[] But Cebu tragedy led to Supreme Court’s precept on liability of schools and their personnel as “custodian” of students
On April 13, 1972, inside the auditorium of Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos (now USJ-R or University of San Jose-Recoletos), Alfredo Amadora, 17, was shot dead by Pablito Daffon, a classmate, age undisclosed but reported as a minor when the shooting occurred.
Shooter Daffon was alone and didn’t shoot anyone else. The killing was unintentional, basing on his conviction of “homicide through reckless imprudence.” News reports at the time said he was found guilty “but escaped criminal liability because he was a minor.”
The 1972 shooting at San Jose-Recoletos cannot be placed in the category of mass shootings in schools, two of which occurred in the country just 57 days apart in this year 2026: one, last July 24 at the San Jose National High School in Tacloban City; the other, last August 18 at the Ateneo Junior High School in Zamboanga City.
The lone Zamboanga shooter had intent to kill: he killed two students, including the gunman who shot himself, and wounded two others. So did the two Tacloban shooters, who killed three students and wounded two others.
There was no intent to kill in the San Jose-Recoletos shooting in 1972, or 54 years ago.
No randomness of the shooting. No influence of digital games. No compulsion for revenge and venting hate.
That is, basing on the charge that prosecutors filed and the crime of which the accused Daffon was reportedly convicted, namely, homicide through reckless imprudence. The 1972 shooter was not out to watch people die, as the 2026 shooters had appeared to be.
A tragedy for the family and friends of Alfredo, son of then Cebu City fiscal (a position now titled city prosecutor) Jose Amadora, a sad incident tainted with some irony that the young man was killed three days or so before his graduation day. Victim Alfredo had 14 siblings, including a lawyer-mayor and a doctor.
Related: Seares: How Tacloban high school shooting differs from Ateneo de Manila shooting
In the 2022 shooting at Ateneo de Manila in Quezon City, Rose Furigay, a former mayor, and his executive assistant and a security guard were shot dead at the Ateneo campus by one Chao Tiao Yumol who went to the law school just to kill the ex-chief executive.
Shooter and victims were not students. A revenge killing bred by a long-running feud that started and grew in Lamitan City, Basilan Province. Which ended in gunplay at the Ateneo Campus where the former mayor was to attend a graduation.
The Ateneo gunman was arrested “in a matter of hours” because of a chase after the shooter.
Compare that with: [a] the Tacloban shooting, which ended after 10 minutes; [b] the Zamboanga state of violence, which was not officially clocked and police just said “the active threat was rapidly contained”; and, finally, [c] the CSJ-R shooting in Cebu, which didn’t set off a campus-wide emergency.
A landmark case, Amadora vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. # L-47745 of April 15, 1988) -- arising from the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos shooting -- established this core legal precept in Supreme Court jurisprudence, namely:
“All schools, whether academic or vocational, can be held liable for the tortious acts of their students under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, provided the student is under the custody of the school at the time of the incident.”
Then CSJ-R was civilly sued for damages by Amadora’s family and argued that (1) the Civil Code punishes only “trades and arts” schools and (2) Amadora was in school when classes had already ended, and he was no longer in CSJ-R custody.
The Supreme Court ruled that (1) “all educational institutions whether academic or vocational” are covered, thus striking down the distinction and broadening the liability of schools; and (2) a student is considered in the “custody” of the school “as long as they are in the school premises for a legitimate student purpose.”
Amadora was in school simply to submit a report and was considered by the SC, contrary to the finding of the Court of Appeals, “in the school’s custody.”
Despite the upholding of precepts that establish the school’s and school officials’ custody and liability, the high court affirmed the C.A. reversal of the Court of First Instance (CFI) grant of P294,984 in damages to the heirs of Amadora. The CFI had found the school, its rector, principal, dean of boys, and physics teacher liable; C.A. and the SC disagreed.
Even though the specific individual required by law to exercise direct custody and supervision at the moment (the teacher-in-charge) was absent, the SC said, CSJR, as well as its personnel, “could not be held vicariously liable for the independent criminal act of the shooter.”
How that SC decision in the Cebu litigation would impact any court case arising from the 2026 Tacloban and Zamboanga shootings must bother the lawyers suing.