Tamargo

 Tamargo vs CA
Tamargo vs CA
GR No. 85044, June 3, 1992

FACTS:

In October 1982, Adelberto Bundoc, minor, 10 years of age, sot !ennifer

 Tamargo
 Tamargo "it
"it an air ri#e
ri#e causing in$uries
in$uries tat
tat resulted
resulted in er deat%
deat% Te
&etitioners, natural &arents of Tamargo, 'led a com&laint for damages against
te natural &arents of Adelberto "it "om e "as living te time of te tragic
incident%

In (ecember 1981, te s&ouses )a&isura 'led a &etition to ado&t Adelberto

Bundoc% *uc &etition "as granted on +ovember 1982 after te tragic
incident%

ISSUE: O+ &arental autority concerned may be given retroactive e-ect so as

to ma.e ado&ting &arents te indis&ensable &arties in a damage case 'led
against te ado&ted cild "ere actual custody "as lodged "it te biological
&arents%

HELD:

/arental liability is a natural or logical conseuence of duties and res&onsibilities

of &arents, teir &arental autority "ic includes instructing, controlling and
disci&lining te
te cild% In te case at bar, during
during te sooting incident,
incident, &arental
&arental
autority over Adelberto "as still lodged "it te natural &arents% It follo"s tat
tey are te indis&ensable &arties to te suit for damages% / /arents
arents and
guardians are res&onsible for te damage caused by te cild under teir
&arental autority in accordance "it te civil code%

*C did not consider tat retroactive e-ect may be given to te decree of
ado&tion so as to im&ose a liability u&on te ado&ting &arents accruing at te
time "en tey ad no actual or &ysical custody over te ado&ted cild%
)etroactivity may be essential if it &ermits accrual of some bene't or advantage
in favor of te ado&ted cild% 3nder Article 45 of te Cild and 6out
6out elfare
Code, &arental autority is &rovisionally vested in te ado&ting &arents during
te &eriod of trial custody o"ever in tis case, trial custody &eriod eiter ad
not yet begin nor ad been com&leted at te time of te sooting incident%
7ence, actual custody "as ten "it te natural &arents of Adelberto%

/etition for revie" "as ereby granted%

ibi vs IAC
Libi vs. AC

FACTS:

 !ulie Ann otiong and endell ibi "ere a s"eeteart until te former bro.e u&
"it te latter after se found out te endell "as irres&onsible and sadistic%
endell "anted reconciliation but "as not granted by !ulie so it &rom&ted im to
resort to treats% One day, tere "ere found dead from a single gunsot "ound
eac coming from te same gun% Te &arents of !ulie erein &rivate
res&ondents 'led a civil case against te &arents of endell to recover
damages% Trial court dismissed te com&laint for insu:ciency of evidence but
"as set aside by CA%

ISSUE: O+ te &arents sould be eld liable for suc damages%

HELD:

 Te subsidiary liability of &arents for damages caused by teir minor cildren
im&osed under Art 2180 of te Civil Code and Art% 101 of )evised /enal Code
covered obligations arising from bot uasi;delicts and criminal o-enses% Te
court eld tat te civil liability of te &arents for uasi;delict of teir minor
cildren is &rimary and not subsidiary and tat res&onsibility sall cease "en
te &ersons can &rove tat tey observe all te diligence of a good fater of a
family to &revent damage% 7o"ever, endell<s moter testi'ed tat er
usband o"ns a gun "ic e .e&t in a safety de&osit bo= inside a dra"er in
teir bedroom% >ac of te s&ouses ad teir o"n .ey% *e li.e"ise admitted
tat during te incident, te gun "as no longer in te safety de&osit bo=%
endell could not ave gotten old of te gun unless te .ey "as left
negligently lying around and tat e as free access of te moter<s bag "ere
te .ey "as .e&t% Te s&ouses failed to observe and e=ercise te reuired
diligence of a good fater to &revent suc damage%
Amadora vs CA
 Ama!ora vs. CA
GR No. L4""45, A#ri$ 15, 1988

FACTS?

Alfredo Amadora, "ile in te auditorium of te scool, "as mortally it by a
gun by /ablito (a-on resulting to te former<s deat% (a-on "as convicted of
omicide troug rec.less im&rudence% Te victim<s &arents, erein &etitioners,
'led a civil action for damages against Colegio de *an !ose;)ecoletos, its
rectors, ig scool &rinci&al, dean of boys, te &ysics teacer togeter "it
(a-on and 2 oter students% Com&laints against te students "ere dro&&ed%
)es&ondent Court absolved te defendants com&letely and reversed C@I Cebu<s
decision for te follo"ing reasons? 1% *ince te scool "as an academic
institution of learning and not a scool of arts and trades 2% Tat students "ere
not in te custody of te scool since te semester as already ended 4% Tere
"as no clear identi'cation of te fatal gun, and % In any event, defendants
e=ercised te necessary diligence troug enforcement of te scool regulations
in maintaining disci&line% /etitioners on ote oter and claimed teir son "as
under scool custody because e "ent to scool to com&ly "it a reuirement
for graduation submission of /ysics re&orts%

ISSUE: O+ Collegio de *an !ose;)ecoletos sould be eld liable%

HELD:

 Te time Alfredo "as fatally sot, e "as in te custody of te autorities of te
scool not"itstanding classes ad formally ended "en te incident
a&&ened% It "as immaterial if e "as in te scool auditorium to 'nis is
&ysics reuirement% at "as im&ortant is tat e "as tere for a legitimate
&ur&ose% On te oter and, te rector, ig scool &rinci&al and te dean of
boys cannot be eld liable because none of tem "as te teacer;in;carge as
de'ned in te &rovision% >ac "as e=ercising only a general autority over te
students and not direct control and in#uence e=erted by te teacer &laced in;
carge of &articular classes%
In te absence of a teacer; in carge, dean of boys sould &robably be eld
liable considering tat e ad earlier con'scated an unlicensed gun from a
student and later returned to im "itout ta.ing disci&linary action or re&orting
te matter to te iger autorities% Toug it "as clear negligence on is &art,
no &roof "as so"n to necessarily lin. tis gun "it te sooting incident%

Collegio *an !ose;)ecoletos cannot directly be eld liable under te &rovision
because only te teacer of te ead of scool of arts and trade is made
res&onsible for te damage caused by te student% 7ence, under te facts
disclosed, none of te res&ondents "ere eld liable for te in$ury in#icted "it
Alfredo resulting to is deat%

/etition "as denied%

I. MEANING OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND QUASI-DELICT

Dicarious iability is a legal doctrine in tort la" tat im&oses res&onsibility u&on
one &erson for te failure of anoter or assigns liability for an in$ury to a &erson
"o did not cause te in$ury but "it "om te &erson as a s&ecial legal
relationsi& to e=ercise suc care as a reasonably &rudent &erson "ould use
under similar circumstances% It is also referred to as im&uted negligence%

egal relationsi&s tat can lead to im&uted negligence include te relationsi&
bet"een &arent and cild, usband and "ife, o"ner of a veicle and driver, and
em&loyer and em&loyee and te li.es% Ordinarily te inde&endent negligence of 
one &erson is not im&utable to anoter &erson%E1F
Sample Illus!a"#$
>ager to start your day, you run into te local diner to grab a cu& of co-ee and a
donut% en te "aitress arrives to &our your co-ee, you notice tat se is a bit
"obbly on er feet% 6ou also notice se is "earing a medical alert bracelet, but
don<t &ay muc attention to it% *e &ours te steaming ot co-ee in your cu&,
on te table and even your la&% After letting out a loud yel&, it becomes &ainfully
obvious tat you reuire medical attention to treat your 'rst;degree burns% Tis
means you "ill be out of "or., unable to "ear &ants and need costly follo";u&
care%

 Te "aitress "as unable to &erform er $ob due to "at could ave been a
medical condition% *omeone must &ay, but it is te em&loyer tat "ill bear te
brunt of tis "aitress<s actions% 6ou see, te doctrine of vicarious liability olds
tat tere can be a &erson res&onsible for te actions of anoter because of a
s&ecial relationsi& te &arties maintain% E2F
 Quas"-Del"%
oever by act or omission causes damage to anoter, tere being fault or
negligence, is obliged to &ay for te damage done% *uc fault or negligence, if 
tere is no &re;e=isting contractual relation bet"een te &arties, is called a
uasi;delict%E4F
Guasi;delicts give rise to a liability or an obligation to &ay for te damage done,
and tis obligation is demandable not only for one<s o"n acts or omissions, but
also for tose of &ersons for "om one is res&onsible%

A uasi;delict may be &ublic or &rivateH te neglect of te a-airs of a

community, "en it is our duty to attend to tem, may be a crimeH te neglect
of a &rivate matter, under similar circumstances, may be te ground of a civil
action%EF
II.LEGAL BASIS OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY
Article 2180 of te Civil Code enumerates tose "o are sub$ect to tis vicarious
liability, among tem are teacers and eads of establisments of arts and
trades "it res&ect to teir &u&ils and students  and apprentices so long as they remain
in their custodyE5F% In order tat one may not be made to satisfy tis liability, one
needs to &rove tat te diligence of a good fater of a family "as observed to
&revent damage%
Mea$"$& O' Cus#() As Use( I$ A!"%le *+,
 Te *u&reme Court re'ned te de'nition of custody as used in Article 2180% In
Amadora v% CA it "as eld not to mean te student must be boarding "it te
scool autorities, but it does signify tat te student sould be "itin te
control and under te in#uence of te scool autorities at te time of te
occurrence of te in$ury, "eter te semester or scool term as not yet begun
or as already ended% As long as te student is still sub$ect to te disci&linary
autority of te scool and cannot consider imself released altogeter from
observance of its rules, e is in te custody of te scool%

Also, as long as te student is in te scool &remises in &ursuance of a

legitimate student ob$ective, in te e=ercise of a legitimate student rigt, and
even in te en$oyment of a legitimate student &rivilege Eli.e doing noting but
rela=ing in te cam&us in te com&any of is classmatesF te res&onsibility of
te scool autorities over te student continues%

III. D#%!"$e #' in $o%o #aren&is

*cool eads and teacers are sub$ect to tis vicarious liability because tey
stand, to a certain e=tent, as to teir &u&ils or students, in loco parentis or as
substitute &arents, as e=&ressly &rovided under Article 218 of te @amily Code%
*cools e=ercise teir educational functional &rinci&ally troug teir
administrators and teacers, "ile &arents e=ercise teir &arental autority by
sending teir cildren to scool to com&ly "it teir duty to educate tem
according to teir means, as &rovided in Article 220 of te @amily Code, and
Article 2 of te Cild and 6out elfare Code, as amended%

Conseuently, "en &arents send teir minor cild to scool, tey must
necessarily &ass on or sare teir &arental autority, teir custody over te
cild, and te res&onsibility to educate teir cild &ro&erly "it te scool, its
administrators and teacers tem&orarily, as te latter sall assume suc during
all te time te cild is under teir su&ervision and instruction% Tis, in essence,
is te &rinci&le of substituted &arental autority% EJF
A teacer<s liability arises from te failure to &rovide due diligence in te
&erformance of te res&onsibilities tat come "it te substituted &arental
autority%EF A teacer must not only be carged "it teacing but also
vigilance over teir students or &u&ils% itout te &arents to loo. after teir
cildren "en in scool, it is te teacer "o ta.es over in te su&ervision% It is
tus 'tting tat te basis of a teacer<s liability is te &rinci&le of in loco
&arentis "ic, according to Blac.<s (ictionary, means in te &lace of a
&arent%E8F
  Te la" olds te teacers and eads of te scool sta- liable unless tey
relieve temselves of suc liability &ursuant to te last &aragra& of Article
2180 by &roving tat tey observed all te diligence to &revent damage% E9F
 Te la" also a&&lies to all .inds of educational institutions, academic or
vocational%E10F  en an academic institution acce&ts students for enrollment,
tere is establised a contract bet"een tem, resulting in bilateral obligations
"ic bot &arties are bound to com&ly "it% Te contract bet"een scool and
student is one imbued "it &ublic interest but a contract noneteless%E11F
@or its &art, te scool underta.es to &rovide te student "it an education tat
"ould &resumably su:ce to eui& im "it te necessary tools and s.ills to
&ursue iger education or a &rofession% On te oter and, te student
covenants to abide by te scool<s academic reuirements and observe its rules
and regulations%E12F
In all suc cases, it ad been stressed tat te la" Article 2180 &lainly
&rovides tat te damage sould ave been caused or in#icted by &u&ils or
students of te educational institution sougt to be eld liable for te acts of its
&u&ils or students "ile in its custody%E14F
 IV. Te /al"s#% D#%!"$e:
 Te case of *&ouses /alisoc v% Brillantes, et al%,E1F raised into a doctrine te
idea tat teacers are res&onsible for te acts of teir students, not only minors
but tose emanci&ated as "ell%
(ominador /alisoc, deceased son of &etitioners s&ouses /alisoc, and te
defendant Dirgilio (a-on "o "as not a minor "ere classmates at te Kanila
 Tecnical Institute% Tere "as a 'gt during recess time, and (a-on caused te
deat of (ominador /alisoc% Te trial court found (a-on res&onsible for
(ominador<s deat, and sentenced im to &ay damages% 7o"ever, te o"ner
Antonio Brillantes and te &resident Teodosio Dalenton of Kanila Tecnical
Institute KTI and te teacer in carge of te students at tat time *antiago
Guibulue "ere absolved% Te s&ouses a&&ealed%

In tis &articular case te action "as instituted directly against te scool
o:cials, and te *u&reme Court ad te occasion to decide directly on te
uestion of te liability of teacers and eads of scools under Article 2180,
Civil Code for damages caused by teir &u&ils and students against fello"
students on te scool &remises% Te *u&reme Court eld tat defendants
Dalenton /resident of KTI and Guibulue teacer in carge "ere liable%

According to te 7ig Tribunal, te deat resulting from te 'gt of te students
could ave been avoided if Dalenton and Guibulue ad com&lied "it teir duty
of &roviding adeuate su&ervision over te activities of te students in te
scool &remises to &rotect teir students from arm, "eter at te ands of 
fello" students or oter &arties%

 Te construction of te &rase so long as te students remain in teir
custody &reviously it "as understood to mean tat te student actually
boarded in te scool,E15F no" it "as understood to mean te &rotective and
su&ervisory custody tat te scool and its eads and teacers e=ercise over
te &u&ils and students for as long as tey are at attendance in te scool,
including recess time% In oter "ords it is not necessary tat te student actually
boarded in te scoolH as long as tey are at attendance in scool, te scool
autorities "ill be liable%
 Te scool ead and te teacer;in;carge "ere found liable, even if (a-on "as
already of age at te time of te commission of te o-ense% Tere "as intent
tat te liability be not restricted to te case of &ersons under age% @urtermore,
teacers and eads of scolarly establisments are not grou&ed "it &arents
and guardians but ranged "it o"ners and managers of enter&rises, em&loyers
and te state, as to "om no reason is discernible to im&ly tat tey sould
ans"er only for minors% Te res&onsibility of te teacers and scool eads are
more &lenary tan tat of te &arents%E1JF
According to !ustice )eyes in is concurring o&inion?

“While in the case of parents and guardians, their authority and supervision
over the children and wards end by law upon the latter reaching majority age,
the authority and custodial supervision over pupils exist regardless of the age of 
the latter.
 A student over twenty-one, by enrolling and attending a school, places himself 
under the custodial supervision and disciplinary authority of the school
authorities, which is the basis of the latter’s correlative responsibility for his
torts, committed while under such authority. f course, the teachers’ control is
not as plenary as when the student is a minor! but that circumstance can only 
a"ect the decree of the responsibility but cannot negate the existence thereof.
#t is only a factor to be appreciated in determining whether or not the defendant 
has exercised due diligence in endeavoring to prevent the injury, as prescribed
in the last paragraph of Article $%&'.( 

V. LIABILITIES OF ACADEMIC AND TECHNICAL SCHOOLS

 Te /alisoc doctrine a&&lies to all scools, "eter academic or non;academic%

E1F Tis "as settled in te Amadora case%E18F Te *u&reme Court did not see
any substantial distinction bet"een an academic scool and a non;academic
scool "it res&ect to torts committed by teir students% @or tem, te same
vigilance of te teacer "it res&ect to te safety of is students sould be
e=&ected, "eter it te scool is academic or tecnical%
 In academic scools, te liability attaces to te teacer, "ile in a tecnical
scool, te liability attaces to te eadE19F
According to te *u&reme Court?
)he reason for the disparity can be traced to the fact that historically the head
of the school of arts and trades exercised a closer tutelage over his pupils than
the head of the academic school. )he old schools of arts and trades were
engaged in the training of artisans apprenticed to their master who personally 
and directly instructed them on the techni*ue and secrets of their craft.
)he head of the school of arts and trades was such a master and so was
 personally involved in the tas+ of teaching his students, who usually even
boarded with him and so came under his constant control, supervision and
inuence.
y contrast, the head of the academic school was not as involved with his
students and exercised only administrative duties over the teachers who were
the persons directly dealing with the students. )he head of the academic school
then has only a vicarious relationship with the students.
onse*uently, while he could not be directly faulted for the acts of the students,
the head of the school of arts and trades, because of his closer ties with them,
could be so blamed.
 Te Court conceded o"ever tat te distinction no longer obtains at &resent
because of te e=&ansion of tecnological scools, te increase in teir
enrolment, and te decrease of te direct and &ersonal contact of vocational
scool eads "it teir students%

e no longer ave masters and a&&rentices toiling in scools of arts and trades%
*tudents in tecnological  colleges and universities are no different from students in liberal
arts or professional schools. Apprentices now work in regular shops and factories and their
relationsi& to te em&loyer is covered by la"s governing te em&loyment
relationsi& and not by la"s governing te teacer student relationsi&% E20F
VI. LIABILITY OF THE SCHOOL ON ACTS OF A STRANGER AND
ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE OF THE SCHOOL
In te /*BA caseE21F altoug te &erson in$ured "as a student of /*BA, te
&erson tat caused te in$ury "as not a student of /*BA% Art% 2180 on uasi;
delict "ould naturally not a&&ly as it reuires tat te damage sould be caused
by a student of te educational institution% 7o"ever, te Court eld tat
altoug 2180 does not a&&ly, te scool<s liability can arise from a breac in
contract as "en an educational institution acce&ts students for enrolment,
tere e=ists a contract "ic is one imbued "it &ublic interest% Tis contract
&roduces bilateral obligations, and one of te scool<s obligations is to &rovide
teir students "it an atmos&ere tat is conducive in furtering teir &rimary
&ur&ose "ic is to im&art .no"ledge%
A similar ruling "as ado&ted in te case of )egino v% /angasinan Colleges of 
*cienceand TecnologyE22F "ere it u&eld te scool;student relationsi& as
contractual in nature% In te case of *oliman altoug te Court eld tat te
scool "as not liable for te acts of te scool security guard "ose em&loyer
"as a security agency, te court still u&eld te scool;student contractual
relationsi&%E24F
Kay a teacer esca&e liability for outings and activities eld outside te scool
but autoriLed by te scoolM Art 218 of te @amily Code states tat autority
and res&onsibility sall a&&ly to all autoriLed activities "eter inside or
outside te &remises of te scool, entity or institution% E2F In te case of *t%
Kary<s AcademyE25F, te Court eld tat s&ecial &arental autority and
res&onsibility a&&lies to all autoriLed activities, "eter inside or outside te
scool &remises%
VII. DEFENSE AGAINST LIABILITY 
 To avoid res&onsibility and liability, te teacer must &rove tat due diligence
"as observed% As to te .ind of due diligence, te last &aragra& of Art 2180 is
clear N Te &ersons must &rove tat tey ave observed all te diligence of a
good fater of a family to &revent damage% Tis can only be done at a trial on
te merits of te case%

 Te case of Amadora and *t @rancis,E2JF te accused &arties ave &roven tat
tey ave e=ercised te diligence reuired of tem by la" under te
circumstances to guard against te arm tey ad foreseen%
 Te court eld?
“)he school can show that it exercised proper measure in selecting the head or 
its teachers and the appropriate supervision over them in the custody and
instruction of pupils pursuant to its rules and regulations for the maintenance
among them. #n fact, these measures are a"ected through the assistance of an
ade*uate security force to help the teacher physically enforce the rules upon
the students. #t bolster the claim of the school that it has ta+en ade*uate steps
to prevent any injury that may be committed by the students.( 
VIII. 0AIVERS

Can a teacer or scool esca&e res&onsibility by as.ing &arents to 'le a "aiver

during 'eld tri&s and outingsM Tis issue is closely related to liabilities outside
scool and Art 218 is clear tat autority and res&onsibility sall a&&ly to all
autoriLed activities "eter inside or outside te &remises of te scool, entity
or institution% In te case of *t% @rancis, te Court still eld some teacers
res&onsible des&ite te fact tat te &arent &ermitted te cild to go to te
&icnic%

I1. ILLUSTRATIVE CASES

S%##l #' e H#l) Sp"!" 2s C#!a3#$ /. Ta&u"am4*56
)es&ondent CoraLon /% Taguiam "as te Class Adviser of te &etitioner, *cool
of te 7oly *&irit of GueLon City% On Karc 10, 2000, te class &resident, "rote
a letter to te grade scool &rinci&al reuesting &ermission to old a year;end
celebration at te scool grounds% Te &rinci&al autoriLed te activity and
allo"ed te &u&ils to use te s"imming &ool% In tis connection, res&ondent
distributed te &arent<sguardian<s &ermit forms to te &u&ils%

)es&ondent admitted tat Ciara Kae @ederico<s &ermit form "as unsigned%
+everteless, se concluded tat Ciara Kae "as allo"ed by er moter to $oin
te activity since er moter &ersonally brougt er to te scool "it er
&ac.ed lunc and s"imsuit%
 Before te activity started, res&ondent "arned te &u&ils "o did not
.no" o" to s"im to avoid te dee&er area% 7o"ever, "ile te &u&ils "ere
s"imming, t"o of tem snea.ed out% )es&ondent "ent after tem to verify
"ere tey "ere going%

3nfortunately, "ile res&ondent "as a"ay, Ciara Kae dro"ned% en

res&ondent returned, te maintenance man "as already administering
cardio&ulmonary resuscitation on Ciara Kae% *e "as still alive "en
res&ondent rused er to te eneral Kalvar 7os&ital "ere se "as
&ronounced dead on arrival%

/etitioners dismissed res&ondent on te ground of gross negligence resulting to

loss of trust and con'dence% Kean"ile, Ciara Kae<s &arents 'led a / Killion
damage suit against &etitioners and res&ondent, among oters% Tey also 'led
against res&ondent a criminal com&laint for rec.less im&rudence resulting in
omicide%

 Te Court eld tat As a teacer "o stands in loco &arentis to er &u&ils,
res&ondent sould ave made sure tat te cildren "ere &rotected from all
arm "ile in er com&any% )es&ondent sould ave .no"n tat leaving te
&u&ils in te s"imming &ool area all by temselves may result in an accident% A
sim&le reminder not to go to te dee&est &art of te &ool"as insu:cient to
cast a"ay all te serious dangers tat te situation &resented to te cildren,
es&ecially "en res&ondent .ne" tat Ciara Kae cannot s"im% (ismally,
res&ondent created an unsafe situation "ic e=&osed te lives of all te &u&ils
concerned to real danger% Tis is a clear violation not only of te trust and
con'dence re&osed on er by te &arents of te &u&ils but also of te scool%

1. CONCLUSION
 Te essence of te &rinci&le of substituted &arental autority is tat "en
&arents send teir minor cild to scool, tey must necessarily &ass on or sare
teir &arental autority, teir custody over te cild, and te res&onsibility to
educate teir cild &ro&erly "it te scool, its administrators and teacers
tem&orarily, as te latter sall assume suc during all te time te cild is under
teir su&ervision and instruction%

A teacer, "o stands in loco &arentis to er &u&ils, sould ma.e sure tat te
cildren "ere &rotected from all arm "ile in er com&any% An academic
institution acce&ts students for enrollment, tere is establised a contract
bet"een tem, resulting in bilateral obligations "ic bot &arties are bound to
com&ly "it% Te contract bet"een scool and student is one imbued "it
&ublic interest but a contract noneteless%

 Te la" olds te teacers and eads of te scool sta- liable unless tey
relieve temselves of suc liability &ursuant to te last &aragra& of Article
2180 by &roving tat tey observed all te diligence to &revent damage%

E1F 3* Tort a" (ictionary

E2F Taugt by Pat Padian;Baumeyer
E4F Article 21J, Civil Code of te /ili&&ines
EF Bo"y% Kod% C% % c% 4, &% 2J5
E5F /aragra&  of Article 2180 of te Civil Code
EJF *angco, /ili&&ine a" on Torts and (amages, 502 199%
EF *angco, /ili&&ine a" on Torts and (amages, 502 199
E8F A% Tolentino, Commentaries and !uris&rudence on te Civil Code of te
/ili&&ines, J181992
E9F )ollo, &% 5
E10F /*BA vs CA %)% +o% 8J98 @ebruary , 1992
E11F In +on vs% (ames II, %)% +o% 8941, 20 Kay 1990, 185 *C)A 545,
E12F /*BA vs CA %)% +o% 8J98 @ebruary , 1992
E14F Amadora vs% Court of A&&eals, %)% +o% ;5, 15 A&ril 1988, 1J0 *C)A
415
E1F %)% +o% ;29025, October , 191
E15F as enunciated in >=conde and Kerc
E1JF !ustice )eyes in is concurring o&inion in /alisoc case %)% +o% ;29025,
October , 191
E1F Amadora case, %)% +o% ;5, A&ril 15, 1988
E18F %)% +o% ;5, A&ril 15, 1988
E19F *u&reme Court in Amadora Case
E20F !% uttierreL, in er concurring o&inion
E21F /ili&&ine *cool of Business Administration v% Court of A&&eals,
%)% +o%8J98, @ebruary, 1992,205 *C)A 29
E22F )egino v% /angasinan Colleges of *cienceand Tecnology, %)% +o% 15J109,
+ovember18, 200, 4 *C)A 5J
E24F *oliman, !r v% TuaLon, %)% +o% JJ20, Kay 18, 1992, 209 *C)A 1
E2F @amily Code
E25F *t% Kary<s Academy v% Car&itanos, %)% +o%144J4, @ebruary J, 2002, 4J
*C)A 4
E2JF *t% @rancis 7ig *cool v% Court of A&&eals,su&ra%
E2F %)% +o% 1J55J5 !uly 1, 2008
Share this:

•  T"itter

• @aceboo.

• oogle

 Torts, vicarious liability, DICA)IO3* IABIIT6 O@ T>AC7>)* A+( >(3CATIO+A

I+*TIT3TIO+*custody, (octrine of in loco &arentis, &alisoc doctrine, uasi delict, scool
liabilities , vicarious liability