PSBA v.

CA o The Court stated that the liability of Air Frances is

G.R. No. 84698. February 4, 1992 | Padilla, J | Montano, J
FACTS
- There was a stabbing incident that caused the death of
Carlitos Bautista, a third year commerce student, on the
second floor premises of the Philippine School of Business
Administration (PSBA)
- Bautista’s parents filed a case for damages against PSBA
and its corporate officers
- His assailants were not members of the PSBA academic
community and were elements from outside the school
- The suit impleaded: Juan D. Lim (President), Benjamin P.
Paulino (Vice-President), Antonio M. Magtalas
(Treasurer/Cashier), Col. Pedro Sacro (Chief of Security)
and a Lt. M. Soriano (Assistant Chief of Security). The
parents of Bautista sought to make these officers liable for
their son’s demise due to their alleged negligence,
recklessness and lack of security precautions, means and
methods before, during and after the attack of the victim.
- The PSBA officers defended that under Art. 2180 of the
CC, the complaint has no action against them because
academic institutions (such as PSBA) is beyond the ambit
of the rule or Art. 2180
- Trial court and CA sided with the Bautistas
one arising from tort and not that from a contract
of carriage.
- The SC has decided that Air France is the authority for the
view that liability from tort may exists even if there is a
contract because the act that breaks the contract may also
be a tort. In Cangco v. Manila Railroad:
o “When such a contractual relation exists the
obligor may break the contract under such
conditions that the same act which constitutes a
breach of the contract would have constituted the
source of an extra-contractual obligation had no
contract existed between the parties”
- In other words, a contractual relation is a condition sine qua
non to the school's liability. The negligence of the school
cannot exist independently on the contract, unless the
negligence occurs under the circumstances set out in
Article 21 of the Civil Code.
- But this does not mean that the school has to protect
students against all risks. The school is in U-belt, there
really are a lot of incidents occurring. School can still prove
that it was not negligent by showing that they exercised the
degree of diligence required by the nature of the obligation
and corresponding circumstances of persons, time and
place.

ISSUE RULING
1. W/N the CA erred in ruling in favor of the Bautista’s RTC was ordered to continue proceedings.
- NO. BUT the appellate court anchored their decision on the
law of quasi-delicts (Art. 2176 and 2180). The SC
disagrees
- In the cited cases (Exconde, Mendoza, Palisoc, and
Amadora), Art. 2180 establishes the rule of in loco parentis.
It states that damage should have been caused by
students of the educational institution sought to be held
liable for the acts of the students while in their custody.
This material fact is different in this case. Bautista’s
assailants were not students of PSBA.
- However, this does not mean that the school is no longer
liable for Bautista’s demise.
- The SC posits that there was a contractual relationship
between PSBA and Bautista. Bilateral obligations are
present:
o For the school: Provide student with education
that would equip him with necessary tools and
skills to pursue higher education of a profession
o For the student: Abide by school’s academic
requirements and follow the rules and regulations
- Schools also have a built-in obligation to provide its
students with a conducive environment for learning. School
must take steps to ensure maintenance of peace and order
within campus.

2. W/N the rules on quasi-delict govern

- NO.
- Art. 2176 only applies when there is NO pre-existing
contractual relations between the parties. There is a
contractual relation between PSBA and Bautista.
- But this has not prevented the Court from determining that
a tort exists even there is a contract. The Court cited Air
France v. Carroscoso.