Ylarde vs.
Aquino
FACTS:
In 1963, Gabaldon Primary School was littered with several concrete blocks which were
remnants of the old school shop that was destroyed in World War II. Being a serious hazards
for the schoolchildren, another teacher by the name of Sergio Banez started burying them
one by one. Private respondent Mariano Soriano was the principal of said educational
institution, while private respondent Edgardo Aquino was a teacher therein.
Deciding to help, Aquino gathered eighteen of his male pupils, aged ten to eleven, after
class, to dig beside a one-ton concrete block in order to make a hole so the stone can be
buried. The following day, private respondent Aquino called four of the original eighteen
pupils to continue the digging. These four pupils are Reynaldo Alonso, Francisco Alcantara,
Ismael Abaga and Novelito Ylarde, and reached a depth of one meter and forty centimeters.
Respondent left the children to level the loose soil around the open hole while he went to see
Banez to borrow from him the key to the school workroom where he could get some rope.
Before leaving, private respondent Aquino allegedly told the children "not to touch the
stone." After he left, the kids playfully jumped into the pit. Then, without any warning,
Abaga jumped on top of the concrete block, it fell down. Unfortunately, Ylarde was pinned
to the wall, caused serious physical injuries and eventually died after 3 days.
Ylarde's parents filed a suit for damages against both private respondents Aquino and
Soriano basing it on Article 2176 of the Civil Code for his alleged negligence that caused
their son's death while the complaint against respondent Soriano as the head of school is
founded on Article 2180 of the same Code. The lower court dismissed on the grounds that 1)
that the digging was in line with their course called Work Education; (2) that Aquino
exercised the utmost diligence of a very cautious person; and (3) that the demise of Ylarde
was due to his own reckless imprudence. And was affirmed by the Court of Appeals on
appeal.
ISSUE: WON both Soriano and Aquino are liable for damages
HELD: NO, only Aquino may be liable
As previously held in Amadora vs CA, “it is only the teacher and not the head of an
academic school who should be answerable for torts committed by their students”. The
Head, or the Principal may only be liable for a tort committed by a student if the educational
institution is, as provided for in Article 2180 of the Civil Code, technical in nature. Therefore,
Soriano cannot be held liable because he is a head of an academic school, and did not permit
the commencement of said digging.
Private respondent Aquino can therefore be held liable under Article 2180 as the
teacher-in-charge of the children for being negligent in his supervision over them and his
failure to take the necessary precautions to prevent any injury on their persons. Ylarde
would not have died were it not for the unsafe situation created by private respondent
Aquino which exposed the lives of all the pupils concerned to real danger.
We cannot agree with the finding of the lower court that the injuries which resulted in the
death of the child Ylarde were caused by his own reckless imprudence. It should be
remembered that he was only ten years old at the time of the incident. As such, he is
expected to be playful and daring. His actuations were natural to a boy his age. Going back
to the facts, it was not only him but the three of them who jumped into the hole while the
remaining boy jumped on the block. From this, it is clear that he only did what any other
ten-year old child would do in the same situation.
The contention that private respondent Aquino exercised the utmost diligence of a very
cautious person is certainly without cogent basis. An ordiriarily careful human being would
not assume that a simple warning "not to touch the stone" is sufficient to cast away all the
serious danger that a huge block would present to the children. Moreover, a teacher who
stands in loco parentis to his pupils would have made sure that the children are protected all
harm in his company.
We close by categorically stating that a truly careful and cautious person would have acted
in all contrast to the way private respondent Aquino did. Were it not for his gross
negligence, the unfortunate incident would not have occurred and the child Ylarde would
probably be alive today, a grown-man of thirty-five. Due to his failure to take the necessary
precautions to avoid the hazard, Ylarde's parents suffered great anguish all these years.
