A teacher must not only be charged with

teaching but also vigilance over their students or

pupils. Without the parents to look after their
children when in school, it is the teacher who
takes over in the supervision.
A. Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the
Civil Code of the Philippines, 618(1992)
VICARIOUS
LIABILITY
FAMILY CODE
(Art. 218 & 219)

CIVIL CODE
(Art. 2180)
 FAMILY CODE
Art. 218 - The school, its administrators and
teachers, or the individual, entity or institution
engaged in child care shall have special parental
authority and responsibility over the minor child while
under their supervision, instruction or custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all
authorized activities whether inside or outside of the
premises of the school, entity or institution.
 FAMILY CODE
Art. 219 - Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding
Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or
omissions of the unemancipated minor.

The parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute parental

authority over said minor shall be subsidiarilly liable.

The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not
apply if it is proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under the
particular circumstances.

All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed
by the provisions of the Civil Code on quasi- delicts.
 CIVIL CODE

Art. 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.
 CIVIL CODE
Art. 2176 - Whoever by act or omission
causes damage to another, there being fault
Art. 2180 -The or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
obligation imposed by damage done. Such fault or negligence, if
Article 2176 is there is no pre-existing contractual relation
demandable not only between the parties, is called a quasi-delict
and is governed by the provisions of this
for one's own acts or
Chapter.
omissions, but also for 6) Teachers and heads of
those of persons for establishments of arts and trade
whom one is shall be liable for damages caused
responsible.
by their pupils and students or
apprentices, so long as they
remained in their custody.
SUBSTITUTE PARENTAL
AUTHORITY
— It is exercised in case of
death, absence, or
unsuitability of parents.
Hence, it is not exercised by
the parents of parental
authority over the minor
children.
SPECIAL PARENTAL
AUTHORITY
— It is exercised concurrently
with the parental authority of
the parents and rest on the
theory that while the child is in
the custody of the person
exercising special parental
authority, the parents
temporarily relinquish parental
authority over the child
 PERSONS LIABLE

 SCHOOL
 ADMINISTRATION
Joint and Solidarilty
 TEACHERS
Liable
 INDIVIDUAL, ENTITY OR INSTITUTION
EGAGED IN CHILD CARE

Art. 2194 – joint

whether academic or non-academic is torfeasors are solidarily
civilly liable for the acts of minors in liable4
their custody, instruction or
supervision.
 G.R. No. L-29025 October 4, 1971

Spouses PALISOC vs.

ANTONIO C. BRILLANTES and TEODOSIO V.
VALENTON
TRIAL COURT

Daffon

absolving the defendants-school officials

 SUPREME COURT
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. .
G.R. No. 82465   February 25, 1991
ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL vs
COURT OF APPEALS
Ferdinand Castillo, then a freshman student
Ferdinand's parents, respondents spouses Dr.
Romulo Castillo and Lilia Cadiz Castillo,
because of short notice, did not allow their son
to join but merely allowed him to bring food to
the teachers for the picnic, with the directive that
he should go back home after doing so.
However, because of persuasion of the teachers,
Ferdinand went on with them to the beach.
O During the picnic and while the students, including Ferdinand, were in the
water, one of the female teachers was apparently drowning. Some of the
students, including Ferdinand, came to her rescue, but in the process, it was
Ferdinand himself who drowne
O Thereupon, respondent spouses filed a complaint docketed as Civil Case
No. 8834, in the Regional Trial Court, Branch LVIII of Lucena City,
against the St. Francis High School, represented by the spouses Fernando
Nantes and Rosario Lacandula, Benjamin Illumin (its principal), and the
teachers: Tirso de Chaves, Luisito Vinas, Connie Arquio, Nida Aragones,
Yoly Jaro, and Patria Cadiz, for Damages which respondents allegedly
incurred from the death of their 13-year old son, Ferdinand Castillo.
Contending that the death of their son was due to the failure of the
petitioners to exercise the proper diligence of a good father of the family in
preventing their son's drowning, respondents prayed of actual, moral and
exemplary damages, attorney's fees and expenses for litigation.
 TRIAL COURT
O The trial court found in favor of the respondents and
against petitioners-teachers Arquio, de Chaves, Vinas,
Aragones, Jaro and Cadiz, ordering all of them jointly
and severally to pay responden
O aking into consideration the evidence presented, this
Court believes that the defendant teachers namely:
Connie Arquio, Luisito Vinas, Tirso de Chaves, Yoly
Jaro, Nida Aragones and Patria Cadiz had failed to
exercise the diligence required of them by law under
the circumstances to guard against the harm they had
foreseen
 TRIAL COURT
O On the other hand, the trial court dismissed the case against the St.
Francis High School, Benjamin Illumin and Aurora Cadorna. Said the
court a quo:

O As shown and adverted to above, this Court cannot find sufficient

evidence showing that the picnic was a school sanctioned one.
Similarly no evidence has been shown to hold defendants Benjamin
Illumin and Aurora Cadorna responsible for the death of Ferdinand
Castillo together with the other defendant teachers. It has been
sufficiently shown that Benjamin Illumin had himself not consented to
the picnic and in fact he did not join it. On the other hand, defendant
Aurora Cadorna had then her own class to supervise and in fact she
was not amongst those allegedly invited by defendant Connie Arquio
to supervise class I-C to which Ferdinand Castillo belongs.
 COURT OF APPEALS
O The Court of Appeals ruled:
O We find plaintiffs-appellants' submission well-
taken.
O Even were We to find that the picnic in
question was not a school-sponsored activity,
nonetheless it cannot be gainsaid that the same
was held under the supervision of the teachers
employed by the said school, particularly the
teacher in charge
 COURT OF APPEALS
They cannot escape liability on the mere excuse that the
picnic was not an "extra-curricular activity of the St.
Francis High School." We find from the evidence that, as
claimed by plaintiffs-appellants, the school principal had
knowledge of the picnic even from its planning stage and
had even been invited to attend the affair; and yet he did
not express any prohibition against undertaking the picnic,
nor did he prescribe any precautionary measures to be
adopted during the picnic. At the least, We must find that
the school and the responsible school officials, particularly
the principal, had acquiesced to the holding of the picnic.
 SUPREME COURT
O The petition is impressed with merit.

O If at all petitioners are liable for negligence, this is because

of their own negligence or the negligence of people under
them. In the instant case however, as will be shown
hereunder, petitioners are neither guilty of their own
negligence or guilty of the negligence of those under them.

O Hence, it cannot be said that they are guilty at all of any

negligence. Consequently they cannot be held liable for
damages of any kind.
O In the case at bar, the teachers/petitioners were not in the
actual performance of their assigned tasks. The incident
happened not within the school premises, not on a school
day and most importantly while the teachers and students
were holding a purely private affair, a picnic. It is clear
from the beginning that the incident happened while some
members of the I-C class of St. Francis High School were
having a picnic at Talaan Beach. This picnic had no permit
from the school head or its principal, Benjamin Illumin
because this picnic is not a school sanctioned activity
neither is it considered as an extra-curricular activity.
The fact that he gave money to his son to buy
food for the picnic even without knowing where
it will be held, is a sign of consent for his son to
join the same. 
 Separate Opinions
PADILLA, J., dissenting:
I regret that I can not concur with the majority.

O All this aside, I am really disturbed about, and would like to

emphasize the demonstrated lack of diligence on the part of the
petitioners-teachers BEFORE the unfortunate incident took
place. Despite awareness that the waters in the area were deep,
petitioners- teachers did not take concrete steps to make sure
their wards did not stray too far and too deeply. Even if they
were not actually informed of the possible dangers which the
area posed, petitioners-teachers should have first "tested the
waters", so to speak, to ensure which parts thereof were safe for
swimming purposes. However, this was not the case for as
testified to by petitioner de Chavez, "they admitted that they did
not even go to the water to check its depth although they were
aware that some parts of it were deep." 3
O The next issue to be addressed pertains to the liability of the petitioner St. Francis High School as
represented by petitioners-spouses Fernando Nantes and Rosario Lacandula. The majority would like
to emphasize the fact that the unfortunate incident having occurred during a purely private affair, the
teachers involved therein were not in the actual performance of their assigned tasks. Consequently,
any act or omission caused by them cannot bind their employer, petitioner St. Francis High School.
O I take exception to this proposition. Although the excursion may not have been attended by the
appropriate school authorities, the presence or stamp of authority of the school nevertheless pervaded
by reason of the participation not of one but of several teachers, the petitioners. As found by the
court a quo, the excursion was an activity "organized by the teachers themselves, for the students and
to which the student, NATURALLY, acceded."6
O Moreover, the record indicates that petitioner Benjamin Illumin, school principal, knew of the
excursion and had, in fact, been invited to attend. As the majority see it, such knowledge does not in
any manner show acquiescence or consent to the holding of the excursion, a view which I do not
accept. It seems to me that having known of the forthcoming activity, petitioner Illumin, as school
principal, should have taken appropriate measures to ensure the safety of his students. Having
preferred to remain silent, and even indifferent, he now seeks excuse from such omission by invoking
his alleged lack of consent to the excursion. But it is precisely his silence and negligence in
performing his role as principal head of the school that must be construed as an implied consent to
such activity.
O Educational institutions have responsibilities which cannot be
equated with those of the ordinary employer or business
establishment. Such institutions, particularly the primary and
secondary schools, hold the tremendous responsibility of exercising
supervision over young children. Too often, such schools avoid
liabilities, as in the instant cage, by invoking the absence of approval
on their part for activities that may be held outside school premises
or held on a day not a school day. It is about time that such schools
realize that theirs is not a mere moneymaking entity or one
impersonally established for the sole task of teaching the
rudimentary skills of "reading, writing and 'rithmetic." They must
consider that their students are children of tender years who are in
need of adequate care, continuing attention and guidance.
G.R. No. L-47745 April 15, 1988
Amadora vs CA
O The basic undisputed facts are that Alfredo
Amadora went to the San Jose-Recoletos on
April 13, 1972, and while in its auditorium
was shot to death by Pablito Daffon, a
classmate
The petitioners contend that their son was in the
school to show his physics experiment as a
prerequisite to his graduation; hence, he was
then under the custody of the private
respondents. 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.
 COURT OF APPEALS
the respondent court found that Article 2180 was
not applicable as the Colegio de San Jose-
Recoletos was not a school of arts and trades but
an academic institution of learning. It also held
that the students were not in the custody of the
school at the time of the incident as the semester
had already ended
 SUPREME COURT
After an exhaustive examination of the problem, the Court has come to
the conclusion that the provision in question should apply to all schools,
academic as well as non-academic. Where the school is academic rather
than technical or vocational in nature, responsibility for the tort
committed by the student will attach to the teacher in charge of such
student, following the first part of the provision. This is the general rule.
In the case of establishments of arts and trades, it is the head thereof, and
only he, who shall be held liable as an exception to the general rule. In
other words, teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of their
students except where the school is technical in nature, in which case it is
the head thereof who shall be answerable. Following the canon
of reddendo singula singulis "teachers" should apply to the words "pupils
and students" and "heads of establishments of arts and trades" to the
word "apprentices."
There is really no substantial distinction between the academic and the
non-academic schools insofar as torts committed by their students are
concerned. 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. The suggestion in the Exconde and
Mercado Cases is that the provision would make the teacher or even
the head of the school of arts and trades liable for an injury caused by
any student in its custody but if that same tort were committed in an
academic school, no liability would attach to the teacher or the school
head. All other circumstances being the same, the teacher or the head
of the academic school would be absolved whereas the teacher and the
head of the non-academic school would be held liable, and simply
because the latter is a school of arts and trades.
During all these occasions, it is obviously the teacher-in-charge who
must answer for his students' torts, in practically the same way that the
parents are responsible for the child when he is in their custody. The
teacher-in-charge is the one designated by the dean, principal, or other
administrative superior to exercise supervision over the pupils in the
specific classes or sections to which they are assigned. It is not
necessary that at the time of the injury, the teacher be physically present
and in a position to prevent it. Custody does not connote immediate and
actual physical control but refers more to the influence exerted on the
child and the discipline instilled in him as a result of such influence.
Thus, for the injuries caused by the student, the teacher and not the
parent shag be held responsible if the tort was committed within the
premises of the school at any time when its authority could be validly
exercised over him.
O Rules under Art. 2180
O Article 2180 makes teachers and heads liable for acts of students and
apprentices whether the latter are minors or not.
O b. The teacher-in-charge is liable for the acts of his students. The school
and administrators are not liable.
O c. By way of exception, it is only the head of the school, not the teacher,
who is held liable where the injury is caused in a school of arts and trade.
O d. The liability of the teacher subsists whether the school is academic or
non-academic.
O e. Liability is imposed only if the pupil is already in the custody of the
teacher or head. The student is in the custody of the school authorities as
long as he is under the control and influence of the school and within its
premises, whether the semester has not yet begun or has already ended.
 REVISED PENAL CODE
Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, provides that the subsidiary
liability of the employer under Article 102 shall also apply to
teachers for felonies committed by their pupils. Since the rule
regarding employers shall apply, the requirement of insolvency of
the accused as well as other elements to be discussed in the next
section, is also applicable to teachers.

It should be noted that Article 103 does not also distinguish if the
teacher is a teacher in an academic or non-academic school. No
distinction is also present with respect to the age of the pupil.
Hence, a teacher is liable whether he is employed in an academic or
non-academic institution and whether the pupil is a minor or not.
 LIABILITY BASED ON
CONTRACT
O the school as employer or as contracting party may be held liable
even if the injury was inflicted by a non-student.
O The Supreme Court explained in Phil. School of Business
Administration (PSBA for short) the reason why a school can be
held liable as an obligor for breach of contract:
O “When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment,
there is established a contract between them, resulting in bilateral
obligations which both parties are bound to comply with. For its
part, the school undertakes to provide the student with an
education that would presumably suffice to equip him with the
necessary tools and skills to pursue higher education or a
profession. On the other hand, the student covenants to abide by
the school’s academic requirements and observe its rules.
O Even in the absence of contract, the school
may still be liable as employer under Article
2176. The two basis of liability — contract
and quasi-delict — may even concur; in which
case, the injured student may choose to file an
action for breach of contract or for quasi-delict
subject only to the proscription against double
recovery under Article 2177 of the Civil Code.