TORTS - St. Francis High School vs. CA

ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL vs. COURT OF APPEALS GR No. 82465 February 25, 1991

FACTS: 

Ferdinand Castillo, a 13-year-old freshman student of Section 1-C at the St. Francis High School (SFHS) wanted to join a school picnic at Talaan Beach, Sariaya, Quezon. However, his parents, Dr. Romulo Castillo and Lilia Castillo, because of short notice, did not allow him.



He was only allowed to bring food (adobo) to the teachers for the picnic. However, the teachers persuaded him to go with them to the beach.



During the picnic, a teacher was apparently drowning. Some students, including Ferdinand, came to her rescue, but in the process, it was Ferdinand himself who drowned. He was brought to Mt. Cannel General Hospital but was pronounced dead on arrival.



Ferdinand’s parents filed a case for damages against SFHS and the teachers.



The CA declared that the teachers failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family to guard against the foreseen harm. Also, SFHS and principal Benjamin Illumin was declared jointly and solidarily liable with the teachers for the death of Ferdinand, under Art 2180.

ISSUE: 

WON the school SFHS, principal and teachers were liable for the death of Ferdinand? – NO.

HELD: 

NO. petitioners were able to prove that they had exercised the required diligence.



It is the rule in Art 2180 that the negligence of the employees in causing the injury or damage gives rise to a presumption of negligence on the part of SFHS and its principal; and while this presumption is not conclusive, it may be overthrown only by clear and convincing proof that the owner and/or manager (SFHS and principal) exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and/or supervision of the employee or employees causing the injury or damage (in this case, the defendants-teachers).



Art 2180, par. 4 provides:



“The obligation imposed by Art 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.”



“Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.”



SC found that CA committed an error in applying Art 2180 of the Civil Code in rendering SFHS liable for the death of respondent's son.



SC found that the teachers are neither guilty of their own negligence nor guilty of the negligence of those under them. Consequently they cannot be held liable for damages of any kind.



At the outset, it should be noted that respondent spouses, parents of the victim Ferdinand, allowed their son to join the excursion. The fact that he gave money to his son to buy food for the picnic even without knowing where it will be held, is a sign of consent for his son to join the same.



In the case at bar, the teachers were not in the actual performance of their assigned tasks. The incident happened outside the school premises, not on a school day and most importantly while the teachers and students were holding a purely private affair, a picnic. This picnic had no permit from the school head or its principal, because this picnic is not a school-sanctioned activity or an extra-curricular activity. Mere knowledge by the principal of the planning of the picnic by the students and teachers does not in any way show acquiescence or consent to the holding of the same.



It was shown that Connie Arquio, the class adviser of I-C, did her best and exercised diligence of a good father of a family to prevent any untoward incident or damages to all the students who joined the picnic. a.

Connie invited co-petitioners Tirso de Chavez (who conducted first aid on Ferdinand) and Luisito Vinas who are both P.E. instructors and scout masters who have knowledge in First Aid application and swimming.

b.

Even respondents' witness, Segundo Vinas, testified that the teachers brought life savers in case of emergency.

c.

The records also show that both petitioners Chavez and Vinas did all what is humanly possible to save the child.



Moreover, as already pointed out hereinabove, the teachers are not guilty of any fault or negligence, hence, no moral damages can be assessed against them.



“Art. 2217. Moral Damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission.”



While it is true that Ferdinand’s parents did give their consent to their son to join the picnic, this does not mean that the school and teachers were already relieved of their duty to observe the required diligence of a good father of a family in ensuring the safety of the children. But in the case at bar, petitioners were able to prove that they had exercised the required diligence. Hence, the claim for moral or exemplary damages becomes baseless.



As for Yoly Jaro and Nida Aragones, the two teachers who came to the picnic late and after the drowning because they previously conducted entrance examinations in said school, they had no participation in the alleged negligence. Accordingly, they must be absolved from any liability.

SEPARATE OPINIONS: 

Other SC members dissented, saying that the teachers failed to exercise diligent supervision over the students, including the two late teachers. Their negligent acts are the proximate cause of the death.