G.R. No. 219686 – Civil Law – Torts and Damages – Article 2180; Quasi-Delicts – Vicarious Liability of School Heads for the Tortious Acts of their Students
Persons and Family Relations – Family Code – Substitute Parental Authority – Liability of School Heads
Remedial Law – Evidence – Documentary Evidence – Proof of Loss of Income Must Be Documentary; Not proven by mere judicial notice
In July 1998, Rico Villahermosa, a 16-year old student of the Barangay Palale Elementary School (BPES), cut down a banana plant which grew at the side of the school just beside the national highway. The banana fell on Francisco De Los Santos who was then riding his motorcycle. As a result, Francisco fell from his motorcycle and was brought to the hospital. Four days later, he died. His death was attributed to the banana falling on him.
Francisco’s heirs then sued Gil Apolinario and Teresita Villahermosa for damages. Gil is the principal of BPES while Teresita is the mother of Rico. The heirs alleged that Gil was the one who directed Rico to cut the banana plant; that Gil was negligent when he failed to take precautions in ensuring the safety of passing motorists while Rico was cutting the banana. The heirs sought to collect damages including loss of income.
Gil denied liability. He argued that the activity was organized by the parents and teachers; that he was not supervising Rico at that time because he was supervising the construction of a fence; that the incident happened on a Saturday which was not a school day; that it should be Teresita who should be liable; and that if there is any one from the school who is liable it should be the teacher-in-charge.
Teresita also denied liability as it should be Gil who should be liable as the school principal having supervision over Rico.
The trial court ruled in favor of the heirs. It ruled that the evidence presented proved that it was Gil who instructed Rico to cut the banana and that Gil failed to observe precautions. The trial court, though the heirs failed to present documentary proof as to Francisco’s employment and income, took cognizance of the fact that Francisco was a municipal councilor earning Php12k a month. The trial court awarded Php428k in favor of the heirs for unearned income. The trial court ruled that only Gil is liable.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Gil is liable for the tortious act of Rico.
2. Whether or not Francisco’s loss of earning capacity was sufficiently proven.
HELD:
1. Yes. Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides that whoever causes damage to another by reason of negligence is obliged to pay for the damage. Article 2180 further provides that teachers or school heads shall be liable for the damages caused by their students. Further, Article 218 and 219 of the Family Code provide that teachers and school heads have special parental authority over their students and are thus principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by their students.
Teachers and school heads may avoid liability if they prove that they observed all the diligence required of a good father of a family to prevent damage. Here, it was established that Rico indeed caused damage; that at the time of the damage, Gil was the one supervising him; and that Gil did not observe the required diligence as he failed to exercise all precautions like setting up early warning devices to warn motorists of the banana cutting activity being done by the roadside.
Anent Gil’s argument that it if any one from the school is liable then it should be the teacher-in-charge, it was already ruled in previous cases that “teacher-in-charge” includes the school principal.
Anent Gil’s argument that Teresita should be liable the SC ruled that it can no longer make Teresita liable as she was not impleaded on appeal by Gil. The SC however recognized that had Teresita been impleaded on appeal, she should have been liable under Article 219 of the Family Code.
2. No. The award of Php428k for loss of earning capacity was not proven during trial. As a rule, damages for loss of earning capacity should be proven by documentary evidence. Testimonial evidence from the relatives of the deceased is not sufficient to prove loss of earning capacity. Neither may the court simply take judicial notice of what a councilor usually earns in a month. Under Sec. 2, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, courts may take judicial notice of matters of public knowledge. The salary of a councilor is not a matter of public knowledge. Though there is a law fixing the limit of salaries earned by councilors, the actual salary may be set by the local sanggunian via ordinances. Here the SC made a distinction: courts are mandated to take judicial notice of official acts of the national government but it may not do so for local government units. Hence, there is no mandatory judicial notice for local ordinances.
Nevertheless, based on established jurisprudence, absent any proof to substantiate the amount claimed for loss of earning capacity, courts may still grant temperate damages in the amount of Php250k which the SC granted to the heirs in lieu of actual damages for loss of earning capacity.
