PHILIPPINE LAW SCHOOL

TORTS AND DAMAGES

VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF HEAD OF
ESTABLISHMENT (SCHOOL)

PSBA V. COURT
OF APPEALS
GR 84698, FEBRUARY4, 1992
SHERLYN S. DIMAAMPAO
PSBA V. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:
Private respondents sought to adjudge petitioner
PSBA and its officers liable for the death of Carlitos
Bautista, a third year commerce student who was
stabbed while on the second floor of the premises of
PSBA by elements from outside the school.
Private respondents are suing under the law on
quasi-delicts (Art.2180) alleging the school and its
officers’ negligence, recklessness and lack of safety
precautions before, during, and after the attack on
the victim. Petitioners moved to dismiss the suit, it
further contends that academic institutions are
beyond the ambit of Article 2180.
Motion to dismiss was denied by the trial court.
CA affirmed the decision of the lower court.
PSBA V. COURT OF APPEALS

ISSUE:
Whether or not PSBA may be held liable
under the rule in loco parentis.
HELD:
PSBA V. COURT OF APPEALS

NO. The Court held that Article 2180 plainly provides that the damage should have been caused or
inflicted by pupils or students of the educational institution sought to be held liable for the acts of its pupils
or students while in its custody. However, this material situation does not exist in the present case for, as
earlier indicated, the assailants of Carlitos were not students of the PSBA, for whose acts the school could
be made liable.

The Court further discussed that circumstances of the present case evince a contractual relation
between the PSBA and Carlitos Bautista, the rules on quasi-delict do not really govern.

When 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. For its part,
the school undertakes to provide the student with an education that would presumably suffice to equip him
with the necessary tools and skills to pursue higher education or a profession. On the other hand, the
student covenants to abide by the school's academic requirements and observe its rules and regulations.

The circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, however, there is, as yet, no finding that the
contract between the school and Bautista had been breached thru the former's negligence in providing
proper security measures. This would be for the trial court to determine. And, even if there be a finding of
negligence, the same could give rise generally to a breach of contractual obligation only.

THE COURT DENIED THE PETITION AND ORDERED THE TRIAL COURT TO CONTINUE PROCEEDINGS.
 ARTICLE 2176: ARTICLE 2180:
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article
causes damage to another, there being fault 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or
or negligence, is obliged to pay for the omissions, but also for those of persons for whom
damage done. Such fault or negligence, if one is responsible.
there is no pre-existing contractual X X X..

relation between the parties, is called a Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments

quasi-delict and is governed by the of arts and trades shall be liable for
provisions of this Chapter. 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.

PSBA V. COURT OF APPEALS

 PSBA V. COURT OF APPEALS

Nevertheless, it is believed that the Court was not correct when it observed in PSBA that
“even if there be a finding of negligence, the same could give rise generally to a breach of
contract only” and that “a contractual relation is a condition sine qua non to the school’s
liability.”

Even in the absence of contract, the school may still be liable as employer under Article 2176.
The two basis of liability — contract and quasi-delict — may even concur; in which case, the
injured student may choose to file an action for breach of contract or for quasi-delict subject
only to the proscription against double recovery under Article 2177 of the Civil Code.

The school and other persons exercising special parental authority may also be held liable for
their failure to exercise due diligence in the performance of the duties that are concomitant
with the exercise of special parental authority. The school is not only liable for the injuries
inflicted by a student under Article 219 of the Family Code. As a person exercising special
parental authority, there is a corresponding responsibility to take care of the minor
student with the diligence of a good father of a family. Included in the exercise of due
diligence is the duty of the school to provide the students with adequate security and
safe facilities. If due care is not exercised, damages may be imposed under Articles 19, 20, 21
and 2176 of the Civil Code.
Timotheo Aquino,Torts and Damages (Manila: Rex Bookstore, 2015), 671
 ARTICLE 218: ARTICLE 129:
Art. 218. The school, its administrators and Art. 219. Those given the authority and
teachers, or the individual, entity or responsibility under the preceding Article shall be
institution engaged in child are shall have principally and solidarily liable for damages
special parental authority and responsibility caused by the acts or omissions of the
over the minor child while under their unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial
supervision, instruction or custody. guardians or the persons exercising substitute
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all parental authority over said minor shall be
authorized activities whether inside or subsidiarily liable.
outside the premises of the school, entity or
institution. 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.
PSBA V. COURT OF APPEALS
PHILIPPINE LAW SCHOOL

TORTS AND
DAMAGES

THANK YOU!
ANY QUESTIONS?