Scribd
Upload
22 views1 page

Case Digest 2

The case PSBA v. CA revolves around the death of Carlitos Bautista, a student killed by outsiders on school premises, leading his parents to sue PSBA for negligence in security. The Supreme Court ruled that while PSBA is not liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the case should proceed due to the contractual obligation between the school and its students to maintain safety. The court emphasized that it must be determined if PSBA breached this contract through negligence regarding security measures.

Uploaded by

lou.santos.gsbm
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
22 views1 page

Case Digest 2

The case PSBA v. CA revolves around the death of Carlitos Bautista, a student killed by outsiders on school premises, leading his parents to sue PSBA for negligence in security. The Supreme Court ruled that while PSBA is not liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the case should proceed due to the contractual obligation between the school and its students to maintain safety. The court emphasized that it must be determined if PSBA breached this contract through negligence regarding security measures.

Uploaded by

lou.santos.gsbm
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PSBA v.

CA, 205 SCRA 729 (1992)

FACTS:
On August 30, 1985, Carlitos Bautista, a third-year Commerce student, was stabbed
and killed on the second-floor premises of the Philippine School of Business
Administration (PSBA). It was identified that the attackers were not students from
PSBA but were outsiders. Segunda R. Bautista and Arsenia D. Bautista, the parents
of Carlitos Bautista, filed a civil case against the PSBA and its corporate officers for
damages, claiming the school was negligent in maintaining security before, during,
and after the attack which resulted in the untimely death of Carlitos.
The defendants sought to have the case dismissed alleging that since they are
presumably sued under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, as jurisprudence on the
subject is to the effect that academic institutions, such as the PSBA, are beyond the
ambit of the rule in the Article. Their contention and motion for reconsideration
were overruled by the Regional Trial Court of Manila. This was affirmed by the Court
of Appeals.
ISSUE:
Is the PSBA and its officers correct under to have the case dismissed as they are not
covered by the provisions of Article 2180 of the Civil Code for the death of Carlitos
Bautista?
HELD:
No, while PSBA and its officers are not covered by the provisions of Article 2180 of
the Civil Code, the overruling of the PSBA’s motion to dismiss was correct due to the
existence of contract between the PSBA and its students, and that the complaint
should be tried based on merits.
Article 2180 of the Civil Code plainly provides that the damage should have been
caused or inflicted by pupils or students of the educational institution sought to be
held liable for the acts of its pupils or students while in its custody. Hence, the
provision does not cover this case as the attackers who killed Carlos are not PSBA
students. However, there is an established contract between the school and the
student, in which the school should ensure that adequate steps are taken to
maintain peace and order within the campus premises and to prevent the
breakdown thereof. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court also recognizes that schools
cannot be an insurer of their students against all risk. There is, as yet, no finding
that the contract between the school and Carlos had been breached through the
former's negligence in providing proper security measures and that this would be
for the trial court to determine.
Therefore, while PSBA and its officers are not covered by the provisions of Article
2180 of the Civil Code, RTC Manila is ordered by the Supreme Court to continue with
the proceedings.

You might also like