1) Why this topic matters

Student-on-student violence and bullying raise two overlapping questions in Philippine law:

Who pays damages when a student is injured (civil liability)?
Who gets sanctioned or prosecuted when rules or laws are violated (administrative and criminal liability)?

In private schools, these questions are shaped by (a) the school–student contractual relationship, (b) tort/quasi-delict principles, (c) the special parental authority of schools over minors, and (d) statutory duties—most notably the Anti-Bullying Act.

2) Core legal framework (Philippines)

A. Contract law (private school enrollment)

Enrollment in a private school is generally treated as a contract between the school and the student (and, practically, the parents/guardians who pay). From that relationship flows a duty to provide an environment consistent with:

the school’s representations in handbooks and policies,
reasonable safety and supervision,
fair and lawful discipline and due process.

Key practical consequence: Even if the bully is a student (not an employee), the injured student may sue the school for breach of contractual obligations (e.g., failure to follow its own safety/discipline procedures, or failure to implement mandatory policies).

B. Civil Code: quasi-delict (tort) and vicarious liability

Article 2176 (quasi-delict): Whoever causes damage to another by fault/negligence is liable.
Article 2180 (vicarious liability): Certain persons/entities may be held liable for the acts of those under their authority or supervision (e.g., employers for employees; parents for minor children; teachers/heads in certain contexts), subject to defenses like diligence in selection and supervision where applicable.

Philippine jurisprudence (e.g., landmark Supreme Court rulings often discussed in this area such as Amadora and other “school custody” cases) developed the idea that school liability for student acts often turns on custody/supervision and reasonable diligence.

C. Family Code: special parental authority over minors

The Family Code recognizes that schools (and their administrators/teachers) exercise special parental authority and responsibility over minor students while the child is under their supervision, instruction, or custody. This is important because it:

strengthens the legal basis for holding schools accountable when harm occurs during school custody, and
can affect the allocation of liability between schools and parents.

In simplified terms: while a minor is under school custody, the law treats the school as having a parent-like duty to supervise and protect—subject to the “reasonable diligence” standard.

D. Anti-Bullying Act of 2013 (RA 10627) and school policy duties

RA 10627 applies to basic education (generally K–12) and covers both public and private schools. It requires schools to:

adopt and implement anti-bullying policies,
provide reporting mechanisms and timely responses,
document incidents and actions taken,
protect the reporting student and address retaliation,
coordinate with parents/guardians and, when needed, proper authorities.

Key practical consequence: Noncompliance can support:

administrative consequences (regulatory), and
civil claims anchored on negligence or breach of duty (especially when the harm was foreseeable and preventable).

E. Other relevant statutes (depending on facts)

Bullying and assault may overlap with other laws, for example:

Safe Spaces Act (RA 11313) (gender-based sexual harassment in streets/public spaces/online/workplaces/educational settings; many schools adopt policies and committees aligned with it),
Anti-Sexual Harassment Act (RA 7877) (covers educational settings; typically invoked for harassment by someone with authority/influence, but fact patterns vary),
Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act (RA 7610) (if conduct fits child abuse/violence criteria),
Revised Penal Code (physical injuries, serious threats, coercion, unjust vexation-type analogs, homicide, rape/sexual assault, etc.),
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (RA 9344, as amended) (if the offender is below the age of criminal responsibility or is a child in conflict with the law; emphasizes diversion/intervention).

3) What “school custody” means (the pivot issue in many cases)

In disputes about violence between students, courts commonly focus on whether the student was under the school’s custody at the time of the incident. Custody is not merely “enrolled in the school.” It usually means:

the student is on school premises during school hours, or
the student is participating in an authorized school activity (field trips, practices, competitions, events), or
the student is otherwise in a context where the school has assumed supervision and control.

When incidents occur outside school gates or after dismissal, liability becomes more fact-sensitive: Was the activity school-sanctioned? Were personnel supervising? Was the risk foreseeable? Did school rules create or extend control (e.g., required waiting areas, mandated assemblies, after-class programs)?

Bottom line: The stronger the school’s control and supervisory role at the time and place of harm, the stronger the legal case for school responsibility.

4) Main theories used to hold a private school liable

Theory 1: Negligence (quasi-delict) for failure to exercise reasonable care

A school may be liable when the injury results from foreseeable risks that reasonable school precautions could have prevented or reduced, such as:

inadequate hallway/yard monitoring,
ignoring repeated complaints or warning signs,
allowing known aggressors unsupervised access to targets,
failing to enforce safety protocols (e.g., weapons bans, searches consistent with policy and rights, visitor controls),
failing to act promptly and appropriately after an initial incident (leading to escalation).

Typical proof themes:

prior reports of bullying/assault,
a pattern of misconduct by the aggressor,
“hotspots” with no supervision,
delayed or perfunctory investigations,
lack of documented interventions.

Theory 2: Breach of contract (school–student contract)

Private schools issue student handbooks and policies that often promise safety measures and disciplinary processes. Liability may attach if the school:

fails to implement its anti-bullying policy,
violates its own investigation timelines,
mishandles reporting channels (e.g., disclosure causing retaliation),
denies due process in a way that worsens harm or wrongfully excludes a victim from school access,
creates a hostile environment by inaction.

Why this matters: Contract claims can be attractive where the bully is not an employee and where plaintiffs want to frame the case as failure of the institution’s promised system of protection.

Theory 3: Vicarious/parental-type responsibility over minors under school authority

Where the offender and victim are minors and the incident occurs under school custody, the school’s special parental authority can ground liability (often alongside negligence). This does not mean the school automatically “pays for everything,” but it raises the standard expectation that the school had an active duty to supervise and protect.

Theory 4: Employer liability for acts of teachers/staff (separate but common)

If the harm involves:

a teacher’s assault,
staff negligence (e.g., guard allowing weapons),
failure of assigned personnel to supervise,

the school’s liability may be pursued under employer principles (vicarious liability), plus direct negligence (bad hiring, bad training, poor supervision, policy failures).

5) Bullying: how it’s treated differently from a one-off fight

A. Bullying is often a pattern, and the law cares about notice

Bullying cases frequently turn on notice and foreseeability:

Did the school know (or should it have known) about the bullying?
Were there prior complaints, informal reports, social media evidence, guidance counselor notes?
Did the school take reasonable steps after notice?

A single sudden assault can still create liability, but repeated bullying creates a clearer narrative of preventable harm.

B. What counts as bullying (practically)

In school settings, bullying commonly includes:

physical aggression,
verbal harassment and threats,
social exclusion and humiliation,
coercion/extortion,
cyberbullying using messages, group chats, posts, doctored images, and impersonation.

The stronger the documentation (screenshots, contemporaneous reports, witness statements), the more the case shifts from “he said/she said” to “systemic failure to respond.”

C. Anti-bullying compliance is not just paperwork

Schools are expected to have working systems:

designated reporting points,
investigation procedures,
protective measures during investigation,
interventions and counseling,
coordination with parents,
documentation.

In litigation, a school’s “policy exists” defense can fail if implementation is hollow.

6) Assault and serious injury: when criminal law enters

Student assault can trigger criminal complaints depending on:

the gravity of injury,
presence of weapons,
sexual elements,
threats, coercion, robbery/extortion,
age of offender and victim.

A. Offender is a minor: juvenile justice pathway

When the offender is a child, the process often involves:

assessment of age and criminal responsibility,
diversion/intervention programs,
coordination with social welfare offices.

B. Does criminal liability extend to the school?

Criminal liability is generally personal. A school is not “criminally guilty” of a student’s assault merely because it is the school. However:

school officials may face exposure if there is a separate offense (e.g., obstruction, certain child protection violations depending on facts), and
civil damages may be pursued alongside or within criminal proceedings (civil liability arising from the offense), including claims against parties with legal responsibility under civil law theories.

7) Who can be sued or held responsible (civilly/administratively)

Depending on the case, potential respondents include:

The school corporation/entity (primary target in many civil suits; has assets/insurance).
School administrators (principal, school head) if personal negligence is alleged (policy failures, deliberate indifference).
Teachers/advisers/duty personnel (if they were responsible for supervision at the time).
Security personnel/contractors (gates, weapons screening, visitor control failures).
Parents/guardians of the bully (especially for minors; allocation rules depend on custody, special parental authority, and circumstances).
The bully (through parents/guardian if minor; personally if of age).

8) Standard of care: what “reasonable diligence” looks like in schools

Courts generally do not require schools to guarantee zero harm. They require reasonable care proportionate to risk, such as:

adequate staff-to-student supervision in known hotspots,
clear anti-bullying rules and enforcement,
prompt response to reports (triage for safety),
credible investigations (statements, evidence review),
protective measures (seating changes, supervised transitions, no-contact orders in campus context),
appropriate discipline consistent with due process and handbook,
counseling and restorative interventions where appropriate,
coordination with parents, and referrals to authorities for serious harm,
special measures for vulnerable students (disability accommodations, trauma-informed responses).

A recurring litigation theme: A school can lose not because it lacked a policy, but because it failed to act after it knew.

9) Due process and discipline: the school’s balancing act

Private schools must discipline within:

their handbook/contract,
fairness and due process expectations,
child protection and privacy constraints.

Common due process pitfalls that create liability

disciplining the victim (or “both sides”) without investigation,
pressuring the victim to “just forgive” without safeguards,
retaliatory treatment after reporting,
disclosing sensitive details that lead to further harm,
inconsistent penalties suggesting arbitrariness or bad faith,
failure to document reasons and steps taken.

10) Remedies and damages in civil cases

Depending on the evidence and cause of action, a court may award:

Actual damages (medical bills, therapy, medications, devices, transport, documented expenses),
Moral damages (mental anguish, trauma, humiliation),
Exemplary damages (in cases showing wantonness/gross negligence),
Attorney’s fees (in certain circumstances),
Other relief (sometimes injunctive-type remedies are pursued through other proceedings; schools more commonly resolve via agreements and protective measures rather than court injunctions, but fact patterns vary).

11) Evidence and documentation: what usually decides cases

Strong evidence for claimants

written complaints/emails to school,
screenshots of cyberbullying with metadata/context,
clinic/ER records and psychological assessments,
incident reports, CCTV logs (or proof they exist),
witness statements (students, guards, teachers),
proof of prior similar incidents,
handbook provisions and proof the school didn’t follow them.

Strong defenses for schools

prompt, documented response consistent with policy,
evidence of supervision measures,
proof the incident occurred outside custody/control,
evidence the harm was not reasonably foreseeable,
proof of interventions, counseling, and protective steps,
compliance with reporting and escalation protocols for serious incidents.

12) Practical compliance checklist for private schools (risk management that also protects kids)

Governance & policy

Anti-bullying policy aligned with RA 10627 (for basic ed) and updated annually.
Clear definitions: bullying, cyberbullying, retaliation, false reporting.
Proportionate sanctions and restorative options; separate track for serious violence.

Reporting

Multiple channels (anonymous where feasible, but managed to prevent abuse).
Safety-first triage: immediate protection for the targeted student.
Parent notification rules with safeguards.

Investigation

Timelines, documentation templates, evidence preservation.
Confidentiality protocols; need-to-know disclosure.

Supervision

Duty schedules and hotspot mapping (stairs, CR corridors, canteen lines, pickup zones).
Arrival/dismissal controls.

Cyberbullying

Incident intake that accepts screenshots and device context.
Rules for school action when online conduct affects school safety.

Training

Annual staff training on bullying recognition, de-escalation, trauma-informed response.
Student programs: bystander intervention, digital citizenship.

Support

Counseling for victims and aggressors (risk assessment for repeat violence).
Reintegration plans and no-contact measures.

13) Common misconceptions

“Private schools aren’t covered by anti-bullying rules.” Private basic education schools are covered by RA 10627.
“A school is automatically liable if something happens.” Liability usually hinges on custody, foreseeability, and reasonable diligence.
“Bullying is just a discipline issue, not a legal one.” It can be a discipline issue and a civil, administrative, or criminal matter depending on severity and response.
“If the bully is a student, the school can’t be sued.” Schools can be sued under contract and negligence theories even when the direct wrongdoer is another student.

14) Closing synthesis

In the Philippine setting, private school liability for student assault and bullying is built on a layered structure:

Contractual duty to provide a safe learning environment consistent with policies and fair process;
Tort/quasi-delict principles requiring reasonable care in supervision and prevention;
Special parental authority over minors during school custody, reinforcing the duty to protect and supervise;
Statutory obligations, especially RA 10627 for basic education, which can convert “best practice” into enforceable duty.

The cases that succeed—on either side—are usually the ones that answer two questions clearly: (1) Was the child under the school’s custody/control when the harm occurred? (2) Did the school respond with documented, reasonable diligence proportionate to the risk—especially after notice?

General information only; for a specific incident, the legally decisive details are highly fact-dependent (age, location, timing, prior notice, documentation, and the school’s actual interventions).