GIL APOLINARIO, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF FRANCISCO DE LOS SANTOS, REPRESENTED BY EDWIN DELOS SANTOS, RESPONDENTS.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 219686
- Promulgated: 2024-11-27
- Ponente: HERNANDO, J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case On July 4, 1998, Rico Villahermosa, a 16-year-old student, was cutting a banana plant on the side of Maharlika Highway under the instruction and supervision of Gil Apolinario, his school principal, as part of a "pintakasi" activity. The banana plant fell and struck Francisco De Los Santos, who was driving his motorcycle, causing him to suffer head injuries. Francisco subsequently died on July 8, 1998, due to "post-traumatic brain swelling" and "diffuse cerebral contusion." Francisco's heirs filed a complaint for damages against Apolinario and Teresita Villahermosa (Rico's mother), alleging negligence on Apolinario's part for instructing Rico to cut the plant without proper precautions. Apolinario denied personal supervision, claiming he was meters away supervising another activity and that Rico was supervised by teachers. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Apolinario negligent and liable for damages, including loss of earning capacity. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the finding of negligence but deleted awards for exemplary damages and attorney's fees. Apolinario then appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning his sole liability and the award for loss of earning capacity. ## Issues 1. Is Apolinario, to the exclusion of Teresita, principally liable for damages to the Heirs of Francisco? 2. Is the award of PHP 428,880.00 for loss of earning capacity in accordance with law and jurisprudence? ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The Supreme Court affirmed that **Apolinario is principally liable** for damages, to the exclusion of Teresita. The Court found that all requisites for vicarious liability against Apolinario were met: (1) Rico committed a quasi-delict resulting in damages; (2) Apolinario was a teacher-in-charge contemplated under **Article 2176** of the **Civil Code** and had custody over Rico at the time of the incident; and (3) Apolinario failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. The Court reiterated the doctrine of **vicarious liability** or **imputed negligence**, where school heads and teachers stand in **loco parentis** to their pupils and are called upon to exercise reasonable supervision. Despite being the principal, Apolinario actively supervised the "pintakasi" and specifically instructed Rico. He failed to take necessary precautions like installing warning devices or ensuring adult supervision for Rico, especially considering the dangerous task near a highway. While parents can be primarily liable for their minor children's tortious acts under **Article 2180** of the **Civil Code** in relation to **Article 221** of the **Family Code**, **Teresita Villahermosa** could not be held liable in this case. The Court emphasized that Rico was under Apolinario's direct custody and supervision at the time of the incident. Furthermore, Teresita was not a party to the proceedings before the Supreme Court, as she did not appeal the RTC decision and was subsequently not served with pleadings and notices, thus preventing her from being prejudiced by a ruling without due process. **Issue 2:** The Supreme Court ruled that **the award for loss of earning capacity should be deleted for lack of basis**, but **temperate damages** should be awarded in lieu thereof. The Court found that the Heirs failed to present documentary evidence to substantiate Francisco's gross annual income. While the Heirs cited **Ochoa v. G&S Transport Corporation**, the Court distinguished it by noting that in **Ochoa**, testimonial evidence was corroborated by a certification from the deceased's employer, unlike the present case where only bare allegations and Edwin's testimony were offered. The RTC's act of taking judicial notice of Francisco's salary as a Sangguniang Bayan member was deemed erroneous. The Court noted that **judicial notice of ordinances** is not mandatory unless specifically provided by statute and the ordinance is presented to the court. The income of a Sangguniang…
Keywords
Article 2176 Civil Code, Article 2180 Civil Code, Article 218 Family Code, Article 219 Family Code, Article 221 Family Code, Article 2224 Civil Code, Rule 45 Rules of Court, Rule 129 Revised Rules on Evidence, Republic Act No. 6758, Republic Act No. 7160, Doctrine of Vicarious Liability, Doctrine of Imputed Negligence, in loco parentis, Diligence of a Good Father of a Family, Action for Damages, Quasi-delict, Parental Authority, Loss of Earning Capacity, Gross Negligence, Proximate Cause