G.R. No. L-14342; May 30, 1960
CIRIACO L. MERCADO, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, MANUEL QUISUMBING, JR., ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ciriaco L. Mercado is the father of Augusto Mercado, a pupil at Lourdes Catholic School in Quezon City. On February 22, 1956, during recess, Augusto Mercado and his classmate, respondent Manuel Quisumbing, Jr., quarreled over a “pitogo” (an empty nutshell used as a piggy bank). The “pitogo” belonged to Augusto, who had lent it to Benedicto P. Lim, who in turn lent it to Renato Legaspi. Manuel Quisumbing, Jr., unaware the “pitogo” was Augusto’s, intervened when Augusto tried to retrieve it from Renato, telling Augusto not to do so because Renato was better at the game. Augusto resented this remark, aggressively pushed Manuel, and after a fight where Manuel was clutching his stomach from blows, Augusto cut Manuel’s right cheek with a piece of razor. The wound did not require hospitalization. The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the complaint for damages filed by Manuel Quisumbing, Jr. and his parents against Ciriaco Mercado. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, condemning petitioner to pay P2,000 as moral damages and P50 for medical expenses.

ISSUE

1. Whether the school (teachers or heads) should be held liable for the damages caused by the pupil instead of the father.
2. Whether the award of P2,000 as moral damages is justified.

RULING

1. No, the school is not liable. The Court held that the last paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code, which states that “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,” applies only to institutions of arts and trades, not to academic educational institutions like Lourdes Catholic School. Furthermore, the clause “so long as they remain in their custody” contemplates a situation where the pupil lives and boards with the teacher, such that the teacher’s control supersedes that of the parents. In this case, the pupils went to school during hours and returned to their homes afterward; thus, the responsibility did not pass to the school. The father remains responsible under paragraph 2 of Article 2180 for damages caused by his minor children.
2. No, the award of moral damages is not justified. The Court found that none of the cases specified in Article 2219 of the Civil Code, which authorizes the recovery of moral damages, was shown to exist. The possible circumstance for recovery would be if a criminal offense or a quasi-delict was committed. No criminal action was presented, and the offender, Augusto Mercado, was nine years old, with no showing he acted with discernment. Even assuming a quasi-delict, the facts indicated that the proximate cause of the injury was Manuel Quisumbing, Jr.’s own fault or negligence for having interfered with Augusto’s attempt to retrieve the “pitogo” (Article 2179, Civil Code). The Court of Appeals’ decision did not declare that any specific case under Article 2219 attended the physical injury. Therefore, the grant of moral damages was not warranted. However, the award of P50 for medical expenses was affirmed as a fair approximation.
DISPOSITIVE:
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. Petitioner Ciriaco L. Mercado is declared exempt from the payment of moral damages. The award of P50 for medical expenses is affirmed. No costs.