Carlitos while on the premise of PSBA was stabbed to death and his assailants were found out to be not members of the academic community. He is enrolled in 3rd year commerce course in PSBA. His parents filed a suit against PSBA and its corporate officers for damages due to their alleged negligence, recklessness and lack of precautions, means and methods before, during and after the attack of the victim.
Defendants (now the petitioners) filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the complaint staes no cause of action against them based on quasi delicts, as the rule does not cover academic institutions. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. Their motion for reconsideration was likewise dismissed, and was affirmed by the appellate court. The case was sent to Supre Court. ISSUE: Whether or not PSBA is liable for the death of the student. HELD: The contractual relation between PSBA and Carlitos was revealed, rules on quasi delicts do not really govern.
It shows that obligations arising from quasi delicts also known as extra contractual obligations, arise only between parties not otherwise bound by the contract, whether express or implied. However, this did not prevent the court from determing the existence of the obligation even when there obtains a contract. Article 2180 in relation to Article 2176 of the Civil Code, establishes the rule oin loco parentis. Article 2180 provide that the damage caused or inflcted by students of educational institution sought to held liable for the acts of the students while in its custody.
However, this does not exist for it is earlier indicated that the assailants of Carlitos are not members of PSBA. This do not free PSBA from liability. When PSBA accepts a student for enrollment, a contract was established between them, resulting in bilateral obligations which both parties are bound to cmply with. Failing on its contractual and implied duty to ensure the safety of the student, PSBA is therefore held liable for this death. Petition denied