INCIDENTS of school violence continue to rise, and so do discussions about the accountability of schools and their officials.
Is it the school’s responsibility when an attacker evades its security and brings a weapon into the campus to commit a crime? Is it relevant to the school’s liability whether the assailants are students or outsiders?
In PSBA v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court discussed these issues.
This case involves a stabbing incident that caused the death of a student while inside the premises of the school. At the time of his death, the student was enrolled in a third-year commerce course at the PSBA. His assailants were not members of the school’s academic community but were “outsiders.”
The family of the deceased student filed a civil suit for damages against the school authorities for alleged negligence, recklessness and lack of security precautions, means and methods before, during and after the attack on the victim.
Breach of contract, not in loco parentis
At the outset, the Supreme Court clarified that the principle of in loco parentis does not apply in cases where the assailant of the student is an “outsider.” The principle of in loco parents is found in Article 2180 in conjunction with Article 2176 of the New Civil Code, which provides that teachers in charge and school officials are liable for the damage caused by their students while in custody.
In Amadora v. Court of Appeals, the court has stressed that the law (Article 2180) plainly provides that the damage should have been caused or inflicted by pupils or students of the educational institution sought to be held liable in loco parentis for the acts of its pupils or students while in its custody. A school cannot be held liable for acts by assailants who are outsiders or non-students because, unlike its own students, it is not responsible for their supervision and discipline.
But are schools entirely absolved of responsibility when an outsider causes harm to their students while on campus? It does not necessarily follow.
A school may be held liable for breach of contract. When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment, a contract is established between the institution and the students, creating bilateral obligations that both parties are bound to fulfill. 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.
Built-in obligation of schools on safety
Institutions of learning must also meet the implicit, or “built-in,” obligation to provide their students with an atmosphere that promotes or assists in attaining their primary undertaking of imparting knowledge. According to the court, 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.
This built-in contractual obligation alone, however, does not necessarily give rise to damages on the part of the school. There must be a finding of a breach of this contractual obligation regarding student safety due to the school’s negligence.
Not an insurer against all risks
The court had the opportunity to explain the attendant difficulties posed by the obligation of schools regarding the safety of students, for conceptually, a school, like a common carrier, cannot be an insurer of its students against all risks. According to the court, it would not be equitable to expect 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 crime inside school premises. A school may still avoid liability by proving that the breach of its contractual obligation to the students was not due to its negligence.
In conclusion, while schools bear an important responsibility to foster a safe and secure learning environment, the law recognizes the practical limitations of this duty. Educational institutions are not absolute insurers against every risk, especially those arising from unforeseeable acts. Nonetheless, schools must remain vigilant, uphold reasonable standards of care, and continuously evaluate their security protocols to minimize harm. The balance between fostering a nurturing academic atmosphere and maintaining campus safety is delicate, but it is a responsibility that schools must take seriously as part of their commitment to every student entrusted to their care.
