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 JOSE-RECOLETOS, 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:
In April 1972, while the high school students of Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos were
in the school auditorium, a certain Pablito Daffon fired a gun. The stray bullet hit
Alfredo Amadora. Alfredo died. Daffon was convicted of reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide. The parents of Alfredo sued the school for damages under
Article 2180 of the Civil Code because of the schools negligence.
The trial court ruled in favor of Amadora. The trial court ruled that the principal, the
dean of boys, as well as the teacher-in-charge are all civilly liable. The school
appealed as it averred that when the incident happened, the school year has
already ended. Amadora argued that even though the semester has already ended,
his son was there in school to complete a school requirement in his Physics subject.
The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the school. The CA ruled that under the last
paragraph of Article 2180, only schools of arts and trades (vocational schools) are
liable not academic schools like Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, an academic school, is liable under
Article 2180 of the Civil Code for the tortuous act of its students?
HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court made a re-examination of the provision on the last
paragraph of Article 2180 which provides:
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for
damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices so long as they remain
in their custody.
The Supreme Court said that it is time to update the interpretation of the above law
due to the changing times where there is hardly a distinction between schools of

arts and trade and academic schools. That being said, the Supreme Court ruled that
ALL schools, academic or not, may be held liable under the said provision of Article
2180.
In this case however, the Physics teacher in charge was not properly named, and
there was no sufficient evidence presented to make the said teacher-in-charge
liable. Absent the direct liability of the teachers because of the foregoing reason,
the school cannot be held subsidiarily liable too.