Last month, when 2 “students of the Cebu International School … drowned while swimming near a waterfall during a class field trip in Bataan”[1], we were made to contemplate again the responsibility of people who have “supervision, instruction or custody” over minors and these people’s liability for the acts of others (not necessarily minors) over whom they have responsibility.
The provisions regarding the Special
Parental Authority of schools over minors over whom they have responsibility are
in the Family Code -
“Art. 218. The school, its administrators and
teachers, or the individual, entity or institution engaged in child are shall
have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child care while
under their supervision, instruction or custody.
Authority and
responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or
outside the premises of the school, entity or institution.
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 subsidiarily
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…” (The Family Code of the Philippines[2])
Related to these provisions are
Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code on one’s liability for the acts of
persons for whom one is responsible[3]
-
“Article
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.
xxx
Article 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.
xxx
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 responsibility
treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove
that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damage.”
Article 2180 above refers to the
liability of teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades to be in loco parentis or in the place of a
parent. As an aside, in Amadora, et al.
vs Court Of Appeals, et al. the Supreme Court held that as regards the term teachers or heads of establishments of arts
and trades, “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”.[4]
Going back to the main topic, after
reading about the 2 Cebu
International School
students drowning during a school field trip, we feel compelled to tackle some cases
where the Supreme Court found a school and/or teacher responsible and liable
for their student’s death or injury.
Cases where the school or teachers were found at fault
For a student’s drowning
In a labor case involving a ClassAdviser of Grade 5-Esmeralda of School of the Holy Spirit of Quezon City, theSupreme Court, in upholding the Class Adviser’s dismissal for gross negligenceresulting to loss of trust and confidence, tackled her responsibility under thefollowing circumstances[5]
-
“On March 10, 2000,
the class president, wrote a letter to the grade school principal requesting
permission to hold a year-end celebration at the school grounds. The principal
authorized the activity and allowed the pupils to use the swimming pool. In
this connection, [Class Adviser Corazon P. Taguiam] distributed the
parent’s/guardian’s permit forms to the pupils.
[Taguiam] admitted
that Chiara Mae Federico’s permit form was unsigned. Nevertheless, she
concluded that Chiara Mae was allowed by her mother to join the activity since
her mother personally brought her to the school with her packed lunch and
swimsuit.
Before the activity
started, respondent warned the pupils who did not know how to swim to avoid the
deeper area. However, while the pupils were swimming, two of them sneaked out. [Taguiam]
went after them to verify where they were going.
Unfortunately, while
[Taguiam] was away, Chiara Mae drowned. When [Taguiam] returned, the
maintenance man was already administering cardiopulmonary resuscitation on
Chiara Mae. She was still alive when [Taguiam] rushed her to the General Malvar Hospital
where she was pronounced dead on arrival.
xxx
As a teacher who
stands in loco parentis to her
pupils, [Taguiam] should have made sure that the children were protected from
all harm while in her company. [Taguiam]
should have known that leaving the pupils in the swimming pool area all by
themselves may result in an accident. A
simple reminder “not to go to the deepest part of the pool” was insufficient to
cast away all the serious dangers that the situation presented to the children,
especially when [Taguiam] knew that Chiara Mae cannot swim. Dismally, [Taguiam]
created an unsafe situation which exposed the lives of all the pupils concerned
to real danger. This is a clear
violation not only of the trust and confidence reposed on her by the parents of
the pupils but of the school itself.
Finally, we note
that based on the criminal complaint filed by Chiara Mae’s parents, the
Assistant City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict respondent for the
crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The Assistant City Prosecutor held that [Taguiam]
“should have foreseen the danger lurking in the waters.” By leaving her pupils in the swimming pool, [Taguiam]
displayed an “inexcusable lack of foresight and precaution.” While this finding is not controlling for
purposes of the instant case, this only supports our conclusion that [Taguiam] has
indeed been grossly negligent.”
For a student’s death in an
excavation site
In a decision squarely on theissue of the responsibility of schools and principals regarding their students,the Supreme Court held a teacher liable for the death of one of his students basedon the following facts [6]
-
“In 1963, [Mariano
Soriano] was the principal of the Gabaldon
Primary School, a public
educational institution located in Tayug, Pangasinan. [Edgardo Aquino] was a
teacher therein.
At that time, the
school was littered with several concrete blocks which were remnants of the old
school shop that was destroyed in World War II. Realizing that the huge stones
were serious hazards to the schoolchildren, another teacher by the name of Sergio
Banez started burying them one by one as early as 1962. In fact, he was able to
bury ten of these blocks all by himself.
Deciding to help his
colleague, [Aquino] gathered eighteen of his male pupils, aged ten to eleven,
after class dismissal on October 7, 1963. Being their teacher-in-charge, he
ordered them to dig beside a one-ton concrete block in order to make a hole
wherein the stone can be buried. The work was left unfinished. The following
day, also after classes, [Aquino] called four of the original eighteen pupils
to continue the digging. These four pupils — Reynaldo Alonso, Francisco
Alcantara, Ismael Abaga and Novelito Ylarde, dug until the excavation was one
meter and forty centimeters deep. At this point, [Aquino] alone continued
digging while the pupils remained inside the pit throwing out the loose soil
that was brought about by the digging.
When the depth was
right enough to accommodate the concrete block, [Aquino] and his four pupils
got out of the hole. Then, [Aquino]left the children to level the loose soil
around the open hole while he went to see Banez who was about thirty meters
away. [Aquino] wanted to borrow from Banez the key to the school workroom where
he could get some rope. Before leaving, [Aquino]allegedly told the children
"not to touch the stone."
A few minutes after [Aquino]left,
three of the four kids, Alonso, Alcantara and Ylarde, playfully jumped into the
pit. Then, without any warning at all, the remaining Abaga jumped on top of the
concrete block causing it to slide down towards the opening. Alonso and
Alcantara were able to scramble out of the excavation on time but unfortunately
fo Ylarde, the concrete block caught him before he could get out, pinning him
to the wall in a standing position. As a result thereof, Ylarde [sustained
injuries].
Three days later,
Novelito Ylarde died.” He was only 10 years old.
In awarding the boy’s parents
indemnity for his death plus moral and exemplary damages, the Supreme held that
Aquino “acted with fault and gross negligence when he: (1) failed to avail
himself of services of adult manual laborers and instead utilized his pupils
aged ten to eleven to make an excavation near the one-ton concrete stone which
he knew to be a very hazardous task; (2) required the children to remain inside
the pit even after they had finished digging, knowing that the huge block was
lying nearby and could be easily pushed or kicked aside by any pupil who by
chance may go to the perilous area; (3) ordered them to level the soil around
the excavation when it was so apparent that the huge stone was at the brink of
falling; (4) went to a place where he would not be able to check on the
children's safety; and (5) left the children close to the excavation, an
obviously attractive nuisance.”
For a student’s injury during
a class science experiment
Lastly, a school and one of itsteaches was found liable when a 12-year-old student sustained eye injuriesduring a science experiment in class[7]
-
“On November 17, 1994, at around 1:30 in the afternoon
inside St. Joseph College’s [SJC’s] premises, the class to which [respondent
Jayson Val Miranda] belonged was conducting a science experiment about fusion
of sulphur powder and iron fillings under the tutelage of [petitioner]
Rosalinda Tabugo, she being the subject teacher and employee of [petitioner]
SJC. The adviser of [Jayson’s] class is x x x Estefania Abdan.
Tabugo left her class while it was doing the experiment
without having adequately secured it from any untoward incident or occurrence.
In the middle of the experiment, [Jayson], who was the assistant leader of one
of the class groups, checked the result of the experiment by looking into the
test tube with magnifying glass. The test tube was being held by one of his
group mates who moved it close and towards the eye of [Jayson]. At that
instance, the compound in the test tube spurted out and several particles of
which hit [Jayson’s] eye and the different parts of the bodies of some of his
group mates. As a result thereof, [Jayson’s] eyes were chemically burned,
particularly his left eye, for which he had to undergo surgery and had to spend
for his medication. …
xxx
The school authorities alleged that [“b]efore the science
experiment was conducted, [Jayson] and his classmates were given strict
instructions to follow the written procedure for the experiment and not to look
into the test tube until the heated compound had cooled off. [Jayson], however,
a person of sufficient age and discretion and completely capable of
understanding the English language and the instructions of his teacher, without
waiting for the heated compound to cool off, as required in the written
procedure for the experiment and as repeatedly explained by the teacher,
violated such instructions and took a magnifying glass and looked at the
compound, which at that moment spurted out of the test tube, a small particle
hitting one of [Jayson’s] eyes.”
xxx
In awarding Jason actual and
moral damages, attorney’s fees and the cost of the suit, the Supreme Court
found that the school and the teacher acted with negligence
and failed to exercise the requisite degree of care and caution as “demonstrated
by the following: 1. [the] school did not take affirmative steps to avert
damage and injury to its students although it had full information on the
nature of dangerous science experiments conducted by the students during class;
2. [the] school did not install safety measures to protect the students who
conduct experiments in class; 3. [the] school did not provide protective
gears and devices, specifically goggles, to shield students from expected risks
and dangers; and 4. [the teacher] was not inside the classroom the whole time
her class conducted the experiment, specifically, when the accident involving
Jayson occurred. In any event, the size of the class—fifty (50) students—
conducting the experiment is difficult to monitor. Moreover, the school and the teacher cannot simply deflect
their negligence and liability by insisting that [the teacher] gave specific
instructions to her science class not to look directly into the heated
compound...”
Schools, administrators and
teachers should not take lightly the special responsibility they have for the students
under their care. They are not only responsible for their students’ lessons but
their lives as well, i.e., theirs students’ safety, security and well-being. As can be seen in the cases and their tragic
consequences, there may be no second chances, and mistakes made and lessons
learned may prove just too costly.
[1] 2 students
drown in bataan field trip. (2012,
September 13). Retrieved from
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/breaking-news/2012/09/13/2-students-drown-bataan-field-trip-242574
[3] Republic Act No. 386, June 18, 1949.
[4] G.R. No. L-47745 April 15, 1988
[5] School Of The Holy Spirit Of Quezon City vs. Corazon
P. Taguiam, G.R. No. 165565, July 14, 2008.
[7] St. Joseph’s College, et
al. ,vs. Jayson Miranda, G.R. No. 182353,
June 29, 2010.
