11.

CASE DIGEST ON ABELLANA V. MARAVE [57 S 106 (1974)] - Where accused appealed his conviction by the City
Court of Physical injuries thru reckless imprudence to the CFI, and while the case was on appeal, the heirs of
the victim filed an independent civil action against him and his employer in another branch, the civil action will
prosper despite the lack of reservation. The restrictive interpretation of the Rules of Court provision on civil
actions requiring reservation as to include the independent civil action under Art. 33 does not only result in
the emasculation of the civil code provision but also gives rise to a serious constitutional question. Article 33 is
quite clear. "The right to proceed independently of the criminal prosecution under Article 33 of the Civil Code
is a SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT, not to be frittered away by a construction that could render it nugatory, if through
oversight, the offended parties failed at the initial stage to seek recovery for damages in a civil suit. The grant
of power to this Court, both in the present constitution and under the 1935 Charter, does not extend to any
diminution, increase or modification of substantive right.

13. ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL VS. CA

FACTS: Ferdinand Castillo, a freshman student at the St. Francis High School, wanted to join a school picnic. His
parents, respondents spouses Dr. Romulo Castillo and Lilia Cadiz Castillo, because of short notice, did not
allow their son to join but merely allowed him to bring food to the teachers for the picnic, with the directive
that he should go back home after doing so. However, because of persuasion of the teachers, Ferdinand went
on with them to the beach. During the picnic, one of the female teachers was apparently drowning. Some of
the students, including Ferdinand, came to her rescue, but in the process, it was Ferdinand himself who
drowned. He died. Respondent spouses filed a civil case against petitioner and some of their teachers. Trial
court found teachers liable but dismissed complaint against the school.

ISSUE: W/N petitioner school and teachers are liable.

RULING: Petition granted.

RATIO: Before an employer may be held liable for the negligence of his employee, the act or omission which
caused damage must have occurred while an employee was in the performance of his assigned tasks. In the
case at bar, the teachers/petitioners were not in the actual performance of their assigned tasks. What was
held was a purely private affair, a picnic, which did not have permit from the school since it was not a school
sanctioned activity. Mere knowledge by petitioner/principal of the planning of the picnic does not in any way
consent to the holding of the same.
No negligence could be attributable to the petitioners-teachers to warrant the award of damages to the
respondents-spouses. The class adviser of the section where Ferdinand belonged, did her best and exercised
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent any untoward incident or damages to all the students who
joined the picnic.