Liability for death of students in school shooting

The fatal shooting of school children in Tacloban City yesterday brings to mind the principle of "in loco parentis", which is a Latin legal doctrine meaning "in the place of a parent". In schools, it establishes that teachers and administrators assume partial parental rights and duties to supervise, protect, and discipline students while they are on campus or under school supervision.

Under Article 218 of the Family Code: "The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution engaged in child care shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody. Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution."

Article 129 of the same Code provides: "Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable."

Under the same provision, "The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances. All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts."

On April 13, 1972, a young graduating high school student was shot dead inside the campus of the former Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos (now University of San Jose-Recoletos). His name was Alfredo Amadora, the son of the city prosecutor, Atty. Jose Amadora, who was from my father's town of Dumanjug, Cebu. His brother, Romeo, a lawyer, became a mayor of that town.

The official records of the case of Jose Amadora et al v. Court of Appeals and Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, G.R. No. L-47745 April 15, 1988, showed that like any prospective graduate, Alfredo Amadora was looking forward to the commencement exercises where he would ascend the stage and in the presence of his relatives and friends receive his high school diploma. These ceremonies were scheduled on April 16, 1972.

The decision stated: “As it turned out, though, fate would intervene and deny him that awaited experience. On April 13, 1972, while they were in the auditorium of their school, the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, a classmate, Pablito Daffon, fired a gun that mortally hit Alfredo, ending all his expectations and his life as well. The victim was only seventeen years old.”

In fairness to the Colegio de San Jose Recoletos, the Supreme Court held that the school was not liable because there were no classes and the administration was not expected to be in loco parentis when there were no classes. Daffon was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence. But since he was also a minor he was not held criminally liable.

Additionally, the herein petitioners, as the victim's parents, filed a civil action for damages under Article 2180 of the Civil Code against the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, its rector the high school principal, the dean of boys, and the physics teacher, together with Daffon and two other students, through their respective parents. The complaint against the students was later dropped.

After trial, the Court of First Instance of Cebu held the remaining defendants liable to the plaintiffs in the sum of ?294,984 representing death compensation, loss of earning capacity, costs of litigation, funeral expenses, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. On appeal to the respondent court, however, the decision was reversed and all the defendants were completely absolved. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court.

I have no more space to discuss the details but I promise to follow this up with related articles.