In the Philippines, the relationship between a school and its students is not merely educational; it is a legal bond characterized by the doctrine of in loco parentis (in place of a parent). When a student suffers an injury during school activities, the determination of liability involves a complex interplay of the Civil Code, the Family Code, and established jurisprudence.
1. The Principle of Vicarious Liability
The foundational rule for school liability is found in Article 2180 of the Civil Code and Article 218 of the Family Code. These provisions establish that schools, administrators, and teachers are liable for damages caused by students under their supervision.
Article 218 of the Family Code
This article explicitly grants "special parental authority" to the school, its administrators, and teachers over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction, or custody. This authority applies to all authorized activities, whether inside or outside the school premises.
Article 219 of the Family Code
Under this provision, those exercising special parental authority are principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor. The parents of the minor are only subsidiarily liable.
2. The Nature of the School's Obligation: In Loco Parentis
The law imposes a duty of care on schools that mirrors that of a "good father of a family" (bonus pater familias). This duty arises because, during school hours or authorized activities, the parent delegates the safety and supervision of the child to the institution.
Key Elements for Liability:
- Custody: The student must be under the school's custody. Jurisprudence (e.g., Amadora v. Court of Appeals) has clarified that "custody" does not necessarily mean the student is in a classroom; it applies as long as the student is within the school premises for a legitimate purpose or attending an authorized off-campus event.
- Authorized Activity: The injury must occur during an activity sanctioned by the school.
- Negligence: Liability usually hinges on whether the school failed to exercise the required diligence to prevent the injury.
3. Basis of Liability: Tort vs. Contract
Liability can be pursued through two primary legal avenues:
Quasi-Delict (Tort)
Under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, a school may be held liable if its negligence—or the negligence of its employees—directly caused the injury. The burden is often on the claimant to prove that the school failed to provide adequate supervision or maintain safe premises.
Breach of Contract (Culpa Contractual)
For private schools, the enrollment of a student creates a contract. The school impliedly promises to provide a safe environment conducive to learning. If a student is injured due to unsafe facilities or lack of supervision, the school can be sued for failing to fulfill its contractual obligation to ensure student safety (Philippine School of Business Administration v. Court of Appeals).
4. Defenses Against Liability
Schools are not automatic insurers of student safety. They can avoid liability by proving:
- Diligence of a Good Father of a Family: If the school can prove it exercised all necessary precautions, supervised the students diligently, and maintained facilities properly, it may be cleared of negligence.
- Force Majeure: If the injury was caused by an unforeseeable and unavoidable act of God (e.g., an earthquake or sudden freak storm).
- Contributory Negligence: If the student’s own actions were the primary cause of the injury, the school’s liability may be mitigated or extinguished.
- Proper Instruction/Warning: If the school provided adequate warnings and safety instructions which the student willfully ignored.
5. Liability During Off-Campus Activities
With the advent of the Department of Education (DepEd) Order No. 66, s. 2017 and CHED Memorandum Order No. 63, s. 2017, the scope of liability for field trips and off-campus activities has been strictly defined.
- Written Consent: While schools require "waivers" signed by parents, these waivers are generally not a total shield against liability. In Philippine law, a waiver cannot exempt a party from liability arising from future negligence if it contravenes public policy.
- Supervision Requirements: The school must maintain a specific ratio of monitors/teachers to students and ensure the venue is vetted for safety.
6. Summary of Liability Attribution
| Entity | Basis of Liability |
|---|---|
| Teachers | Direct supervision and failure to exercise "special parental authority." |
| School Administrators | Failure to implement safety policies or provide adequate staff. |
| The School (Institution) | Solidary liability under the Family Code or breach of the enrollment contract. |
7. Jurisprudential Landmarks
- Amadora v. CA: Established that the school is liable as long as the student is in the custody of the school, even if the semester has technically ended, provided they are there for a legitimate school purpose.
- St. Mary's Academy v. Carpitanos: Clarified that for a school to be held liable for a student's act, there must be a showing of negligence on the part of the school. If the incident was a "fortuitous event" or happened despite the school's diligence, the school is not liable.
- PSBA v. CA: Affirmed that even if an injury is caused by an outsider (not a student or teacher), the school can still be held liable for breach of contract if it failed to provide adequate security.