Salvosa vs. IAC

A student is not in the “custody” of a school for purposes of vicarious liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code unless the student is “at attendance in the school,” meaning under the school’s protective and supervisory custody; mere enrollment or presence on school premises does not suffice, and a student acting under the orders of an external authority (such as the AFP) is not within such custody.

Napoleon Castro, a University of Baguio student, was shot by Jimmy B. Abon on the evening of 3 March 1977 at the parking space of Baguio Colleges Foundation (BCF). Abon, a BCF commerce student, also served as armorer of the BCF ROTC Unit — a position to which he was appointed and paid by the Armed Forces of the Philippines. He used an unlicensed firearm taken from the ROTC armory housed in the BCF main building. Following Abon’s conviction for homicide by a military commission, the heirs of Castro sued Abon, BCF, and several of its officials for damages, anchoring their claim on Article 2180 of the Civil Code, which makes teachers and heads of schools of arts and trades liable for torts committed by their students while in their custody.

The Institution and the ROTC Unit:
Baguio Colleges Foundation (BCF) offered both academic and technical-vocational courses (Communication, Broadcast, Teletype Technician, Electronics Serviceman, Automotive Mechanics), and was therefore considered a school of arts and trades as well. Within its premises, BCF maintained an ROTC Unit under the control of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and provided an office and armory in the basement of its main building by way of accommodation to the AFP.

Abon’s Dual Status:
Jimmy B. Abon was a commerce student of BCF and concurrently the duly appointed armorer of the BCF ROTC Unit. He received his appointment and salary from the AFP and took orders from Captain Roberto C. Ungos, the ROTC Commandant, who was an AFP officer. Abon was not an employee of BCF.

The Shooting and Criminal Prosecution:
On 3 March 1977, at around 8:00 p.m., Abon shot Napoleon Castro, a University of Baguio student, with an unlicensed firearm he had taken from the ROTC armory. The incident occurred at the BCF parking space. Castro died. Abon was subsequently prosecuted for and convicted of Homicide by Military Commission No. 30, AFP.

The Civil Action for Damages:
The heirs of Castro sued Abon, Captain Ungos, BCF President Benjamin Salvosa, Executive Vice President Jesus Salvosa, Dean Libertad D. Quetolio, and BCF for damages. The trial court dismissed the case against all defendants except Abon, Benjamin Salvosa, and BCF, finding BCF to be an institution of arts and trades and holding the latter two solidarily liable with Abon under Article 2180. It awarded P12,000.00 death indemnity, P316,000.00 for loss of earning capacity, P5,000.00 moral damages, P6,000.00 actual damages, and P5,000.00 attorney’s fees. The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed liability but modified damages, reducing the loss of earning capacity to P30,000.00 temperate damages and increasing the death indemnity to P30,000.00. The appellate court reasoned that, although Abon was not attending a class at 8:00 p.m., he “must have been attending night classes” and the time was “just about dismissal time for him or soon thereafter,” thus safely within “recess time” under the Palisoc doctrine, and he remained in BCF’s custody.

Abon’s Instructions at the Time of the Incident:
Uncontroverted evidence showed that prior to the shooting, Captain Ungos had instructed Abon “not to leave the office and [to keep the armory] well guarded,” indicating Abon was supposed to be working as an armorer under AFP orders.

• Absence of Custody: Petitioners argued that Article 2180 liability requires the student to be in the school’s custody, and Abon was not attending any class or school function at the time; he was acting as an AFP-appointed armorer and not as a student under BCF’s supervision.
• Mixed Institutional Character: Petitioners also raised that a school offering both academic and technical/vocational courses cannot be held liable for a tort committed by a student enrolled solely in its academic program.

• Custody through Proximity to Dismissal: Respondents maintained that Abon remained under BCF’s protective and supervisory custody because the incident occurred within school premises at an hour proximate to the end of night classes, thus falling within the concept of “recess time” as defined in Palisoc v. Brillantes.

• Custody under Article 2180: Whether Jimmy B. Abon was in the protective and supervisory custody of Baguio Colleges Foundation at the time he shot Napoleon Castro, so as to render petitioners solidarily liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
• Scope of Article 2180 vis-à-vis Mixed Institutions: Whether a school offering both academic and technical/vocational courses may be held liable under Article 2180 for a tort committed by a student enrolled only in its academic program.

• Custody under Article 2180: No solidary liability arose because Abon was not “at attendance in the school” or under BCF’s protective and supervisory custody at the time of the shooting. The phrase “so long as they remain in their custody” in the penultimate paragraph of Article 2180 refers to the protective and supervisory custody exercised by the school “for as long as they are at attendance in the school, including recess time.” A “recess” contemplates a temporary adjournment of school activities where the student is not permitted to leave the premises and remains within call of a mentor; it does not include dismissal. The appellate court’s inference that Abon “must have been attending night classes” and that the hour was within recess time was erroneous. The mere fact of being enrolled or being on school premises does not constitute attending school or being in the school’s custody. Moreover, Abon was supposed to be working as an armorer under explicit instructions from his AFP superior, which negated the existence of school custody.
• Scope of Article 2180 vis-à-vis Mixed Institutions: In view of the primary ruling, this issue was deemed unnecessary to resolve.

• Custody Requirement under Article 2180 — Vicarious liability of schools of arts and trades for the torts of students attaches only “so long as they remain in their custody.” Custody means the protective and supervisory custody that the school exercises over students while they are “at attendance in the school, including recess time.”
• Recess is a temporary adjournment of school activities during which the student is not allowed to leave the premises and remains within call of a mentor; it does not include dismissal.
• Mere enrollment or presence on school premises is insufficient to establish custody.
• Application: Because Abon was working as an armorer under AFP orders and was not attending a class or school activity, BCF did not exercise supervisory custody over him at the time of the tort; hence, Article 2180 did not apply.

• “A ‘recess,’ as the concept is embraced in the phrase ‘at attendance in the school,’ contemplates a situation of temporary adjournment of school activities where the student still remains within call of his mentor and is not permitted to leave the school premises, or the area within which the school activity is conducted. Recess by its nature does not include dismissal. Likewise, the mere fact of being enrolled or being in the premises of a school without more does not constitute ‘attending school’ or being in the ‘protective and supervisory custody’ of the school, as contemplated in the law.”

• Palisoc v. Brillantes, 41 SCRA 548 — Followed. This case defined the meaning of “custody” under Article 2180 as the protective and supervisory custody lasting only while the student is “at attendance in the school, including recess time.” The ruling was applied to reverse the lower court’s expansive reading that encompassed mere proximity to dismissal time.

• Article 2180, Civil Code — Imposes vicarious liability on teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades for damages caused by their pupils or students “so long as they remain in their custody.” The provision was interpreted strictly to require actual attendance at school and active supervisory custody by the institution; it was held inapplicable where the student-tortfeasor was acting as an armorer under AFP orders and not in class.

Melencio-Herrera (Chairperson), Paras, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concur.