The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a school found negligent in timely addressing issues of bullying within its premises is liable for damages.

“By failing to address the harm committed by one student against another and by negligently handling the punching incident after it had already happened…,” the school “failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in providing a safe learning environment to its students,” the SC declared.

It also stressed: “Notably, every parent who entrusts their child to a learning institution does so with the assurance that the school, owing to its obligation not only to provide but also to maintain a safe learning environment, will protect the child from harm or will promptly address similar incidents after its occurrence.”

The SC ruling was contained in a decision written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez.  The case was docketed as GR No. 267331 and posted at the SC’s website – sc.judiciary.gov.ph – last April 28.

                           SC Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez

(The Manila Bulletin opted to redact the name of the school and the identities of the students and other persons involved in the case.)

The incident involving three grade school students happened in 2007 inside the classroom.

On Jan. 19, 2007, Student “A” lost his mechanical pencil. A few days later, Student “A” noticed that Student “B” was using the pencil during Filipino class.

Student “A” informed Student “B” that the pencil was his. Nevertheless, Student “A” allowed Student “B” to use the pencil since the latter had no pencil at the time. However, Student “B” failed to return the pencil.

On Jan. 26, 2007 during computer class, Student “A” asked Student “B” to return the pencil but the latter said he forgot to bring it.

Student “B” was seated beside Student “A” and another classmate, Student “C,” who suddenly punched Student “B’s” arm three times. Student “A” followed up with two more punches.  Thereafter, Student “B” was punched six more times by his two classmates.

On Jan. 29, Student “B” reported the incident to their teacher who did nothing about the report.

On Feb. 1, 2007, one of Student “B’s” classmates saw his bruises and reported the matter to their class adviser who confronted Students “A” and “C.”

Later in the afternoon, the mother of Student “A” called the mother of Student “B” and apologized for the incident.  It turned out it was the first time the parents of Student “B” learned of the incident.

The father of Student “B” brought his son to the municipal health office for medical examination.

The parents of Student “B” went to the school on Feb. 2, 2007 to complain but they were ignored. On Feb. 7, 2007, they sent a letter to the school principal and requested an investigation. 

When no investigation was conducted, the parents of Student “B” sent another letter on Feb. 26, 2007. Thereafter, the school principal showed the results of investigation which was challenged by Student “B’s” parents for alleged discrepancies.

The parents of Student “B” questioned why Student “C” was not penalized despite his admission that he threw the most punches on their son.  They requested a reinvestigation.

After reinvestigation, the school said the incident “was only teasing or rough play” among Students “A,” “B,” and “C.”

Aggrieved, the parents of Student “B” filed a complaint for damages against the parents of Students “A” and “C,” and the school and its officials and teachers for negligence.

In its March 17, 2017 decision, the regional trial court (RTC) found the school and the teacher of the three students at the time the incident happened solidarily liable to the case filed by the parents of Student “B” since the incident occurred at the school premises during class hours and the school and its officials “were exercising parental authority and had the obligation to protect (Student “B”) from harm.”

The teacher and the school were ordered to pay P500,000 in moral damages; P200,000 in exemplary damages; and P150,000 as attorney’s fees.

On appeal made by the school and the teacher, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification the RTC’s ruling.

The CA ruled that the teacher was not negligent because he was at the comfort room when the incident happened and there was no substitute teacher to supervise the class. 

The appellate court also classified the punching incident as a form of "bullying" under the Anti-Bullying Act of 2013 and found the school directly liable for its own negligence in handling the incident.

It dismissed the case against the teacher and reduced the payable moral damages to P300,000.

The school appealed the CA’s decision before the SC which ruled: 

“The Court finds no reason to overturn the courts a quo's (CA) unanimous factual findings. However, the word ‘bullying’ as used by the CA should be construed in its generic sense, that is, the ‘abuse and mistreatment of someone vulnerable by someone stronger,’ and not the definition under the Anti-Bullying Act of 2013 which was not yet in force at the time the punching incident took place.

“At any rate, records show that (the school) was indeed grossly negligent, as shown in the following manner:

“Foremost, the teachers (in the school) were ill-equipped in addressing a student's complaints of physical harm. (Student “B”) initially reported the incident to his Hekasi teacher but he was just ignored. (Student “B’s”) classmate then reported the matter to their class adviser who merely confirmed with (Students “A” and “C”), the offenders, whether they had indeed punched (Student “B”).

“Second, despite learning about the punching incident, the school did not inform Student “B’s”parents about the harm committed against him. Had the offender's mother…, not called Student “B’s” mother, the  parents would not have known about the incident. Student “B” would not have been able to undergo medical checkup.

“Third, the school itself does not have a protocol in addressing any harm committed by one student against another, which explains why its teachers also did not know how to handle the situation.

“Fourth, the school conducted an investigation only upon the request and prodding of Student “B’s” father.

“Fifth, the school did not update Student “B’s” parents regarding the investigation, which led the father to send a second letter requesting for an investigation.

“Sixth, the results of the school’s investigation were replete with inaccurate information. No disciplinary action was taken against the offenders despite their own admission that they punched Student “B” multiple times.

“Since the school’s negligence arises from an existing contractual obligation, its defense that it exercised due diligence in the selection and hiring of employees under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, which is applicable only for quasi-delicts, must fail.

“Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed. The Decision dated May 23, 2023 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 114714, which affirmed with modifications the Decision dated March 17, 2017 and the Order dated Jan.3, 2019 of Branch 56, Regional Trial Court… is affirmed with modification. The school is ordered to pay the parents of Student “B” the following amounts: P300,000 as moral damages, P200,000 as exemplary damages, and P150,000 as attorney's fees. The amounts shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent per annum on all monetary awards from the finality of this Decision until full payment. So ordered.”