The 14-year-old remained in hospital for 44 days after falling from a bridge over the M-50 in the early hours of 13 February 2026. He died on 29 March. Three families filed a complaint on 5 November asking a court to examine allegations of repeated mistreatment at his school and whether it may have been connected to his death. The complaint does not establish a causal link.
Filed through lawyer Ignacio Gordillo, the complaint asks for preliminary proceedings into an alleged offence against moral integrity. It names the school’s operating company, San Jaime S.L. The complaint also identifies its former director and a teacher. The families allege that several pupils faced humiliating, degrading treatment, including disproportionate punishments. The allegations remain untested in court.
The families say the boy was repeatedly reprimanded and humiliated in front of classmates during the 2025/2026 school year. They also allege that he was repeatedly removed from lessons and given disproportionate punishments. The complaint says staff blamed him for bullying younger pupils. His parents say his tutor later told them she did not believe he had bullied other students.
The complaint focuses on 12 February, the day before the boy fell from the bridge. According to his parents’ account, other pupils threw a ball at him. He was reprimanded afterwards and required to write an account of what had happened. He fell during the early hours of 13 February and was taken to hospital.
His parents submitted a psychologist’s report dated 10 July, based on sessions that took place before the February incident. The complaint says it described distress linked to school and a limiting effect on his psycho-emotional development. It also cites classmates and school staff as potential witnesses.
The families say pupils complained about the teacher after the boy’s fall. According to the complaint, she asked them to write down their views for the director; they produced four pages of complaints. The school had a new director and declined to comment on the complaint, Europa Press reported.
The filing also describes allegations involving two former pupils and a broader pattern of conduct. In one case, a family says the student received numerous disciplinary reports and expulsions; the education administration annulled a school investigation on 1 April 2025 after finding irregularities, including breaches of procedural guarantees. In the other, Madrid-Oeste’s Territorial Directorate annulled a disciplinary file on 1 June 2026, citing formal defects that had left the pupil without adequate defence. The complaint also cites a psychiatric report describing continuing distress linked to school and improvement during weekends and holidays.
The families say school leaders knew about complaints and failed to take sufficient steps to prevent repetition. They ask the court to question the company’s legal representative and the former director. The teacher is also among those they want questioned, along with parents and school staff as possible witnesses. They seek school records and medical reports. The filing also requests access to the provisionally archived judicial proceedings opened after the boy’s death.
The allegations concern student treatment, a separate issue from employment disputes such as the Madrid teachers’ sit-in, which sought talks over working conditions and pay.
