Students' deaths & injuries inside school premises

Aside from the case of Jose Amadora v. CA and Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, GR L-47745, April 15, 1988, which involved the shooting and death on April 13, 1972 of Alfredo Amadora, a 17-year-old high school graduating student inside the San Jose campus, I have a number of cases also involving deaths and serious injuries of students while under the custody of school administrators.

In the case of Joseph Saludaga v. Far Eastern University, GR 179337, April 30, 2008, a sophomore Law student was shot by one Alejandro Rosete, a school security guard provided by a security agency. Petitioner thereafter filed a complaint for damages against respondents on the ground that they breached their obligation to provide students with a safe and secure environment and an atmosphere conducive to learning. This was only the civil aspect of the case. We are not talking about criminal liability here.

On the civil damages respondent FEU, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against Galaxy Development and Management Corp. (Galaxy), the agency contracted by respondent FEU to provide security services within its premises and Mariano D. Imperial (Imperial), Galaxy's president, to indemnify them for whatever would be adjudged in favor of petitioner, if any; and to pay attorney's fees and cost of the suit. On the other hand, Galaxy and Imperial filed a fourth-party complaint against AFP General Insurance.

In the case of School of Holy Spirit of QC v. Corazon Taguiam, GR 165565, June 7, 2004, a young female pupil died by drowning inside the school campus when the whole class was allowed by the school administration to have a night swimming activity. But this is a labor case involving the termination of employment of Taguiam who was the class adviser and who was blamed for having been supposedly remiss in her duties to safeguard the life and safety of all the more than 40 young students. The parents sued the school for damages and the school fired Taguiam for gross negligence.

The Supreme Court held: As a teacher who stands in loco parentis to her pupils, respondent should have made sure that the children were protected from all harm while in her company. Respondents should have known that leaving the pupils in the swimming pool area all by themselves may result in an accident. The school was blaming the teacher but the administration should have shared in the responsibility because the teacher was virtually alone guarding too many boisterous children.

The court said: "A simple reminder ‘not to go to the deepest part of the pool’ was insufficient to cast away all the serious dangers that the situation presented to the children, especially when respondent knew that Chiara Mae cannot swim. Dismally, respondent created an unsafe situation which exposed the lives of all the pupils concerned to real danger. This is a clear violation not only of the trust and confidence reposed on her by the parents of the pupils but of the school itself." To me, the school should share the liability not just the teacher.

What happened in Tacloban can happen in any other school. What has befallen Ateneo's Baterbonia can happen to anyone's son or daughter. Some people should answer and accept responsibility for it all.