11/06/2026
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/17xixgvTqY/?mibextid=wwXIfr
ARE THE ATENEO SCHOOL AND THE COACH EMPLOYED BY ATENEO LIABLE FOR THE DEATHS OF TWO BASKETBALL PLAYERS DUE TO DROWNING IN BALER AURORA?
By Atty. Florante A, Zagada
Many asked me about the criminal and civil liabilities of the Ateneo De Manila University and the coach of the said basketball players due to their deaths of their two adult basketball players by drowning at the sea during their team building activity in Baler, Aurora.
It is indeed a devastating experience for parents to know that their loves ones died in that freak accident. It has been posted in the social media that the drowning was purely accidental when the two basketball players were swept away by the strong current to the deeper part of the sea where they were suffocated by the water. Foul play was ruled out.
I will not discuss whether the school and the coaching staff are liable because the investigation is still ongoing. But what I will share with you are THE RIGHTS and REMEDIES of the bereaved family in order to seek justice for those responsible for their deaths.
ONE: FILE A CRIMINAL CASE FOR RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE AGAINST THE COACH AND RESPONSIBLE COACHING STAFF.
This is CULPA CRIMINAL. The case is for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide under Art. 365, RPC. Only one charge or information should be filed for a single negligent act, even if multiple deaths or harms arise.
The negligence here is direct, substantive, and independent from contract. If the act or omission causing the damage is committed with intent to cause such damage, it is with deliberate intent and the crime is homicide, the act becomes a crime and is governed by the Revised Penal Code. When intent is absent, it is fault or culpable felony of reckless imprudence under Art. 365 of RPC.
Quantum of Proof: Proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is needed.
Presumption: The accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. The prosecution has the burden to prove it.
TWO: FILE CIVIL CASE OF QUASI-DELICT OR CULPA AQUILIANA AND ASK for MORAL AND COMPENSATORY DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES.
This is CULPA AQUILIANA. The private injured party may recover the damages through the following:
a) File an Independent Civil action for Damages of QUASI DELICT or CULPA AQUILIANA under Articles 2176 of the Civil Code. (See Barredo v. Garcia and Almario, 73 Phil. 607; Parker v. Panlilio, et al., 91 Phil. 1)
What are the requisites so that quasi-delict may exist? In order that liability for QUASI DELICT or CULPA AQUILIANA or CULPA EXTRA CONTRACTUAL under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code will arise, the following requisites must exist:
(1) There must be ACT or OMISSION.
(2) Presence of FAULT or NEGLIGENCE. (Lack of due care)
(3) Causal connection between the fault or negligence and the damage.
(4) No pre-existing contractual relation.
ONE: ACT or OMISSION –
When a person commits an act or omits to do a positive duty required by the law, which causes damage to another, a juridical relation is created by virtue of which the injured acquires a right to be indemnified and the person causing damage to repair or compensate for that damage.
(2) Presence of FAULT or NEGLIGENCE. (Lack of due care)
FAULT requires the ex*****on of a positive act which causes damage to another, while negligence consists in the omission to do acts that also result in damage to another. When intent is absent, it is fault or culpa. Fault requires the ex*****on of a positive act that causes damage to another, while negligence consists in the omission to do acts that also result in damage to another.
NEGLIGENCE? The test of negligence: "Would a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued? if so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from that course or take precautions against its mischievous results, and the failure to do so constitutes negligence.”
(3) CAUSAL CONNECTION between the FAULT or negligence and the DAMAGE.
Damage is defined to be the loss, injury, or deterioration caused by negligence, design, or accident of one person to another respecting the latter's personal property.
Evidence should be established clearly that the cause of the damage is due to the fault or negligence of the respondent. The negligence of the latter must be the proximate cause of the injury of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff's own negligence is the cause of the injury, no damages will be recovered. (Art. 2179 Civil Code).
4. There is NO PRE-EXISTING OBLIGATION (except the duty to be careful in all human actuations).
If there is a pre-existing obligation, it is culpa contractual. Meaning of no pre-existing contractual relation. There is no contractual relationship when the parties involved here are not bound by any juridical tie.
DEFENSE IN QUASI-DELICT:
Defense of a good father of the family is a proper and complete defense insofar as employers or guardians are concerned.
BURDEN OF PROOF:
The victim has the burden to prove the negligence of the defendant coach because the action is based on the alleged negligence of the defendant.
QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE:
Quantum of Evidence: PROOF NEEDED IS PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE. (Barredo vs. Garcia, 73 Phil 607)
Reckless imprudence is CULPA CRIMINAL: The injured party may enforce (based on choice) the CIVIL DAMAGES arising from crime in the said criminal case under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code.
Negligence in the part of the coach here is direct, substantive, and independent of contract.
Quantum of Proof: Proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is needed.
RULES ON DAMAGES IN CASE OF DEATH.
In the case of Vivian Torreon, et. al. vs. Aparra Jr, et. al, G.R. No. 188493, Dec. 13, 2017, the Supreme Court thru Justice Leonen, summarized the rules on damages appliable whether the death occurred as a result of the crime or quasi delict, as follows:
1. As indemnity for the death of the victim of the offense —
P12,000.00, without the need of any evidence or proof of damages, and even though there may have been mitigating circumstances attending the commission of the offense [now it is P50,000.00].
2. As indemnity for loss of earning capacity of the deceased — an amount to be fixed by the court according to the circumstances of the deceased related to his actual income at the time of death and his probable life expectancy, the said indemnity to be assessed and awarded by the court as a matter of duty, unless the deceased had no earning capacity at said time on account of permanent disability not caused by the accused.
If the deceased was obliged to give support, under Art. 291, Civil Code, the recipient who is not an heir, may demand support from the accused for not more than five years, the exact duration to be fixed by the court.
3. As moral damages for mental anguish, — an amount to be fixed by the court. This may be recovered even by the illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased.
4. As exemplary damages, when the crime is attended by one or more aggravating circumstances, — an amount to be fixed in the discretion of the court, the same to be considered separate from fines.
5. As attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, — the actual amount thereof, (but only when a separate civil action to recover civil liability has been filed or when exemplary damages are awarded)
6. Interests in the proper cases.
7. It must be emphasized that the indemnities for loss of earning capacity of the deceased and for moral damages are recoverable separately from and in addition to the fixed sum of P12,000.00 (Now P50,000.00) corresponding to the indemnity for the sole fact of death, and that these damages may, however, be respectively increased or lessened according to the mitigating or aggravating circumstances, except items 1 and 4 above, for obvious reasons.
Civil or death indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.
Initially fixed by the Civil Code at P3,000.00, the amount of the indemnity is currently fixed at P50,000.00. PhilTranco Service Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 340 Phil. 98, 109-110 (1997) [Per J. Davide, Third Division].
Note: No double recovery of damages in Quasi Delict (ART 2176) and Culpa Criminal under Art 100 of RPC. Choose the higher award from the court.
POSSIBLE LIABILITY OF ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY AS EMPLOYER OF THE COACHING STAFF.
ONE: VICARIOUS AND IMPUTED LIABILITY OF THE SCHOOL.
Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code provides that a person is not only liable for one’s own quasi-delictual acts, but also for those persons for whom one is responsible for. This liability is popularly known as vicarious or imputed liability.
To sustain claims against employers for the acts of their employees, the following requisites must be established: (1) That the employee was chosen by the employer personally or through another; (2) That the service to be rendered in accordance with orders which the employer has the authority to give at all times; and (3) That the illicit act of the employee was on the occasion or by reason of the functions entrusted to him.
Significantly, to make the employee liable under paragraphs 5 and 6 of Article 2180, it must be established that the injurious or tortuous act was committed at the time the employee was performing his functions.
To be relieved of liability, the employer should show that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family, both in the selection of the employee and in the supervision of the performance of his duties. Thus, in the selection of its prospective employees, the employer is required to examine them as to their qualifications, experience and service records etc. (Estacion v Bernardo, G.R. No. 144723, 27 February 2006)
It must be stressed, however, that the above rule is applicable only if there is an employer-employee relationship. This employer-employee relationship cannot be presumed but must be sufficiently proven by the plaintiff. The plaintiff must also show that the employee was acting within the scope of his assigned task when the tort complained of was committed. It is only then that the defendant, as employer, may find it necessary to interpose the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees. (Reyes vs Doctolero et. al, G.R. No. 185597. 2 August 2017)
Thus, the school may also be held liable for damages for breach of contract. Institutions of learning must meet the implicit or "built-in" obligation of providing their students with an atmosphere that promotes or assists in attaining its primary undertaking of imparting knowledge. Necessarily, the school must ensure that adequate steps are taken to maintain peace and order within the campus premises and to prevent the breakdown thereof. (Philippine School of Business Administration v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84698).
There should be a finding of negligence on the part of a school before it can be made liable for damages.
THE SCHOOL, HOWEVER, IS NOT AN INSURER OF ALL RISKS.
In the case of PSBA v. CA (G.R. No. 84698), the Supreme Court said that it is not unmindful of the attendant difficulties posed by the obligation of schools, above-mentioned, for conceptually a school , cannot be an insurer of its students against all risks. It would not be equitable to expect of schools to anticipate all types of violent trespass upon their premises, for notwithstanding the security measures installed, the same may still fail against an individual or group determined to carry out a nefarious deed inside school premises and environs.
Should this be the case, the school may still avoid liability by proving that the breach of its contractual obligation to the students was not due to its negligence, here statutorily defined to be the omission of that degree of diligence that is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponding to the circumstances of persons, time, and place.
The liabilities shall not apply if it is proved that the school exercised the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances. The school may also be made liable for damages if there is a finding of negligence in hiring an unqualified teacher or head of school. This is also referred to as “respondeat superior”.
TWO: SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY OF THE SCHOOL IN CASE of INSOLVENCY OF THE COACH PRIMARILY LIABLE.
This attaches to certain individuals or entities who are not the direct offenders but are required by law to respond for damages if the principal offender like the coach cannot pay. Thus, if the coach employed by ATENEO for example is found guilty of criminal negligence and unable to pay the damages, ATENEO is SUBSIDIARY LIABLE.
LEGAL BASIS:
"ARTICLE 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. — The subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties."
Under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, employers (Like Ateneo) are subsidiarily liable for the adjudicated civil liabilities of their employees in the event of the latter's insolvency. Such liability is deemed written into the judgments in the cases to which they are applicable. Thus, the dispositive portion of the trial court's decision need not expressly pronounce the subsidiary liability of the employer.
DISTINCTIONS OF CIVIL LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER TO ITS EMPLOYEE UNDER ART. 103 OF THE RPC and its liability under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code:
1. As to the source of the civil liability of the offender-employer.
Under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, the civil liability arises
from crime, while under Article 2180, the obligation arises from quasi-delict.
2. As to the nature of the liability of the employer.
The liability of the employer under the RPC is subsidiary, while under the Civil Code, it is direct and primary;
3. As to whether a separate complaint must be filed against the employer.
Under the RPC, the filing of a separate complaint against the operator for recovery of subsidiary liability is clear from the decision of conviction against the accused. Under the Civil Code, the complaint must be filed against the employer because his liability is direct and primary.
4. As to the necessity of previous conviction in a criminal case.
The RPC requires previous conviction of the offender-employer. Such is not required under the Civil Code.
5. As to the availability of the defense of the “exercise of diligence of a good father of the family in the selection and supervision of employees.” This defense is not available to defeat the employer’s subsidiary liability under the RPC. On the other hand, the Civil Code allows such a defense in favor of the employer.
-end-
