7/29/2019 Palisoc v Brilliantes Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/palisoc-v-brilliantes-digest 1/2

PALISOC v. BRILLANTES

G.R. No. L-29025 October 4, 1971

FACTS:

Deceased Dominador Palisoc and defendant Virgilio Daffon were automotive mechanicsstudents at the Manila Technical Institute (MTI). In the afternoon of March 10, 1966 duringrecess, an altercation transpired between the deceased and the defendant. At the time of the

incident, Dominador was sixteen years old while Virgilio was already of age. Virgilio was

working on a machine with Dominador looking at them. The situation prompted Virgilio toremark that Dominador was acting like a foreman. As a result, Dominador slapped Virgilio on

the face. Virgilio retaliated by inflicting severe blows upon Dominador ’s stomach, which caused

the latter to stumble upon an engine block and faint. The latter died, the cause of death being

“shock due to traumatic fracture of the ribs”. The parents of Dominador filed an action for damages against (1) Virgilio, (2) Valenton, the head/president of MTI, (3) Quibule who was the

teacher in charge at the time of the incident, and (4) Brillantes who is a member of the board of 

directors and former sole proprietor of MTI.

The trial court held Virgilio liable but absolved the other defendants-officials. It stated that the

clause “so long as they remain in their custody” contained in Article 2180 of the Civil Code

applies only where the pupil lives and boards with the teachers, such that the control or influenceon the pupil supersedes those of the parents., and such control and responsibility for the pupil’s

actions would pass from the father and mother to the teachers. This legal conclusion was based

on the dictum in  Mercado v. CA, which in turn based its decision in  Exconde v. Capuno. Thetrial court held that Article 2180 was not applicable in this case, as defendant Virgilio did not

live with the defendants-officials at the time of the incident. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Who must be held liable for damages for the death of Dominador together with the defendant?

HELD:

The head/president and teacher of MTI (Valenton and Quibule respectively) were held liable

 jointly and severally with the Virgilio for damages. No liability attaches to Brillantes as a mere

member of the MTI board of directors. Similarly, MTI may not be held liable since it had not been properly impleaded as party defendant.

The phrase used in Article 2180, “so long as the students remain in their custody” means the

 protective and supervisory custody that the school and its heads and teachers exercise over the pupils and students for as long as they are at attendance in the school, including recess time.

There is nothing in the law that requires that for such liability to attach the pupil or student who

commits the tortuous act must live and board in the school. The dicta in the cases of Mercado as

well as in Exconde v. Capuno on which it relied are deemed to have been set aside. The rationaleof such liability of school heads and teachers for the tortious acts of their pupils and students, so

long as they remain in their custody, is that they stand, in loco parentis to a certain extent to their 

 pupils and students and are called upon to "exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child." In this case, The unfortunate death resulting from the fight between the protagonists-

7/29/2019 Palisoc v Brilliantes Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/palisoc-v-brilliantes-digest 2/2

students could have been avoided, had said defendants complied with their duty of providing

adequate supervision over the activities of the students in the school premises to protect their 

students from harm. Since Valenton and Quibule failed to prove that they observed all thediligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage, they cannot likewise avail of the

exemption to the liability. The judgment of the appellate court was modified, while claim for 

compensatory damages was increased in accordance with recent jurisprudence and the claim for exemplary damages denied in the absence of gross negligence on the part of the said defendants.