of them were the teacher-in-charge as previously
defined; each of them was only exercising a general authority over the student
body, not the direct control and influence exerted by the teacher placed in charge
of specific classes. In the absence of a teacher-in-charge, the dean of boys should
be held liable, given the unrefuted evidence that he had previously confiscated an
unlicensed gun from one of the students and returned it to him without taking
disciplinary action, but this does not necessarily link him to the shooting of Amador.
The Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos cannot be held directly liable under the article
because only the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades is made
responsible for the damage caused by the student or apprentice. In sum, the Court
finds under the facts as disclosed that none of the respondents is liable for the
injury inflicted by Pablito Damon on Alfredo Amadora that resulted in the latter's
death.