Scribd
Upload
3 views1 page

Digest on Palisoc vs Brilliantes

In the case of Palisoc vs Brilliantes, the Supreme Court reversed a trial court's decision that absolved school officials from liability for a student's death caused by a fellow student during school hours. The Court clarified that Article 2180 of the Civil Code applies to the protective custody schools have over students, regardless of whether they live with the teachers. Consequently, the school officials were found jointly and severally liable for the incident due to inadequate supervision, while the school itself could not be held liable as it was not properly impleaded.

Uploaded by

Erika Reyes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3 views1 page

Digest on Palisoc vs Brilliantes

In the case of Palisoc vs Brilliantes, the Supreme Court reversed a trial court's decision that absolved school officials from liability for a student's death caused by a fellow student during school hours. The Court clarified that Article 2180 of the Civil Code applies to the protective custody schools have over students, regardless of whether they live with the teachers. Consequently, the school officials were found jointly and severally liable for the incident due to inadequate supervision, while the school itself could not be held liable as it was not properly impleaded.

Uploaded by

Erika Reyes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Palisoc vs Brilliantes, GR L-29025, Oct.

4, 1971

Facts: Dominador Palisoc, a sixteen-year-old student at the Manila Technical Institute, a


school of arts and trades, died on March 10, 1966, after being fatally injured by a fellow
student, Virgilio L. Daffon, during a fight in the school's laboratory room while classes
were in recess. Dominador's parents filed an action for damages against Daffon, the
school's owner, president, and instructor. The trial court found Daffon liable for quasi-
delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code for inflicting the fatal blows but absolved the
school officials.

The trial court concluded that Article 2180 of the Civil Code, which makes teachers and
heads of establishments of arts and trades liable for damages caused by their students,
was not applicable because the student did not live and board with the teacher or
officials. The court relied on previous Supreme Court dicta suggesting that the phrase "so
long as they remain in their custody" in Article 2180 contemplated a situation where the
pupil boarded with the teacher, thus superseding parental control. The parents appealed
this absolution of the school officials.

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in absolving the school officials by holding that
Article 2180 of the Civil Code, which imposes liability on teachers and heads of
establishments of arts and trades for damages caused by their students, only applies if
the student lives and boards with the teacher or school head.

Ruling: The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's absolution of the school officials
(the president and teacher-in-charge). The Court held that the lower court erred in
interpreting the phrase "so long as they remain in their custody" as requiring the
student to live and board with the teacher or school official. Instead, the Court clarified
that this phrase means the protective and supervisory custody exercised by the school,
its heads, and teachers over students while they are in attendance at the school,
including recess time. The Court stated that the basis for this liability is the in loco
parentis role school heads and teachers assume, requiring them to exercise reasonable
supervision and protect students from harm by fellow students or others.

The Court ruled that under Article 2180, the head and teacher of the Manila Technical
Institute were jointly and severally liable for the death of the student caused by the fellow
student. This is because the unfortunate death could have been avoided with adequate
supervision. The liability attaches unless they prove they observed all the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent the damage. The Court found that the defendants failed
to prove such exemption. The Court also clarified that the school itself could not be held
liable in this specific case because it was not properly impleaded as it had been
incorporated. The Court also noted its view that Article 2180 should apply to academic
institutions as well, though the school here was non-academic.

You might also like