First of two parts
Let me share in this issue a 2010 Supreme Court (SC)-decided case discussing the liability of a private school and its officials and teachers on injuries sustained by a student in its premises. It is very important to note that when we talk about the nature of civil liability of a private school and its officials and teachers to its students—we need to have some basic idea on the legal concepts of tort or quasi-delict, negligence, contributory negligence, respondent superior, proximate cause and damages, and an understanding of Article 218 of the Family Code in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code. We will discuss these concepts and legal provisions in our succeeding issues. But for now, please read the following jurisprudence which is directly (or substantially) quoted or paraphrased from the SC-decided case of St. Joseph’s College (SJC), et. al v. Miranda, G.R. No. 182353, June 29, 2010 penned by Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura.
The petitioners in this SC case are the private school, a school official and two SJC teachers and they seek to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in favor of the respondent (the injured private-school student, represented by his father). In other words, the original case was filed by the father of the injured student in the lower court (RTC) and he won. Private-school (and its official and two teachers) then appealed to the CA, but the private-school student still won. The SC case filed by the petitioners is just like a case requesting the SC to review the decisions of the RTC and the CA.
The facts of this case are as follows: On November 17, 1994, at around 1:30 p.m., inside SJC premises, the class of teacher/petitioner Rosalinda Tabugo was conducting a science experiment about fusion of sulphur powder and iron fillings by combining these elements in a test tube and heating the same. The class adviser is teacher/petitioner Estefania Abdan and respondent Jayson Val Miranda is one of the students in this class. Tabugo then left her class while it was doing the experiment. In the middle of the experiment, Jayson (who was the assistant leader of one of the class groups) checked the result of the experiment by looking into the test tube with magnifying glass. The test tube was being held by one of his group mates who moved it close and toward the eye of Jayson. At that instance, the compound in the test tube spurted out and several particles of which hit Jayson’s eye and the different parts of the bodies of some of his group mates. As a result, Jayson’s eyes were chemically burned, particularly his left eye, for which he had to undergo surgery and had to spend for his medication. Upon filing of this case in the lower court, Jayson’s wound had not completely healed and still had to undergo another surgery.
Petitioners private school and teachers, on the other hand, alleged that before the science experiment was conducted, Jayson and his classmates were given strict instructions to follow the written procedure for the experiment and not to look into the test tube until the heated compound had cooled off. They further alleged that Jayson, “without waiting for the heated compound to cool off, as required in the written procedure for the experiment and as repeatedly explained by the teacher, violated such instructions and took a magnifying glass and looked at the compound, which at that moment spurted out of the test tube, a small particle hitting one of Jayson’s eyes.”
The RTC ruled in favor of the Jayson. Private school and teachers appealed to the CA. The CA “affirmed in toto” the decision of the RTC (meaning the entire decision was affirmed). In the SC, petitioner private school and teachers contend, among others, the following: a) that the proximate cause of Jayson’s injury was his own act of looking at the heated test tube before the compound had cooled in complete disregard of instructions given prior to the experiment; and b) Jayson’s contributory negligence of peeking into the test tube was, in fact, the proximate cause of his injury for which the petitioners should not be held liable.
The SC affirmed the RTC and CA rulings that petitioners private school and teachers were negligent since they “all failed to exercise the required reasonable care, prudence, caution and foresight to prevent or avoid injuries to the students.” Both courts correctly concluded that the immediate and proximate cause of the accident which caused injury to Jayson was the sudden and unexpected explosion of the chemicals, independent of any intervening cause (and was not the negligence of Jayson when he curiously looked into the test tube when the chemicals suddenly exploded).
This column should not be taken as a legal advice applicable to any case, as each case is unique and should be construed in light of the attending circumstances surrounding such particular case.
Lawyer Toni Umali is the current assistant secretary for Legal and Legislative Affairs of the Department of Education (DepEd). He is licensed to practice law not only in the Philippines, but also in the state of California and some federal courts in the US after passing the California State Bar Examinations in 2004. He has served as a legal consultant to several legislators and local chief executives. As education assistant secretary, he was instrumental in the passage of the K to 12 law and the issuance of its implementing rules and regulations. He is also the alternate spokesman of the DepEd.
To be concluded