YLARDE V.

AQUINO

Facts
 In 1963, private resp. Mariano Soriano was the principal of the Gabaldon Primary School, a
public educational institution in Tayug, Pangasinan. Edgardo Aquino was a teacher therein.
 The school was littered with several concrete blocks which were remnants of the old school
shop that was destroyed in WWII.
 Realizing it was hazardous, Sergio Banez (teacher) buried ten of these all by himself.
 Aquino gathered 18 male pupils to help, aged 10-11. They were ordered to dig beside a one-
ton concrete block to make a hole where the stone can be buried. They left it unfinished, but
four of them + Aquino continued to work on it the following day.
o When the depth was right enough to accommodate the concrete block, Aquino and his
four pupils got out of the hole. Then, Aquino left them to level the loose soil around the
open hole while he went to see Banez (who was about 30 meters away) to borrow the
key to the school workroom where he could get some rope. Before leaving, Aquino
allegedly told the children "not to touch the stone."
o But when he left, 3 out of the 4 pupils jumped into the pit. The remaining pupil jumped
on top of the concrete block, causing it to slide down towards the opening. Only Ylarde
wasn’t able to scramble out – the concrete block caught him and pinned him to the wall
in a standing position. He sustained injuries and died 3 days later. (fuck saklap)
 Ylarde’s parents filed a suit for damages against Aquino and Soriano.
o Lower court: dismissed; grounds: 1) digging of pupils was done in line with their course
called Work Education, 2) Aquino exercised utmost diligence of a very cautious person;
and 3) Ylarde’s demise was due to his own reckless imprudence.
o CA: affirmed. Petitioners now base their arguments on Art. 2176 (re: Aquino) and 2180
(re: Soriano)

Issue & Ruling

WON under Art. 2176 and 2180, both private respondents are liable for damages.
As to Soriano: NO.
 Under Art. 2180, only the teacher and not the head of an academic school is answerable for
torts committed by their students.
o In Amadora v. CA: the general rule is – if the school is academic in nature, teacher in
charge is responsible for the tort committed by the student. XPN: establishments of arts
and trades – it is the head and only he, who is liable.
o Teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of their students except where the school
is technical in nature.
 He was head of an academic school, not a school of arts and trades. He also did not give
instructions to dig.

As to Aquino: YES. (Art. 21761 and 2180 applies)

 Aquino obviously acted with fault and gross negligence when
o He failed to avail himself of services of adult manual laborers and instead utilized his
pupils aged 10-11

1 Art. 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.
 o Required the children to remain inside the pit even after they finished digging, knowing
that the huge block was lying nearby
o Ordered them to level the soil around the excavation when it was obvious the stone was
at the brink of falling
o Went away where he could not check on the children’s safety
o Left them close to the excavation
 Aquino leaving his pupils in a dangerous site has a direct causal connection to the death of
Ylarde.
 It was natural for children to play around, and they were tired from digging so they had to
amuse themselves with whatever they found. The degree of care required to be exercised
must vary with the capacity of the person endangered to care for himself.
o The standard of conduct to which a child must conform for his own protection is that
degree of care ordinarily exercised by children of the same age, capacity, discretion,
knowledge and experience under the same or similar circumstances. Bearing this in
mind, the Court cannot charge Ylarde with reckless imprudence.
 A reasonably prudent person would have foreseen that bringing children to an excavation site,
and more so, leaving them there all by themselves, may result in an accident. An ordinarily
careful human being would not assume that a simple warning "not to touch the stone" is
sufficient to cast away all the serious danger that a huge concrete block adjacent to an
excavation would present to the children. Moreover, a teacher who stands in loco parentis to
his pupils would have made sure that the children are protected from all harm in his company.