PSBA v. Court of Appeals

  PSBA v. Court of Appeals, 

205 SCRA 729 

1992

DOCTRINES:

• In loco parentis 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.

• A contractual relation is a condition sine qua non to the school's liability.

(no longer holds)

• Rules on quasi-delict do not govern when there is contractual relationship.

However, there can still be liability from tort even with the presence of a contract.

Should the act breaching the contract be done in bad faith, violating Article 21 of

the NCC, then there is a cause to view the act as constituting a quasi-delict.

FACTS:

A stabbing incident caused the death of Carlitos Bautista while on the secondfloor

of the Philippine School of Business Administration (PSBA) prompting his

parents to file a suit in the RTC – Manila, for damages against PSBA, and its

corporate officers. Carlitos was then in the third year commerce course at the

PSBA. His assailants were not members of the school's academic community.

Sps. Bautista sought to adjudge, herein Petitioners liable for the victim's demise

due to their alleged negligence and lack of security precautions during and after

the attack on the victim. PSBA sought to have the suit dismissed alleging that the

complaint states no cause of action against them, as academic institutions are

beyond the ambit of Article 2180.

The lower court overruled petitioners' contention and denied their motion to

dismiss, which was affirmed by the respondent appellate court holding that the

teachers and heads of the school staff liable unless they relieve themselves of

such liability, by "proving that they observed all the diligence to prevent damage."

ISSUE: Whether or not the PSBA can be held liable under quasi-delicts. - NO

HELD:

Article 2180, in conjunction with Article 2176 of the Civil Code, establishes the

rule of in loco parentis. It 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 case on hand.

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. The school undertakes to provide the student with

an education that would equip him with the necessary skills to pursue higher

education or a profession. The student, then, covenants to abide by the school's

academic requirements and observe its rules and regulations.

Schools must also meet the implicit obligation of providing their students with an

atmosphere that assists in attaining its undertaking of imparting knowledge. The

school must ensure that adequate steps are taken to maintain peace and order

within the campus premises. Because the circumstances of the case evince a

contractual relation between the PSBA and Carlitos Bautista, the rules on quasidelict

do not really govern. However, this impression has not prevented this Court

from determining the existence of a tort even when there obtains a contract.

In Air France vs. Carrascoso (124 Phil. 722), the private respondent was

awarded damages for his unwarranted expulsion from a first-class seat aboard

the petitioner airline. It is noted, however, that the Court referred to the petitionerairline's

liability as one arising from tort, not one arising from a contract of

carriage. In effect, Air France is authority for the view that liability from tort may

exist even if there is a contract, for the act that breaks the contract may be also a

tort.

Air France penalized the racist policy of the airline which emboldened the

petitioner's employee to forcibly oust the private respondent to cater to the

comfort of a white man who allegedly "had a better right to the seat." The public

embarrassment caused to the passenger was the justification to award damages

to the latter. It can then be concluded that, should the act which breaches a

contract be done in bad faith and be violative of Article 21 of the NCC, then there

is a cause to view the act as constituting a quasi-delict.

There is yet no finding that the contract between the school and Bautista had

been breached by the former's negligence in providing proper security measures.

Even if there be a finding of negligence, the same could give rise generally to a

breach of contractual obligation only. A contractual relation is a condition sine

qua non to the school's liability. The negligence of the school cannot exist

independently of the contract, unless the negligence occurs under the

circumstances set out in Article 21 of the Civil Code

This Court is not unmindful of the attendant difficulties posed by the obligation of

schools, above-mentioned, for conceptually a school, like a common carrier,

cannot be an insurer of its students against all risks.

It would not be equitable to expect of schools to anticipate all types of violent

trespass upon their premises, for notwithstanding the security measures

installed, the same may still fail against an individual or group determined to

carry out a nefarious deed inside school premises and environs. Should this be

the case, the school may still avoid liability by proving that the breach of its

contractual obligation to the students was not due to its negligence.