8/10/2019 Torts Research

1/3

SCHOOLS LIABILITY

In any event, the school may be held to answer for the acts of its teacher or the headthereof under

the general principle of respondent superior, but it may exculpate itself from liability by proof that it

had exercised the diligence of a bonus paterfamilias. Such defense they had taken necessary precautions

to prevent the injury complained of and thus be exonerated from liability imposed by Art 2180.

it becomes their obligation as well as that of the school itself to provide proper supervision of the students'

activities during the whole time that they are at attendance in the school, including recess time, as well as to take

the necessary precautions to protect the students in their custody from dangers and hazards that would

reasonably be anticipated, including injuries that some student themselves may inflict willfully or through

negligence on their fellow students. .

Negligence is not necessarily implied whenever someone is injured.

The questions that should be considered are,:

1.

first, whether the injury is foreseeable and,

2.

second, whether it was preventable if the person to whom negligence is attributed was

present at the time of the injury.

Thus, a teachermay be held liable for an injury that may have occurred in his or her absence

if his or her presence would have prevented the injury.Otherwise, a teacher may not be

reasonably held liable if the injury could not have been prevented or would have happened

regardless of whether he or she was present at the time of the occurrence of the injury.

Damages due may be mitigated if the victims own negligence contributed to his injuries . Thus,lower court in the above-cited case of Ylarde versus Aquino mitigated the damages due to the

negligence of respondent Aquino on the theory that the injuries resulting to the death of the child

Ylarde were caused by his own reckless imprudence. Art. 2179 of the Civil Code provides as follows:

Art. 2179. When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his

injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and

proximate cause of the injury being the defendant' lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover

damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

8/10/2019 Torts Research

2/3

However, age of the studentshould be taken into consideration:

The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts finding of negligence on the part of the victim Ylarde

considering his age. The Court ruled that a minor should not be held to the same degree of care as an

adult. His conduct should be judged according to the average conduct of persons of his age and

experience. Thus:

It should be remembered that he was only ten years old at the time of the incident. As such, he is

expected to be playful and daring. His actuations were natural to a boy his age. Going back to the

facts, it was not only him but the three of them who jumped into the hole while the remaining boy

jumped on the block. From this, it is clear that he only did what any other ten-year old child would do

in the same situation.

The Supreme Court ruled that the lower court should have considered the age and maturity of the child

Ylarde who cannot be held to the same degree of care as an adult and thus cannot be considered as

having acted with reckless imprudence nor as contributing to his own death such as will mitigate

the liability of respondent Aquino.

There are five (5) possible bases of liabilityby teachers, school administrators and educational

institutions due to fault or negligence.

-The first is liability by teachers and school administratorsfor damages caused solely by their own

acts or negligence.

- The second is liability by teachers, school administrators and schools for injuries caused by persons in

their custody or employment due to their negligence in supervising them or their failure to take

appropriate measures to prevent injury. In both instances, the basis of liability is quasi-delict (culpa

aquiliana) which is covered under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Philippine Civil Code.

-The third possible basis of liability by teachers and school administrators is reckless imprudence due or

gross or inexcusable lack of precautionin doing or failing to do an act resulting in material damage to

another. Ones employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and other

circumstances regarding persons, time and place are taken into consideration in determining the

degree of care which is required in each particular situation. The basis of liability in this case is

criminal negligence (culpa criminal) covered under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code.

-The fourth is subsidiary liability by employers, teachers and other persons for crimes committed by

their pupils, workmen, apprentices, employees, or servants in the discharge of their duties (culpa

criminal) covered under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, while the fifth is liability by educational

institutions for breach of contract (culpa contractual) in ensuring that adequate steps are taken to

protect students life and limb.

TEACHERS LIABILITY

Basis of teachers vicarious liability is, as such, they acting in Loco Parentis (in place of parents).

However teachers are not expected to have the same measure of responsibility as that imposed on

parent for their influence over the child is not equal in degree. x x x The parent can instill more lasting

discipline more lasting disciple on the child than the teacher and so should be held to a greater

accountability than the teacher or the head for the tort committed by the child.

8/10/2019 Torts Research

3/3