University of the Philippines College of Law

CPE, 1-D

Topic Teachers and Heads of Establishments of Arts and Trades

Case No. G.R. No. 82465 / February 25, 1991
Case Name ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL v. CA
Ponente PARAS, j.

RELEVANT FACTS

 Ferdinand Castillo, then a freshman student of Section 1-C at the St. Francis High School, wanted to join
a school picnic undertaken by Class I-B and Class I-C at Talaan Beach in Quezon. Ferdinand’s parents
didn’t allow him to join because of short notice, but they allowed him to ONLY bring food for the
teachers for the picnic, and that he should go back after doing so. However, because of persuasion of
the teachers, Ferdinand went on with them to the beach.
 During the picnic and while the students, including Ferdinand, were in the water, one of the female
teachers was apparently drowning. Some of the students, including Ferdinand, came to her rescue, but
in the process, it was Ferdinand himself who drowned.
 His parents then filed a civil case for damages against St. Francis High School, the principal, and the
teachers. Contending that the death of their son was due to the failure of the petitioners to exercise the
proper diligence of a good father of the family in preventing their son's drowning, respondents prayed
of actual, moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and expenses for litigation.
 The trial court found for respondents and found the teachers liable, since they didn’t exercise diligence
in making sure that the kids would be safe while swimming (there were deep areas). The trial court
dismissed the case against the school however, since there was no finding that the picnic was school-
sanctioned.
 Both the school and the spouses appealed to the CA. The CA found for the spouses and also found the
school liable under Art. 2180. It said that even if the picnic was not school-sponsored, it was supervised
by the teachers of the school. The principal had apparently known of the picnic even while it was being
planned and was even invited, and he didn’t express any prohibition to the picnic. Thus, the school and
the school officials had acquiesced to the picnic.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue
W/N there was negligence
attributable to the school
which will warrant the award
of damages to the parents of
Castillo
Ratio
NO.
Technically, the parents of Ferdinand actually allowed him to go to the picnic,
by giving him money even though they don’t know where it will be held. This
is a sign of consent for him to go.

W/N Art. 2180 is applicable Under Art. 2180, par. 4 (the one about employers), it is clear that before an
to the case at bar employer may be held liable for the negligence of his employee, the act or
omission which caused damage or prejudice must have occurred while an
employee was in the performance of his assigned tasks. The
teachers/petitioners were not in the actual performance of their assigned
tasks. The incident happened not within the school premises, not on a school
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CPE, 1-D

day and most importantly while the teachers and students were holding a
purely private affair, a picnic. It was not a school-sanctioned nor extra-
curricular activity.

Mere knowledge by the principal of the planning of the picnic by the students
and their teachers does not in any way or in any manner show acquiescence
or consent to the holding of the same. If we are to affirm the findings of the
CA, employers will forever be exposed to the risk and danger of being hailed
to Court to answer for the misdeeds or omissions of the employees even if
such act or omission he committed while they are not in the performance of
their duties.

The teachers have not been negligent to warrant the award of damages to
the parents. The class adviser exercised diligence of a good father of a family
to prevent any untoward incident or damages to all the students who joined
the picnic. She also invited a PE teacher and a scoutmaster who were well-
versed in first aid and swimming, and while they were at the beach they had
lifesavers. They also did their best in trying to revive Castillo after he had
drowned.

RULING

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the questioned decision dated November 19, 1987, finding petitioners herein guilty of
negligence and liable for the death of Ferdinand Castillo and awarding the respondents damages, is hereby SET
ASIDE insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned, but the portion of the said decision dismissing their
counterclaim, there being no merit, is hereby AFFIRMED.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

Padilla, J. dissenting:
The teachers were negligent. There was lack of diligence BEFORE the incident took place, even if they exercised
diligence AFTER. Petitioners-teachers failed to exercise the proper diligence or what Padilla refers to as
DILIGENCE BEFORE THE FACT. Would a prudent man in the position of the person to whom negligence is
attributed foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued?
If so, the law imposes the duty on the doer TO TAKE PRECAUTION against its mischievous results and the failure
to do so constitutes negligence.

The principal should have taken appropriate measures to ensure the safety of his students. It is precisely his
silence and negligence in performing his role as principal head of the school that must be construed as an
implied consent to such activity.

Educational institutions have responsibilities which cannot be equated with those of the ordinary employer or
business establishment. They must consider that their students are children of tender years who are in need of
adequate care, continuing attention and guidance.