Professional Documents
Culture Documents
6 G.R. No. 84698 - Philippine School of Business Administration v. Court
6 G.R. No. 84698 - Philippine School of Business Administration v. Court
Court
SECOND DIVISION
SYLLABUS
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.
8. ID.; ID.; NEGLIGENCE; DEFINED. — Negligence is 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.
DECISION
PADILLA, J : p
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/17933/print 3/8
12/3/2019 G.R. No. 84698 | Philippine School of Business Administration v. Court
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.
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/17933/print 4/8
12/3/2019 G.R. No. 84698 | Philippine School of Business Administration v. Court
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/17933/print 5/8
12/3/2019 G.R. No. 84698 | Philippine School of Business Administration v. Court
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 customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage." (emphasis supplied)
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 on
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. 9
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.
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/17933/print 6/8
12/3/2019 G.R. No. 84698 | Philippine School of Business Administration v. Court
Footnotes
https://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/17933/print 8/8