Pasco vs. Court of First Instance of Bulacan

Under the penultimate paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code, only teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades — not the school or university itself — are liable for damages caused by their pupils or students.

On August 24, 1979, Reynaldo Pasco, a student of Araneta University, was walking inside the campus with two companions after classes when a group of Muslim students, also enrolled in the same university, accosted and mauled him. One of them, Abdul Karim Madidis alias “Teng,” stabbed Pasco. The victim was hospitalised at the Manila Central University Hospital and underwent life-saving surgery. Pasco, assisted by his father, subsequently sued both Madidis and the university for damages, relying on the penultimate paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

• The Incident: On August 24, 1979, at about 5:00 p.m., petitioner Reynaldo Pasco — then a student of Araneta University — and two companions were walking inside the university campus after attending classes. They were accosted and mauled by a group of Muslim students, all enrolled in the same institution, led by Abdul Karim Madidis alias “Teng.” Petitioner was stabbed by Madidis and, as a result, underwent surgery at the Manila Central University Hospital.

• The Complaint: On October 5, 1979, petitioner, assisted by his father Pedro Pasco, filed a complaint for damages against Madidis and the Araneta University in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan (Civil Case No. SM-1027). The university was impleaded solely on the basis of the penultimate paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code, which speaks of liability of teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades for damages caused by their pupils or students.

• Motion to Dismiss: Respondent Araneta University moved to dismiss the complaint on three grounds: (a) the cited provision applies only to vocational schools, not to academic institutions; (b) civil liability for a felony attaches personally to the offender under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and the university committed no criminal act; and (c) no prior demand had been made, making the action premature.

• The trial court granted the motion on May 12, 1980, and denied reconsideration on July 17, 1980, prompting the instant petition.

• Applicability to Academic Institutions: Petitioner raised as the sole question of law whether the penultimate paragraph of Article 2180, which imposes liability on teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades, is equally applicable to academic institutions such as respondent university. No other argument was presented.

• Limited Scope of Article 2180: Respondent university maintained that the penultimate paragraph of Article 2180 applies exclusively to schools of arts and trades and not to academic institutions.

• Personal Nature of Criminal Civil Liability: Respondent argued that under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, civil liability arising from a felony is personal to the offender, and the university, which had not committed any criminal act, could not be held liable.

• Prematurity of Action: Respondent contended that the action for damages was premature in the absence of a prior demand.

• Scope of Vicarious Liability: Whether the penultimate paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code renders the school or university itself liable for injuries caused by its students, or whether liability attaches only to teachers or heads of establishments.

• Scope of Vicarious Liability: The provision imposes liability exclusively on teachers or heads, not on the school or university as an entity. The text of the penultimate paragraph of Article 2180 speaks only of “teachers or heads,” and no basis exists for extending its coverage to the institution itself. The school or university was therefore not a proper party defendant under the cited article. The Court expressly declined to address whether the provision applies to academic as well as vocational schools, because the petition was resolved on the narrower ground that the university could not be sued directly under the article.

• Strict construction of Article 2180, penultimate paragraph — The vicarious liability established by the penultimate paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code is strictly personal to the teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades. The text does not impose direct or subsidiary liability on the school or university as a juridical entity. Consequently, a complaint founded solely on this provision must be dismissed if directed against the school rather than against specifically named teachers or heads.

• “We find no necessity of discussing the applicability of the Article to educational institutions (which are not schools of arts and trades) for the issue in this petition is actually whether or not, under the article, the school or the university itself (as distinguished from the teachers or heads) is liable. We find the answer in the negative, for surely the provision concerned speaks only of ‘teachers or heads.’”

• N/A (no precedent was cited in the majority opinion).

• Article 2180, penultimate paragraph, Civil Code — “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 Court applied a strict textual reading and held that this language imposes liability only on teachers or heads, not on the school or university itself.

Yap, C.J., and Padilla, J., concurred.

• Sarmiento, J. (with Melencio-Herrera, J., concurring in the dissent): Paragraph 5 of Article 2180 may be construed as the basis for the school’s liability as employer, arising from the failure of its teachers or school heads to perform their mandatory legal duties as substitute parents. The dissenting opinion relied on Amadora v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-47745) for this proposition.
• Melencio-Herrera, J., dissenting: While the educational institution is not directly liable, the school, as employer, may be held liable for the omission of its teachers or school heads. The school, however, may exculpate itself by proving that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family.