Ylarde v.

Aquino Issues:

Standards of Conduct: Children | G. R. No. L-33722 | July 29, 1. W/N the principal is liable based on Article 2180—
1988 | Gancayco, J. | by Nicolas, J. NO
a. In line with Amadora v. CA, Ylarde, he is the
Doctrine: head of an academic school and not a
school of arts and trades.
The standard of conduct to which a child must conform for b. It is only the teacher and not the head of an
his own protection is that degree of care ordinarily exercised academic school who should be answerable
by children of the same age, capacity, discretion, knowledge for torts committed by their students.
and experience under the same or similar circumstances. c. Soriano did not give any instruction
regarding the digging.
Facts:
*Aquino can be held liable under Article 2180 of
 In 1963, the school principal, Mariano Soriano, and a
the Civil Code as the teacher-in-charge but he
teacher, Edgardo Aquino worked at Gabaldon
was sued under Art. 2176, a separate and
Primary School, public school in Tayug, Pangasinan.
distinct basis.
 Another teacher named Sergio Banez decided to
bury some concrete blocks that surrounded the 2. W/ N the teacher is liable based on Article 2176—
school. These stones were remnants of the old YES
school destroyed World War II and were serious a. Aquino acted with fault and gross
hazards to schoolchildren. negligence when he:
 On October 7, 1963, Aquino decided to help his i. failed to avail himself of services of
colleague by gathering 18 of his male pupils, aged 10 adult manual laborers and instead
to 11, after class dismissal and ordering them to dig utilized his pupils in a very
a hole beside a one-ton concrete block. They didn’t hazardous task;
finish. ii. required the children to remain
 The following day after classes, Aquino called 4 out inside the pit knowing that the
of the 18 pupils to continue (Reynaldo Alonso, huge block was lying nearby and
Francisco Alcantara, Ismael Abaga and Novelito could be easily pushed or kicked
Ylarde). aside;
 They dug until the excavation was 1 m and 40 cm iii. ordered them to level the soil
deep. Aquino alone continued digging while the around the excavation when it was
pupils remained inside the pit throwing out the loose so apparent that the huge stone
soil that was brought about by the digging. was at the brink of falling;
 When the hole was deep enough, Aquino left the iv. went to a place where he would
children to level the soil around the open hole while not be able to check on the
he went to Banez 30 meters away to get some rope. children's safety; and
Aquino allegedly told the children not to touch the v. left the children close to the
stone. excavation, an obviously attractive
 3 of the 4 (Alonso, Alcantara and Ylarde) playfully nuisance.
jumped into the pit. Without warning, the fourth kid b. Everything that occurred was the natural
(Abaga) jumped on top of the concrete block causing and probable effect of the negligent acts of
it to slide down the opening. Aquino.
 While Alonso and Alcantara were able to get out, c. A reasonably prudent person would have
Ylarde was pinned to the wall in standing position foreseen that bringing children to an
and sustained several injuries that led to his death excavation site, and more so, leaving them
three days later. there all by themselves, may result in an
 Ylarde’s parents filed a suit for damages against both accident.
the principal and Aquino. d. A teacher who stands in loco parentis to his
 CFI Pangasinan dismissed the complaint saying that: pupils would have made sure that the
o the digging done by the pupils is in line with children are protected from all harm in his
their course called Work Education; company.
o Aquino exercised the utmost diligence of a e. The digging does not pass as part of Work
very cautious person; Education and should not be placed in the
o the demise of Ylarde was due to his own category of school gardening, planting
reckless imprudence trees, and the like as these undertakings do
 The CA affirmed the CFI decision. not expose the children to any risk that
could result in death or physical injuries.
 3. W/N the death of the child was due to his own
negligence—NO
a. The lower court should have considered his
age and maturity.
b. He was only ten years old at the time of the
incident. As such, he is expected to be
playful and daring.
c. It was not only him but the three of them
who jumped into the hole while the
remaining boy jumped on the block. He only
did what any other ten-year old child would
do in the same situation.
d. The degree of care required to be exercised
must vary with the capacity of the person
endangered to care for himself.
e. A minor should not be held to the same
degree of care as an adult, but his conduct
should be judged according to the average
conduct of persons of his age and
experience.
f. The standard of conduct to which a child
must conform for his own protection is that
degree of care ordinarily exercised by
children of the same age, capacity,
discretion, knowledge and experience
under the same or similar circumstances.

Ruling: The CFI and CA decisions are reversed. Edgardo