Ylarde v Aquino Digest

G.R. No. L-33722 July 29, 1988 FEDERICO YLARDE and ADELAIDA DORONIO petitioners, vs. EDGARDO AQINO, !ARO "ORIANO and COR# OF A$$EAL", respondents. GANCAYCO,  J.: FAC#"% Mariano Soriano was the principal of the Gabaldon Primary School, a public educational institution located in Tayug, Pangasinan- Edgardo !uino was a teacher therein. t that time, the school was "ttered with several concrete bloc#s which were remnants of the old school shop that was destroyed in $orld $ar %%. &eali'ing that the huge stones were serious ha'ards to the schoolchildren, another teacher by the name of Sergio (ane' started burying them one by one. %n fact, he was able to bury ten of these bloc#s all by himself. )eciding to help his colleague, private respondent Edgardo !uino gathered eighteen of his male pupils, aged ten to eleven, after class dismissal. (eing their teacher-in-charge, he ordered them to dig beside a one-ton concrete bloc# in order to ma#e a hole wherein the stone can be buried. The wor# was left un"nished. The following day, also after classes, private respondent !uino called four of the original eighteen pupils to continue the digging. These four pupils * &eynaldo lonso, +rancisco +rancisco lcantara, %smael baga and ovelito  larde, dug until the ecavation ecavation was one meter and forty centimeters deep. t this point, private respondent !uino alone continued digging while the pupils remained inside the pit throwing out the loose soil that was brought about by the digging. $hen the depth was right enough to accommodate the concrete bloc#, private respondent !uino and his four pupils got out of the hole. Then, said private respondent left the children to level the loose soil around the open hole while he went to see (ane' who was about thirty meters away. away. Private respondent wanted to borrow from (ane' the #ey to the school wor#room where he could get some rope. (efore leaving. , private respondent !uino allegedly told the children /not to touch the stone./  few minutes after private respondent !uino left, three of the four #ids, lonso, lcantara and larde, playfully 0umped into the pit.  Then, without any warning warning at all, the remaining baga 0umped on top of the concrete bloc# causing it to slide down towards the opening. lonso and lcantara were able to scramble out of the ecavation on time but unfortunately fo larde, the concrete bloc# caught him before he could get out, pinning him to the wall in a standing position. s a result thereof, larde sustained in0uries. Three days later, ovelito larde died.  larde1s parents, petitioners petitioners in this case, "led a suit for damages against both private respondents !uino and Soriano.  The lower court dismissed the complaint on the following following grounds2 345 that the digging done by the pupils is in line with their course called $or# Education6 375 that !uino eercised the utmost diligence of a very cautious person6 and 385 that the demise of larde was due to his own rec#less imprudence. 9n appeal, the :ourt of ppeals a;rmed the )ecision of the lower court.

Petitioners base their action against private respondent !uino on rticle 74? of the same :ode. rticle 74? states2 rt. 74>?.    @astly, 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. custody. 3

I""E% $hether or not under the cited provisions, both private respondents can be held liable for damages.

&ELD% )%SP9S%T%AE2 $BE&E+9&E, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby G&TE) and the !uestioned 0udgment of the respondent court is RE'ER"ED and "E# A"IDE and another 0udgment is hereby rendered ordering private respondent Edagardo !uino to pay petitioners an %mdemnity for the death of :hild larde, Eemplary damages and Moral damages.

A( )*+a)d( * )/n0/al, !a)/ano "o)/ano $e hold that he cannot be made responsible for the death of the child larde, he being the head of an academic school and not a school of arts and trades. fter an ehaustive eamination of the problem, the :ourt has come to the conclusion that the provision in !uestion should apply to all schools, academic as well as non-academic. $here the school is academic rather than technical or vocational in nature, responsibility for the tort committed by the student will attach to the teacher in charge of such student, following the "rst part of the provision. This is the general rule. %n the case of establishments of arts and trades, it is the head thereof, and only he, who shall be held liable as an eception to the general rule. %n other words, teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of their students ecept where the school is technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable. +ollowing the canon of reddendo reddendo singula sinquilis 1teachers1 should apply to the words /pupils and students1 and 1heads of establishments of arts and trades to the word /apprentices./

A( )*+a)d( * *a0*), Ed+a)do Au/no

+rom the foregoing, it can be easily seen that !uino can be held liable under rticle 74>? of the :ivil :ode as the teacher-in-charge of  the children for being negligent in his supervision over them and his failure to ta#e the necessary precautions to prevent any in0ury on their persons. Bowever, as earlier pointed out, petitioners base the alleged liability of private respondent !uino on rticle 74?. $ith this in mind, the !uestion $e need to answer is this2 $ere there acts and omissions on the part of private respondent !uino amounting to fault or negligence which have direct causal relation to the death of his pupil lardeC 9ur answer is in the a;rmative. Be is liable for damages.

of conduct to which a child must conform for his own protection is that degree of care o rdinarily eercised by children of the same age, capacity, discretion, #nowledge and eperience under the same or similar circumstances. (earing this in mind, $e cannot charge the child larde with rec#less imprudence.  The court is not persuaded that the digging done by the pupils can pass as part of their $or# Education.  single glance at the picture showing the ecavation and the huge concrete bloc# 7 would reveal a dangerous site re!uiring the attendance of strong, mature laborers and not ten-year old grade-four pupils. $e cannot comprehend why the lower court saw it otherwise when private respondent !uino himself admitted that there were no instructions from the principal re!uiring what the pupils were told to do. or was there any showing that it was included in the lesson plan for their $or# Education.

#* n*+l/+*n a0 o )/a* )*(ond*n Au/no /n l*a/n+ /( u/l( /n (u0 a dan+*)ou( (/* a( a d/)*0 0au(al 0onn*0/on o * d*a o * 0/ld Yla)d*. @eft by themselves, it was but natural for the children to play around. Tired from the strenuous digging, they 0ust had to amuse themselves with whatever  The contention that !uino eercised the utmost diligence of a very they found. )riven by their playful and adventurous instincts and not cautious person is certainly without cogent basis.  reasonably #nowing the ris# they were facing three of them 0umped into the hole prudent person would have foreseen that bringing children to an while the other one 0umped on the stone. Since the stone was so ecavation site, and more so, leaving them there all by themselves, heavy and the soil was loose from the digging, it was also a natural may result in an accident. n ordinarily careful human being would conse!uence that the stone would fall into the hole beside it, causing not assume that a simple warning /not to touch the stone/ is in0ury on the unfortunate child caught by its heavy weight. su;cient to cast away all the serious danger that a huge concrete Everything that occurred was the natural and probable eDect of the bloc# ad0acent to an ecavation would present to the children. negligent acts of private respondent !uino. eedless to say, the Moreover, a teacher who stands in loco parentis to his pupils would child larde would not have died were it not for the unsafe situation have made sure that the children are protected from all harm in his created by private respondent !uino which eposed the lives o f all company. the pupils concerned to real danger. $e cannot agree with the "nding of the lower court that the in0uries which resulted in the death of the child larde were caused by his own rec#less imprudence, %t should be remembered that he was only ten years old at the time of the incident, s such, he is epected to be playful and daring.  The degree of care re!uired to be eercised must vary with the capacity of the person endangered to care for himself. The standard

$e close by categorically stating that a truly careful and cautious person would have acted in all contrast to the way private respondent !uino did. $ere it not for his gross negligence, the unfortunate incident would not have occurred and the child larde would probably be alive today, a grown- man of thirty-"ve. )ue to his failure to ta#e the necessary precautions to avoid the ha'ard,  larde1s parents suDered great anguish all these years.