Liability for Student

Injury
CHAPTER
10
Liability for acts of students

The general rule is that a person is civilly

liable for the damage caused by his own act
or omission constituting fault or negligence.
The rule is in accordance with Article 2176
of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which
read as follows:
 “Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged
to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual
relation between the two parties, is called a
quasi-delict x x x”
 Under the aforecited legal provision, every person
becomes bound by what he does or fails to do if his
act or omission causes any damage or prejudice to
another person. One cannot be accountable for the
fault or negligence of a fellow being nor be his
brother’s keeper. This is at it should be. One cannot
answer for the misdeeds for which the very author
thereof is not liable, otherwise unjust results will
follow if every tort-feasor can pass on the burden of
indemnification to another.
Thus, Article 2180 of the Civil Code provides the
exception to the general rule as follows:

“The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable

not only for one’s acts or omissions, but also for those
of persons for whom one is responsible.”
And with regard to schools; paragraph 7 of the
foregoing article provides:

“Lastly, teachers or heads of establishment of arts and

trade shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils
and students or apprentices, so long as these remain in
their custody.”
Before the Supreme Court rendered the decision in the
Pallisoc case, legal authorities were agreed that
paragraph 7 of Article 2180 as aforequoted is
applicable only if the following requisites were present:
 Palisoc vs. Brillantes

1.) The establishment must be an institution of arts

and trades and not an academic educational
institutions.

2.) At the time the quasi-delict was committed, the

pupil or student was under the custody of the teacher
or head of the establishment.
Exconde vs. Capuno
In holding the parents of the minor liable but not the
head of the school nor the city schools’ supervisor, the
Supreme Court said:

“Although under article 1903 of the Old Code (now

Article 2180), teachers and directors of arts and
trades are liable for any damages caused by their pupils
of apprentices while they are under their custody, this
provision, however, only applies to an institution of
arts and trades and not to any academic educational
institution.
 Mercado vs. Court of Appeals
The court rejected this arguments as without merit
and went on to explain the clause “so long as they
remain in their custody” in Article 2180 as
contemplative of –

A situation where the pupil lives and boards with

the teacher such that the control, direction and
influence over the conduct and actions of the pupil
would pass from the father and mother to the
teacher; so would the responsibility for the torts of
the pupil.
The palisoc doctrine

The above PALISOC doctrine has been modified by

the decision in the case of AMADORA, et al. vs. Hon.
Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-47745) that was
promulgated on April 15, 1988. The Supreme Court
ruled as follows:
 “Unlike EXCONDE and MERCADO, the case of Colegio
de San Jose – Recoletos has been directly impleaded
and is sought to be held liable under Article 2180; and
unlike in PALISOC, it is not a school of arts and trade
but an academic institution of learning. The parties
herein have also directly raised the questions of
whether or not Article 2180 covers even
establishments of arts and trades and, if so, when is
the offending student supposed to be in its custody.
Following the canon of redendo singula singulis “teachers
should apply to the words” pupils and students “and
heads of establishments of arts and trades to the word
apprentices.”

With respect to the issue on the duration of the

responsibility of the teacher or the head of the
faculty, arts and trades, over the student, the Court
said that:
 “The student should be within control and under the
influence of the school authorities at the time of the
occurrence of the injury. This does not necessarily mean
that such custody be co-terminuous with the
semester/beginning with the start of classes and ending
upon the close hereof and excluding the time before or
after such period. In the view of the school, the
student is in the custody of the school authorities as
long as he is under the control and influence of the
school and within the premises when the semester has
not yet begun or has already ended.”
The teacher-in-charge is the one designated by the
dean, principal, or other administrative superior to
exercise supervision over the pupils in the specific
classes or sections to which they are assigned.

It is not necessary that at the time of the injury, the

teacher be physically present and in a position to
prevent it.
 Custody does not connote immediate actual physical
control but refers more to the influence exerted on
the child and the discipline instilled in him as a result
of such influence.
 The pertinent provisions of the Family Code of the
Philippines, which took effect on August 4, 1988,
states that school, it’s administrators and teachers, or
the individual, entity or institution engaged in child
care shall exercise special parental authority and
responsibility over the minor child while under their
supervision, instruction or custody. Said authority and
responsibility extend to all authorized activities
whether inside or outside the premises of the school,
entity or institution.
 Special Parental Authority is concurrently exercised
with the general authority of the parents and rests on
the theory that while the minor child is in the care
and custody of the person or persons exercising special
parental authority, the parents temporarily relinquish
parental authority over the said child to the latter.
 Substitute Parental Authority, on the other hand, is
exercised in the case of death, absence, or unsuitability
of parents and is, therefore, not exercised concurrently
with the exercise by parents of parental authority over
their minor children.
Liability for Acts of
Other Persons
CHAPTER
11
 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 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.
 In order that an employer may be liable under the
fourth paragraph of the above-quoted article, it must
be shown:
1.) That there exists an employer and employee
relationship;
2.) That the employer is engaged in a business or
industry;
3.) That the employee must have caused damaged to
another through fault or negligence;
4.) That the injury must occur in the course of
performance of duty or service by the employee.

Requisite No. 1 means that the person who was at

fault or negligent must be an employee of the
employer sued.

Requisite No. 2 requires that the employer should be

engaged in a business or industry

Requisite No. 3 is the basis of all actions for quasi-

delict and is discussed in another part of this chapter.
 Requisite No. 4 is common to both paragraphs 4 and
5 of Article 2180. This means that whether the
employer from whom damages are sought to be
recovered be engaged in business or industry or not, it
is indispensable that the employee must have
committed the negligent act or fault in the service of
the branch in which he is employed or on the occasion
of its performance.
 The liability of employers under Article 2180 of the
Civil Code is different from their liability for felonies
committed by employees which is governed by the
Revised Penal Code.

For the article to apply, the following elements must

be shown to exist:
1.) The employer, teacher, person or corporation is
engaged in any kind of industry.

2.) Any of their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices

or employees commits a felony while in the discharge of
his duties.

Article 2177 of the Civil Code expressly recognizes civil

liabilities arising from negligence under the Revised
Penal Code, except that plaintiff cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of the
defendant. The provisions of said article are as follows:
 “The responsibility for fault or negligence under the
preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from
the Civil liability arising from negligence under the
Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages
twice for the same act or omission of the defendant”
 Damages will have to be awarded to the injured party
in the decision of the court in the criminal action. This
is because the law provided that every person criminally
liable for a felony is also civilly liable.

To this rule the law provides for two exceptions:

(1)When the offended party expressly waives the civil
action, and
(2)When he reserves his right to institute the civil
action separately.

Breach of Contracts – (culpa contractual)

Quasi-Delicts - (culpa aquiliana)
Special liability in certain cases
The school is not only liable for tortious acts
committed by students or employees. There are many
other cases of liability. All these, however, serve
merely to illustrate the general principle in tort law
that he who causes damage to another through fault
or negligence shall be liable for the damage caused.
Among these instances may be mentioned the
provisions or articles 2190 to 2192, as follows:
Article 2190. The proprietor of a building or structure
is responsible for damages resulting from its total or
partial collapse, if it should be due to lack of necessary
repairs.

Article 2191. Proprietors shall also be responsible for

damages caused:
(1)By the explosion of machinery which has not been
taken care of with due diligence, and the
inflammation of explosive substances which have not
been kept in a safe and adequate place;

(2)By excessive smoke, which may be harmful to

persons or property;

(3)By the falling of trees situated at or near highways

or lanes, if not caused by force majeure;
(4)By emanations from tubes, canals, sewers or
deposits of infectious matter, construed without
precautions suitable to the place.
Article 2192. If damage referred to in the two
preceding articles should be the result of any defect in
the construction mentioned in Article 1723, the third
person suffering damages may proceed only against the
engineer or architect or contractor in accordance with
said article, within the period therein fixed.
Circumstances affecting school liability

Whether or not a school will be liable for damages

suffered by a student will also depend on the principle
of state immunity from suit. Specifically, we are
concerned here with the public school and the state-
owned universities and colleges. Can they be sued for
recovery of damages for injuries suffered by a student?
Concept of negligence

Negligence is the foundation of the

liability of employers for acts or
omissions of their employees causing
damage or injury. It is also the basis of
the special liability in certain areas.
 According to Article 1173 of the Civil Code it is “the
omission of that diligence which is required by the
nature of the obligation and corresponds with the
circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the
place” and that “if the law or contract does not state
the diligence which is to be observed in the
performance, that which is expected of a good father
of a family shall be required.”
 The Supreme Court had sought to elaborate on this
concept of negligence in the following decisions:

(1)Negligence is failure to observe that degree of care,

precaution and vigilance that circumstances justly
demand, whereby another person suffers injury.
 (2)Negligence is want of care required by the
circumstances. It is a relative or comparative, not an
absolute term, and its application depends upon the
situation of the parties, and the degree of care and
vigilance which the circumstances reasonably imposed.
Where the danger is great, a high degree of care is
necessary, and the failure to observe it is a want of
ordinary care under the circumstances.
DEFENSE IN NEGLIGENCE
CASES
Due Diligence. When a parent, guardian, employer, the
state, and teacher or heads of establishments of arts
and trades are sued for the damage caused by their
children, wards, employees, special agents, and pupils or
apprentices, respectively, they may avoid liability if
they proved that they observed all the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent damage.
 Proximate Cause. In order that civil liability for
negligence may arise, there must be a direct causal
connection between the damage suffered by the
plaintiff and the act or omission of the defendant
 Contributory Negligence. Contributory negligence is a
conduct on the part of plaintiff which falls below the
standard to which he should conform for his own
protection and which is a legally contributing cause,
cooperating with the negligence of the defendant in
bringing about the plaintiff’s harm.
 Assumption of Risk. It is said that one who knows,
appreciates, and deliberately exposes himself to a
danger “assumes the risk” thereof. One cannot
deliberately incur an obvious risk of personal injury,
especially when preventative measures are at hand, and
then hold the author of the danger for the ensuing
injury.
PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES AGAINST
ACCIDENTS
There are some practical measures that school heads
may take in order that they may be relieved of
liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

For this purpose the pertinent portion of the legal

opinion sought by the Fund for Assistance to Private
Education (FAPE) from a recognized Manila law firm is
herein quoted to serve as guidelines for school
administrators and other school officials.
1.)Maintenance of an adequate and qualified security
force to provide protection to students and property.

2.)Professors, teachers, and other instructors should be

required to remain in the classrooms during the whole
time that their respective classes are in session.
3.)In connection with No. 2 notices and signs should
be conspicuously posted advising students to refrain
from mischief in the places above mentioned, and for
that matter, in any other area of the campus and its
immediate surroundings.

4.)Disciplinary action should be immediately taken when

warranted.
5.)Appropriate notices should be periodically circulated
and conspicuously posted advising the student body of
the constructive measures taken by the school
authorities to ensure a healthy and safe environment
for the general well-being of the students.

6.)If at all feasible, the school authorities should

screen and check the credentials of its students.
Particular attention should be given to the potential
troublemakers.
7.)Outsiders who have no official business to transact
with the school authorities or its students should be
prohibited from entering the campus.

8.)Students should be advised to refrain from loitering.

9.)The carrying of firearms and other deadly weapons

should be strictly prohibited.
10.)Issue Identification cards and require the students
to carry their individual cards whenever they are within
the campus.

11.)In general, a well-kept campus supports a finding

that the school is attentive to the welfare and needs
of its students.
Campus Security
And Problems
CHAPTER
12
LEGAL BASIS OF CAMPUS SECURITY
Gravity of the Responsibility. The gravity of the
responsibility of security personnel has been clearly
pointed out by a landmark decision of our Supreme
Court, a decision which the school heads received with
no little surprise and apprehension. The decision partly
states as follows:
“In the law of torts, the governing principle is that
the protective custody of the school heads and
teachers is mandatorily, substituted for that of the
parents, and hence, it becomes their obligation as well
as that of the school itself to provide proper
supervision of the students’ activities during the whole
time that they are at attendance in school, including
recess time.”
The Problem Areas
How the campus security force would meet these
challenges most judiciously, efficiently and effectively in
the discharge of their obligation and responsibility
would depend, among others, upon the answers to the
following questions:
1.)What powers and authority are vested by law and
regulations upon campus security officers and men
inside and outside the school campus? What is the
scope and the limit of that authority?

2.)What is the extent of their territorial jurisdiction?

What are the exceptions?
The Private Security Agency Law

The law governing the powers and authority, the

organization and operation of private security agencies,
is R.A. 5847, as amended, otherwise called the Private
Security Agency Law.
Powers and Responsibility

Arrest Without Warrant. One who is not a “peace

officer, a watchman, security guard or private detective
is not clothed with police powers.” However, he may
effect arrest without warrant under any of the
following circumstances. (Sec. 2, Rule VIII, op. cit.)
1.)When the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is about to commit an offense
in his presence;

2.)When the offense has in fact been committed and

he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to
be arrested has committed it;
3.)When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
has escaped from a penal establishment or place where
he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined
while his case is pending or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another. (Sec.
124, Revised Penal Code)
Method of Arrest. In effecting arrest, the watchman,
detective or security guard has the following
obligations:

1.)He shall inform the person to be arrested of his

intention to arrest him, and the cause of the arrest;
2.)He need not inform him if the person to be
arrested is engaged in the commission of the offense or
he is pursuing him after the commission of the crime
or has escaped and filed or is forcibly resisting arrest
before he can inform him or when giving such
information will imperil the arrest. (Sec. 3, Rule VIII,
op. cit.)
Search Without Warrant. Any watchman, security
guard, or private detective may, incident to the
arrest, search the person arrested in the presence of
at least two witnesses.

It will be noted that the security guards, watchmen

and private detectives are authorized to effect a search
only on three grounds:
1.)When it is incident to arrest which he has to do in
the presence of two witnesses;

2.)When he or the agency has a service contract and

such search is required by the employer and consented
to by the employees;

3.)When the search is required by the very nature of

the business of the person, firm or establishment
Power of mayor in case of emergency
In case of emergency or in times of disaster or calamity
when the service of the security agency and it’s
personnel is needed, the city or municipal mayor may
muster or incorporate the services of the agency
nearest the area where such emergency, disaster or
calamity arises and it’s duly licensed personnel to help
in the maintenance of peace and order; and/or the
prevention or apprehension of law violators and in the
preservation of life and properties.
SOME CAMPUS ISSUES AND PROBLEMS
In the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 1983
Annual Report, the statistical information provides this
data:

1.)Murder 8
2.)Rapes 242
3.)Aimed Robbery 329
4.)Aggravated Assaults 1,019
Few examples may be given to illustrate this point.

1.) In the famous PALISOC case, the parents were paid

more than P36,000 for the death of their son.

2.) In the sexual assault of a woman law student, the

plaintiff was awarded P215,000 damages (Sicillano vs.
State, No. 712-895 St. California 1980)
The following questions may be answered by the school
administrator concerned into security and liability
issues.

1.) Who is responsible for insuring that everything

possible is being done to provide a safe and secure
campus community?
2.) What can be done to place the institution and it’s
administrators in a definite position regarding liability
suits?
For the second question, the following suggestions may
help provide the answer.

1. Criminal Activity Information

2. Selection and Training Students for Campus Public
Safety Personnel.
3. Physical Security and Design Problems
4. Dormitory/Boarding Houses Security
5. Scheduling of Classes
6. Student Patrol Escorts
7. Workshops for Crime Prevention
Thank You
Any
question?