Article 218 and 219 of the Family Code of the Philippines

Art. 218. 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. (349a)

Article 218 provides that, the persons and entities given by law special parental authority are the school, its administrators an teachers, or the individual,entity or institution engaged in child care. They are civilly liable for acts and omissions of unemancipated minor. However, the liabilities shall not apply if they proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under a particular circumstances. The liability is still attache while the minor child is under their supervision, instruction and custody and also to all authorized activities inside the premises of the school.

Art. 219. Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated  minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.

  The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances.

  All other cases not covered by this and the preceding articles shall be governed by the provisions of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. (n)

Article 219 of the family code states that  parents,  judicial guardians or the persons exercising parental authority over the minor child shall be subsidiary liable because while in school or in an institution engaged in the child care, the said persons do not have the direct custody of their children. Again, they shall only be liable if the persons with the special parental authority cannot satisfy their liability.

Case:

PSBA, et.al. v. CA, et.al

G.R. No. 846698, February 4,1992

Facts:

On 30 August 1985 which caused the death of Carlitos Bautista while on the second-floor premises of the Philippine School of Business Administration (PSBA) prompted the parents of the deceased to file suit in the Regional Trial Court of Manila for damages against the said PSBA and its corporate officers. At the time of his death, Carlitos was enrolled in the third year commerce course at the PSBA. It was established that his assailants were not members of the school's academic community but were elements from outside the school. The respondent sought to adjudge them liable for the victim's untimely demise due to their alleged negligence, recklessness and lack of security precautions, means and methods before, during and after the attack on the victim. 

Issue: W/N the school is liable for the death of Carlitos who was stabbed by a stranger inside the campus.

Held:

No, Because the circumstances of the present case evince a contractual relation between the PSBA and Carlitos Bautista, the rules on quasi-delict do not really govern. A perusal of Article 2176 shows that obligations arising from quasi-delicts or tort, also known as extra-contractual obligations, arise only between parties not otherwise bound by contract, whether express or implied.

When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment, there is established a contract between them, resulting in bilateral obligations which both parties are bound to comply with.  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. 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.

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.