TOPIC: Quasi-delict vs Breach of Contract / Culpa Contractual

TITLE: Philippine School of Business Administration vs. Court of Appeals and Bautista
CITATION: G.R. No. 84698, February 4, 1992

FACTS:
Carlitos Bautista was a third year student at the Philippine School of Business Administration. Assailants,
who were not members of the schools academic community, while in the premises of PSBA, stabbed
Bautista to death. This incident prompted his parents to file a suit against PSBA and its corporate officers
for damages due to their alleged negligence, recklessness and lack of security precautions, means and
methods before, during and after the attack on the victim.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the compliant states no cause of action against
them based on quasi-delicts, as the said rule does not cover academic institutions. The trial court denied
the motion to dismiss. Their motion for reconsideration was likewise dismissed, and was affirmed by the
appellate court. Hence, the case was forwarded to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not PSBA may be held liable for quasi-delict.

RULING:
No.

Because the circumstances of the present case evince a contractual relation between the PSBA and
Carlitos Bautista, the rules on quasi-delict do not really govern. A perusal of Article 2176 shows that
obligations arising from quasi-delicts or tort, also known as extra-contractual obligations, arise only
between parties not otherwise bound by contract, whether express or implied. However, this impression
has not prevented this Court from determining the existence of a tort even when there obtains a contract.

Article 2180, in conjunction with Article 2176 of the Civil Code, establishes the rule in in loco parentis.
Article 2180 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. But it does not
necessarily follow that PSBA is absolved form liability.

When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment, there is established a contract between
them, resulting in bilateral obligations which both parties is 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. This includes ensuring the safety of
the students while in the school premises. On the other hand, the student covenants to abide by the
school's academic requirements and observe its rules and regulations.
In 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.