FAJARDO, Reniel

NEGLIGENCE in law and in contracts

Phil. School of Business Administration (PSBA) v. CA

Feb 4, 1992
Padilla, J
Petition: For Review the decision of CA (Campos, Jr.)

Parties:
PSBA- plaintiffs-appellees
Parents of the Deceased Carlitos Bautista (CA)- defendants-appellants

Facts:
 Stabbing incident on August 30, 1985 that caused the death of Carlitos Bautista a student of the PSBA (3 rd year commerce).
Assailants of victim were not members of the school community
 Because of the incident the parents of the deceased filed a suit to the RTC of Manila against PSBA for damages. Specifically
the school authorities: President, Vice-President, Cashier, Chief of Security and his assistant. The suit included that officials
were negligent, reckless and the lack of security precautions employed
 RTC sided with the petitioners (Bautista) now defendants
 RTC anchored decision on law of quasi-delicts (Art. 2176 and 2180)—rule of “in loco parentis”*

Issue: Whether the RTC is correct in anchoring their decision based on Art. 2176 and 2180
 What the law stresses is that pupils or students of the school should have done the damage. This material situation is not
applicable in the case since the assailants were not students of the PSBA. Even so, it does not mean the exculpation of the
petitioners from liability.
 When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment there is an established contract between—bilateral
obligations. School—provide student education while the Student—to follow the school’s regulation. There is also an implicit
obligation of providing students an atmosphere that promotes their goal of education—one of which is a safe environment.
 Since there is a contractual relation between the school and student the law of quasi-delict (extra-
contractual obligation) does not govern such relationship. Quasi-delict only arises only when parties are not bound
by any contract. But nevertheless jurisprudence can also attest that even if there is a contract it does not relieve parties from
extra-contractual liability.
 In cases of extra-contractual obligation it arises from the violation of the Civil Code on Human Relations Art. 19-21.
Specifically Art. 21*
 In this case, there is no proof that the contract was breached through PSBA’s negligence based on Art. 21 (trial court to
determine
 Even if there is, it can only exist through a breach of contractual obligation ONLY. Applying the Cangco test, negligence of
school is not relevant absent a contract
 Thus, the negligence of the school cannot exist independently on the contract unless negligence exist based
on Art. 21 of the Civil Code

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED

Notes: Asterisk

 Art 2176: ‘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 pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-
delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter”
 Art. 2180: “The obligation imposed by article 2176 id demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those
of persons for whom one is responsible xxx Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be
liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their
custody.”
“The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the
diligence of a food father of a family to prevent damage.
 Art. 21: “Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage”