Philippine School of Business Administration, et.al. v.

CA
GR No. 84698
Feb 4, 1992

PADILLA, J.:

FACTS:
Carlos Bautista (Bautista) died while on the 2nd floor of Philippine School of Business
Administration (PSBA) due to outsiders outside the school. The parents of Bautista filed a complaint for
damages against PSBA and its corporate officer before the RTC of Manila. The RTC decided in favor of the
parents of Bautista since due to the negligence of the school in providing proper security precautions. The
officers of PSBA contended that they were not liable under 2180 of the civil code as educational
institutions are beyond the ambit of the rule. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE:
Whether PSBA is liable for damages due to culpa aquiliana or culapa contractual

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 should
therefore held liable for his death. HOWEVER, the school may still avoid liability by proving that the
breach of its contractual obligation to the students was not due to its negligence, here statutorily
defined to be the omission of that degree of diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation
and corresponding to the circumstances of persons, time and place.

As the proceedings a quo have yet to commence on the substance of the private respondents’
complaint, the record is bereft of all the material facts. Obviously, at this stage, only the trial court can
make such a determination from the evidence still to unfold.