AS school communities remain vigilant in the midst of rising incidents of school violence and bullying, efforts must not focus solely on tighter security measures in schools. Revisiting frameworks on discipline is imperative if not inevitable. When students are in the custody of teachers and the school, who has the higher authority for their discipline? Is it the parents or schools? If a student commits a tortious act against a fellow student, who is liable for such acts — the parents or the schools? When is a student considered to be in the “custody” of schools?
These questions were answered in the landmark case of Palisoc v. Brillantes.
Dominador and Virgilio were classmates. While inside the laboratory room, Virgilio made a remark to the effect that Dominador was acting like a foreman. Because of this remark, Dominador slapped Virgilio on the face. In retaliation, the latter gave him a strong blow to the face, followed by other fist blows to the stomach. Dominador retreated, apparently to avoid the fist blows, but Virgilio followed him, and both exchanged blows until Dominador stumbled on an engine block, which caused him to fall face downward. Dominador became pale and fainted. First aid was administered to him, but he was not revived, so he was immediately taken to a hospital. He never regained consciousness; finally, he died.
With the medical findings establishing that the cause of death of Dominador was the internal injuries caused by strong fist blows, the trial court found Virgilio civilly liable for damages under Article 2176 of the Civil Code.
The trial court, however, absolved the three school officials of liability. According to the trial court, the school did not have the custody contemplated by the law when the incident happened to make it liable for the death that occurred, since there was no evidence that the accused Virgilio lived and boarded with his teacher or the other defendant officials of the school. These school officials cannot therefore be held responsible for the tort committed by the student.
On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower court and held the school officials liable for the death of the student.
The rationale for the liability of school heads and teachers for the tortious acts of their pupils and students, so long as they remain in their custody, is that they stand, as to their pupils and students, in loco parentis and are called upon to exercise reasonable supervision over the conduct of the child. In the law of torts, the governing principle is that the protective custody of school heads and teachers is mandatory, substituting for that of the parents. Hence, 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 in attendance at 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.
Where the parent places the child under the effective authority of the teacher and the school, the latter, and not the parent, should be answerable for torts committed while in the child’s custody. This is also the very reason the parent is not supposed to interfere with the school’s discipline or the teacher’s authority and supervision while the child is under instruction. As the law gives teachers and schools greater responsibility over the acts of their students while in custody, they should be given wider latitude and protection in performing their duty to discipline.
According to the Supreme Court, the lower court erred in absolving school officials on the ground that they could be held liable only if the student who inflicted the fatal fist blows on his classmate and victim lived and boarded in the schools. “Custody” under the law means the protective and supervisory custody that the school and its heads and teachers exercise over pupils and students for as long as they are in school, including during recess. There is nothing in the law that requires that, for such liability to attach, the student who commits the act must be living in the school.
In this case, the school president and teacher-in-charge were held liable for the tort committed by student Virgilio, which caused the death of his classmate, Dominador. The unfortunate death resulting from the fight between the students could have been avoided had the school complied with its duty of providing adequate supervision over the activities of the students to protect them from harm at the hands of fellow students. The law holds them liable unless they relieve themselves of such liability by proving that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. They, however, failed to prove such exemption from liability.
In this period, where the most difficult question to answer is “who is liable,” school officials must have the legal acumen to know their responsibilities and accountability under the law.
Clear rules build great and safer schools.
