Facts
On July 4, 1998, at around 7:30 a.m., Rico Villahermosa (Rico), the 16-year-old son of Teresita Villahermosa (Teresita), was cutting down a banana plant on the side of Maharlika Highway upon the instruction and under the supervision of Apolinario, his school principal. The banana plant fell and hit Francisco De Los Santos (Francisco), who was driving his motorcycle along Maharlika Highway at the time.
As a result, Francisco fell from his motorcycle and onto the cement highway. He suffered from head injuries and passed away on July 8, 1998, with his death certificate indicating “post-traumatic brain swelling” and ”diffuse cerebral contusion” as his cause of death. Aggrieved, the Heirs of Francisco filed a complaint for damages against Apolinario and Teresita. They averred that Apolinario was negligent when he instructed Rico to cut down the banana plant situated at the side of the highway without taking the necessary precautions to ensure the safety of passing motorists and pedestrians, and that Rico’s and Apolinario’s gross negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries and death of Francisco.
ISSUE: Is Apolinario, to the exclusion of Teresita, principally liable for damages to the Heirs of Francisco?
Ruling
Apolinario, as the teacher-in-charge of Rico at the time of the commission of the latter’s tortious act, is vicariously liable for damages.
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.
Guided by the foregoing, to determine whether Apolinario should be held vicariously liable for Rico’s tortious act, the following must be established: First, Rico committed an act for which a claim for damages bašed on quasi-delict can be sustained; Second, Apolinario is a teacher-in-charge under the law who had custody over Rico at the time of the commission of the act; and Third, Apolinario failed to show that he observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages. All these obtain here.
First, the Heirs incurred damages when Francisco sustained injuries and passed away from the incident. Second, Rico was negligent when he cut the banana plant without taking the necessary precautions, such as setting up early warning devices to adequately advise motorists along Maharlika Highway or requesting the assistance of an adult in directing motorists that may be affected. Third, Rico’s act of cutting down the banana plant without taking the necessary precautions resulted in the injuries and death of Francisco, and without which damages would not have been incurred.
Moreover, Apolinario 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 supervise the pupils in the specific classes or sections to which they are assigned. While Apolinario is the principal of the school, it is clear from the record that he closely supervised the pintakasi and his pupil Rico, and in fact, directly instructed Rico to cut down the plant immediately before the incident.
Finally, Apolinario failed to show that he exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the injuries and death of Francisco. As the principal of the school who supervised the activity, Apolinario 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.
All told, the RTC and CA did not err in holding Apolinario liable for damages on account of quasi-delict.