VOL.

376,FEBRUARY6,2002

473

St. Marys Academy vs. Carpitanos

*

G.R.No.143363.February6,2002.

ST. MARYS ACADEMY, petitioner, vs. WILLIAM

CARPITANOS and LUCIA S. CARPITANOS, GUADA
DANIEL,JAMESDANIELII,JAMESDANIEL,SR.,and
VIVENCIOVILLANUEVA,respondents.
Schools and Universities; Persons and Institutions With
Special Parental Authority Over Minor Children; The special
parental authority and responsibility applies to all authorized
activities, whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity
or institution.UnderArticle218oftheFamilyCode,thefollowing
shallhavespecialparentalauthorityoveraminorchildwhileunder
their supervision, instruction or custody: (1) the school, its
administrators and teachers; or (2) the individual, entity or
institution engaged in child care. This special parental authority
andresponsibilityappliestoallauthorizedactivities,whetherinside
or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution. Thus,
such authority and responsibility applies to field trips, excursions
and other affairs of the pupils and students outside the school
premises whenever authorized by the school or its teachers. Under
Article 219 of the Family Code, if the person under custody is a
minor, those exercising special parental authority are principally
andsolidarilyliablefordamagescausedbytheactsoromissionsof
the unemancipated minor under their supervision, instruction, or
custody.
Same; Same; For a school to be liable, there must be a finding
that the act or omission considered as negligent was the proximate
cause of the injury caused because the negligence must have a
causal connection to the accident.Forpetitionertobeliable,there
must be a finding that the act or omission considered as negligent
was the proximate cause of the injury caused because the
negligencemusthaveacausalconnectiontotheaccident.Inorder
that there may be a recovery for an injury, however, it must be
shown that the injury for which recovery is sought must be the
legitimate consequence of the wrong done; the connection between
the negligence and the injury must be a direct and natural
sequence of events, unbroken by intervening efficient causes. In
other words, the negligence must be the proximate cause of the
injury.For,negligence,nomatterinwhatitconsists,cannotcreate
a right of action unless it is the proximate cause of the injury
complainedof.Andtheproximatecauseofaninjuryisthatcause,
which,innaturalandcontinuoussequence,unbrokenbyany
_______________
* FIRSTDIVISION.

474

474

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
St. Marys Academy vs. Carpitanos

efficientinterveningcause,producestheinjury,andwithoutwhich
theresultwouldnothaveoccurred.
Same; Same; Words and Phrases; The proximate cause of an
injury is that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury,
and without which the result would not have occurred.Liability
for the accident, whether caused by the negligence of the minor
driverormechanicaldetachmentofthesteeringwheelguideofthe
jeep, must be pinned on the minors parents primarily. The
negligence of petitioner St. Marys Academy was only a remote
cause of the accident. Between the remote cause and the injury,
there intervened the negligence of the minors parents or the
detachmentofthesteeringwheelguideofthejeep.Theproximate
cause of an injury is that cause, which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces
theinjury,andwithoutwhichtheresultwouldnothaveoccurred.
QuasiDelicts; Torts; Motor Vehicles; The registered owner of
any vehicle, even if not used for public service, would primarily be
responsible to the public or to third persons for injuries caused the
latter while the vehicle was being driven on the highways or
streets.Incidentally, there was no question that the registered
owner of the vehicle was respondent Villanueva. He never denied
and in fact admitted this fact. We have held that the registered
owner of any vehicle, even if not used for public service, would
primarilyberesponsibletothepublicortothirdpersonsforinjuries
caused the latter while the vehicle was being driven on the
highways or streets. Hence, with the overwhelming evidence
presentedbypetitionerandtherespondentDanielspousesthatthe
accident occurred because of the detachment of the steering wheel
guideofthejeep,itisnottheschool,buttheregisteredownerofthe
vehicle who shall be held responsible for damages for the death of
SherwinCarpitanos.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt
ofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Padilla Law Officeforpetitioner.
Peter Y. CoforrespondentsDanielandVillanueva.
Feliciano M. MaraonforrespondentsCarpitanos.
475

VOL.376,FEBRUARY6,2002

475

St. Marys Academy vs. Carpitanos

PARDO,J.:
1

Thecaseisanappealviacertiorarifromthedecision ofthe

Court of Appeals as well as the resolution denying

reconsideration, holding petitioner liable for damages
arising from an accident that resulted in the death of a
student who had joined a campaign to visit the public
schoolsinDipologCitytosolicitenrollment.
The Facts
Thefacts,asfoundbytheCourtofAppeals,areasfollows:
Claiming damages for the death of their only son, Sherwin
Carpitanos,spousesWilliamCarpitanosandLuciaCarpitanosfiled
on June 9, 1995 a case against James Daniel II and his parents,
James Daniel Sr. and Guada Daniel, the vehicle owner, Vivencio
VillanuevaandSt.MarysAcademybeforetheRegionalTrialCourt
ofDipologCity.
On 20 February 1997, Branch 6 of the Regional Trial Court of
Dipolog City rendered its decision the dispositive portion of which
readsasfollows:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is
herebyrenderedinthefollowingmanner:
1. Defendant St. Marys Academy of Dipolog City, is hereby
ordered to pay plaintiffs William Carpitanos and Luisa
Carpitanos,thefollowingsumsofmoney:
a. FIFTYTHOUSANDPESOS(P50,000.00)indemnityforthe
lossoflifeofSherwinS.Carpitanos;
b. FORTYTHOUSANDPESOS
(P40,000.00) actual damages incurred by plaintiffs for
burialandrelatedexpenses;
c. TENTHOUSANDPESOS(P10,000.00)forattorneysfees;
d. FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00) for
moraldamages;andtopaycosts.
_______________
1

In CAG.R. CV No. 56728, promulgated on February 29, 2000,

Reyes,Jr.,J., ponente,Martin,Jr.andBrawner,JJ.,concurring.
476

476

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
St. Marys Academy vs. Carpitanos
2. Their liability being only subsidiary, defendants James
Daniel, Sr. and Guada Daniel are hereby ordered to pay
hereinplaintiffstheamountofdamagesabovestatedinthe
eventofinsolvencyofprincipalobligorSt.MarysAcademy
ofDipologCity;
3. DefendantJamesDanielII,beingaminoratthetimeofthe
commission of the tort and who was under special parental
authorityofdefendantSt.MarysAcademy,isABSOLVED
from paying the abovestated damages, same being
adjudged against defendants St. Marys Academy, and
subsidiarily,againsthisparents;
4. Defendant Vivencio Villanueva is hereby ABSOLVED of

any liability. His counterclaim not being in order as earlier

discussedinthisdecision,isherebyDISMISSED.
ITISSOORDERED.
(Decision,pp.3233;Records,pp.205206).
From the records it appears that from 13 to 20 February 1995,
defendantappellantSt.MarysAcademyofDipologCityconducted
an enrollment drive for the school year 19951996. A facet of the
enrollment campaign was the visitation of schools from where
prospective enrollees were studying. As a student of St. Marys
Academy,SherwinCarpitanoswaspartofthecampaigninggroup.
Accordingly, on the fateful day, Sherwin, along with other high
school students were riding in a Mitsubishi jeep owned by
defendantVivencioVillanuevaontheirwaytoLarayanElementary
School, Larayan, Dapitan City. The jeep was driven by James
Daniel II then 15 years old and a student of the same school.
Allegedly, the latter drove the jeep in a reckless manner and as a
resultthejeepturnedturtle.
SherwinCarpitanosdiedasaresultoftheinjurieshesustained
2
fromtheaccident.

In due time, petitioner St. Marys

Academy appealed the
3
decisiontotheCourtofAppeals.
OnFebruary29,2000,theCourtofAppealspromulgated
a decision reducing the actual damages to P25,000.00
but
4
otherwiseaffirmingthedecisiona quo in toto.
_______________
2Rollo,pp.5355.
3DocketedasCAG.R.CVNo.56728.
4Petition,AnnexA,Rollo,pp.5270.

477

VOL.376,FEBRUARY6,2002

477

St. Marys Academy vs. Carpitanos

OnFebruary29,2000,petitionerSt.MarysAcademyfileda
motionforreconsiderationofthedecision.However,onMay
5
22,2000,theCourtofAppealsdeniedthemotion.
6
Hence,thisappeal.
The Issues
1) WhethertheCourtofAppealserredinholdingthe
petitioner liable for damages for the death of
SherwinCarpitanos.
2) WhethertheCourtofAppealserredinaffirmingthe
awardofmoraldamagesagainstthepetitioner.

The Courts Ruling

WereversethedecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.
TheCourtofAppealsheldpetitionerSt.MarysAcademy
liable for the death of Sherwin Carpitanos under Articles

218 and 219 of the Family Code, pointing out that

petitionerwasnegligentinallowingaminortodriveandin
nothavingateacheraccompanytheminorstudentsinthe
jeep.
UnderArticle218oftheFamilyCode,thefollowingshall
have special parental authority over a minor child while
undertheir
_______________
5Petition,AnnexB,Rollo,pp.7273.
6PetitionfiledonJuly17,2000,Rollo,pp.948.OnJuly16,2001,we

gaveduecoursetothepetition,Rollo,pp.202203.
7

Article 218. The School, its administrators and teachers, or the

individual,entityorinstitutionengagedinchildcareshallhavespecial
parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under
their supervision, instruction or custody. Authority and responsibility
shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the
premisesoftheschool,entityorinstitution.
8Article219.Thosegiventheauthorityandresponsibilityunderthe

preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages

caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor. The
parents,judicialguardiansorthepersonsexercisingsubstituteparental
authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable. The respective
liabilitiesofthosereferredtointheprecedingparagraphshallnotapply
if it is proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under
theparticularcircumstances.
478

478

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
St. Marys Academy vs. Carpitanos

supervision, instruction or custody: (1) the school, its

administratorsandteachers;or(2)theindividual,entityor
institution engaged in child care. This special parental
authority and responsibility applies to all authorized
activities, whether inside or outside the premises of the
school, entity or institution. Thus, such authority and
responsibility applies to field trips, excursions and other
affairs of the pupils and students outside the school9
premiseswheneverauthorizedbytheschooloritsteachers.
Under Article 219 of the Family Code, if the person
undercustodyisaminor,thoseexercisingspecialparental
authority are principally and solidarily liable for damages
causedbytheactsoromissionsoftheunemancipatedminor
10
undertheirsupervision,instruction,orcustody.
However, for petitioner to be liable, there must be a
findingthattheactoromissionconsideredasnegligentwas
the proximate cause of the injury caused because the
11
negligence,musthaveacausalconnectiontotheaccident.
In order that there may be a recovery for an injury, however, it
mustbeshownthattheinjuryforwhichrecoveryissoughtmustbe
the legitimate consequence of the wrong done; the connection
betweenthenegligenceandtheinjurymustbeadirectandnatural
sequence of events, unbroken by intervening efficient causes. In
other words, the negligence must be the proximate cause of the

injury.For,negligence,nomatterinwhatitconsists,cannotcreate
a right of action unless it is the proximate cause of the injury
complainedof.Andtheproximatecauseofaninjuryisthatcause,
which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficientinterveningcause,producestheinjury,andwithoutwhich
12
theresultwouldnothaveoccurred.
_______________
9

Handbook On The Family Code Of The Philippines, Alicia V.

SempioDiy(1997),p.344.
10TheFamilyCodeofthePhilippinesAnnotated,RufusB.Rodriguez

(1990),p.505.
11 Sanitary

Steam Laundry, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 360 Phil. 199,

208;300SCRA20[1998].
12Cruz

v. Court of Appeals,346Phil.872,886;282SCRA188[1997].
479

VOL.376,FEBRUARY6,2002

479

St. Marys Academy vs. Carpitanos

In this case, the respondents failed to show that the
negligence of petitioner was the proximate cause of the
deathofthevictim.
Respondents Daniel spouses and Villanueva admitted
that the immediate cause of the accident was not the
negligence of petitioner or the reckless driving of James
DanielII,butthedetachmentofthesteeringwheelguideof
thejeep.
In their comment to the petition, respondents Daniel
spousesandVillanuevaadmittedthedocumentaryexhibits
establishing that the cause of the accident was the
detachmentofthesteeringwheelguideofthejeep.Hence,
thecauseoftheaccidentwasnottherecklessnessofJames
DanielIIbutthemechanicaldefectinthejeepofVivencio
Villanueva.Respondents,includingthespousesCarpitanos,
parentsofthedeceasedSherwinCarpitanos,didnotdispute
the report and testimony of the traffic investigator who
statedthatthecauseoftheaccidentwasthedetachmentof
thesteeringwheelguidethatcausedthejeeptoturnturtle.
Significantly, respondents did not present any evidence
to show that the proximate cause of the accident was the
negligenceoftheschoolauthorities,ortherecklessdriving
of James Daniel II. Hence, the respondents reliance on
Article 219 of the Family Code that those given the
authority and responsibility under the preceding Article
shallbeprincipallyandsolidarilyliablefordamagescaused
by acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor was
unfounded.
Further, there was no evidence that petitioner school
allowed the minor James Daniel II to drive the jeep of
respondent Vivencio Villanueva. It was Ched Villanueva,
grandson of respondent Vivencio Villanueva, who had
possession and control of the jeep. He was driving the
vehicle and he allowed James Daniel II, a minor, to drive
thejeepatthetimeoftheaccident.
Hence, liability for the accident, whether caused by the

negligenceoftheminordriverormechanicaldetachmentof
thesteeringwheelguideofthejeep,mustbepinnedonthe
minors parents primarily. The negligence of petitioner St.
Marys Academy was only a remote cause of the accident.
Betweentheremotecauseandtheinjury,thereintervened
thenegligenceoftheminorsparentsorthedetachmentof
thesteeringwheelguideofthejeep.
480

480

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
St. Marys Academy vs. Carpitanos

The proximate cause of an injury is that cause, which, in natural

and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause,producestheinjury,andwithoutwhichtheresultwouldnot
13
haveoccurred.

Consideringthatthenegligenceoftheminordriverorthe
detachmentofthesteeringwheelguideofthejeepownedby
respondentVillanuevawasaneventoverwhichpetitioner
St. Marys Academy had no control, and which was the
proximatecauseoftheaccident,petitionermaynotbeheld
liableforthedeathresultingfromsuchaccident.
Consequently,wefindthatpetitionerlikewisecannotbe
heldliableformoraldamagesintheamountofP500,000.00
awarded by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of
Appeals.
Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral
damagesmayberecoverediftheyaretheproximateresult
14
of defendants wrongful act or omission. In this case, the
proximate cause of the accident was not attributable to
petitioner.
Forthereasonthatpetitionerwasnotdirectlyliablefor
the accident, the decision of the Court of Appeals ordering
petitionertopaydeathindemnitytorespondentCarpitanos
must be deleted. Moreover, the grant of attorneys fees
as
15
partofdamagesistheexceptionratherthantherule. The
power of the court to award attorneys fees under Article
2208oftheCivilCodedemandsfactual,legalandequitable
16
justification. Thus,thegrantofattorneysfeesagainstthe
petitionerislikewisedeleted.
Incidentally, there was no question that the registered
owner of the vehicle was respondent Villanueva. He never
deniedandinfactadmittedthisfact.Wehaveheldthatthe
registeredownerofany
_______________
13 Ford

Philippines v. Citibank, G.R. No. 128604, January 29, 2001;

350 SCRA 446; Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, 326
SCRA641,659[2000];Bataclan v. Medina,102Phil.181,186[1957].
14Article2217oftheCivilCode.
15 Philtranco

Service Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 340 Phil.

98,111;273SCRA562[1997].
16 Morales

v. Court of Appeals, 340 Phil. 397, 422; 274 SCRA 282

[1997].
481

VOL.376,FEBRUARY6,2002

481

St. Marys Academy vs. Carpitanos

vehicle,evenifnotusedforpublicservice,wouldprimarily
beresponsibletothepublicortothirdpersonsforinjuries
causedthelatterwhilethevehiclewasbeingdrivenonthe
17
highways or streets. Hence, with the overwhelming
evidencepresentedbypetitionerandtherespondentDaniel
spouses that the accident occurred because of the
detachmentofthesteeringwheelguideofthejeep,itisnot
theschool,buttheregisteredownerofthevehiclewhoshall
be held responsible for damages for the death of Sherwin
Carpitanos.
The Fallo
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES
and SETS ASIDE
18
thedecisionoftheCourtofAppeals
andthatofthetrial
19
court. The Court remands the case to the trial court for
determination of the liability of defendants, excluding
petitionerSt.MarysAcademy,DipologCity.
Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), KapunanandYnares
Santiago, JJ.,concur.
Puno, J.,Intheresult.
Judgment reversed and set aside. Case remanded to trial
court for determination of liability of defendants.
Notes.Arentacarcompanyisnotliablefordamages
basedonquasidelictforfaultornegligenceofthecarlessee
in driving the motor vehicle. (FGU Insurance Corporation
vs. Court of Appeals,287SCRA718[1998])
Apartywhoassertsthatanotherperson,byviolationof
the Land Transportation and Traffic Code, contributed to
thecollision
_______________
17 Aguilar

Sr. v. Commercial Savings Bank, G.R. No. 128705, June

29,2001,360SCRA395;Erezo v. Jepte,102Phil.103,107[1957].
18CAG.R.No.CVNo.56728.
19InCivilCaseNo.4924.

482

482

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Mendezona vs. Ozamiz

ofvehicles,hastheburdenofshowingacausalconnection
between the injury received and the alleged violation, i.e.,
thattheviolationofthestatutewastheproximateorlegal
cause of the injury or that it substantially contributed
theretonegligence, consisting in whole or in part, of

violationoflaw,likeanyothernegligence,iswithoutlegal
consequenceunlessitisacontributingcauseoftheinjury.
(Sanitary Steam Laundry, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 300
SCRA20[1998])
Accidentandnegligenceareintrinsicallycontradictory
one cannot exist with the other. (Jarco Marketing
Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,321SCRA375[1999])
The mere fact that an employee was using a service
vehicle at the time of the injurious incident is not of itself
sufficient to charge his employer with liability for the
negligentoperationofsaidvehicleunlessitappearsthathe
wasoperatingthevehiclewithinthecourseorscopeofhis
employment. (Castilex Industrial Corporation vs. Vasquez,
Jr.,321SCRA393[1999])
o0o

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.