WHEN is a student considered in the school’s custody? Who is liable for the acts of students that result in injury to other students?
In the light of the continuing reports of school violence, the landmark case of Amadora v. Court of Appeals is instructive in determining the liabilities and accountabilities of schools, administrators and teachers-in-charge.
Alfredo Amadora was a graduating high school student at the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos. While he was in the auditorium of their school, a classmate fired a gun that mortally hit him, ending all his graduation expectations and his life as well. He was only 17 years old.
The assailant was convicted of the crime of homicide. Further, the victim’s family filed a separate civil action for damages against the school because he was in the custody of the school when the incident happened. They contended that their son was in the school to submit his physics experiment as a requirement for graduation. The school, however, argued that since the semester had already ended, Alfredo was no longer in their custody even if he was there to submit a report.
The court ruled that the school still has custody of a student as long as they exercise control and influence over him and within its premises, whether the semester has not yet begun or has already ended. During such periods, the student is still subject to the disciplinary authority of the school and cannot consider himself released altogether from observance of its rules.
While the student is in the custody of the school, it is the teacher-in-charge who must answer for his students’ actions, in the same way that the parents are responsible for the child when he is in their custody. 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. It is not necessary that at the time of the injury, the teacher be physically present and in a position to prevent it. Custody does not connote actual physical control but refers more to the influence exerted on the child and the discipline instilled in him. Thus, for injuries caused by the student, the teacher, and not the parent, shall be held responsible if the act was committed within the premises of the school.
As a matter of defense, the teacher-in-charge can show that he had taken the necessary precautions to prevent the injury complained of to avoid civil liability. The teacher may invoke this defense, as it would otherwise be unfair to hold him directly answerable for the damage caused by his students as long as they are on the school premises and presumably under his influence.
In the end, the Supreme Court ruled on the following in Amadora:
First, the rector, the high school principal, and the dean of boys could not be held liable because none of them was the teacher-in-charge as previously defined. Each of them was exercising only general authority over the student body, and not the direct control and influence exerted by the teacher placed in charge of particular classes or sections and thus immediately involved in their discipline.
Second, the teacher-in-charge was also not liable. His absence when the tragedy happened could not be considered against him because he was not supposed to or required to report to school on that day. And while it was true that the offending student was still in the custody of the teacher-in-charge even if the latter was physically absent when the tort was committed, it had not been established that it was caused by his laxness in enforcing discipline upon the student. On the contrary, the school proved that it had exercised due diligence through the enforcement of the school regulations, in maintaining that discipline.
Third, the school could not be held directly liable under Art. 2180 of the New Civil Code because only the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades was made responsible for the damage caused by the student.
In sum, the court found that none of the respondents were liable for the fatal shooting that resulted in a student’s death in the school auditorium.
It must be noted, however, that if a similar case happens, the family may seek damages against the school, not based on tort, but possibly based on breach of a contractual obligation to maintain a safe and secure learning environment.
The Amadora case stands as a sobering reminder of the delicate balance between the rights of students and the responsibilities of educational institutions and parents. As incidents of school violence continue to challenge our sense of safety, it is crucial for parents, schools, teachers and administrators to remain vigilant in upholding not only the law but also the moral duty to protect every child within their care. Ultimately, a community’s commitment to safeguarding its youth is measured not just by its legal decisions but by the proactive steps it takes to ensure that tragedies like Alfredo Amadora’s become a thing of the past.
