Principals liable for students’ negligent acts
Finally, A failed to show that he exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the injuries and death of F.
Daily TribuneFinally, A failed to show that he exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the injuries and death of F.
A was the principal of a high school. In preparation for a school event, he ordered R, a student, to cut down a banana plant across from the school. The student, a minor, obeyed, crossed the highway and cut down the plant. The plant fell on a passing motorist, causing his death. The family of the motorist filed an action against the principal under the principle of vicarious liability of the Civil Code.
The principal’s defense was that only a teacher-in-charge, not a principal, can be held liable under that law. Both the trial and appellate courts found him liable. On appeal, the Supreme Court made this pronouncement.
“A teacher-in-charge’s civil liability for quasi-delicts committed by pupils in their custody is anchored in Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. Article 2176: Whoever, by act or omission, causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
“Article 2180: The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. Lastly, 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. The responsibility treated in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
“The foregoing provisions embody the concept of vicarious liability or imputed negligence under civil law. Under 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 over the conduct of the child. A 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.
“However, pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code, teachers shall be freed of liability arising from the tortious acts of their students if they can prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. In addition, Articles 218 and 219 of the Family Code provide that the school, its administrator, and teachers have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction, and custody, and are thus principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor.
“A falls squarely within the definition of a teacher-in-charge contemplated in Article 2176 of the Civil Code. The teacher-in-charge is the one designated by the dean, principal, or other administrative superior to exercise supervision over the pupils in the specific classes or sections to which they are assigned. While A is the principal of the school, it is clear from the record that he closely supervised the pintakasi and his pupil R, and in fact directly instructed R to cut down the plant immediately prior to the incident.
“Finally, A failed to show that he exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the injuries and death of F. As the principal of the school who supervised the activity, A is expected to take the necessary precautions to ensure not just the safety of the participants but likewise third persons in the immediate vicinity who may be affected by the pintakasi, and to take due care in supervising and instructing those participating in the activity in the execution of their tasks, especially for minor participants.
“A should have taken other measures, such as instructing R to install early warning devices along Maharlika Highway, or requesting another adult to supervise and assist R during the cutting of the banana plant and to warn incoming motorists who may be affected, or assigning the task to an adult instead. However, he failed to do so. All told, the RTC and CA did not err in holding A liable for damages on account of quasi-delict.”
The facts and redacted portion of the decision are from SC GR 219686 (27 November 2024). Parties’ names are likewise edited.
