G.R. No. 170498 January 9, 2013METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, vs.ABSOLUTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.D E C I S I O NBRION, J.:We resolve petitioner Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company's (Metro bank's) petition for review on certiorari1 seeking the reversal of the decision2 dated August 25, 2005 and the resolution3 dated November 17, 2005 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 86336. The assailed decision affirmed the order4 dated May 7, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 80. The RTC had denied the admission of Metrobank's Fourth-Party Complaint5 against the Estate of Jose L. Chua for being a money claim that falls under Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court; the claim should have been filed in the pending judicial settlement of Chuas estate before the RTC of Pasay City. The CA affirmed the RTCs order based on the same ground.Factual AntecedentsOn October 5, 2000, Sherwood Holdings Corporation, Inc. (SHCI) filed a complaint for sum of money against Absolute Management Corporation (AMC). The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-00-42105 and was assigned to the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 80.6SHCI alleged in its complaint that it made advance payments to AMC for the purchase of 27,000 pieces of plywood and 16,500 plyboards in the sum of P12,277,500.00, covered by Metrobank Check Nos. 1407668502, 140768507, 140768530, 140768531, 140768532, 140768533 and 140768534. These checks were all crossed, and were all made payable to AMC. They were given to Chua, AMCs General Manager, in 1998.7

Chua died in 1999, 8 and a special proceeding for the settlement of his estate was commenced before the RTC of Pasay City. This proceeding was pending at the time AMC filed its answer with counterclaims and third-party complaint.9

SHCI made demands on AMC, after Chuas death, for allegedly undelivered items worth P8,331,700.00. According to AMC, these transactions could not be found in its records. Upon investigation, AMC discovered that in 1998, Chua received from SHCI 18 Metrobank checks worth P31,807,500.00. These were all payable to AMC and were crossed or "for payees account only."10In its answer with counterclaims and third-party complaint,11 AMC averred that it had no knowledge of Chuas transactions with SHCI and it did not receive any money from the latter. AMC also asked the RTC to hold Metrobank liable for the subject checks in case it is adjudged liable to SHCI.Metrobank filed a motion for bill of particulars,12 seeking to clarify certain ambiguous statements in AMCs answer. The RTC granted the motion but AMC failed to submit the required bill of particulars. Hence, Metrobank filed a motion to strike out the third-party complaint.13In the meantime, Metrobank filed a motion to dismiss14 against AMC on the ground that the latter engaged in prohibited forum shopping. According to Metrobank, AMCs claim against it is the same claim that it raised against Chuas estate in Special Proceedings No. 99-0023 before the RTC of Pasay City, Branch 112. The RTC subsequently denied this motion.15The RTC of Quezon City opted to defer consideration16 of Metrobanks motion to strike out third-party complaint17 and it instead granted AMCs motion for leave to serve written interrogatories on the third-party defendant.18 While Metrobank filed its answer to the written interrogatories, AMC was again directed by the RTC, in an order19 dated August 13, 2003, to submit its bill of particulars. Instead, AMC filed a motion for reconsideration20 which was denied in an order21 dated October 28, 2003. AMC still did not file its bill of particulars. The RTC, on the other hand, did not act on Metrobanks motion to strike out AMCs third-party complaint.22In its answer23 dated December 1, 2003, Metrobank admitted that it deposited the checks in question to the account of Ayala Lumber and Hardware, a sole proprietorship Chua owned and managed. The deposit was allegedly done with the knowledge and consent of AMC. According to

Metrobank, Chua then gave the assurance that the arrangement for the handling of the checks carried AMCs consent. Chua also submitted documents showing his position and interest in AMC. These documents, as well as AMCs admission in its answer that it allowed Chua to manage AMC with a relative free hand, show that it knew of Chuas arrangement with Metrobank. Further, Chuas records show that the proceeds of the checks were remitted to AMC which cannot therefore now claim that it did not receive these proceeds.Metrobank also raised the defense of estoppel. According to Metrobank, AMC had knowledge of its arrangements with Chua for several years. Despite this arrangement, AMC did not object to nor did it call the attention of Metrobank about Chuas alleged lack of authority to deposit the checks in Ayala Lumber and Hardwares account. At this point, AMC is already estopped from questioning Chuas authority to deposit these checks in Ayala Lumber and Hardwares account.Lastly, Metrobank asserted that AMC gave Chua unbridled control in managing AMCs affairs. This measure of control amounted to gross negligence that was the proximate cause of the loss that AMC must now bear.Subsequently, Metrobank filed a motion for leave to admit fourth-party complaint24 against Chuas estate. It alleged that Chuas estate should reimburse Metrobank in case it would be held liable in the third-party complaint filed against it by AMC.The RTCs RulingIn an order25 dated May 7, 2004, the RTC denied Metrobanks motion. It likewise denied Metrobanks motion for reconsideration in an order26 dated July 7, 2004.The RTC categorized Metrobanks allegation in the fourth-party complaint as a "cobro de lo indebido"27 a kind of quasi-contract that mandates recovery of what has been improperly paid. Quasi-contracts fall within the concept of implied contracts that must be included in the claims required to be filed with the judicial settlement of the deceaseds estate under Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court. As such claim, it should have been filed in Special Proceedings No. 99-0023, not before the RTC as a fourth-party complaint. The RTC, acting in the exercise of its general jurisdiction, does not have the authority to adjudicate the fourth-party complaint. As a trial court hearing an ordinary action, it cannot resolve matters pertaining to special proceedings because the latter is subject to specific rules.

Metrobank responded to the RTC ruling by filing a petition for certiorari28 under Rule 65 before the CA.The CAs RulingThe CA affirmed the RTCs ruling that Metrobanks fourth-party complaint should have been filed in Special Proceedings No. 99-0023.29 According to the CA, the relief that Metrobank prayed for was based on a quasi-contract and was a money claim categorized as an implied contract that should be filed under Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court.Based on the statutory construction principle of lex specialis derogat generali, the CA held that Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court is a special provision that should prevail over the general provisions of Section 11, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court. The latter applies to money claims in ordinary actions while a money claim against a person already deceased falls under the settlement of his estate that is governed by the rules on special proceedings. If at all, rules for ordinary actions only apply suppletorily to special proceedings.The Present PetitionIn its present petition for review on certiorari,30 Metrobank asserts that it should be allowed to file a fourth-party complaint against Chuas estate in the proceedings before the RTC; its fourth-party complaint was filed merely to enforce its right to be reimbursed by Chuas estate in case Metrobank is held liable to AMC. Hence, Section 11, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court should apply.AMC, in its comment,31 maintains the line that the CA and the RTC rulings should be followed, i.e., that Metrobanks claim is a quasi-contract that should be filed as a claim under Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court.AMC also challenges the form of Metrobanks petition for failure to comply with Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This provision requires petitions filed before the Supreme Court to be accompanied by "such material portions of the record as would support the petition."According to AMC, the petitions annexes are mostly Metrobanks pleadings and court issuances. It did not append all relevant AMC pleadings before the RTC and the CA. For this reason, the petition should have been dismissed outright.IssuesThe parties arguments, properly joined, present to us the following issues:1) Whether the petition for review on certiorari filed by Metrobank before the Supreme Court complies with Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; and2) Whether Metrobanks fourth-party complaint against Chuas estate should be allowed.The Courts RulingThe Present Petition Complies With Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of CourtAMC posits that Metrobanks failure to append relevant AMC pleadings submitted to the RTC and to the CA violated Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,32 and is a sufficient ground to dismiss the petition under Section 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.33We disagree with AMCs position.In F.A.T. Kee Computer Systems, Inc. v. Online Networks International, Inc.,34 Online Networks International, Inc. similarly assailed F.A.T. Kee Computer Systems, Inc.s failure to attach the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) of the RTC proceedings, and claimed this omission to be a violation of Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court that warranted the petitions dismissal. The Court held that the defect was not fatal, as the TSN of the proceedings before the RTC forms part of the records of the case. Thus, there was no incurable omission that warranted the outright dismissal of the petition.The Court significantly pointed out in F.A.T. Kee that the requirement in Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is not meant to be an absolute rule whose violation would automatically lead to the petitions dismissal.35 The Rules of Court has not been intended to be totally rigid. In fact, the Rules of Court provides that the Supreme Court "may require or allow the filing of such pleadings, briefs, memoranda or documents as it may deem necessary within such periods and under such conditions as it may consider appropriate";36 and "[i]f the petition is given due course, the Supreme Court may require the elevation of the complete record of the case or specified parts thereof within fifteen (15) days from notice."37 These provisions are in keeping with the overriding standard that procedural rules should be liberally construed to promote their objective and to assist the parties in obtaining a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding.38Under this guiding principle, we do not see Metrobanks omission to be a fatal one that should warrant the petitions outright dismissal. To be sure, the omission to submit the adverse partys pleadings in a petition before the Court is not a commendable practice as it may lead to an unduly biased narration of facts and arguments that masks the real issues before the Court. Such skewed presentation could lead to the waste of the Courts time in sifting through the maze of the parties narrations of facts and arguments and is a danger the Rules of Court seeks to avoid.Our examination of Metrobanks petition shows that it contains AMCs opposition to its motion to admit fourth-party complaint among its annexes. The rest of the pleadings have been subsequently submitted as attachments in Metrobanks Reply. A reading of these pleadings shows that their arguments are the same as those stated in the orders of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Thus, even if Metrobanks petition did not contain some of AMCs pleadings, the Court still had the benefit of a clear narration of facts and arguments according to both parties perspectives. In this broader view, the mischief that the Rules of Court seeks to avoid has not really been present. If at all, the omission is not a grievous one that the spirit of liberality cannot address.The Merits of the Main IssueThe main issue poses to us two essential points that must be addressed. First, are quasi-contracts included in claims that should be filed pursuant to Rule 86, Section 5 of the Rules of Court? Second, if so, is Metrobanks claim against the Estate of Jose Chua based on a quasi-contract?Quasi-contracts are included inclaims that should be filed under Rule86, Section 5 of the Rules of CourtIn Maclan v. Garcia,39 Gabriel Maclan filed a civil case to recover from Ruben Garcia the necessary expenses he spent as possessor of a piece of land. Garcia acquired the land as an heir of its previous owner. He set up the defense that this claim should have been filed in the special proceedings to settle the estate of his predecessor. Maclan, on the other hand, contended that his claim arises from law and not from contract, express or implied. Thus, it need not be filed in the settlement of the estate of Garcias predecessor, as mandated by Section 5, Rule 87 of the Rules of Court (now Section 5, Rule 86).The Court held under these facts that a claim for necessary expenses spent as previous possessor of the land is a kind of quasi-contract. Citing Leung Ben v. OBrien,40 it explained that the term "implied contracts," as used in our remedial law, originated from the common law where obligations derived from quasi-contracts and from law are both considered as implied contracts. Thus, the term quasi-contract is included in the concept "implied contracts" as used in the Rules of Court. Accordingly, liabilities of the deceased arising from quasi-contracts should be filed as claims in the settlement of his estate, as provided in Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court.41Metrobanks fourth-party complaint isbased on quasi-contractBoth the RTC and the CA described Metrobanks claim against Chuas estate as one based on quasi-contract. A quasi-contract involves a juridical relation that the law creates on the basis of certain voluntary, unilateral and lawful acts of a person, to avoid unjust enrichment.42 The Civil Code provides an enumeration of quasi-contracts,43 but the list is not exhaustive and merely provides examples.44According to the CA, Metrobanks fourth-party complaint falls under the quasi-contracts enunciated in Article 2154 of the Civil Code.45 Article 2154 embodies the concept "solutio indebiti" which arises when something is delivered through mistake to a person who has no right to demand it. It obligates the latter to return what has been received through mistake.46Solutio indebiti, as defined in Article 2154 of the Civil Code, has two indispensable requisites: first, that something has been unduly delivered through mistake; and second, that something was received when there was no right to demand it.47

In its fourth-party complaint, Metrobank claims that Chuas estate should reimburse it if it becomes liable on the checks that it deposited to Ayala Lumber and Hardwares account upon Chuas instructions.

This fulfills the requisites of solutio indebiti. First, Metrobank acted in a manner akin to a mistake when it deposited the AMC checks to Ayala Lumber and Hardwares account; because of Chuas control over AMCs operations, Metrobank assumed that the checks payable to AMC could be deposited to Ayala Lumber and Hardwares account. Second, Ayala Lumber and Hardware had no right to demand and receive the checks that were deposited to its account; despite Chuas control over AMC and Ayala Lumber and Hardware, the two entities are distinct, and checks exclusively and expressly payable to one cannot be deposited in the account of the other. This disjunct created an obligation on the part of Ayala Lumber and Hardware, through its sole proprietor, Chua, to return the amount of these checks to Metrobank.The Court notes, however, that its description of Metrobanks fourth-party complaint as a claimclosely analogous to solutio indebiti is only to determine the validity of the lower courts orders denying it. It is not an adjudication determining the liability of Chuas estate against Metrobank. The appropriate trial court should still determine whether Metrobank has a lawful claim against Chuas estate based on quasi-contract.1wphi1Metrobanks fourth-party complaint,as a contingent claim, falls within theclaims that should be filed underSection 5, Rule 86 of the Rules ofCourtA distinctive character of Metrobanks fourth-party complaint is its contingent nature the claim depends on the possibility that Metrobank would be adjudged liable to AMC, a future event that may or may not happen. This characteristic unmistakably marks the complaint as a contingent one that must be included in the claims falling under the terms of Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court:Sec. 5. Claims which must be filed under the notice. If not filed, barred; exceptions. All claims for money against the decedent, arising from contract, express or implied, whether the same be due, not due, or contingent, all claims for funeral expenses and expenses for the last sickness of the decedent, and judgment for money against the decedent, must be filed within the time limited in the notice. [italics ours]

Specific provisions of Section 5, Rule86 of the Rules of Court prevail overgeneral provisions of Section 11, Rule6 of the Rules of CourtMetrobank argues that Section 11, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court should apply because it impleaded Chuas estate for reimbursement in the same transaction upon which it has been sued by AMC. On this point, the Court supports the conclusion of the CA, to wit:Notably, a comparison of the respective provisions of Section 11, Rule 6 and Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court readily shows that Section 11, Rule 6 applies to ordinary civil actions while Section 5, Rule 86 specifically applies to money claims against the estate. The specific provisions of Section 5, Rule 86 x x x must therefore prevail over the general provisions of Section 11, Rule 6.48We read with approval the CAs use of the statutory construction principle of lex specialis derogat generali, leading to the conclusion that the specific provisions of Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court should prevail over the general provisions of Section 11, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court; the settlement of the estate of deceased persons (where claims against the deceased should be filed) is primarily governed by the rules on special proceedings, while the rules provided for ordinary claims, including Section 11, Rule 6 ofthe Rules of Court, merely apply suppletorily.49In sum, on all counts in the considerations material to the issues posed, the resolution points to the affirmation of the assailed CA decision and resolution. Metrobank's claim in its fourth-party complaint against Chua's estate is based on quasi-contract. It is also a contingent claim that depends on another event. Both belong to the category of claims against a deceased person that should be filed under Section 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Comi and, as such, should have been so filed in Special Proceedings No. 99-0023.WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the petition for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 25, 2005, holding that the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 80, did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company's motion for leave to admit fourth-party complaint IsAFFIRMED. Costs against Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company.SO ORDERED.ARTURO D. BRIONAssociate JusticeBarredo vs Garcia This case comes up from the Court of Appeals which held the petitioner herein, Fausto Barredo, liable in damages for the death of Faustino Garcia caused by the negligence of Pedro Fontanilla, a taxi driver employed by said Fausto Barredo.

At about half past one in the morning of May 3, 1936, on the road between Malabon and Navotas, Province of Rizal, there was a head-on collision between a taxi of the Malate Taxicab driven by Pedro Fontanilla and a carretela guided by Pedro Dimapalis. The carretela was overturned, and one of its passengers, 16-year-old boy Faustino Garcia, suffered injuries from which he died two days later. A criminal action was filed against Fontanilla in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, and he was convicted and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of one year and one day to two years of prision correccional. The court in the criminal case granted the petition that the right to bring a separate civil action be reserved. The Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence of the lower court in the criminal case. Severino Garcia and Timotea Almario, parents of the deceased on March 7, 1939, brought an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Fausto Barredo as the sole proprietor of the Malate Taxicab and employer of Pedro Fontanilla. On July 8, 1939, the Court of First Instance of Manila awarded damages in favor of the plaintiffs for P2,000 plus legal interest from the date of the complaint. This decision was modified by the Court of Appeals by reducing the damages to P1,000 with legal interest from the time the action was instituted. It is undisputed that Fontanilla 's negligence was the cause of the mishap, as he was driving on the wrong side of the road, and at high speed. As to Barredo's responsibility, the Court of Appeals found:... It is admitted that defendant is Fontanilla's employer. There is proof that he exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. (See p. 22, appellant's brief.) In fact it is shown he was careless in employing Fontanilla who had been caught several times for violation of the Automobile Law and speeding (Exhibit A) violation which appeared in the records of the Bureau of Public Works available to be public and to himself. Therefore, he must indemnify plaintiffs under the provisions of article 1903 of the Civil Code.The main theory of the defense is that the liability of Fausto Barredo is governed by the Revised Penal Code; hence, his liability is only subsidiary, and as there has been no civil action against Pedro Fontanilla, the person criminally liable, Barredo cannot be held responsible in the case. The petitioner's brief states on page 10:... The Court of Appeals holds that the petitioner is being sued for his failure to exercise all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of Pedro Fontanilla to prevent damages suffered by the respondents. In other words, The Court of Appeals insists on applying in the case article 1903 of the Civil Code. Article 1903 of the Civil Code is found in Chapter II, Title 16, Book IV of the Civil Code. This fact makes said article to a civil liability arising from a crime as in the case at bar simply because Chapter II of Title 16 of Book IV of the Civil Code, in the precise words of article 1903 of the Civil Code itself, is applicable only to "those (obligations) arising from wrongful or negligent acts or commission not punishable by law.The gist of the decision of the Court of Appeals is expressed thus:... We cannot agree to the defendant's contention. The liability sought to be imposed upon him in this action is not a civil obligation arising from a felony or a misdemeanor (the crime of Pedro Fontanilla,), but an obligation imposed in article 1903 of the Civil Code by reason of his negligence in the selection or supervision of his servant or employee.The pivotal question in this case is whether the plaintiffs may bring this separate civil action against Fausto Barredo, thus making him primarily and directly, responsible under article 1903 of the Civil Code as an employer of Pedro Fontanilla. The defendant maintains that Fontanilla's negligence being punishable by the Penal Code, his (defendant's) liability as an employer is only subsidiary, according to said Penal code, but Fontanilla has not been sued in a civil action and his property has not been exhausted. To decide the main issue, we must cut through the tangle that has, in the minds of many confused and jumbled together delitos and cuasi delitos, or crimes under the Penal Code and fault or negligence under articles 1902-1910 of the Civil Code. This should be done, because justice may be lost in a labyrinth, unless principles and remedies are distinctly envisaged. Fortunately, we are aided in our inquiry by the luminous presentation of the perplexing subject by renown jurists and we are likewise guided by the decisions of this Court in previous cases as well as by the solemn clarity of the consideration in several sentences of the Supreme Tribunal of Spain.Authorities support the proposition that a quasi-delict or "culpa aquiliana " is a separate legal institution under the Civil Code with a substantivity all its own, and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from delict or crime. Upon this principle and on the wording and spirit article 1903 of the Civil Code, the primary and direct responsibility of employers may be safely anchored.CIVIL CODEART. 1089Obligations arise from law, from contracts and quasi-contracts, and from acts and omissions which are unlawful or in which any kind of fault or negligence intervenes.ART. 1092. Civil obligations arising from felonies or misdemeanors shall be governed by the provisions of the Penal Code.ART. 1093. Those which are derived from acts or omissions in which fault or negligence, not punishable by law, intervenes shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter II, Title XVI of this book.ART 1902. Any person who by an act or omission causes damage to another by his fault or negligence shall be liable for the damage so done.ART. 1903. The obligation imposed by the next preceding article is enforcible, not only for personal acts and omissions, but also for those of persons for whom another is responsible.The father and in, case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are liable for any damages caused by the minor children who live with them.Guardians are liable for damages done by minors or incapacitated persons subject to their authority and living with them.Owners or directors of an establishment or business are equally liable for any damages caused by their employees while engaged in the branch of the service in which employed, or on occasion of the performance of their duties.The State is subject to the same liability when it acts through a special agent, but not if the damage shall have been caused by the official upon whom properly devolved the duty of doing the act performed, in which case the provisions of the next preceding article shall be applicable.Finally, teachers or directors of arts trades are liable for any damages caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody.The liability imposed by this article shall cease in case the persons mentioned therein prove that they are exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage.ART. 1904. Any person who pays for damage caused by his employees may recover from the latter what he may have paid.REVISED PENAL CODEART. 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.ART. 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. The exemption from criminal liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 of article 12 and in subdivision 4 of article 11 of this Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced to the following rules:First. In cases of subdivision, 1, 2 and 3 of article 12 the civil liability for acts committed by any imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on their part.G.R. No. L-32599June 29, 1979EDGARDO E. MENDOZA, petitioner vs.HON. ABUNDIO Z. ARRIETA, Presiding Judge of Branch VIII, Court of First Instance of Manila, FELINO TIMBOL, and RODOLFO SALAZAR, respondents.David G. Nitafan for petitioner.Arsenio R. Reyes for respondent Timbol.Armando M. Pulgado for respondent Salazar.MELENCIO-HERRERA, J:Petitioner, Edgardo Mendoza, seeks a review on certiorari of the Orders of respondent Judge in Civil Case No. 80803 dismissing his Complaint for Damages based on quasi-delict against respondents Felino Timbol and Rodolfo Salazar.The facts which spawned the present controversy may be summarized as follows:On October 22, 1969, at about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, a three- way vehicular accident occurred along Mac-Arthur Highway, Marilao, Bulacan, involving a Mercedes Benz owned and driven by petitioner; a private jeep owned and driven by respondent Rodolfo Salazar; and a gravel and sand truck owned by respondent Felipino Timbol and driven by Freddie Montoya. As a consequence of said mishap, two separate Informations for Reckless Imprudence Causing Damage to Property were filed against Rodolfo Salazar and Freddie Montoya with the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. The race against truck-driver Montoya, docketed as Criminal Case No. SM-227, was for causing damage to the jeep owned by Salazar, in the amount of Pl,604.00, by hitting it at the right rear portion thereby causing said jeep to hit and bump an oncoming car, which happened to be petitioner's Mercedes Benz. The case against jeep-owner-driver Salazar, docketed as Criminal Case No. SM 228, was for causing damage to the Mercedes Benz of petitioner in the amount of P8,890.00At the joint trial of the above cases, petitioner testified that jeep-owner- driver Salazar overtook the truck driven by Montoya, swerved to the left going towards the poblacion of Marilao, and hit his car which was bound for Manila. Petitioner further testified that before the impact, Salazar had jumped from the jeep and that he was not aware that Salazar's jeep was bumped from behind by the truck driven by Montoya. Petitioner's version of the accident was adopted by truck driver Montoya. Jeep-owner-driver Salazar, on the other hand, tried to show that, after overtaking the truck driven by Montoya, he flashed a signal indicating his intention to turn left towards the poblacion of Marilao but was stopped at the intersection by a policeman who was directing traffic; that while he was at a stop position, his jeep was bumped at the rear by the truck driven by Montova causing him to be thrown out of the jeep, which then swerved to the left and hit petitioner's car, which was coming from the opposite direction.

On July 31, 1970, the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch V, Sta. Maria, rendered judgment, stating in its decretal portion:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Court finds the accused Freddie Montoya GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of damage to property thru reckless imprudence in Crime. Case No. SM-227, and hereby sentences him to pay a fine of P972.50 and to indemnify Rodolfo Salazar in the same amount of P972.50 as actual damages, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, both as to fine and indemnity, with costs.Accused Rodolfo Salazar is hereby ACQUITTED from the offense charged in Crime. Case No. SM-228, with costs de oficio, and his bond is ordered canceledSO ORDERED. 1Thus, the trial Court absolved jeep-owner-driver Salazar of any liability, civil and criminal, in view of its findings that the collision between Salazar's jeep and petitioner's car was the result of the former having been bumped from behind by the truck driven by Montoya. Neither was petitioner awarded damages as he was not a complainant against truck-driver Montoya but only against jeep-owner-driver SalazarOn August 22, 1970, or after the termination of the criminal cases, petitioner filed Civil Case No. 80803 with the Court of First Instance of Manila against respondents jeep-owner-driver Salazar and Felino Timbol, the latter being the owner of the gravel and sand truck driven by Montoya, for indentification for the damages sustained by his car as a result of the collision involving their vehicles. Jeep-owner-driver Salazar and truck-owner Timbol were joined as defendants, either in the alternative or in solidum allegedly for the reason that petitioner was uncertain as to whether he was entitled to relief against both on only one of them.On September 9, 1970, truck-owner Timbol filed a Motion to Dismiss Civil Case No. 80803 on the grounds that the Complaint is barred by a prior judgment in the criminal cases and that it fails to state a cause of action. An Opposition thereto was filed by petitioner.In an Order dated September 12, 1970, respondent Judge dismissed the Complaint against truck-owner Timbol for reasons stated in the afore- mentioned Motion to Dismiss On September 30, 1970, petitioner sought before this Court the review of that dismissal, to which petition we gave due course.On January 30, 1971, upon motion of jeep-owner-driver Salazar, respondent Judge also dismissed the case as against the former. Respondent Judge reasoned out that "while it is true that an independent civil action for liability under Article 2177 of the Civil Code could be prosecuted independently of the criminal action for the offense from which it arose, the New Rules of Court, which took effect on January 1, 1964, requires an express reservation of the civil action to be made in the criminal action; otherwise, the same would be barred pursuant to Section 2, Rule 111 ... 2 Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration thereof was denied in the order dated February 23, 1971, with respondent Judge suggesting that the issue be raised to a higher Court "for a more decisive interpretation of the rule. 3

On March 25, 1971, petitioner then filed a Supplemental Petition before us, also to review the last two mentioned Orders, to which we required jeep-owner-driver Salazar to file an Answer.The Complaint againsttruck-owner TimbolWe shall first discuss the validity of the Order, dated September 12, 1970, dismissing petitioner's Complaint against truck-owner Timbol.In dismissing the Complaint against the truck-owner, respondent Judge sustained Timbol's allegations that the civil suit is barred by the prior joint judgment in Criminal Cases Nos. SM-227 and SM-228, wherein no reservation to file a separate civil case was made by petitioner and where the latter actively participated in the trial and tried to prove damages against jeep-driver-Salazar only; and that the Complaint does not state a cause of action against truck-owner Timbol inasmuch as petitioner prosecuted jeep-owner-driver Salazar as the one solely responsible for the damage suffered by his car.Well-settled is the rule that for a prior judgment to constitute a bar to a subsequent case, the following requisites must concur: (1) it must be a final judgment; (2) it must have been rendered by a Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the first and second actions, Identity of parties, Identity of subject matter and Identity of cause of action.It is conceded that the first three requisites of res judicata are present. However, we agree with petitioner that there is no Identity of cause of action between Criminal Case No. SM-227 and Civil Case No. 80803. Obvious is the fact that in said criminal case truck-driver Montoya was not prosecuted for damage to petitioner's car but for damage to the jeep. Neither was truck-owner Timbol a party in said case. In fact as the trial Court had put it "the owner of the Mercedes Benz cannot recover any damages from the accused Freddie Montoya, he (Mendoza) being a complainant only against Rodolfo Salazar in Criminal Case No. SM-228. 4 And more importantly, in the criminal cases, the cause of action was the enforcement of the civil liability arising from criminal negligence under Article l of the Revised Penal Code, whereas Civil Case No. 80803 is based on quasi-delict under Article 2180, in relation to Article 2176 of the Civil Code As held in Barredo vs. Garcia, et al. 5

The foregoing authorities clearly demonstrate the separate in. individuality of cuasi-delitos or culpa aquiliana under the Civil Code. Specifically they show that there is a distinction between civil liability arising from criminal negligence (governed by the Penal Code) and responsibility for fault or negligence under articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code, and that the same negligent act may produce either a civil liability arising from a crime under the Penal Code, or a separate responsibility for fault or negligence under articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code. Still more concretely, the authorities above cited render it inescapable to conclude that the employer in this case the defendant- petitioner is primarily and directly liable under article 1903 of the Civil Code.That petitioner's cause of action against Timbol in the civil case is based on quasi-delict is evident from the recitals in the complaint to wit: that while petitioner was driving his car along MacArthur Highway at Marilao, Bulacan, a jeep owned and driven by Salazar suddenly swerved to his (petitioner's) lane and collided with his car That the sudden swerving of Salazar's jeep was caused either by the negligence and lack of skill of Freddie Montoya, Timbol's employee, who was then driving a gravel and sand truck iii the same direction as Salazar's jeep; and that as a consequence of the collision, petitioner's car suffered extensive damage amounting to P12,248.20 and that he likewise incurred actual and moral damages, litigation expenses and attorney's fees. Clearly, therefore, the two factors that a cause of action must consist of, namely: (1) plaintiff's primary right, i.e., that he is the owner of a Mercedes Benz, and (2) defendant's delict or wrongful act or omission which violated plaintiff's primary right, i.e., the negligence or lack of skill either of jeep-owner Salazar or of Timbol's employee, Montoya, in driving the truck, causing Salazar's jeep to swerve and collide with petitioner's car, were alleged in the Complaint. 6Consequently, petitioner's cause of action being based on quasi-delict, respondent Judge committed reversible error when he dismissed the civil suit against the truck-owner, as said case may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.Art. 31.When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.But it is truck-owner Timbol's submission (as well as that of jeep-owner-driver Salazar) that petitioner's failure to make a reservation in the criminal action of his right to file an independent civil action bars the institution of such separate civil action, invoking section 2, Rule 111, Rules of Court, which says:Section 2. Independent civil action. In the cases provided for in Articles 31, 32, 33, 34 and 2177 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, an independent civil action entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action may be brought by the injured party during the pendency of the criminal case, provided the right is reserved as required in the preceding section. Such civil action shau proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.Interpreting the above provision, this Court, in Garcia vs. Florida 7 said:As we have stated at the outset, the same negligent act causing damages may produce a civil liability arising from crime or create an action for quasi-delict or culpa extra-contractual. The former is a violation of the criminal law, while the latter is a distinct and independent negligence, having always had its own foundation and individuality. Some legal writers are of the view that in accordance with Article 31, the civil action based upon quasi-delict may proceed independently of the criminal proceeding for criminal negligence and regardless of the result of the latter. Hence, 'the proviso in Section 2 of Rule 111 with reference to ... Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code is contrary to the letter and spirit of the said articles, for these articles were drafted ... and are intended to constitute as exceptions to the general rule stated in what is now Section 1 of Rule 111. The proviso, which is procedural, may also be regarded as an unauthorized amendment of substantive law, Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code, which do not provide for the reservation required in the proviso ... .In his concurring opinion in the above case, Mr. Justice Antonio Barredo further observed that inasmuch as Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code create a civil liability distinct and different from the civil action arising from the offense of negligence under the Revised Penal Code, no reservation, therefore, need be made in the criminal case; that Section 2 of Rule 111 is inoperative, "it being substantive in character and is not within the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate; and even if it were not substantive but adjective, it cannot stand because of its inconsistency with Article 2177, an enactment of the legislature superseding the Rules of 1940."We declare, therefore, that in so far as truck-owner Timbol is concerned, Civil Case No. 80803 is not barred by the fact that petitioner failed to reserve, in the criminal action, his right to file an independent civil action based on quasi-delict.The suit againstjeep-owner-driver SalazarThe case as against jeep-owner-driver Salazar, who was acquitted in Criminal Case No. SM-228, presents a different picture altogether.At the outset it should be clarified that inasmuch as civil liability co-exists with criminal responsibility in negligence cases, the offended party has the option between an action for enforcement of civil liability based on culpa criminal under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and an action for recovery of damages based on culpa aquiliana under Article 2177 of the Civil Code. The action for enforcement of civil liability based on culpa criminal under section 1 of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court is deemed simultaneously instituted with the criminal action, unless expressly waived or reserved for separate application by the offended party. 8The circumstances attendant to the criminal case yields the conclusion that petitioner had opted to base his cause of action against jeep-owner-driver Salazar on culpa criminal and not on culpa aquiliana as evidenced by his active participation and intervention in the prosecution of the criminal suit against said Salazar. The latter's civil liability continued to be involved in the criminal action until its termination. Such being the case, there was no need for petitioner to have reserved his right to file a separate civil action as his action for civil liability was deemed impliedly instituted in Criminal Case No. SM-228.Neither would an independent civil action he. Noteworthy is the basis of the acquittal of jeep-owner-driver Salazar in the criminal case, expounded by the trial Court in this wise:In view of what has been proven and established during the trial, accused Freddie Montoya would be held able for having bumped and hit the rear portion of the jeep driven by the accused Rodolfo Salazar,Considering that the collision between the jeep driven by Rodolfo Salazar and the car owned and driven by Edgardo Mendoza was the result of the hitting on the rear of the jeep by the truck driven by Freddie Montoya, this Court behaves that accused Rodolfo Salazar cannot be held able for the damages sustained by Edgardo Mendoza's car. 9Crystal clear is the trial Court's pronouncement that under the facts of the case, jeep-owner-driver Salazar cannot be held liable for the damages sustained by petitioner's car. In other words, "the fact from which the civil might arise did not exist. " Accordingly, inasmuch as petitioner's cause of action as against jeep-owner-driver Salazar is ex- delictu, founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, the civil action must be held to have been extinguished in consonance with Section 3(c), Rule 111 of the Rules of Court 10 which provides:Sec. 3. Other civil actions arising from offenses. In all cases not included in the preceding section the following rules shall be observed:c)Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil night arise did not exist. ...And even if petitioner's cause of action as against jeep-owner-driver Salazar were not ex-delictu, the end result would be the same, it being clear from the judgment in the criminal case that Salazar's acquittal was not based upon reasonable doubt, consequently, a civil action for damages can no longer be instituted. This is explicitly provided for in Article 29 of the Civil Code quoted here under:Art. 29.When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence ...If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground.In so far as the suit against jeep-owner-driver Salazar is concerned, therefore, we sustain respondent Judge's Order dated January 30, 1971 dismissing the complaint, albeit on different grounds.WHEREFORE, 1) the Order dated September 12, 1970 dismissing Civil Case No. 80803 against private respondent Felino Timbol is set aside, and respondent Judge, or his successor, hereby ordered to proceed with the hearing on the merits; 2) but the Orders dated January 30, 1971 and February 23, 1971 dismissing the Complaint in Civil Case No. 80803 against respondent Rodolfo Salazar are hereby upheld.No costs.SO ORDERED.Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero and De Castro, JJ., concur.G.R. No. 84698 February 4, 1992

PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, JUAN D. LIM, BENJAMIN P. PAULINO, ANTONIO M. MAGTALAS, COL. PEDRO SACRO and LT. M. SORIANO, petitioners, vs.COURT OF APPEALS, HON. REGINA ORDOEZ-BENITEZ, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 47, Regional Trial Court, Manila, SEGUNDA R. BAUTISTA and ARSENIA D. BAUTISTA, respondents.Balgos and Perez for petitioners.Collantes, Ramirez & Associates for private respondents.PADILLA, J.:A stabbing incident on 30 August 1985 which caused the death of Carlitos Bautista while on the second-floor premises of the Philippine School of Business Administration (PSBA) prompted the parents of the deceased to file suit in the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch 47) presided over by Judge (now Court of Appeals justice) Regina Ordoez-Benitez, for damages against the said PSBA and its corporate officers. At the time of his death, Carlitos was enrolled in the third year commerce course at the PSBA. It was established that his assailants were not members of the school's academic community but were elements from outside the school.Specifically, the suit impleaded the PSBA and the following school authorities: Juan D. Lim (President), Benjamin P. Paulino (Vice-President), Antonio M. Magtalas (Treasurer/Cashier), Col. Pedro Sacro (Chief of Security) and a Lt. M. Soriano (Assistant Chief of Security). Substantially, the plaintiffs (now private respondents) sought to adjudge them liable for the victim's untimely demise due to their alleged negligence, recklessness and lack of security precautions, means and methods before, during and after the attack on the victim. During the proceedings a quo, Lt. M. Soriano terminated his relationship with the other petitioners by resigning from his position in the school.Defendants a quo (now petitioners) sought to have the suit dismissed, alleging that since they are presumably sued under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the complaint states no cause of action against them, as jurisprudence on the subject is to the effect that academic institutions, such as the PSBA, are beyond the ambit of the rule in the afore-stated article.

The respondent trial court, however, overruled petitioners' contention and thru an order dated 8 December 1987, denied their motion to dismiss. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was similarly dealt with by an order dated 25 January 1988. Petitioners then assailed the trial court's disposition before the respondent appellate court which, in a decision * promulgated on 10 June 1988, affirmed the trial court's orders. On 22 August 1988, the respondent appellate court resolved to deny the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition.At the outset, it is to be observed that the respondent appellate court primarily anchored its decision on the law of quasi-delicts, as enunciated in Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. 1 Pertinent portions of the appellate court's now assailed ruling state:Article 2180 (formerly Article 1903) of the Civil Code is an adoption from the old Spanish Civil Code. The comments of Manresa and learned authorities on its meaning should give way to present day changes. The law is not fixed and flexible (sic); it must be dynamic. In fact, the greatest value and significance of law as a rule of conduct in (sic) its flexibility to adopt to changing social conditions and its capacity to meet the new challenges of progress.Construed in the light of modern day educational system, Article 2180 cannot be construed in its narrow concept as held in the old case of Exconde vs. Capuno 2 and Mercado vs. Court of Appeals; 3 hence, the ruling in the Palisoc 4 case that it should apply to all kinds of educational institutions, academic or vocational.At any rate, the law holds the teachers and heads of the school staff liable unless they relieve themselves of such liability pursuant to the last paragraph of Article 2180 by "proving that they observed all the diligence to prevent damage." This can only be done at a trial on the merits of the case. 5While we agree with the respondent appellate court that the motion to dismiss the complaint was correctly denied and the complaint should be tried on the merits, we do not however agree with the premises of the appellate court's ruling.

Article 2180, in conjunction with Article 2176 of the Civil Code, establishes the rule of in loco parentis. This Court discussed this doctrine in the afore-cited cases of Exconde, Mendoza, Palisoc and, more recently, in Amadora vs. Court of Appeals. 6 In all such cases, it had been stressed that the law (Article 2180) plainly provides that the damage should have been caused or inflicted by pupils or students of he educational institution sought to be held liable for the acts of its pupils or students while in its custody. However, this material situation does not exist in the present case for, as earlier indicated, the assailants of Carlitos were not students of the PSBA, for whose acts the school could be made liable.However, does the appellate court's failure to consider such material facts mean the exculpation of the petitioners from liability? It does not necessarily follow.When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment, there is established a contract between them, resulting in bilateral obligations which both parties are bound to comply with. 7 For its part, the school undertakes to provide the student with an education that would presumably suffice to equip him with the necessary tools and skills to pursue higher education or a profession. On the other hand, the student covenants to abide by the school's academic requirements and observe its rules and regulations.Institutions of learning must also meet the implicit or "built-in" obligation of providing their students with an atmosphere that promotes or assists in attaining its primary undertaking of imparting knowledge. Certainly, no student can absorb the intricacies of physics or higher mathematics or explore the realm of the arts and other sciences when bullets are flying or grenades exploding in the air or where there looms around the school premises a constant threat to life and limb. Necessarily, the school must ensure that adequate steps are taken to maintain peace and order within the campus premises and to prevent the breakdown thereof.Because the circumstances of the present case evince a contractual relation between the PSBA and Carlitos Bautista, the rules on quasi-delict do not really govern. 8 A perusal of Article 2176 shows that obligations arising from quasi-delicts or tort, also known as extra-contractual obligations, arise only between parties not otherwise bound by contract, whether express or implied. However, this impression has not prevented this Court from determining the existence of a tort even when there obtains a contract. In Air France vs. Carrascoso (124 Phil. 722), the private respondent was awarded damages for his unwarranted expulsion from a first-class seat aboard the petitioner airline. It is noted, however, that the Court referred to the petitioner-airline's liability as one arising from tort, not one arising from a contract of carriage. In effect, Air France is authority for the view that liability from tort may exist even if there is a contract, for the act that breaks the contract may be also a tort. (Austro-America S.S. Co. vs. Thomas, 248 Fed. 231).This view was not all that revolutionary, for even as early as 1918, this Court was already of a similar mind. In Cangco vs. Manila Railroad (38 Phil. 780), Mr. Justice Fisher elucidated thus:The field of non-contractual obligation is much broader than that of contractual obligation, comprising, as it does, the whole extent of juridical human relations. These two fields, figuratively speaking, concentric; that is to say, the mere fact that a person is bound to another by contract does not relieve him from extra-contractual liability to such person. When such a contractual relation exists the obligor may break the contract under such conditions that the same act which constitutes a breach of the contract would have constituted the source of an extra-contractual obligation had no contract existed between the parties.

Immediately what comes to mind is the chapter of the Civil Code on Human Relations, particularly Article 21, which provides:Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good custom or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. (emphasis supplied).Air France penalized the racist policy of the airline which emboldened the petitioner's employee to forcibly oust the private respondent to cater to the comfort of a white man who allegedly "had a better right to the seat." In Austro-American, supra, the public embarrassment caused to the passenger was the justification for the Circuit Court of Appeals, (Second Circuit), to award damages to the latter. From the foregoing, it can be concluded that should the act which breaches a contract be done in bad faith and be violative of Article 21, then there is a cause to view the act as constituting a quasi-delict.In the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, however, there is, as yet, no finding that the contract between the school and Bautista had been breached thru the former's negligence in providing proper security measures. This would be for the trial court to determine. And, even if there be a finding of negligence, the same could give rise generally to a breach of contractual obligation only. Using the test of Cangco, supra, the negligence of the school would not be relevant absent a contract. In fact, that negligence becomes material only because of the contractual relation between PSBA and Bautista. In other words, a contractual relation is a condition sine qua non to the school's liability. The negligence of the school cannot exist independently of the contract, unless the negligence occurs under the circumstances set out in Article 21 of the Civil Code.This Court is not unmindful of the attendant difficulties posed by the obligation of schools, above-mentioned, for conceptually a school, like a common carrier, cannot be an insurer of its students against all risks. This is specially true in the populous student communities of the so-called "university belt" in Manila where there have been reported several incidents ranging from gang wars to other forms of hooliganism. It would not be equitable to expect of schools to anticipate all types of violent trespass upon their premises, for notwithstanding the security measures installed, the same may still fail against an individual or group determined to carry out a nefarious deed inside school premises and environs. Should this be the case, the school may still avoid liability by proving that the breach of its contractual obligation to the students was not due to its negligence, here statutorily defined to be the omission of that degree of diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponding to the circumstances of persons, time and place. 9As the proceedings a quo have yet to commence on the substance of the private respondents' complaint, the record is bereft of all the material facts. Obviously, at this stage, only the trial court can make such a determination from the evidence still to unfold.WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The court of origin (RTC, Manila, Br. 47) is hereby ordered to continue proceedings consistent with this ruling of the Court. Costs against the petitioners.SO ORDERED.Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Regalado and Nocon, JJ., concur.AMADORA VS CACRUZ, J.: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. 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 Damon, fired a gun that mortally hit Alfredo, ending all his expectations and his life as well. The victim was only seventeen years old. 1Daffon was convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence . 2 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 P294,984.00, representing death compensation, loss of earning capacity, costs of litigation, funeral expenses, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees . 3 On appeal to the respondent court, however, the decision was reversed and all the defendants were completely absolved . 4

In its decision, which is now the subject of this petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the respondent court found that Article 2180 was not applicable as the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos was not a school of arts and trades but an academic institution of learning. It also held that the students were not in the custody of the school at the time of the incident as the semester had already ended, that there was no clear identification of the fatal gun and that in any event the defendant, had exercised the necessary diligence in preventing the injury. 5The basic undisputed facts are that Alfredo Amadora went to the San Jose-Recoletos on April 13, 1972, and while in its auditorium was shot to death by Pablito Daffon, a classmate. On the implications and consequences of these facts, the parties sharply disagree.The petitioners contend that their son was in the school to show his physics experiment as a prerequisite to his graduation; hence, he was then under the custody of the private respondents. The private respondents submit that Alfredo Amadora had gone to the school only for the purpose of submitting his physics report and that he was no longer in their custody because the semester had already ended.There is also the question of the identity of the gun used which the petitioners consider important because of an earlier incident which they claim underscores the negligence of the school and at least one of the private respondents. It is not denied by the respondents that on April 7, 1972, Sergio Damaso, Jr., the dean of boys, confiscated from Jose Gumban an unlicensed pistol but later returned it to him without making a report to the principal or taking any further action . 6 As Gumban was one of the companions of Daffon when the latter fired the gun that killed Alfredo, the petitioners contend that this was the same pistol that had been confiscated from Gumban and that their son would not have been killed if it had not been returned by Damaso. The respondents say, however, that there is no proof that the gun was the same firearm that killed Alfredo.Resolution of all these disagreements will depend on the interpretation of Article 2180 which, as it happens, is invoked by both parties in support of their conflicting positions. The pertinent part of this article reads as follows:Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments 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.

Three cases have so far been decided by the Court in connection with the above-quoted provision, to wit: Exconde v. Capuno 7 Mercado v. Court of Appeals, 8 and Palisoc v. Brillantes. 9 These will be briefly reviewed in this opinion for a better resolution of the case at bar.In the Exconde Case, Dante Capuno, a student of the Balintawak Elementary School and a Boy Scout, attended a Rizal Day parade on instructions of the city school supervisor. After the parade, the boy boarded a jeep, took over its wheel and drove it so recklessly that it turned turtle, resulting in the death of two of its passengers. Dante was found guilty of double homicide with reckless imprudence. In the separate civil action flied against them, his father was held solidarily liable with him in damages under Article 1903 (now Article 2180) of the Civil Code for the tort committed by the 15-year old boy.This decision, which was penned by Justice Bautista Angelo on June 29,1957, exculpated the school in an obiter dictum (as it was not a party to the case) on the ground that it was riot a school of arts and trades. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, with whom Justices Sabino Padilla and Alex Reyes concurred, dissented, arguing that it was the school authorities who should be held liable Liability under this rule, he said, was imposed on (1) teachers in general; and (2) heads of schools of arts and trades in particular. The modifying clause "of establishments of arts and trades" should apply only to "heads" and not "teachers."Exconde was reiterated in the Mercado Case, and with an elaboration. A student cut a classmate with a razor blade during recess time at the Lourdes Catholic School in Quezon City, and the parents of the victim sued the culprits parents for damages. Through Justice Labrador, the Court declared in another obiter (as the school itself had also not been sued that the school was not liable because it was not an establishment of arts and trades. Moreover, the custody requirement had not been proved as this "contemplates a situation where the student lives and boards with the teacher, such that the control, direction and influences on the pupil supersede those of the parents." Justice J.B.L. Reyes did not take part but the other members of the court concurred in this decision promulgated on May 30, 1960.In Palisoc vs. Brillantes, decided on October 4, 1971, a 16-year old student was killed by a classmate with fist blows in the laboratory of the Manila Technical Institute. Although the wrongdoer who was already of age was not boarding in the school, the head thereof and the teacher in charge were held solidarily liable with him. The Court declared through Justice Teehankee:The phrase used in the cited article "so long as (the students) remain in their custody" means the protective and supervisory custody that the school and its heads and teachers exercise over the pupils and students for as long as they are at attendance in the school, including recess time. There is nothing in the law that requires that for such liability to attach, the pupil or student who commits the tortious act must live and board in the school, as erroneously held by the lower court, and the dicta in Mercado (as well as in Exconde) on which it relied, must now be deemed to have been set aside by the present decision.This decision was concurred in by five other members, 10 including Justice J.B.L. Reyes, who stressed, in answer to the dissenting opinion, that even students already of age were covered by the provision since they were equally in the custody of the school and subject to its discipline. Dissenting with three others, 11 Justice Makalintal was for retaining the custody interpretation in Mercado and submitted that the rule should apply only to torts committed by students not yet of age as the school would be acting only in loco parentis.

In a footnote, Justice Teehankee said he agreed with Justice Reyes' dissent in the Exconde Case but added that "since the school involved at bar is a non-academic school, the question as to the applicability of the cited codal provision to academic institutions will have to await another case wherein it may properly be raised."This is the case.Unlike in Exconde and Mercado, the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos has been directly impleaded and is sought to be held liable under Article 2180; and unlike in Palisoc, it is not a school of arts and trades but an academic institution of learning. The parties herein have also directly raised the question of whether or not Article 2180 covers even establishments which are technically not schools of arts and trades, and, if so, when the offending student is supposed to be "in its custody."After an exhaustive examination of the problem, the Court has come to the conclusion that the provision in question should apply to all schools, academic as well as non-academic. 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. In other words, teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of their students except where the school is technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable. Following the canon of reddendo singula singulis "teachers" should apply to the words "pupils and students" and "heads of establishments of arts and trades" to the word "apprentices."The Court thus conforms to the dissenting opinion expressed by Justice J.B.L. Reyes in Exconde where he said in part:I can see no sound reason for limiting Art. 1903 of the Old Civil Code to teachers of arts and trades and not to academic ones. What substantial difference is there between them insofar as concerns the proper supervision and vice over their pupils? It cannot be seriously contended that an academic teacher is exempt from the duty of watching that his pupils do not commit a tort to the detriment of third Persons, so long as they are in a position to exercise authority and Supervision over the pupil. In my opinion, in the phrase "teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades" used in Art. 1903 of the old Civil Code, the words "arts and trades" does not qualify "teachers" but only "heads of establishments." The phrase is only an updated version of the equivalent terms "preceptores y artesanos" used in the Italian and French Civil Codes.If, as conceded by all commentators, the basis of the presumption of negligence of Art. 1903 in some culpa in vigilando that the parents, teachers, etc. are supposed to have incurred in the exercise of their authority, it would seem clear 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 very reason/that the parent is not supposed to interfere with the discipline of the school nor with the authority and supervision of the teacher while the child is under instruction. And if there is no authority, there can be no responsibility.There is really 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. The suggestion in the Exconde and Mercado Cases is that the provision would make the teacher or even the head of the school of arts and trades liable for an injury caused by any student in its custody but if that same tort were committed in an academic school, no liability would attach to the teacher or the school head. All other circumstances being the same, the teacher or the head of the academic school would be absolved whereas the teacher and the head of the non-academic school would be held liable, and simply because the latter is a school of arts and trades.The Court cannot see why different degrees of vigilance should be exercised by the school authorities on the basis only of the nature of their respective schools. There does not seem to be any plausible reason for relaxing that vigilance simply because the school is academic in nature and for increasing such vigilance where the school is non-academic. Notably, the injury subject of liability is caused by the student and not by the school itself nor is it a result of the operations of the school or its equipment. The injury contemplated may be caused by any student regardless of the school where he is registered. The teacher certainly should not be able to excuse himself by simply showing that he is teaching in an academic school where, on the other hand, the head would be held liable if the school were non-academic.These questions, though, may be asked: If the teacher of the academic school is to be held answerable for the torts committed by his students, why is it the head of the school only who is held liable where the injury is caused in a school of arts and trades? And in the case of the academic or non- technical school, why not apply the rule also to the head thereof instead of imposing the liability only on the teacher?The reason for the disparity can be traced to the fact that historically the head of the school of arts and trades exercised a closer tutelage over his pupils than the head of the academic school. The old schools of arts and trades were engaged in the training of artisans apprenticed to their master who personally and directly instructed them on the technique and secrets of their craft. The head of the school of arts and trades was such a master and so was personally involved in the task of teaching his students, who usually even boarded with him and so came under his constant control, supervision and influence. By contrast, the head of the academic school was not as involved with his students and exercised only administrative duties over the teachers who were the persons directly dealing with the students. The head of the academic school had then (as now) only a vicarious relationship with the students. Consequently, while he could not be directly faulted for the acts of the students, the head of the school of arts and trades, because of his closer ties with them, could be so blamed.

It is conceded that the distinction no longer obtains at present in view of the expansion of the schools of arts and trades, the consequent increase in their enrollment, and the corresponding diminution of the direct and personal contract of their heads with the students. Article 2180, however, remains unchanged. In its present state, the provision must be interpreted by the Court according to its clear and original mandate until the legislature, taking into account the charges in the situation subject to be regulated, sees fit to enact the necessary amendment.The other matter to be resolved is the duration of the responsibility of the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades over the students. Is such responsibility co-extensive with the period when the student is actually undergoing studies during the school term, as contended by the respondents and impliedly admitted by the petitioners themselves?From a reading of the provision under examination, it is clear that while the custody requirement, to repeat Palisoc v. Brillantes, does not mean that the student must be boarding with the school authorities, it does signify that the student should be within the control and under the influence of the school authorities at the time of the occurrence of the injury. This does not necessarily mean that such, custody be co-terminous with the semester, beginning with the start of classes and ending upon the close thereof, and excluding the time before or after such period, such as the period of registration, and in the case of graduating students, the period before the commencement exercises. In the view of the Court, the student is in the custody of the school authorities as long as he is under the control and influence of the school and within its premises, whether the semester has not yet begun or has already ended.It is too tenuous to argue that the student comes under the discipline of the school only upon the start of classes notwithstanding that before that day he has already registered and thus placed himself under its rules. Neither should such discipline be deemed ended upon the last day of classes notwithstanding that there may still be certain requisites to be satisfied for completion of the course, such as submission of reports, term papers, clearances and the like. During such periods, the student is still subject to the disciplinary authority of the school and cannot consider himself released altogether from observance of its rules.As long as it can be shown that the student is in the school premises in pursuance of a legitimate student objective, in the exercise of a legitimate student right, and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student right, and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student privilege, the responsibility of the school authorities over the student continues. Indeed, even if the student should be doing nothing more than relaxing in the campus in the company of his classmates and friends and enjoying the ambience and atmosphere of the school, he is still within the custody and subject to the discipline of the school authorities under the provisions of Article 2180.During all these occasions, it is obviously the teacher-in-charge who must answer for his students' torts, in practically the same way that the parents are responsible for the child when he is in their custody. The teacher-in-charge is the one designated by the dean, principal, or other administrative superior to exercise supervision over the pupils in the specific classes or sections to which they are assigned. It is not necessary that at the time of the injury, the teacher be physically present and in a position to prevent it. Custody does not connote immediate and actual physical control but refers more to the influence exerted on the child and the discipline instilled in him as a result of such influence. Thus, for the injuries caused by the student, the teacher and not the parent shag be held responsible if the tort was committed within the premises of the school at any time when its authority could be validly exercised over him.In any event, it should be noted that the liability imposed by this article is supposed to fall directly on the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades and not on the school itself. If at all, the school, whatever its nature, may be held to answer for the acts of its teachers or even of the head thereof under the general principle of respondeat superior, but then it may exculpate itself from liability by proof that it had exercised the diligence of a bonus paterfamilias.

Such defense is, of course, also available to the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades directly held to answer for the tort committed by the student. As long as the defendant can show that he had taken the necessary precautions to prevent the injury complained of, he can exonerate himself from the liability imposed by Article 2180, which also states that:The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the Persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages.In this connection, it should be observed that the teacher will be held liable not only when he is acting in loco parentis for the law does not require that the offending student be of minority age. Unlike the parent, who wig be liable only if his child is still a minor, the teacher is held answerable by the law for the act of the student under him regardless of the student's age. Thus, in the Palisoc Case, liability attached to the teacher and the head of the technical school although the wrongdoer was already of age. In this sense, Article 2180 treats the parent more favorably than the teacher.The Court is not unmindful of the apprehensions expressed by Justice Makalintal in his dissenting opinion in Palisoc that the school may be unduly exposed to liability under this article in view of the increasing activism among the students that is likely to cause violence and resulting injuries in the school premises. That is a valid fear, to be sure. Nevertheless, it should be repeated that, under the present ruling, it is not the school that will be held directly liable. Moreover, the defense of due diligence is available to it in case it is sought to be held answerable as principal for the acts or omission of its head or the teacher in its employ.The school can show that it exercised proper measures in selecting the head or its teachers and the appropriate supervision over them in the custody and instruction of the pupils pursuant to its rules and regulations for the maintenance of discipline among them. In almost all cases now, in fact, these measures are effected through the assistance of an adequate security force to help the teacher physically enforce those rules upon the students. Ms should bolster the claim of the school that it has taken adequate steps to prevent any injury that may be committed by its students.

A fortiori, the teacher himself may invoke this defense as it would otherwise be unfair to hold him directly answerable for the damage caused by his students as long as they are in the school premises and presumably under his influence. In this respect, the Court is disposed not to expect from the teacher the same measure of responsibility imposed on the parent for their influence over the child is not equal in degree. Obviously, the parent can expect more obedience from the child because the latter's dependence on him is greater than on the teacher. It need not be stressed that such dependence includes the child's support and sustenance whereas submission to the teacher's influence, besides being coterminous with the period of custody is usually enforced only because of the students' desire to pass the course. The parent can instill more las discipline on the child than the teacher and so should be held to a greater accountability than the teacher for the tort committed by the child.And if it is also considered that under the article in question, the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades is responsible for the damage caused by the student or apprentice even if he is already of age and therefore less tractable than the minor then there should all the more be justification to require from the school authorities less accountability as long as they can prove reasonable diligence in preventing the injury. After all, if the parent himself is no longer liable for the student's acts because he has reached majority age and so is no longer under the former's control, there is then all the more reason for leniency in assessing the teacher's responsibility for the acts of the student.Applying the foregoing considerations, the Court has arrived at the following conclusions:1.At the time Alfredo Amadora was fatally shot, he was still in the custody of the authorities of Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos notwithstanding that the fourth year classes had formally ended. It was immaterial if he was in the school auditorium to finish his physics experiment or merely to submit his physics report for what is important is that he was there for a legitimate purpose. As previously observed, even the mere savoring of the company of his friends in the premises of the school is a legitimate purpose that would have also brought him in the custody of the school authorities.2.The rector, the high school principal and the dean of boys cannot be held liable because none of them was the teacher-in-charge as previously defined. Each of them was exercising only a general authority over the student body and not the direct control and influence exerted by the teacher placed in charge of particular classes or sections and thus immediately involved in its discipline. The evidence of the parties does not disclose who the teacher-in-charge of the offending student was. The mere fact that Alfredo Amadora had gone to school that day in connection with his physics report did not necessarily make the physics teacher, respondent Celestino Dicon, the teacher-in-charge of Alfredo's killer.3.At any rate, assuming that he was the teacher-in-charge, there is no showing that Dicon was negligent in enforcing discipline upon Daffon or that he had waived observance of the rules and regulations of the school or condoned their non-observance. His absence when the tragedy happened cannot be considered against him because he was not supposed or required to report to school on that day. And while it is true that the offending student was still in the custody of the teacher-in-charge even if the latter was physically absent when the tort was committed, it has not been established that it was caused by his laxness in enforcing discipline upon the student. On the contrary, the private respondents have proved that they had exercised due diligence, through the enforcement of the school regulations, in maintaining that discipline.4.In the absence of a teacher-in-charge, it is probably the dean of boys who should be held liable especially in view of the unrefuted evidence that he had earlier confiscated an unlicensed gun from one of the students and returned the same later to him without taking disciplinary action or reporting the matter to higher authorities. While this was clearly negligence on his part, for which he deserves sanctions from the school, it does not necessarily link him to the shooting of Amador as it has not been shown that he confiscated and returned pistol was the gun that killed the petitioners' son.5.Finally, as previously observed, the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos cannot be held directly liable under the article because only the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades is made responsible for the damage caused by the student or apprentice. Neither can it be held to answer for the tort committed by any of the other private respondents for none of them has been found to have been charged with the custody of the offending student or has been remiss in the discharge of his duties in connection with such custody.In sum, the Court finds under the facts as disclosed by the record and in the light of the principles herein announced that none of the respondents is liable for the injury inflicted by Pablito Damon on Alfredo Amadora that resulted in the latter's death at the auditorium of the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos on April 13, 1972. While we deeply sympathize with the petitioners over the loss of their son under the tragic circumstances here related, we nevertheless are unable to extend them the material relief they seek, as a balm to their grief, under the law they have invoked.WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, without any pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.Yap, Narvasa, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes and Grio-Aquino, JJ., concur.Fernan, Padilla and Teehankee, C.J., JJ, took no part.G.R. No. L-21438 September 28, 1966AIR FRANCE, petitioner, vs.RAFAEL CARRASCOSO and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.Lichauco, Picazo and Agcaoili for petitioner.Bengzon Villegas and Zarraga for respondent R. Carrascoso.SANCHEZ, J.:The Court of First Instance of Manila 1 sentenced petitioner to pay respondent Rafael Carrascoso P25,000.00 by way of moral damages; P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; P393.20 representing the difference in fare between first class and tourist class for the portion of the trip Bangkok-Rome, these various amounts with interest at the legal rate, from the date of the filing of the complaint until paid; plus P3,000.00 for attorneys' fees; and the costs of suit.On appeal,2 the Court of Appeals slightly reduced the amount of refund on Carrascoso's plane ticket from P393.20 to P383.10, and voted to affirm the appealed decision "in all other respects", with costs against petitioner.The case is now before us for review on certiorari.The facts declared by the Court of Appeals as " fully supported by the evidence of record", are:Plaintiff, a civil engineer, was a member of a group of 48 Filipino pilgrims that left Manila for Lourdes on March 30, 1958.On March 28, 1958, the defendant, Air France, through its authorized agent, Philippine Air Lines, Inc., issued to plaintiff a "first class" round trip airplane ticket from Manila to Rome. From Manila to Bangkok, plaintiff travelled in "first class", but at Bangkok, the Manager of the defendant airline forced plaintiff to vacate the "first class" seat that he was occupying because, in the words of the witness Ernesto G. Cuento, there was a "white man", who, the Manager alleged, had a "better right" to the seat. When asked to vacate his "first class" seat, the plaintiff, as was to be expected, refused, and told defendant's Manager that his seat would be taken over his dead body; a commotion ensued, and, according to said Ernesto G. Cuento, "many of the Filipino passengers got nervous in the tourist class; when they found out that Mr. Carrascoso was having a hot discussion with the white man [manager], they came all across to Mr. Carrascoso and pacified Mr. Carrascoso to give his seat to the white man" (Transcript, p. 12, Hearing of May 26, 1959); and plaintiff reluctantly gave his "first class" seat in the plane.31. The trust of the relief petitioner now seeks is that we review "all the findings" 4 of respondent Court of Appeals. Petitioner charges that respondent court failed to make complete findings of fact on all the issues properly laid before it. We are asked to consider facts favorable to petitioner, and then, to overturn the appellate court's decision.Coming into focus is the constitutional mandate that "No decision shall be rendered by any court of record without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based". 5 This is echoed in the statutory demand that a judgment determining the merits of the case shall state "clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based"; 6 and that "Every decision of the Court of Appeals shall contain complete findings of fact on all issues properly raised before it". 7A decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity. It is open to direct attack. 8 The law, however, solely insists that a decision state the "essential ultimate facts" upon which the court's conclusion is drawn. 9 A court of justice is not hidebound to write in its decision every bit and piece of evidence 10 presented by one party and the other upon the issues raised. Neither is it to be burdened with the obligation "to specify in the sentence the facts" which a party "considered as proved". 11 This is but a part of the mental process from which the Court draws the essential ultimate facts. A decision is not to be so clogged with details such that prolixity, if not confusion, may result. So long as the decision of the Court of Appeals contains the necessary facts to warrant its conclusions, it is no error for said court to withhold therefrom "any specific finding of facts with respect to the evidence for the defense". Because as this Court well observed, "There is no law that so requires". 12