Liability for Student Injury

Being a teacher is more than a provider of quality education. Aside from the
responsibilities of making daily lesson plans, instructional materials, and other unending
paper works, child care is one of the most important aspects that has been often taken for
granted until a lawsuit is filed against the erring teacher. Teachers have to be consciously
aware of all professional obligations the society is expecting from them. In the Philippines,
public policy dictates in certain situations that one person or entity should be liable for the
acts or omissions of another person or entity and this concept also applies to teachers.

Special Liability (As to Teacher’s Liability)

Everyone is related to a child. Some may be very young and some old enough to go
to school. Although proximity of the school to the home is most often the reason for
choosing a school for a child, there are various other reasons used like the family ancestors’
preference over a particular school, or because of the school’s good academic record. There
are also quite a few parents who select a school based on its focus on the spiritual aspect,
and those that prefer schools that are open to broken-home families.

And then we have those parents who decide based on how a particular teacher
behaves with children. When asked why this is important, they say that a teacher who is
attentive to the needs of a child will more effectively substitute the mom or the dad while
the child is in school, and this will help avoid any mishaps that the child may encounter
while in school. When asked if they believe the teachers are responsible and even liable for
whatever happens to the child, they usually say that the teachers should be held liable.
They feel it is but fair and just for a teacher and even for the owner of the school, especially
nursery schools, to be held responsible for their child.

Principles behind Teacher Liability

According to Tolentino1, “a teacher must not only be charged with teaching but also
vigilance over their students or pupils”. Without the parents to look after their children
when in school, it is the teacher who takes over in the supervision. It is thus fitting that the
basis of a teacher’s liability is the principle of “in loco parentis”, which, according to Black’s
Dictionary, means “in the place of a parent”, “exists when a person undertakes care and
control of another in absence of such supervision by natural parents and in absence of formal
legal approval, and is temporary in character and is not to be likened to an adoption which is
permanent”.

1
5 A. Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, 618 (1992).
 According to Sangco2, schools exercise their educational functional principally
through their administrators and teachers, while parents exercise their parental authority
by sending their children to school to comply with their duty to educate them according to
their means, as provided in Article 220 of the Family Code, and Article 72 of the Child and
Youth Welfare Code, as amended. Consequently, when parents send their minor child to
school, they must necessarily pass on or share their parental authority, their custody over
the child, and the responsibility to educate their child properly with the school, its
administrators and teachers temporarily, as the latter shall assume such during all the time
the child is under their supervision and instruction. This, in essence, is the principle of
substituted parental authority.

Relevant Legal Provisions

A teacher’s liability arises from the failure to provide due diligence in the
performance of the responsibilities that come with the substituted parental authority.
Although the focus of this paper is on this negligence called “Quasi Delict”, as provided in
Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, it is inevitable to touch on the other provisions that are the
sources of the responsibilities that teachers assume. The following relevant provisions are
listed.

On Quasi-Delict, the Civil Code provides:

Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's
own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the
damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons
who are under their authority and live in their company.

The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise

responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in
which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household
helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are
not engaged in any business or industry.

2
2 C. Sangco, Philippine Law on Torts and Damages, 502 (1994).
 The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not
when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly
pertains, in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.

Lastly, 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.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein
mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage.

On Substitute Parental Authority, the Civil Code provides:

Art. 349. The following persons shall exercise substitute parental authority:
(1) Guardians;
(2) Teachers and professors;
(3) Heads of children's homes, orphanages, and similar institutions;
(4) Directors of trade establishments, with regard to apprentices;
(5) Grandparents;
(6) The oldest brother or sister.

Art. 350. The persons named in the preceding article shall exercise reasonable
supervision over the conduct of the child.

Art. 352. The relations between teacher and pupil, professor and student, are fixed
by government regulations and those of each school or institution. In no case shall
corporal punishment be countenanced. The teacher or professor shall cultivate the
best potentialities of the heart and mind of the pupil or student.

Art. 353. Apprentices shall be treated humanely. No corporal punishment against

the apprentice shall be permitted.

On Substitute and Special Parental Authority, the Family Code provides:

Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or
institution engaged in child are shall have special parental authority and
responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or
custody.

Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or
outside the premises of the school, entity or institution.
 Art. 219. Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article
shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions
of the unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the persons
exercising substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.

The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not
apply if it is proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under the
particular circumstances.

All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed by
the provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts.

It is clear that teachers assume authority from the parents, and yet teachers are not
allowed to inflict corporal punishment on the student, as provided in Art. 352 of the Civil
Code. So to determine the liability of teachers that stand in the place of a parent, we focus
on paragraph 7 of Art. 2180 of the Civil Code which deals with the vicarious liability that
makes one liable not only of one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for
whom one is responsible.

Liability under paragraph 7 of Article 2180

Paragraph 7 of 2180 says, “…teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades
shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices...” Does this
mean that teachers of academic schools cannot be held liable? In the Exconde3 case, which
involved an academic school, it was held that teachers and heads of academic schools are
not liable. In the same case, Justice J.B.L. Reyes dissented and argued that the liability under
2180 was imposed on teachers, in general, and on heads of schools of arts and trades, in
particular. He argued that “establishments of arts and trades" should apply only to "heads"
and not "teachers". The same decision was reiterated in the Mercado4 case, which also
involved an academic school.

However, in Palisoc5, although the case involved an arts and trades school, Justice
Teehankee, via a footnote, indicated that he agreed with Justice Reyes' dissent in the
Exconde case.

3
Exconde v. Capuno, G.R. No. L-10068-70, June 29, 1957, 101 Phil, 843.
4
Mercado v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-14342, May 30, 1960, 08 Phil. 414.
5
Palisoc v. Brillantes, G.R. No. L-29025, October 4, 1971, 41 SCRA 548.
 Finally, in the Amadora6 case which involved an academic school, the court held that
the provision in question should apply to all schools, academic as well as arts and trades. It
basically adopted Justice Reyes’ dissent by applying the principle of reddendo singula
singulis, where "teachers" should apply to the words "pupils and students", while "heads of
establishments of arts and trades" to "apprentices."

Responsibility over Non-Minors

Does a student need to be a minor for a teacher to be liable? In the Palisoc7 case, the
defendant Daffon was of age at the time he caused the death of Palisoc, a 16 year old
student of the Manila Technical Institute, an arts and trades school, and yet, both the owner
of the school and the teacher-in-charge were held liable. This is one of the differences
between a parent’s responsibility and that of a teacher’s. Under Article 221 of the Family
Code of the Philippines8, parents are responsible for their unemancipated minor children,
while Article 2180 of the Civil Code does not provide any qualifications nor age limit. Thus,
the liability of a teacher applies to all students, even those of age. Although according to
Tolentino9, who quotes Plainol & Ripert, the degree of vigilance of non-minors is not the
same as over minors. This view is supported by Articles 218 and 219 of the Family Code.

Liability Outside School

May a teacher escape liability for outings and activities held outside the school but
authorized by the school? Art 218 states that “authority and responsibility shall apply to all
authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or
institution.” In the case of St. Mary’s Academy10, the Court held that special parental
authority and responsibility applies to all authorized activities, whether inside or outside
the school premises.

Circumstances Affecting School Liability (Liability of the School in General)

Aside from the teacher and head of the school, can the school itself be made liable?
In general, the liability of the teacher does not extend to the school. This was the ruling in
the case of Pasco11 where the Court held that Art. 2180 speaks only of "teachers or heads."
However, in the St. Francis12 case, the court held that the school can be held liable under
paragraph 5, rather than paragraph 7 of Art. 2180, as long as it can be proved that the
wrongful act of the teachers was within the scope of their assigned tasks. Thus, the school’s
6
Amadora v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47745 April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 315.
7
Palisoc v. Brillantes, supra.
8
Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages
caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental
authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law.
9
5 A. Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, 618 (1992).
10
St. Mary’s Academy v. Carpitanos, G.R. No.143363, February 6, 2002, 376 SCRA 473.
11
Pasco vs Court of First Instance of Bulacan, G.R. No. L-54357, April 25, 1988, 160 SCRA 785.
12
St. Francis High School v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82465, February 25, 1991, 194 SCRA 341.
liability is that of an employer via the principle of “respondeat superior” which holds the
employer responsible for the wrongful acts of its employees.
In the later case of St. Mary’s Case13, it was held that “For a school to be held liable, there
must be a finding that the act or omission considered as negligent was the proximate cause
of the injury caused because the negligence must have a causal connection to the accident.”
In this particular case, the negligence of the school was only a remote cause, so the school
was exculpated.

Liability for Acts of Other Persons (Liability of the School on Acts of a Stranger)
In the PSBA14 case, although the person injured was a student of PSBA, the person
that caused the injury was not a student of PSBA. Art. 2180 on quasi delict would naturally
not apply as it requires that the damage should be caused by a student of the educational
institution. However, the Court also held that although 2180 does not apply, the school’s
liability can arise from a breach in contract as when an educational institution accepts
students for enrolment, there exists a contract which is one “imbued with public interest”.
This contract produces bilateral obligations, and one of the school’s obligations is to
provide their students with an atmosphere that is conducive in furthering their primary
purpose which is to impart knowledge. A similar ruling was adopted in the case of Regino
v. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology 15 where it upheld the school-student
relationship as contractual in nature. In the case of Soliman16, although the Court held that
the school was not liable for the acts of the school security guard whose employer was a
security agency, the court still upheld the school-student contractual relationship.

In Custody
Art. 2180 includes the phrase “…so long as they remain in their custody.” Does this
mean that a student needs to live with the teacher or board with the school before the
teacher may be held liable? In the Mercado17 case, the Court held that it was indeed a
necessary condition, but in the Palisoc18 case, this holding was reversed when the Court
held that students need not live with the school teacher for the latter to be liable for the
former’s tort.

The fact that the student is currently enrolled in the school or that a student is
present in the school does not signify that the student is automatically under the custody of
the teacher and does not guarantee liability on the part of the teacher.

13
St. Mary’s Academy v. Carpitanos, supra.
14
Philippine School of Business Administration v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.84698, February 4, 1992,205 SCRA 729.
15
Regino v. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology, G.R. No. 156109, November 18, 2004, 443 SCRA 56.
16
Soliman, Jr v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 66207, May 18, 1992, 209 SCRA 47
17
Mercado v. Court of Appeals, supra.
18
Palisoc v. Brillantes, supra.
 In the Amadora19 case, the student is considered in the custody of the school
authorities for as long as he is under the control and influence of the school and within its
premises, regardless of whether the semester has started or has ended. In the Palisoc case,
the Court held that the teacher’s responsibility is to provide supervision during the whole
time that the students are at attendance in the school, including recess time. And in the
Salvosa20 case, the court clarified that “recess” does not include dismissal, and thus, being
enrolled or being in the premises of the school without more, does not constitute
“attending school”.

Defense Against Liability

To avoid responsibility and liability, the teacher must prove that due diligence was
observed. As to the kind of due diligence, the last paragraph of Art 2180 is clear – “The
persons must prove that they have observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent damage”.

In the cases of Amadora and St Francis21, the accused parties have proven that they
have exercised the diligence required of them by law under the circumstances to guard
against the harm they had foreseen”

Waivers
Can a teacher or school escape responsibility by asking parents to file a waiver
during field trips and outings? This issue is closely related to liabilities outside school and
Art 218 is clear that “authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities
whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution.” In the case of
St. Francis, the Court still held some teachers responsible despite the fact that the parent
permitted the child to go to the picnic.

Summary
The table below summarizes what principle to use depending on who is at fault.
Who Is at Who to
What to Base Liability On Case to Adopt
Fault Sue
Student Teacher 2180 par 7 - loco parentis  
2180 par 5 - respondeat St. Francis Academy v.
Teacher School superior CA
Stranger School Contract PSBA v. CA

19
Amadora v. Court of Appeals, supra.
20
Salvosa vs Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-70458, October 5, 1988, 166 SCRA 274.
21
St. Francis High School v. Court of Appeals, supra.
Concept Negligence

In general terms, negligence is "the failure to use ordinary care" through either an
act or omission. That is, negligence occurs when:
a. somebody does not exercise the amount of care that a reasonably careful person
would use under the circumstances; or
b. somebody does something that a reasonably careful person would not do under the
circumstances.22

Negligence of school authorities may arise where the grounds or equipment are unsafe,
and a student is injured. School authorities have a non-delegable duty to students to ensure
that reasonable care is taken for the safety of children at the school environment.

The responsibility of teachers shall cease upon proof that they observed all the
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

In any untoward incident in schools, there is always a reason to believe that the school
was negligent in taking precautions for the safety of its students. The school, its
administrators and teachers, may only exempt themselves from the liability imposed by the
law if they can prove that they exercised the proper diligence required under particular
circumstances.23They must show that they observed proper care based on the surrounding
circumstances to prevent the untoward incident. It also denotes the absence of negligence.

To prove that the incident is purely accidental to avoid liability, it must be shown
that it is a fortuitous event, which refers to an extraordinary event that is not foreseeable,
or though foreseeable, is unavoidable. Teachers have legal responsibility for the safety of
their students. They are expected to act with caution, sensible leadership, and wise
guidance. Their legal brief is to assess the foreseeable dangers, to guard against risk, to take
reasonable precaution against injury and, above all, to generally behave as superior parents
would be expected to act in the nurture and training of their children. 24

Conclusion

The essence of the principle of substituted parental authority is that when parents
send their minor child to school, they must necessarily pass on or share their parental
authority, their custody over the child, and the responsibility to educate their child

22
Article 2176, New Civil Code of the Philippines
23
2nd par. Article 218, New Civil Code of the Philippines
24
https://www.teacherph.com/teachers-liability/
properly with the school, its administrators and teachers temporarily, as the latter shall
assume such during all the time the child is under their supervision and instruction.

A teacher, who stands in loco parentis to her pupils, should make sure that the
children were protected from all harm while in her company. An academic institution
accepts students for enrollment, there is established a contract between them, resulting in
bilateral obligations which both parties are bound to comply with. The contract between
school and student is one “imbued with public interest” but a contract nonetheless.

The law holds the teachers and heads of the school staff liable unless they relieve
themselves of such liability pursuant to the last paragraph of Article 2180 by “proving that
they observed all the diligence to prevent damage.”