G.R. No. L-47745 April 15, 1988
JOSE S. AMADORA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On April 13, 1972, Alfredo Amadora, a 17-year-old student, was shot and killed by his classmate, Pablito Daffon, inside the auditorium of Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos. Daffon was subsequently convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence. The victim’s parents filed a civil action for damages under Article 2180 of the Civil Code against the school, its rector, principal, dean of boys, and physics teacher, alleging they were liable for the acts of their students while under their custody. The petitioners contended that Alfredo was in school to present a physics experiment, a graduation prerequisite, thus remaining under school custody. The respondents argued the semester had ended, custody had ceased, and they had exercised due diligence. A critical sub-fact was that the dean of boys had earlier confiscated an unlicensed pistol from another student, Jose Gumban, but returned it without reporting the incident. Gumban was with Daffon during the shooting, though the identity of the fatal gun was disputed.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the academic institution, Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, and its officials are civilly liable for the killing of Alfredo Amadora by a fellow student under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision absolving the school and its officials. The Court clarified the interpretation of Article 2180, which states: “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.” It abandoned the restrictive rulings in Exconde and Mercado, which limited liability to heads of schools of arts and trades. The Court held that the provision applies to all schools, academic or non-academic. However, liability is not absolute; it is based on a presumption of negligence that can be rebutted by proving the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family. The Court found the school had exercised such diligence. There was no substantial evidence that the gun used was the one previously confiscated, and the school had rules prohibiting deadly weapons. Furthermore, the Court ruled that “custody” under Article 2180 refers to the period when the student is under the school’s authority and supervision during its activities, not a boarding relationship. On April 13, classes had officially ended, and Alfredo’s presence was for submitting a report, not a required activity under direct school control. Thus, the student was not in the custody of the school at the time of the incident. Consequently, the presumption of negligence did not arise, and the respondents successfully proved their due diligence.