ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES

contact

MON-SAT 8:30AM-5:30PM

When are teachers liable for the acts of their students?

Photo from Unsplash | Josh Balerite Acol

The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.

Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.


AT A GLANCE:

Schools, its administrators and teachers, or those individuals, entities or institutions engaged in child care have special parental authority and responsibility over minor students under their supervision, instruction or custody.

This special parental authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution.

They shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the minor student.

This liability shall not apply if the school, entity or institution proves that they have exercised the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances. (Articles 218 and 219, Family Code of the Philippines)


Schools and teachers have special parental authority over their students. The law says:

“The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution engaged in child care shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody.

Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution.” (Article 218, Family Code)

The Family Code further provides that the school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution engaged in child care shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the minor student. However, liability shall not apply if it is proved that they exercised proper diligence required under the particular circumstances. (Article 219, Family Code)

Under the Civil Code of the Philippines:

Teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.” (Article 2180, Civil Code)

 

In the case of Jose Amadora, et al. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-47745, April 15, 1988), the Supreme Court ruled that:

As long as it can be shown that the student is in the school premises in pursuance of a legitimate student objective, in the exercise of a legitimate student right, and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student right, and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student privilege, the responsibility of the school authorities over the student continues. Indeed, even if the student should be doing nothing more than relaxing in the campus in the company of his classmates and friends and enjoying the ambience and atmosphere of the school, he is still within the custody and subject to the discipline of the school authorities under the provisions of Article 2180. (Emphasis supplied.)

 

It must be noted that it is not necessary that at the time of the injury, the teacher be physically present, and in a position to prevent it. Jurisprudence says:

“Custody does not connote immediate and actual physical control but refers more to the influence exerted on the child and the discipline instilled in him as a result of such influence.

Thus, for the injuries caused by the student, the teacher and not the parent shall be held responsible if the tort was committed within the premises of the school at any time when its authority could be validly exercised over him.” (Jose Amadora, et al. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47745, April 15, 1988)

Read also: DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SCHOOLS, TEACHERS, AND STUDENTS UNDER ANTI-BULLYING ACT

Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding taxation and taxpayer’s remedies, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.

All rights reserved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

0 Shares
Share
Tweet
Share