PSBA Vs CA

4.
G.R. No. 84698 February 4, 1992

PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, JUAN D. LIM, BENJAMIN P. PAULINO, ANTONIO
M. MAGTALAS, COL. PEDRO SACRO and LT. M. SORIANO, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, HON. REGINA ORDOÑEZ-BENITEZ, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 47,
Regional Trial Court, Manila, SEGUNDA R. BAUTISTA and ARSENIA D. BAUTISTA, respondents.
Facts:
A stabbing incident on 30 August 1985 which caused the death of Carlitos Bautista while on the second-
floor premises of the Philippine School of Business Administration (PSBA) prompted the parents of the
deceased to file suit in the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch 47) presided over by Judge (now Court
of Appeals justice) Regina Ordoñez-Benitez, for damages against the said PSBA and its corporate officers.
At the time of his death, Carlitos was enrolled in the third year commerce course at the PSBA. It was
established that his assailants were not members of the school's academic community but were
elements from outside the school.
Substantially, the plaintiffs (now private respondents) sought to adjudge them liable for the victim's
untimely demise due to their alleged negligence, recklessness and lack of security precautions, means
and methods before, during and after the attack on the victim. During the proceedings a quo, Lt. M.
Soriano terminated his relationship with the other petitioners by resigning from his position in the
school.
Defendants a quo (now petitioners) sought to have the suit dismissed, alleging that since they are
presumably sued under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the complaint states no cause of action against
them, as jurisprudence on the subject is to the effect that academic institutions, such as the PSBA, are
beyond the ambit of the rule in the afore-stated article.
Issue:
Whether or not PSBA can be held liable under quasi-delict
Held:
No.
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. 7 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).

PSBA Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PSBA Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PSBA Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4.

G.R. No. 84698 February 4, 1992

Whether or not PSBA can be held liable under quasi-delict

You might also like