Aquinas School v. Inton

 Aquinas School v. Inton, 

G.R. No. 184202, 

January 26, 2011

Doctrine: In determining the application of Art. 2180, an employer-employee

relationship must exist. The Court has consistently applied the "four-fold test" to

determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship: the employer (a) selects

and engages the employee; (b) pays his wages; (c) has power to dismiss him; and (d)

has control over his work. Of these, the most crucial is the element of control.

FACTS:

Jose Luis was a grade three student at Aquinas School. Sister Yamyamin was his

teacher for his religion class. While Yamyamin was writing on the board when Jose Luis

left his seat and went to pester a classmate of his. Yamyamin scolded the boy, but as he

did it the second time, Yamyamin went to him and kicked him on the legs several times.

She also shoved his head on a nearby seat.

Due to the incident, Jose Luis’ parents filed a case for damages against

Yamyamin. The petition was granted but the parents weren’t satisfied, so they elevated

the case to the Court of Appeals arguing that the School should be considered solidarily

liable with the Sister. The Court of Appeals granted the appeal, arguing that since the

Sister is an employee of the school then the latter should be held solidarily liable with the

former based on Art. 2180 on the Civil Code.

ISSUE:

Whether the school should be held solidarily liable with the sister?

HELD:

No. In determining the application of Art. 2180, an employer-employee

relationship must exist. The Court has consistently applied the "four-fold test" to

determine the

existence of an employer-employee relationship: the employer (a) selects and engages

the employee; (b) pays his wages; (c) has power to dismiss him; and (d) has control over

his work. Of these, the most crucial is the element of control.

In the case at bar, Aquinas did not have control over Yamyamin’s teaching

methods. Hence, it was wrong for the Court of Appeals to hold the school solidarily liable

with Yamyamin. Of course, Aquinas still had the responsibility of taking steps to ensure

that only qualified outside catechists are allowed to teach its young students. In this

regard, it cannot be said that Aquinas took no steps to avoid the occurrence of improper

conduct towards the students by their religion teacher. Unfortunately, since she was new

and it was just the start of the school year, Aquinas did not have sufficient opportunity to

observe her methods.