Case Digest: PSBA vs. CA, G.R. No. 84698, January 4, 1982

 

CASE TITLE:   Phil. School of Business Administration vs. Court of Appeals
GR No/ Date:  G.R. No. 84698. February 4,1992
PONENTE: Padilla, J.
CASE WITH THE SC:   PETITION to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS:
FACTS: On August 30, 1985, a stabbing incident led to the death of Carlitos Bautista on the second floor of the Philippine School of Business Administration (PSBA).  The parents of Carlitos Bautista filed a suit for damages against PSBA and its corporate officers. Carlitos was a third-year commerce student at PSBA at the time of his death. The assailants were not members of the school's academic community but were outsiders. The lawsuit impleaded PSBA and its authorities, including Juan D. Lim (President), Benjamin P. Paulino (Vice-President), Antonio M. Magtalas (Treasurer/Cashier), Col. Pedro Sacro (Chief of Security), and Lt. M. Soriano (Assistant Chief of Security). Allegations: PSBA were liable for Carlitos's death due to negligence, recklessness, and lack of security precautions. PSBA sought to have the suit dismissed, alleging that as an academic institution, PSBA is beyond the scope of Article 2180 of the Civil Code. RTC-Manila: Denied the motion to dismiss and the motion for reconsideration. CA: Upheld the trial court's decisions.
ISSUE: Whether a contractual relationship exists between schools and students, imposing obligations on both parties to provide education and maintain a safe environment. YES
ALLEGATIONS	DEFENSE
PREVAILING PARTY:
DECISION/DOCTRINE: DENIED At the outset, it is to be observed that the respondent appellate court primarily anchored its decision on the law of quasi-delicts, as enunciated in Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. Pertinent portions of the appellate court's now assailed ruling state: Article 2180 (formerly Article 1903) of the Civil Code is an adoption from the old Spanish Civil Code. The comments of Manresa and learned authorities on its meaning should give way to present day changes. The law is not fixed and flexible (sic); it must be dynamic. In fact, the greatest value and significance of law as a rule of conduct in (sic) its flexibility to adopt to changing social conditions and its capacity to meet the new challenges of progress. Construed in the light of modern day educational system, Article 2180 cannot be construed in its narrow concept as held in the old case of Exconde vs. Capuno and Mercado vs. Court of Appeals;  hence, the ruling in the Palisoccase that it should apply to all kinds of educational institutions, academic or vocational. At any rate, the law holds the teachers and heads of the school staff liable unless they relieve themselves of such liability pursuant to the last paragraph of Article 2180 by "proving that they observed all the diligence to prevent damage." This can only be done at a trial on the merits of the case.  While we agree with the respondent appellate court that the motion to dismiss the complaint was correctly denied and the complaint should be tried on the merits, we do not however agree with the premises of the appellate court's ruling. Article 2180, in conjunction with Article 2176 of the Civil Code, establishes the rule of in loco parentis. This Court discussed this doctrine in the afore-cited cases of Exconde, Mendoza, Palisoc and, more recently, in Amadora vs. Court of Appeals.  In all such cases, it had been stressed that the law (Article 2180) plainly 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. However, does the appellate court's failure to consider such material facts mean the exculpation of the petitioners from liability? It does not necessarily follow. When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment, there is established a contract between them, resulting in bilateral obligations which both parties are 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. On the other hand, the student covenants to abide by the school's academic requirements and observe its rules and regulations. Institutions of learning must also meet the implicit or "built-in" obligation of providing their students with an atmosphere that promotes or assists in attaining its primary undertaking of imparting knowledge. Certainly, no student can absorb the intricacies of physics or higher mathematics or explore the realm of the arts and other sciences when bullets are flying or grenades exploding in the air or where there looms around the school premises a constant threat to life and limb. Necessarily, the school must ensure that adequate steps are taken to maintain peace and order within the campus premises and to prevent the breakdown thereof. 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.  In Air France vs. Carrascoso (124 Phil. 722), the private respondent was awarded damages for his unwarranted expulsion from a first-class seat aboard the petitioner airline. It is noted, however, that the Court referred to the petitioner-airline's liability as one arising from tort, not one arising from a contract of carriage. In effect, Air France is authority for the view that liability from tort may exist even if there is a contract, for the act that breaks the contract may be also a tort. (Austro-America S.S. Co. vs. Thomas, 248 Fed. 231). This view was not all that revolutionary, for even as early as 1918, this Court was already of a similar mind. In Cangco vs. Manila Railroad (38 Phil. 780), Mr. Justice Fisher elucidated thus: The field of non-contractual obligation is much broader than that of contractual obligation, comprising, as it does, the whole extent of juridical human relations. These two fields, figuratively speaking, concentric; that is to say, the mere fact that a person is bound to another by contract does not relieve him from extra-contractual liability to such person. When such a contractual relation exists the obligor may break the contract under such conditions that the same act which constitutes a breach of the contract would have constituted the source of an extra-contractual obligation had no contract existed between the parties. Immediately what comes to mind is the chapter of the Civil Code on Human Relations, particularly Article 21, which provides: Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good custom or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.  Air France penalized the racist policy of the airline which emboldened the petitioner's employee to forcibly oust the private respondent to cater to the comfort of a white man who allegedly "had a better right to the seat."  In Austro-American, supra, the public embarrassment caused to the passenger was the justification for the Circuit Court of Appeals, (Second Circuit), to award damages to the latter. From the foregoing, it can be concluded that should the act which breaches a contract be done in bad faith and be violative of Article 21, then there is a cause to view the act as constituting a quasi-delict. 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.  Using the test of Cangco, supra, the negligence of the school would not be relevant absent a contract. In fact, that negligence becomes material only because of the contractual relation between PSBA and Bautista. In other words, a contractual relation is a condition sine qua non to the school's liability. The negligence of the school cannot exist independently of the contract, unless the negligence occurs under the circumstances set out in Article 21 of the Civil Code. This Court is not unmindful of the attendant difficulties posed by the obligation of schools, above-mentioned, for conceptually a school, like a common carrier, cannot be an insurer of its students against all risks. This is specially true in the populous student communities of the so-called "university belt" in Manila where there have been reported several incidents ranging from gang wars to other forms of hooliganism. It would not be equitable to expect of schools to anticipate all types of violent trespass upon their premises, for notwithstanding the security measures installed, the same may still fail against an individual or group determined to carry out a nefarious deed inside school premises and environs. Should this be the case, 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. WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The court of origin (RTC, Manila, Br. 47) is hereby ordered to continue proceedings consistent with this ruling of the Court. Costs against the petitioners. SO ORDERED.