WHEN WE SEND our children to school, how far does the school’s responsibility extend?

The recent drowning incident involving two student-athletes from Ateneo de Manila University has plunged the Ateneo community and the nation into grief. Rene Clert Baterbonia and Divine Adili, both varsity players, tragically lost their lives during a team-building activity in the Province of Aurora.

As condolences poured in, a difficult question inevitably popped up:

Can schools, universities, and training institutions be held legally responsible when students are injured—or worse, lose their lives—during school-related activities, even if done off-campus?

At the heart of the conversation is an old legal doctrine called in loco parentis, a Latin phrase that means “in the place of a parent.”

The legal doctrine acknowledges that when parents entrust their children to educational institutions, schools temporarily assume a degree of parental authority and responsibility over students under their supervision and instruction. Schools do not merely teach academic subjects, inculcate good conduct or train them in different skills. To a certain extent, they also stand in the shoes of parents.

This principle finds support in Article 218 of the Family Code of the Philippines, which provides that “the school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution engaged in child 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.”

In other words, when minor students participate in classes, field trips, athletic competitions, retreats, laboratory activities, immersion programs, or other school-sponsored events, educational institutions are expected to exercise the care that reasonably prudent parents would exercise under similar circumstances.

A significant distinction, however, must be clarified.

Article 218 specifically refers to minor students—those below eighteen years old. Once students have reached the age of majority, the concept of special parental authority under the Family Code no longer strictly applies.

Does this mean that schools no longer owe responsibilities to adult students? Certainly not.

Even if students are already of legal age, schools and universities may still incur liability under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which governs quasi-delicts or negligence.

Article 2176 provides that “whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.”

This means that liability may arise not because of parental authority, but because of a failure to exercise the diligence required by the circumstances or situations.

We also have to remember that the nature of the relationship between the student and the school is a contractual one. Thus, there exists a contract when parents enroll their child in a school. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court, in a long line of cases, explained the nature of the contractual relationship between the school and its students resulting in bilateral obligations. The case of Philippine School of Business Administration v. Court of Appeals expounds:

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.

Further, in the case of St. Lukes Medical Center-College of Medicine v. Spouses Perez, the High Court reiterated that academic institutions have a “built-in” obligation of providing a conducive atmosphere for learning, where there are no constant threats to life and limbs of the students.

Beyond these broad legal principles, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) has likewise issued specific standards governing off-campus activities.

Under CHED Memorandum Order No. 63, series of 2017, otherwise known as the Policies and Guidelines on Local Off-Campus Activities, higher education institutions are mandated to exercise due diligence in planning and conducting local off-campus activities.

The policy recognizes that educational tours, athletic activities, field studies, outreach programs, retreats, seminars, team-building activities, and similar undertakings form part of a holistic educational experience. At the same time, CHED acknowledges that these activities expose students to risks or dangers that require careful management.

However, the Memorandum requires higher education institutions to adopt mechanisms that ensure “the safety and welfare of all participants” and to “observe due diligence” in the conduct of such activities. Thus, schools cannot merely organize activities and hope that everything turns out well.

They are expected to conduct risk assessments, secure the necessary approvals, designate responsible personnel, coordinate with relevant authorities when necessary, prepare emergency response mechanisms, provide adequate supervision, and ensure that participants are properly informed of potential risks and safety measures.

Thus, in determining whether a school may be held liable for injuries or deaths arising from off-campus activities, several important questions must be asked.

• Was the activity officially sanctioned, sponsored, or required by the institution?
• Were coaches, teachers, advisers, trainers, or designated school representatives present to supervise the students?
• Were safety protocols discussed and implemented?
• Were emergency procedures and medical contingencies prepared beforehand?
• Were the risks assessed and minimized?
• Did the institution comply with the standards of diligence required not only by law, but also by CHED regulations?

These questions matter because schools are not insurers against every unfortunate incident that may occur.

The law does not require educational institutions to guarantee that no harm will ever befall a student.

What the law demands is diligence.

It asks whether the institution acted as a reasonably prudent school would have acted under similar circumstances.

• Did it anticipate foreseeable risks?
• Did it prepare for emergencies?
• Did it take reasonable steps to prevent harm?

If the answer is yes, then the incident may ultimately be regarded as a tragic accident for which legal liability may not necessarily attach.

But if investigations reveal inadequate supervision, disregard of obvious dangers, absence of safety protocols, or failure to observe the level of care expected under the circumstances, then civil liability—and in some cases even administrative or criminal consequences—may arise.

The Ateneo tragedy reminds us of a painful reality.

Parents send their children to schools not only to acquire knowledge and skills, but also with the expectation that educational institutions will protect their welfare while they remain under their care.

That trust is sacred.

For schools, the responsibility to educate cannot be separated from the responsibility to safeguard. For parents, understanding the legal duties of educational institutions empowers them to ask difficult but necessary questions about safety and accountability.

And perhaps the greater lesson for all educational institutions is this: The true measure of diligence is not found in policies written in manuals, but in the precautions taken before tragedy strikes.

Because sometimes, the most important lessons are learned outside the classroom.

Class dismissed!