Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

5th Judicial Region
Calabanga, Camarines Sur

FRANCIS PATRAY P.
BOLAÑOS,
Plaintiff,

Civil Case No. 111000

-versus- For: Action for Negligence
with Damages

ST. JOSEPH SCHOOL, RHODORA C.

CORTINA, and JEYPI CERNON,
Defendants.
x--------------------x

MEMORANDUM FOR PLAINTIFF

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:

Prefatory Note

“In the law of torts, the governing principle is that the

protective custody of the school heads and teachers is
mandatorily substituted for that of the parents, and hence, it
becomes their obligation as well as that of the school itself to
provide proper supervision of the students' activities during
the whole time that they are at attendance in the school,
including recess time, as well as to take the necessary
precautions to protect the students in their custody from
dangers and hazards that would reasonably be anticipated,
including injuries that some student themselves may inflict
willfully or through negligence on their fellow students.” 1

Statement of Facts and the Case

The plaintiff is the brother of Francis Orland P. Bolaños

who was stranded at school and left its premise without the
notice of the school guards due to the cancellation of a dance
practice.

1
Sps. Pasiloc v. Brillantes, G.R. No. L-29025 October 4, 1971
Page 1 of 6
 On August 15, 2022, St. Joseph School had approved the
used of its premises for a dance practice until 7:00pm for an
event for September 2022 on August 19, 2022.

On August 18, 2022, the administrator had announced

that there will be fogging for the whole campus late in the
afternoon. But no announcement of the cancellation of the
dance practice was given.

On August 19, 2022, the teacher assigned had left the

school early. The plaintiff had arrived around 6:30 pm but no
student not teacher was in the school premises.

Around 10:30 pm of the same date, the plaintiff’s brother

arrived home alighting from a jeep when saw by Maria C.
Paglinawan, plaintiff’s aunt.

Investigation was conducted but it was later ruled that

the school and administrator was not at fault and due to the
fogging, it should had been presumed that no activities may
follow.

Unsatisfied, the plaintiff brought this action for the court

for negligence with damages. The testimonies of Marilyn C.
Santos2, Maria C. Paglinawan3, and Adel B. Dizon4 were
presented. The defense presented the testimonies of the
defendants with their respective evidence. After the claims of
both parties were heard, they were directed to file their
respective memorandum.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages as

reparation for the negligence of the school, administrator and
teachers.

Arguments and Discussion

The plaintiff respectfully submits that this case

should be decided in his favor for two main reasons. First, the
student was still in the custody of the school even after school
hours regardless of the cancelled activity. Last, the School had
exposed the student at risk due to their non-supervision.

2
Judicial Affidavit of Marilyn C. Santos
3
Judicial Affidavit of Maria C. Paglinawan
4
Judicial Affidavit of Adel B. Dizon
Page 2 of 6
Custody of the child
Is still under the school
Even the activity was cancelled.

Under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code, the provision

had made no distinction for being academic or non-academic
school to be held liable. The Court held that the same vigilance
is expected from the teacher over the students under his
control and supervision, whatever the nature of the school
where he is teaching.5

Further, it was also held that, “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.” 6

Moreover, the Court ruled that “in any event, it should be

noted that the liability imposed by this article is supposed to
fall directly on the teacher or the head of the school of arts and
trades and not on the school itself. If at all, the school,
whatever its nature, may be held to answer for the acts of its
teachers or even of the head thereof under the general
principle of respondeat superior, but then it may exculpate
itself from liability by proof that it had exercised the diligence
of a bonus paterfamilias.”

In the case at bar, the school had announced that there

will be fogging on the day of the supposed practice of the
students. The school would have contacted or priorly informed
the parents of the cancellation to avoid the miscommunication
between them. Further, the school should have reminded their
school guards to allow the student in their premises until their
parents or guardian had fetch them to go home. It would be a
remised of duty to protect children wandering with neglect of
the possible danger they may encounter without the
supervision of an reasonable adult.

5
Amadora v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47745 April 15, 1988
6
Id.

Page 3 of 6
School had exposed
the student at risk

Under Article 219 of the Family Code, if the person under

custody is a minor, those exercising special parental authority
are principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the
acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor while under
their supervision, instruction, or custody.7

The proximate cause of an injury is that cause, which, in

natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the
result would not have occurred.8

The Court held that “[h]owever, … to be liable, there must

be a finding that the act or omission considered as negligent
was the proximate cause of the injury caused because the
negligence must have a causal connection to the accident.” 9

Here, the school had neglect to consider that the student

under their custody does not end merely because the school
hours had ended. As long as they had a valid purpose to
remain and should be held in their custody, the school must
exercise due diligence in securing the safety of their student
especially those of tender years.

No Contributory Negligence
on the part of the plaintiff

The Court held that “contributory negligence is conduct

on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause
to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard
which he is required to conform for his own protection.” 10

Further, it ruled that, “[t]here is contributory negligence

when the party's act showed lack of ordinary care and
foresight that such act could cause him harm or put his life in
danger. It is an act or omission amounting to want of ordinary
care on the part of the person injured which, concurring with
the defendant's negligence, is the proximate cause of the
injury.”

7
St. Mary’s Academy v. Carpitanos, G.R. No. 143363 February 6, 2002
8
Id.
9
Id.
10
NPC v. Heirs of Casionan, G.R. No. 165969 November 27, 2008
Page 4 of 6
 Here, the plaintiff and his fellow guardians were not
aware of the cancellation. Plaintiff held in trust and confidence
to the responsibility of the school to take care of his brother
during the time the children had been fetched by their
guardians or parents. But, the school had failed to do so and
managed to allow a child wander that the mercy of the streets.

Conclusion

The School, the administrator and the professor had

been negligent in their duties that exposes their student to
danger.

In summary, the plaintiff has conclusively proven with

sufficient evidence that the plaintiff shall be entitled to the
amount of damages prayed for.

Prayer

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most

respectfully prayed unto this Honorable Court that Judgment
be issued resolving the claims by the plaintiff. Other reliefs
deemed just, proper and equitable in the premises are likewise
most respectfully prayed for.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Calabanga, 19th September 2022

ARK N. HEL
Roll of Attorney No. 11111
PTR No. 0503342 1/06/22 (Calabanga)
IBP No. 129625, 9/23/20 (Cam. Sur)
MCLE Compliance No. V-000024 4/3/21
Email address: atty.arkHEL@gmail.com
Cellphone no. 09190080691

Copy furnished by registered mail

Page 5 of 6
RHODORA C. CORTINA
Brgy. San Felipe, Naga City, Camarines Sur.

JEYPI CERNON
Brgy. Bagumbayan, Naga City, Camarines Sur

Page 6 of 6