9.
Palisoc v Brillantes with the teachers, such that the control or influence on the pupil supersedes
G.R. No. L-29025
October 4, 1971
By:
Topic: 2180 Liability
Petitioners: Sps. Palisoc
Respondents: ANTONIO C. BRILLANTES and TEODOSIO V.
VALENTON, owner and President, respectively, of a school of arts and
trades, known under the name and style of "Manila Technical Institute"
(M.I.T.), VIRGILIO L. DAFFON and SANTIAGO M. QUIBULUE
Ponente: J. Teehankee
Doctrine: The offense of illegal recruitment in large scale has the following
elements: (l} the person charged undertook any recruitment activity as
defined under Section 6 of RA 8042; (2) accused did not have the license or
the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment of workers; and, (3)
accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or
as a group.
Facts:
Deceased Dominador Palisoc and defendant Virgilio Daffon were
automotive mechanics students at the Manila Technical Institute (MTI). In
the afternoon of March 10, 1966 during recess, an altercation transpired
between the deceased and the defendant. At the time of the incident,
Dominador was sixteen years old while Virgilio was already of age. Virgilio
was working on a machine with Dominador looking at them. The situation
prompted Virgilio to remark that Dominador was acting like a foreman. As a
result, Dominador slapped Virgilio on the face. Virgilio retaliated by inflicting
severe blows upon Dominador’s stomach, which caused the latter to stumble
upon an engine block and faint. The latter died, the cause of death being
“shock due to traumatic fracture of the ribs”. The parents of Dominador filed
an action for damages against (1) Virgilio, (2) Valenton, the head/president
of MTI, (3) Quibule who was the teacher in charge at the time of the incident,
and (4) Brillantes who is a member of the board of directors and former sole
proprietor of MTI.
The trial court held Virgilio liable but absolved the other defendants-officials.
It stated that the clause “so long as they remain in their custody” contained
in Article 2180 of the Civil Code applies only where the pupil lives and boards
those of the parents., and such control and responsibility for the pupil’s
actions would pass from the father and mother to the teachers. This legal
conclusion was based on the dictum in Mercado v. CA, which in turn based
its decision in Exconde v. Capuno. The trial court held that Article 2180 was
not applicable in this case, as defendant Virgilio did not live with the
defendants-officials at the time of the incident. Hence, this petition.
Issues:
1. (Main issue) Who must be held liable for damages for the death of
Dominador together with the defendant?
Ruling:
The head/president and teacher of MTI (Valenton and Quibule respectively)
were held liable jointly and severally with the Virgilio for damages. No liability
attaches to Brillantes as a mere member of the MTI board of directors.
Similarly, MTI may not be held liable since it had not been properly
impleaded as party defendant.
The phrase used in Article 2180, “so long as the students remain in their
custody” means the protective and supervisory custody that the school and
its heads and teachers exercise over the pupils and students for as long as
they are at attendance in the school, including recess time. There is nothing
in the law that requires that for such liability to attach the pupil or student
who commits the tortuous act must live and board in the school. The dicta in
the cases of Mercado as well as in Exconde v. Capuno on which it relied are
deemed to have been set aside. The rationale of such liability of school
heads and teachers for the tortious acts of their pupils and students, so long
as they remain in their custody, is that they stand, in loco parentis to a certain
extent to their pupils and students and are called upon to “exercise
reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child.” In this case, The
unfortunate death resulting from the fight between the protagonists-students
could have been avoided, had said defendants complied with their duty of
providing adequate supervision over the activities of the students in the
school premises to protect their students from harm. Since Valenton and
Quibule failed to prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father
of a family to prevent damage, they cannot likewise avail of the exemption
to the liability. The judgment of the appellate court was modified, while claim
for compensatory damages was increased in accordance with recent
jurisprudence and the claim for exemplary damages denied in the absence
of gross negligence on the part of the said defendants.
Disposition :

ACCORDINGLY, the judgment appealed from is modified so as to

provide as follows: .