Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
School’s responsibility for a botched experiment
All of us are aware that there are school activities which involve some higher degree of risk and that we should be mindful of the degree of care to be exercised in organizing or joining these activities. For example, in a laboratory experiment in a Chemistry class, students and teachers are exposed to the risk of explosion. Let us now look into one case involving an explosion in a school laboratory for Chemistry.
On November 17, 1994, at around 1:30 in the afternoon inside SJ College premises, the class to which Jayson belonged was conducting a science experiment about fusion of sulphur powder and iron fillings under the tutelage of Ms. Rosalinda, she being the subject teacher and employee of SJ College. The adviser of Jayson’s class was Ms. Estefania.
Ms. Rosalinda left her class while it was doing the experiment without having adequately secured it from any untoward incident or occurrence. In the middle of the experiment, Jayson, who was the assistant leader of one of the class groups, checked the result of the experiment by looking into the test tube with magnifying glass. The test tube was being held by one of his group mates who moved it close and towards the eye of Jayson. At that instance, the compound in the test tube spurted out and several particles of which hit Jayson’s eye and the different parts of the bodies of some of his group mates. As a result thereof, Jayson’s eyes were chemically burned, particularly his left eye, for which he had to undergo surgery and had to spend for his medication.
Upon learning of the incident and because of the need for finances, Jayson’s mother, who was working abroad, had to rush back home for which she spent P36,070.00 for her fares and had to forego her salary from November 23, 1994 to December 26, 1994, in the amount of at least P40,000.00. Jayson and his parents suffered sleepless nights, mental anguish and wounded feelings as a result of his injury due to the fault and failure of the school and the teacher to exercise the degree of care and diligence incumbent upon each one of them.
After trial, the RTC ruled that the immediate cause of the accident was not the negligence of Jayson when he curiously looked into the test tube when the chemicals suddenly exploded which caused his injury, but the sudden and unexpected explosion of the chemicals independent of any intervening cause. The school and the teacher could have prevented the mishap if they exercised a higher degree of care, caution and foresight.
The trial court said that all of the defendants are equally at fault and are liable for negligence because all of them are responsible for exercising the required reasonable care, prudence, caution and foresight to prevent or avoid injuries to the students. The individual defendants are persons charged with the teaching and vigilance over their students as well as the supervision and ensuring of their well-being. They were remiss in their responsibilities and lacking in the degree of vigilance expected of them. Ms. Rosalinda was inside the classroom when the class undertook the science experiment although Jayson insisted that his teacher left the classroom. No evidence, however, was presented to establish that Mrs. Rosalinda was inside the classroom for the whole duration of the experiment. It was unnatural in the ordinary course of events that Jayson was brought to the school clinic for immediate treatment not by Mrs. Rosalinda but by somebody else.
The trial court further ruled that Ms. Estefania is equally at fault as the subject adviser or teacher in charge because she exercised control and supervision over Ms. Rosalinda and the students themselves. It was her obligation to insure that nothing would go wrong and that the science experiment would be conducted safely and without any harm or injury to the students. The school director is likewise culpable under the doctrine of command responsibility because the other individual defendants were under her direct control and supervision. The negligent acts of the other individual defendants were done within the scope of their assigned tasks.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, the high court declared that the proximate cause of Jayson’s injury was the concurrent failure of defendants to prevent the foreseeable mishap that occurred during the conduct of the science experiment. Defendants were negligent by failing to exercise the higher degree of care, caution and foresight incumbent upon the school, its administrators and teachers.
Article 218 of the Family Code, in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code, bestows special parental authority on the school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution engaged in child care who shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody. 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.
Defendants’ negligence and failure to exercise the requisite degree of care and caution is demonstrated by the following: 1) The school did not take affirmative steps to avert damage and injury to its students although it had full information on the nature of dangerous science experiments conducted by the students during class; 2) It did not install safety measures to protect the students who conduct experiments in class; 3) The school did not provide protective gears and devices, specifically goggles, to shield students from expected risks and dangers; and 3) Ms. Rosalinda was not inside the classroom the whole time her class conducted the experiment, specifically, when the accident involving Jayson occurred. In any event, the size of the class of fifty (50) students conducting the experiment is difficult to monitor (St. Joseph’s College, et.al. vs. Jayson Miranda, G.R. No. 182353, June 29, 2010).