PFRDigest – Philippine School of Business Adm. Vs. Court of Appeals, 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 school’s 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 is liable for the death of the student.

Ruling:
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. 

Failing on its contractual and implied duty to ensure the safety of their student,
PSBA is therefore held liable for his death. 

Petition denied.