Republic of the Philippines

BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY

City of Malolos, Bulacan
Graduate School

Loco Parentis
Michelle T. Sumat
MAEd-EM Student
Discussant
In Loco Parentis

The term in loco parentis, Latin for "in the place of a parent"
refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take
on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis
It is applied in two separate areas of the law...

• First, it allows institutions such as colleges and schools to act in the best
interests of the students as they see fit, although not allowing what would
be considered violations of the students' civil liberties.

• Second, this doctrine can provide a non-biological parent to be given the

legal rights and responsibilities of a biological parent if they have held
themselves out as the parent.
Sample Case
A student from UST posted a photo of her molester ,who happened to be her
schoolmate, on Twitter along with a short warning to commuters.
The school’s Student Welfare and Development Board asked that the girl take the post
down. She was accused of “falsely accusing another student of wrongdoing,” under a
provision of the university code of conduct and discipline.
The case dragged and the board soon reached a resolution.
The girl was made to apologize to the boy.
In its official statement, the university said that the facts and evidence “do not conform
to the records on file.”
It then proceeded to emphasize its obligation to keep the confidentiality of student
discipline cases.
 Republic Act 386
The Civil Code of the Philippines

CHAPTER 6 SUBSTITUTE PARENTAL AUTHORITY

Art. 349. The following persons shall exercise substitute parental authority:
(1) Guardians;

(2) Teachers and professors;

(3) Heads of children's homes, orphanages, and similar institutions;

(4) Directors of trade establishments, with regard to apprentices;

(5) Grandparents;

(6) The oldest brother or sister.

CHAPTER 2 Quasi-delicts

Article 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only
for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible.

• The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for
the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.
• Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated
persons who are under their authority and live in their company.

• The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise

responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches
in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
• Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees
and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks,
even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.

• The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special

agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to
whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided
in Article 2176 shall be applicable.
• Lastly, 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.

• The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when

the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all
the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or
institution engaged in child are 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.

Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly
liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their
unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental authority
subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law.
DOCTRINE OF IN LOCO PARENTIS

Vicarious Liability of Teachers and Educational Intitutions

I. MEANING OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND QUASI-DELICT

Vicarious Liability is a legal doctrine in tort law that imposes responsibility upon one
person for the failure of another or assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not
cause the injury but with whom the person has a special legal relationship to exercise such
care as a reasonably prudent person would use under similar circumstances.

Sample case:

Employer and employee

II.LEGAL BASIS OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY

Meaning Of Custody As Used In Article 2180

The Supreme Court refined the definition of “custody” as used in Article 2180. In
Amadora v. CA it was held not to mean the student must be boarding with the school
authorities, but it does signify that the student should be within the control and under
the influence of the school authorities at the time of the occurrence of the injury,
whether the semester or school term has not yet begun or has already ended.
As long as the student is still subject to the disciplinary authority of the school and
cannot consider himself released altogether from observance of its rules, he is in the
custody of the school.
 III. Doctrine of in loco parentis

• School heads and teachers are subject to this vicarious liability

because they stand, to a certain extent, as to their pupils or students,
in loco parentis or as substitute parents, as expressly provided under
Article 218 of the Family Code.
Doctrine of in loco parentis

Schools exercise their educational functional principally through

their administrators and teachers, while parents exercise their parental
authority by sending their children to school to comply with their duty
to educate them according to their means, as provided in Article 220 of
the Family Code, and Article 72 of the Child and Youth Welfare
Code, as amended.
Doctrine of in loco parentis

When parents send their minor child to school, they must

necessarily pass on or share their parental authority, their custody over
the child, and the responsibility to educate their child properly with the
school, its administrators and teachers temporarily, as the latter shall
assume such during all the time the child is under their supervision and
instruction. This, in essence, is the principle of substituted parental
authority.
Doctrine of in loco parentis

A teacher’s liability arises from the failure to provide due diligence in

the performance of the responsibilities that come with the substituted
parental authority.[7] A teacher must not only be charged with teaching
but also vigilance over their students or pupils”. Without the parents to
look after their children when in school, it is the teacher who takes over
in the supervision.
Doctrine of in loco parentis

The law holds the teachers and heads of the school staff liable
unless they relieve themselves of such liability pursuant to the
last paragraph of Article 2180 by “proving that they observed all
the diligence to prevent damage.”
Doctrine of in loco parentis

The law also applies to all kinds of educational institutions,

academic or vocational.[10] 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. The contract between school and student is one “imbued with
public interest” but a contract nonetheless.
Doctrine of in loco parentis

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.
Doctrine of in loco parentis

In all such cases, it had been stressed that the law (Article 2180)
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.
 Title of the Case
(PALISOC v. BRILLANTES)

G.R. No. L-29025 October 4, 1971

Spouses MOISES P. PALISOC and BRIGIDA P. PALISOC, plaintiffs-appellants,

vs.
ANTONIO C. BRILLANTES and TEODOSIO V. VALENTON, owner and
President, respectively, of a school of arts and trades, known under the name and style
of "Manila Technical Institute" (M.I.T.), VIRGILIO L. DAFFON and
SANTIAGO M. QUIBULUE, defendants-appellees.
 FACTS OF THE CASE

Deceased Dominador Palisoc and defendant Virgilio Daffon were automotive

mechanics students at the Manila Technical Institute (MTI). In the afternoon of
March 10, 1966 during recess, an altercation transpired between the deceased and
the defendant. At the time of the incident, Dominador was sixteen years old while
Virgilio was already of age. Virgilio was working on a machine with Dominador
looking at them. The situation prompted Virgilio to remark that Dominador was
acting like a foreman. As a result, Dominador slapped Virgilio on the face.
Virgilio retaliated by inflicting severe blows upon Dominador’s stomach, which
caused the latter to stumble upon an engine block and faint. The latter died, the
cause of death being “shock due to traumatic fracture of the ribs”. The parents of
Dominador filed an action for damages against (1) Virgilio, (2) Valenton, the
head/president of MTI, (3) Quibule who was the teacher in charge at the time of
the incident, and (4) Brillantes who is a member of the board of directors and
The trial court held Virgilio liable but absolved the other defendants-
officials. It stated that the clause “so long as they remain in their
custody” contained in Article 2180 of the Civil Code applies only where
the pupil lives and boards with the teachers, such that the control or
influence on the pupil supersedes those of the parents., and such control
and responsibility for the pupil’s actions would pass from the father and
mother to the teachers. This legal conclusion was based on the dictum in
Mercado v. CA, which in turn based its decision in Exconde v. Capuno.
The trial court held that Article 2180 was not applicable in this case, as
defendant Virgilio did not live with the defendants-officials at the time
of the incident. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:

• Who must be held liable for damages for the death of

Dominador together with the defendant?
Held:

The head/president and teacher of MTI (Valenton and Quibule

respectively) were held liable jointly and severally with the Virgilio for
damages. No liability attaches to Brillantes as a mere member of the
MTI board of directors. Similarly, MTI may not be held liable since it
had not been properly impleaded as party defendant.
Held:

The phrase used in Article 2180, “so long as the students remain in their
custody” means the protective and supervisory custody that the school
and its heads and teachers exercise over the pupils and students for as
long as they are at attendance in the school, including recess time. There
is nothing in the law that requires that for such liability to attach the
pupil or student who commits the tortuous act must live and board in the
school. The dicta in the cases of Mercado as well as in Exconde v.
Capuno on which it relied are deemed to have been set aside.
Held:

The rationale of such liability of school heads and teachers for the
tortious acts of their pupils and students, so long as they remain in their
custody, is that they stand, in loco parentis to a certain extent to their
pupils and students and are called upon to “exercise reasonable
supervision over the conduct of the child.” In this case, The unfortunate
death resulting from the fight between the protagonists-students could
have been avoided, had said defendants complied with their duty of
providing adequate supervision over the activities of the students in the
school premises to protect their students from harm.
Held:

Since Valenton and Quibule failed to prove that they observed all the
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage, they cannot
likewise avail of the exemption to the liability. The judgment of the
appellate court was modified, while claim for compensatory damages
was increased in accordance with recent jurisprudence and the claim for
exemplary damages denied in the absence of gross negligence on the
part of the said defendants.
Conclusion

In this connection, it should be observed that the teacher will be

held liable not only when he is acting in loco parentis for the law
does not require that the offending student be of minority age. Unlike
the parent, who will be liable only if his child is still a minor, the
teacher is held answerable by the law for the act of the student under
him regardless of the student's age. Thus, in the Palisoc Case,
liability attached to the teacher and the head of the technical school
although the wrongdoer was already of age. In this sense, Article
2180 treats the parent more favorably than the teacher.
References
• Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis

• http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2013/06/case-digest-palisoc-v-
brillantes/

• https://www.teacherph.com/teachers-liability/

• http://www.prohealthlaw.com/2016/03/doctrine-of-in-loco-parentis.html