Palisoc vs.

Brillantes

No. L-29025

October 4, 1971

Plaintiffs-appellants: Spouses Moises Palisoc and Brigida Palisoc

Defendants-appellees: Antonio Brillantes, Teodosio Valenton, Virgilio Daffon, and Santiago Quibulue
SUBSTITUTE AND SPECIAL PARENTAL AUTHORITY
Ponente: Teehankee, J.
Facts:
-

Plaintiffs are the parents of one Dominic Palisoc16 y.o. Automative Mechanic student at the
Manila Technological Institute.
On the afternoon of March 10, 1966, Dominic Palisoc, the defendant Virgilio Daffon, and one
Desiderio Cruz were inside the laboratory in the school. Virgilio and Desiderio were working on a
machine, while Dominic was watching. Virgilio made a joke, Dominic got offended, and then
they came to blows, with Virgilio hitting Dominic both in the face and in the stomach. Dominic
then tripped on a machine, fell face-first to the ground, fainted, and never became awake. Post
mortem showed that he died because of the blows on his stomach, which ruptured his internal
organs and induced bleeding.
Plaintiffs filed a case asking for rewards for damages against defendant Virgilio, Brillantes
(member of the Board of Directors), Valenton (president thereof), and Quibulue (instructor.) Trial
Court acquitted all others except Virgilio on the basis of a precedent of Art. 2180 of the New Civil
Code.

Hence this case!

Issue/Held:
WoN the Lower Court was correct in dismissing the cases filed against the authorities of the school---NO
-

Art. 2180: x x x x
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused
by their pupils and students and apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
o Reasoning of the TC: so long as they remain in their custody = only applicable to a
situation where the pupil lives and boards with the teacher, such that control or influence
on the pupil supersedes those of the parents. Since there is NO evidence whatsoever that
the deceased lived and boarded with his professor or the other defendants therein, then
Art. 2180 CANNOT apply to them, therefore they are NOT liable.
Precedents of the case: Mercado vs. CA and Exconde vs. Capuno.
o Mercado vs CA: where the reasoning of the TC originated. In here, the father of the
accused questioned why he is being held liable for the action of his son when it is the
school who should bear the responsibility of it. In the end, the school was exonerated by
the Court since the child goes back to his parents every afternoon (pag uwian na) and
that the school itself was not impleaded in the case.
o Exconde vs. Capuno (basis of the Mercado case): the case about the Father being held
liable for his sons illegal driving of a vehicle which resulted to the death of one person.

The contention here vis--vis Art. 2180 was that since the defendan-sons school is NOT
considered to be an Institution of Arts and Trades, which was the only school qualified in
the provision, then Art. 2180 CANNOT applyaka, the teachers cannot be held liable.
SC nevertheless ruled in this case that while Defendants Valenton and Quibulue can be held
jointly liable with Virgilio, Brillantes should be acquitted.
o The rationale of such liability to school heads and teachers for acts of their students, so
long as they remain in their custody, is that they stand, to a certain extent, in loco parentis
and are called upon to impose reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child. In the
law of torts, the protective of the school heads and teacher is mandatorily substituted for
that of the parents; hence, it becomes their obligation as well to provide proper
supervision of the students activities during the whole time that they are in school.
o Justice J.B.L. Reyes dissent in Exconde: the basis of the presumption of negligence in
[art. 2180] is some culpa in vigilando that the parents and/or teachers are supposed to
have incurred; where the parent places a child under the authority of the teacher, the latter
should be held liable for torts made by the student under his custody.
o Hence, the phrase so long as (the students) remain in their custody should now mean the
protective and supervisory custody that the school and its heads and teachers exercise
over the students. There is nothing in the law that says that the students must live and
board with their teachers so as to have the liability attached. Mercado as well as Exconde
set aside!
o Also, it is to be noted that the school is considered to be an Institution of Arts and Trade
(being a vocational school), so wala talaga silang kawala.
o Brillantes is acquitted because he was just a Board of Directors member, while the other
two (except Vigilio) are heads and teachers. Anyway, they can disprove liability by
proving that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damage.

WoN the damages of P6000.00 can be raised to )P12,000.00 ----- YES

-

The court noted People vs. Pantoja, where they raised the minimum compensatory amount for
damages for death from P6000 to P12,000.

Dissenting Opinion: Makalinal, J.

-

There is no reason to reverse Mercado and Exconde. The ruling of the majority is realistically
impossible considering the usual size of the school population, and that teachers and heads cannot
monitor each and every student present. By making them liable for almost anything, this ruling
has made the teachers vulnerable to damage suits for causes beyond their power to control.
Also, in the Civil Code, for there to be responsibility on the part of the parents, the child that has
done damage must be a minor. Applying analogy, for the teacher to be held responsible, the
student must only be a minor as well. In this case, however, Defendant Virgilio is not a minor;
hence, the teacher and head should not be held liable!

Concurring Opinion: Reyes, J.B.L., J.

Agrees with the majority opinion and would like to rebut the minority argument of J. Makalintal;
that as for teachers and heads, there is no such qualifier as that of the parents.
o If the commissioners of the code wanted the teacher to be held liable as well SOLELY for
minors who are in their custody and who did some shit, then they could have expressly
stated so! The fact that there is none indicates an intent that liability with regard to
teachers/heads is not limited to cases of persons underage.
o Also, it is to be noted that teachers and heads of scholarly departments are not grouped
together with parents and guardians, but with owners, managers of enterprises, and
employers of the state; professions that are not limited to the under age alone.