PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION ET AL VS.

COURT OF APPEALS 04 FEBRUARY 1992

FACTS: 30 August 1985: Carlitos Bautista was stabbed to death on the second floor balcony of PSBA. Bautista was a student in said school, a junior commerce major. It was established that the assailants were outsiders, not enrolled nor affiliated with the school. -His parents (the private respondents Segunda [?] and Arsenia), filed suit for damages against the school and the following school officials: Juan D. Lim (President), Benjamin P. Paulino(VicePresident), Antonio M. Magtalas (Treasurer/Cashier), Col. Pedro Sacro (Chief of Security)and Lt. M. Soriano (Assistant Chief of Security). The last, during the proceedings, resigned from his position. -8 December 1987: The respondent Manila RTC, having overruled instant petitioners contentions, denies their motion to dismiss the case. -25 January 1988: The RTC dismisses the motion for reconsideration as well. - 10 June 1988: The CA affirms the trial courts orders; petiti oners file a motion for reconsideration. -22 August 1988: The CA denies the motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE: Was the Court of Appeals correct in affirmi ng the decision of the RTC not to dismiss the case against PSBA?

HELD: Yes. HOWEVER, the Supreme Court disagrees with the CAs basis for the decision being anchored on Arts. 2176 and 2180 of the NCC. The SC agrees with the CA that the case must be remanded to the RTC for trial on its merits. But the reason provided by the CA, which is that in light of previous jurisprudence and the fact that Article 2180 is a holdover from the Spanish era, the school administrators should be made liable for the damages until they prove themselves absolved of liability in trial by merits, is erroneous. The SC points out that Arts. 2180 and 2176 establish the rule of in loco parentis (in place of the parents) and that in the discussions provided in the cases cited by the CA, it was clear that the liability of the school exists only for the acts performed by students while in school custody, something which was established to have not been the case here. Thus the rule on quasidelicts does not apply. The SC rules that despite the inapplicability of the rule on quasi-delicts, the school is still liable because all academic institutions enter into a contract with all its enrollees. Part of the obligations of the contract is the

providence of an adequate atmosphere of safety for its students. Obligations from quasi-delict or tort do not govern, since these are extra-contractual and a contract has been made here. However, in Air France vs. Carroscoso, it was establish that liability from tort may still exist even if there is a contract, because the act that breaks the contract may also be a tort. This rule obeys Art. 21. The SC here dictates that a trial is necessary in order to determine whether such willful negligence really lies, in order that liability should be properly determined.