Teachers are not only educators. They also serve as mentors and role models, commonly referred to as the “second parents” of students while at school.

The law recognizes that teachers and professors possess special and substitute parental authority over their students in loco parentis. Given this responsibility, under what circumstances and to what extent can teachers be held liable for the actions of the students in their care? This question becomes particularly complex when students engage in an activity that causes harm to others.

Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, teachers and heads of schools of arts and trades are liable for damages caused by students in their custody. It has been stressed that custody does not require immediate and actual physical control, but only that the student is under the control and influence of the school and within its premises, whether the semester has not yet begun or has already ended. (Amadora vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47745, 15 April 1988.)

The persons liable under this provision are limited only to (1) teachers in general; and (2) heads of schools of arts and trades in particular. In the past, the Supreme Court refused to apply Article 2180 of the Civil Code to principals, being the head of an academic school and not a school “of arts and trades.”

Only the teacher and not the head of an academic school (i.e., the principal) was held accountable for torts committed by their students (Ylarde and Doronio vs. Aquino et al., G.R. No. L-33722, 29 July 1988). However, this interpretation appears to have been modified by the Supreme Court.

In the recent case of Apolinario vs. Heirs of Francisco de los Santos (G.R. No. 219686, 27 November 2024), the Supreme Court held a principal of a school liable for a death caused by a student under his supervision during an extracurricular school activity.

On the day of the accident, the student (a 16-year-old boy) was at school for an event supervised by the principal as head of the teachers. Upon the instruction of the principal, the student began cutting down a banana plant on the side of the highway where the school was located. The banana plant fell and hit the victim who was riding his motorcycle on the highway at the time, causing him to fall onto the concrete highway. Several days later, the victim died from the brain injury he suffered in the accident.

As part of his defense, the principal asserted that he was the principal of the school, which was a public elementary school, not a school of trades and industry, and responsibility only attached to the teacher-in-charge.

The Supreme Court applied Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code as basis for the principal’s liability as teacher-in-charge. The articles embody the concept of vicarious liability or imputed negligence under civil law. Under this concept, school heads and teachers are liable for tortious acts of their pupils while they are in their custody, because they stand in loco parentis to their pupils and are thus called upon to exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the children.

The principal was found to fall squarely within the definition of a teacher-in-charge, or the one designated to exercise supervision over the pupils in the specific classes or sections to which they are assigned. According to the Supreme Court, while principal of the school, it is clear that he closely supervised the event and the student, and in fact directly instructed him to cut down the plant immediately before the incident.

As principal of the school who supervised the extracurricular activity, there was an expectation to take the necessary precautions to ensure not only the safety of the participants but likewise third persons in the immediate vicinity who may be affected. Additionally, the principal must take due care in supervising and instructing those participating in the activity in the execution of their tasks.

This underscores the significant responsibility that teachers bear in such situations. At a minimum, teachers must demonstrate that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage, in order to absolve themselves from liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cad@divinalaw.com.