THIR’IEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC ) 
1 
€5 
MRR-6 
P4 :35 
OF THE PHEPPINES 
Second Regular Session 
) 
Introduced by Senator Mitiam Defensor Santiago 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
Article 2180 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts, provides for the obligations that 
are demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons 
for whom one is responsible. 
In particular, paragraph 7 of the said article holds teachers or heads of 
establishments liable for damages caused by students who remain in their custody. The 
law provides: 
“Teachers or heads of establishment of arts and trades shall 
be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or 
apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.” 
Under this paragraph, the basis for the presumption of negligence of the school 
authorities is that where the parent places the child under the effective authority of the 
teacher, the latter, and not the parent should be the one answerable for the torts 
committed while under his custody, for the reason that the parent is not supposed to 
interfere with the supervision of the teacher while the child is under his custody. 
The portion of this paragraph, which must be amended, is the phrase “teachers or 
heads of establishment of arts and trade. ” The Supreme Court has interpreted this phrase 
to mean that where the school is academic rather than technical or vocational in nature, 
responsibility for the tort committed by the student will attach to the teacher-in-charge of 
such student, following the first part of the provision. This is the general rule. In the 


case of establishments of arts and trades, it is the head thereof, and only he, who shall be 
held liable as an exception to the general rule (Amudoru v. Court ofAppeuls, 160 SCRA 
315). 
The reason for the disparity between,the liability of a teacher or a school head was 
based on the nature of the school. However, this provision of the Civil Code is a relic of 
the past. The old schools of arts and trades were engaged in the training of artisan 
apprenticed to their master, who personally and directly instructed them. These masters 
were the heads of the school. In the present, heads of schools of arts and trade have 
increased enrollment such direct contact between the school head and the students, is 
limited. 
Thus, there should be no substantial distinction between the academic and the 
non-academic schools insofar as torts committed by their students are concerned. The 
same vigilance is expected from the teacher over the students under his control and 
supervision, whatever the nature of the school where he is teaching. On the other hand, 
many schools hire teachers as lecturers, who come in only to teach their subjects but do 
not hold office at the school. In that case, the school head must be responsible for the 
students who are under the custody of the school. The Family Code, in fact, has taken 
this into consideration and Article 218 provides: 
“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.” 
Hence, to be consistent with current policy, the Civil Code must be amended 
accordingly. 


THIRTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC ) 
1 
6 mR-6 P436 
OF THE PHlLPPINES 
Second Regular Session 
1 
Introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Sanhago 
AN ACT 
AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 386, ALSO KNOWN AS THE “CIVIL CODE OF 
THE PHILEPINES, ARTICLE 2180” 
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House ofRpresenlatives of the Phil@pines in 
Congress assembled: 
SECTION 1. Article 2180, paragraph 7 of Republic Act 386, is hereby amended 
to read as follows: 
“Lastly, 
THE 
SCHOOL, 
ITS 
ADMINISTRATORS 
AND 
teachers 
[establishments of arts and trades] OR THE INDIVIDUAL, ENTITY OR 
INSTITUTION ENGAGED IN CHILD CARE shall be liable for damages caused 
by their pupils and students or apprentices, WHILE THEY ARE UNDER THEIR 
SUPERVISION, INSTRUCTION, OR [so long as they remain in their] custody.” 
SECTION 2. Separability Clause. - If any provision, or part hereof is held 
invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of the law or the provision not otherwise 
affected shall remain valid and subsisting. 
SECTION 3. Repealing Clause. - Any law, presidential decree or issuance, 
executive order, letter of instruction, administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to 
or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act is hereby repealed, modified or amended 
accordingly. 


SECTION 4. Esfectivig Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days 
aRer its publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation. 
Approved, 
lcls