CHILD LEARNING CENTER, INC. vs.
TAGARIO
FACTS: The complaint alleged that during the school year 1990-1991, Timothy was a Grade IV student at
Marymount School, an academic institution operated and maintained by Child Learning Center, Inc. (CLC). In the
afternoon of March 5, 1991, between 1 and 2 p.m., Timothy entered the boy’s comfort room at the third floor of
the Marymount building to answer the call of nature. He, however, found himself locked inside and unable to get
out. Timothy started to panic and so he banged and kicked the door and yelled several times for help. When no
help arrived he decided to open the window to call for help. In the process of opening the window, Timothy went
right through and fell down three stories. Timothy was hospitalized and given medical treatment for serious
multiple physical injuries.An action under Article 2176 of the Civil Code was filed by respondents against the CLC.
In its defense, CLC maintained that there was nothing defective about the locking mechanism of the door and
that the fall of Timothy was not due to its fault or negligence. CLC further maintained that it had exercised the
due care and diligence of a good father of a family to ensure the safety, well-being and convenience of its
students.After trial, the court a quo found in favor of respondents and ordered petitioners CLC and Spouses
Limon to pay respondents, jointly and severally, ₱200,253.12 as actual and compensatory damages, ₱200,000 as
moral damages, ₱50,000 as exemplary damages, ₱100,000 as attorney’s fees and the costs of the suit. The trial
court disregarded the corporate fiction of CLC and held the Spouses Limon personally liable because they were
the ones who actually managed the affairs of the CLC.On September 28, 2001, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision in toto.
ISSUE: Whether or not CLC is liable for the physical injuries incurred by Timothy.
HELD: On the basis of the records of this case, this Court finds no justification to reverse the factual findings and
consider this case as an exception to the general rule.In every tort case filed under Article 2176 of the Civil Code,
plaintiff has to prove by a preponderance of evidence: (1) the damages suffered by the plaintiff; (2) the fault or
negligence of the defendant or some other person for whose act he must respond; and (3) the connection of
cause and effect between the fault or negligence and the damages incurred.
Fault, in general, signifies a voluntary act or omission which causes damage to the right of another giving rise to
an obligation on the part of the actor to repair such damage. Negligence is the failure to observe for the
protection of the interest of another person that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the
circumstances justly demand. Fault requires the execution of a positive act which causes damage to another
while negligence consists of the omission to do acts which result in damage to another.
In this tort case, respondents contend that CLC failed to provide precautionary measures to avoid harm and
injury to its students in two instances: (1) failure to fix a defective door knob despite having been notified of the
problem; and (2)failure to install safety grills on the window where Timothy fell from.The fact, however, that
Timothy fell out through the window shows that the door could not be opened from the inside. That sufficiently
points to the fact that something was wrong with the door, if not the door knob, under the principle of res ipsa
loquitor. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor applies where (1) the accident was of such character as to warrant an
inference that it would not have happened except for the defendant’s negligence; (2) the accident must have
been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management or control of the person charged
with the negligence complained of; and (3) the accident must not have been due to any voluntary action or
contribution on the part of the person injured.
Petitioners are clearly answerable for failure to see to it that the doors of their school toilets are at all times in
working condition. The fact that a student had to go through the window, instead of the door, shows that
something was wrong with the door.Our pronouncement that Timothy climbed out of the window because he
could not get out using the door, negates petitioners’ other contention that the proximate cause of the accident
was Timothy’s own negligence. The injuries he sustained from the fall were the product of a natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any intervening cause, that originated from CLC’s own negligence.
