PARENTAL GUIDANCE IS A MUST: On Special Parental Authority

By Siesta-friendly
Last month, when 2 students of the Cebu International School drowned while
swimming near a waterfall during a class field trip in Bataan 1[1], we were made to
contemplate again the responsibility of people who have supervision, instruction or
custody over minors and these peoples liability for the acts of others (not
necessarily minors) over whom they have responsibility.
The provisions regarding the Special Parental Authority of schools over minors over
whom they have responsibility are in the Family Code Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or
institution engaged in child are shall have special parental authority and
responsibility over the minor child care while under their supervision, instruction or
custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or
outside the premises of the school, entity or institution.
Art. 219. Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article
shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions
of the unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the persons
exercising substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.
The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not
apply if it is proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under the
particular circumstances (The Family Code of the Philippines2[2])
Related to these provisions are Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code on ones
liability for the acts of persons for whom one is responsible 3[3] 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 quasidelict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
xxx
1[1] 2 students drown in bataan field trip. (2012, September 13). Retrieved from
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/breaking-news/2012/09/13/2-students-drown-bataan-field-trip242574

2[2] Executive Order No. 209, July 6, 1987.

3[3] Republic Act No. 386, June 18, 1949.

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.
xxx
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 of 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.
Article 2180 above refers to the liability of teachers or heads of establishments of
arts and trades to be in loco parentis or in the place of a parent. As an aside, in
Amadora, et al. vs Court Of Appeals, et al. the Supreme Court held that as regards
the term teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades, teachers in
general shall be liable for the acts of their students except where the school is
technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable. 4

[4]
Going back to the main topic, after reading about the 2 Cebu International School
students drowning during a school field trip, we feel compelled to tackle some cases
where the Supreme Court found a school and/or teacher responsible and liable for
their students death or injury.
Cases where the school or teachers were found at fault
For a students drowning
In a labor case involving a ClassAdviser of Grade 5-Esmeralda of School of the Holy
Spirit of Quezon City, theSupreme Court, in upholding the Class Advisers dismissal
for gross negligenceresulting to loss of trust and confidence, tackled her
responsibility under thefollowing circumstances 5[5] On March 10, 2000, the class president, wrote a letter to the grade school principal
requesting permission to hold a year-end celebration at the school grounds. The
principal authorized the activity and allowed the pupils to use the swimming pool. In
this connection, [Class Adviser Corazon P. Taguiam] distributed the
parents/guardians permit forms to the pupils.

4[4] G.R. No. L-47745 April 15, 1988

5[5] School Of The Holy Spirit Of Quezon City vs. Corazon P. Taguiam, G.R. No. 165565, July
14, 2008.

[Taguiam] admitted that Chiara Mae Federicos permit form was unsigned.
Nevertheless, she concluded that Chiara Mae was allowed by her mother to join the
activity since her mother personally brought her to the school with her packed lunch
and swimsuit.
Before the activity started, respondent warned the pupils who did not know how to
swim to avoid the deeper area. However, while the pupils were swimming, two of
them sneaked out. [Taguiam] went after them to verify where they were going.
Unfortunately, while [Taguiam] was away, Chiara Mae drowned. When [Taguiam]
returned, the maintenance man was already administering cardiopulmonary
resuscitation on Chiara Mae. She was still alive when [Taguiam] rushed her to the
General Malvar Hospital where she was pronounced dead on arrival.
xxx
As a teacher who stands in loco parentis to her pupils, [Taguiam] should have made
sure that the children were protected from all harm while in her company.
[Taguiam] should have known that leaving the pupils in the swimming pool area all
by themselves may result in an accident. A simple reminder not to go to the
deepest part of the pool was insufficient to cast away all the serious dangers that
the situation presented to the children, especially when [Taguiam] knew that Chiara
Mae cannot swim. Dismally, [Taguiam] created an unsafe situation which exposed
the lives of all the pupils concerned to real danger. This is a clear violation not only
of the trust and confidence reposed on her by the parents of the pupils but of the
school itself.
Finally, we note that based on the criminal complaint filed by Chiara Maes parents,
the Assistant City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict respondent for the
crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The Assistant City Prosecutor
held that [Taguiam] should have foreseen the danger lurking in the waters. By
leaving her pupils in the swimming pool, [Taguiam] displayed an inexcusable lack
of foresight and precaution. While this finding is not controlling for purposes of the
instant case, this only supports our conclusion that [Taguiam] has indeed been
grossly negligent.
For a students death in an excavation site
In a decision squarely on theissue of the responsibility of schools and principals
regarding their students,the Supreme Court held a teacher liable for the death of
one of his students basedon the following facts 6[6] In 1963, [Mariano Soriano] was the principal of the Gabaldon Primary School, a
public educational institution located in Tayug, Pangasinan. [Edgardo Aquino] was a
teacher therein.

6[6] Federico Ylarde, et al vs.Edgardo Aquino, et al, G.R. No. L-33722 July 29, 1988

At that time, the school was littered with several concrete blocks which were
remnants of the old school shop that was destroyed in World War II. Realizing that
the huge stones were serious hazards to the schoolchildren, another teacher by the
name of Sergio Banez started burying them one by one as early as 1962. In fact, he
was able to bury ten of these blocks all by himself.
Deciding to help his colleague, [Aquino] gathered eighteen of his male pupils, aged
ten to eleven, after class dismissal on October 7, 1963. Being their teacher-incharge, he ordered them to dig beside a one-ton concrete block in order to make a
hole wherein the stone can be buried. The work was left unfinished. The following
day, also after classes, [Aquino] called four of the original eighteen pupils to
continue the digging. These four pupils Reynaldo Alonso, Francisco Alcantara,
Ismael Abaga and Novelito Ylarde, dug until the excavation was one meter and forty
centimeters deep. At this point, [Aquino] alone continued digging while the pupils
remained inside the pit throwing out the loose soil that was brought about by the
digging.
When the depth was right enough to accommodate the concrete block, [Aquino]
and his four pupils got out of the hole. Then, [Aquino]left the children to level the
loose soil around the open hole while he went to see Banez who was about thirty
meters away. [Aquino] wanted to borrow from Banez the key to the school workroom
where he could get some rope. Before leaving, [Aquino]allegedly told the children
"not to touch the stone."
A few minutes after [Aquino]left, three of the four kids, Alonso, Alcantara and
Ylarde, playfully jumped into the pit. Then, without any warning at all, the remaining
Abaga jumped on top of the concrete block causing it to slide down towards the
opening. Alonso and Alcantara were able to scramble out of the excavation on time
but unfortunately fo Ylarde, the concrete block caught him before he could get out,
pinning him to the wall in a standing position. As a result thereof, Ylarde [sustained
injuries].
Three days later, Novelito Ylarde died. He was only 10 years old.
In awarding the boys parents indemnity for his death plus moral and exemplary
damages, the Supreme held that Aquino acted with fault and gross negligence
when he: (1) failed to avail himself of services of adult manual laborers and instead
utilized his pupils aged ten to eleven to make an excavation near the one-ton
concrete stone which he knew to be a very hazardous task; (2) required the children
to remain inside the pit even after they had finished digging, knowing that the huge
block was lying nearby and could be easily pushed or kicked aside by any pupil who
by chance may go to the perilous area; (3) ordered them to level the soil around the
excavation when it was so apparent that the huge stone was at the brink of falling;
(4) went to a place where he would not be able to check on the children's safety;
and (5) left the children close to the excavation, an obviously attractive nuisance.
For a students injury during a class science experiment

Lastly, a school and one of itsteaches was found liable when a 12-year-old student
sustained eye injuriesduring a science experiment in class 7[7] On November 17, 1994, at around 1:30 in the afternoon inside St. Joseph Colleges
[SJCs] premises, the class to which [respondent Jayson Val Miranda] belonged was
conducting a science experiment about fusion of sulphur powder and iron fillings
under the tutelage of [petitioner] Rosalinda Tabugo, she being the subject teacher
and employee of [petitioner] SJC. The adviser of [Jaysons] class is x x x Estefania
Abdan.
Tabugo left her class while it was doing the experiment without having adequately
secured it from any untoward incident or occurrence. In the middle of the
experiment, [Jayson], who was the assistant leader of one of the class groups,
checked the result of the experiment by looking into the test tube with magnifying
glass. The test tube was being held by one of his group mates who moved it close
and towards the eye of [Jayson]. At that instance, the compound in the test tube
spurted out and several particles of which hit [Jaysons] eye and the different parts
of the bodies of some of his group mates. As a result thereof, [Jaysons] eyes were
chemically burned, particularly his left eye, for which he had to undergo surgery and
had to spend for his medication.
xxx
The school authorities alleged that [b]efore the science experiment was conducted,
[Jayson] and his classmates were given strict instructions to follow the written
procedure for the experiment and not to look into the test tube until the heated
compound had cooled off. [Jayson], however, a person of sufficient age and
discretion and completely capable of understanding the English language and the
instructions of his teacher, without waiting for the heated compound to cool off, as
required in the written procedure for the experiment and as repeatedly explained by
the teacher, violated such instructions and took a magnifying glass and looked at
the compound, which at that moment spurted out of the test tube, a small particle
hitting one of [Jaysons] eyes.
xxx
In awarding Jason actual and moral damages, attorneys fees and the cost of the
suit, the Supreme Court found that the school and the teacher acted with
negligence and failed to exercise the requisite degree of care and caution as
demonstrated by the following: 1. [the] school did not take affirmative steps to
avert damage and injury to its students although it had full information on the
nature of dangerous science experiments conducted by the students during class; 2.
[the] school did not install safety measures to protect the students who conduct
experiments in class; 3. [the] school did not provide protective gears and devices,
specifically goggles, to shield students from expected risks and dangers; and 4. [the
teacher] was not inside the classroom the whole time her class conducted the
experiment, specifically, when the accident involving Jayson occurred. In any event,
the size of the classfifty (50) students conducting the experiment is difficult to
monitor. Moreover, the school and the teacher cannot simply deflect their
7[7] St. Josephs College, et al. ,vs. Jayson Miranda, G.R. No. 182353, June 29, 2010.

negligence and liability by insisting that [the teacher] gave specific instructions to
her science class not to look directly into the heated compound...
Schools, administrators and teachers should not take lightly the special
responsibility they have for the students under their care. They are not only
responsible for their students lessons but their lives as well, i.e., theirs students
safety, security and well-being. As can be seen in the cases and their tragic
consequences, there may be no second chances, and mistakes made and lessons
learned may prove just too costly.