SCHOOL鈥橲 RESPONSIBILITY Students, the high tribunal said in a November 2024 ruling, are deemed to be in the custody of school authorities as long as they are under the control and influence of the school and within its premises, whether or not the semester has yet to start or is already over. 鈥擨nquirer file photo
MANILA, Philippines 鈥� The Supreme Court has ruled that a teacher may be held liable for damages if they fail to exercise due diligence in preventing a student under their supervision from harming others.
In a 16-page decision promulgated in November 2024 and made public on Monday, the high court鈥檚 First Division upheld the liability of Gil Apolinario, the principal of Barangay Palale Elementary School in Sta. Margarita, Samar, in the death of Francisco de los Santos.
The case stemmed from an incident in 1998 when Apolinario instructed a 15-year-old student, Rico Villahermosa, to cut down a banana plant by the roadside and near the school.
The plant, however, fell on top of De los Santos, who was passing at the time on a motorcycle. He suffered severe injuries that led to his death.
The Supreme Court partly granted Apolinario鈥檚 petition for review on certiorari, modifying the decision of a lower court, specifically on the award of damages, but upheld its ruling, which found the petitioner negligent.
鈥淎polinario, as the teacher-in-charge of [Villahermosa] at the time of the commission of the latter鈥檚 tortious act, is vicariously liable for damages,鈥� the high tribunal said in its decision on G.R. No. 219686, penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando.
He was directed to pay the heir of the victim P355,000 in damages and litigation expenses.
Based on his death certificate, De los Santos died of 鈥減ost-traumatic brain swelling鈥� and 鈥渄iffuse cerebral contusion.鈥�
Gross negligence
His heirs filed a complaint for damages against Apolinario and Villahermosa鈥檚 mother, claiming that Apolinario was negligent in ordering the student to cut down a banana plant beside the highway with no safety precautions. They argued that the gross negligence of both Apolinario and Villahermosa caused the victim鈥檚 injuries and death.
They asked for P50,000 for medical expenses, P47,000 for funeral expenses, and P428,800 for loss of income (the victim was a Sangguniang Bayan member), plus moral, exemplary damages, attorney鈥檚 fees, and litigation expenses.
In his defense, Apolinario denied he was supervising Villahermosa at the time, claiming he was 10 meters away monitoring the building of a fence.
He argued that the student was under the supervision of other teachers, and blamed Villahermosa鈥檚 mother for sending her minor son to the activity without proper notification.
The student鈥檚 mother for her part, contended that Apolinario was the one who directed her son, absolving herself of liability.
The Regional Trial Court of Calbayog City and the Court of Appeals both found Apolinario negligent, ruling that he remained responsible even though the incident happened outside regular school hours.
In loco parentis
In affirming these rulings, the Supreme Court cited Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code, which establishes liability for quasi-delicts and vicarious liability for those who have custody over minors.
鈥淯nder this concept, school heads and teachers are liable for the tortious acts of their pupils while they remain in their custody because they stand in loco parentis to their pupils and are thus called upon to exercise reasonable supervision,鈥� the high court said.
鈥淎 student is deemed in the custody of the school authorities as long as he is under the control and influence of the school and within its premises, whether the semester has not yet begun or has already ended,鈥� it added.
The high tribunal also applied Articles 218 and 219 of the Family Code, which provide teachers and school administrators the 鈥渟pecial parental authority鈥� over minors while under their custody, and make them 鈥減rincipally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor.鈥�
鈥淎polinario should have taken other measures, such as instructing [Villahermosa] to install early warning devices along Maharlika Highway, or requesting another adult to assist and supervise [the student] during the cutting of the banana plant and to warn incoming motorists who may be affected, or assigned the task to an adult instead. However, he failed to do so,鈥� the Supreme Court said.