Thursday, October 18, 2012

PARENTAL GUIDANCE IS A MUST: On Special Parental Authority

By Siesta-friendly

Last month, when 2 “students of the Cebu International School … drowned while swimming near a waterfall during a class field trip in Bataan”[1], we were made to contemplate again the responsibility of people who have “supervision, instruction or custody” over minors and these people’s liability for the acts of others (not necessarily minors) over whom they have responsibility.

The provisions regarding the Special Parental Authority of schools over minors over whom they have responsibility are in the Family Code -

 “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 care 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. 219. Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.

The respective liabilities of those referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not apply if it is proved that they exercised the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances…”  (The Family Code of the Philippines[2]

Related to these provisions are Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code on one’s liability for the acts of persons for whom one is responsible[3]  - 

“Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.


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.


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.”

Article 2180 above refers to the liability of teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades to be in loco parentis or in the place of a parent.  As an aside, in Amadora, et al. vs Court Of Appeals, et al. the Supreme Court held that as regards the term teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades, “teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of their students except where the school is technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable”.[4]

Going back to the main topic, after reading about the 2 Cebu International School students drowning during a school field trip, we feel compelled to tackle some cases where the Supreme Court found a school and/or teacher responsible and liable for their student’s death or injury.

Cases where the school or teachers were found at fault

For a student’s drowning

“On March 10, 2000, the class president, wrote a letter to the grade school principal requesting permission to hold a year-end celebration at the school grounds. The principal authorized the activity and allowed the pupils to use the swimming pool. In this connection, [Class Adviser Corazon P. Taguiam] distributed the parent’s/guardian’s permit forms to the pupils.

[Taguiam] admitted that Chiara Mae Federico’s permit form was unsigned. Nevertheless, she concluded that Chiara Mae was allowed by her mother to join the activity since her mother personally brought her to the school with her packed lunch and swimsuit.

Before the activity started, respondent warned the pupils who did not know how to swim to avoid the deeper area. However, while the pupils were swimming, two of them sneaked out. [Taguiam] went after them to verify where they were going.

Unfortunately, while [Taguiam] was away, Chiara Mae drowned. When [Taguiam] returned, the maintenance man was already administering cardiopulmonary resuscitation on Chiara Mae. She was still alive when [Taguiam] rushed her to the General Malvar Hospital where she was pronounced dead on arrival.


As a teacher who stands in loco parentis to her pupils, [Taguiam] should have made sure that the children were protected from all harm while in her company.  [Taguiam] should have known that leaving the pupils in the swimming pool area all by themselves may result in an accident.  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 [Taguiam] knew that Chiara Mae cannot swim. Dismally, [Taguiam] 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.

Finally, we note that based on the criminal complaint filed by Chiara Mae’s parents, the Assistant City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict respondent for the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.  The Assistant City Prosecutor held that [Taguiam] “should have foreseen the danger lurking in the waters.”  By leaving her pupils in the swimming pool, [Taguiam] displayed an “inexcusable lack of foresight and precaution.”  While this finding is not controlling for purposes of the instant case, this only supports our conclusion that [Taguiam] has indeed been grossly negligent.”

For a student’s death in an excavation site

“In 1963, [Mariano Soriano] was the principal of the Gabaldon Primary School, a public educational institution located in Tayug, Pangasinan. [Edgardo Aquino] was a teacher therein.

At that time, the school was littered with several concrete blocks which were remnants of the old school shop that was destroyed in World War II. Realizing that the huge stones were serious hazards to the schoolchildren, another teacher by the name of Sergio Banez started burying them one by one as early as 1962. In fact, he was able to bury ten of these blocks all by himself.

Deciding to help his colleague, [Aquino] gathered eighteen of his male pupils, aged ten to eleven, after class dismissal on October 7, 1963. Being their teacher-in-charge, he ordered them to dig beside a one-ton concrete block in order to make a hole wherein the stone can be buried. The work was left unfinished. The following day, also after classes, [Aquino] called four of the original eighteen pupils to continue the digging. These four pupils — Reynaldo Alonso, Francisco Alcantara, Ismael Abaga and Novelito Ylarde, dug until the excavation was one meter and forty centimeters deep. At this point, [Aquino] alone continued digging while the pupils remained inside the pit throwing out the loose soil that was brought about by the digging.

When the depth was right enough to accommodate the concrete block, [Aquino] and his four pupils got out of the hole. Then, [Aquino]left the children to level the loose soil around the open hole while he went to see Banez who was about thirty meters away. [Aquino] wanted to borrow from Banez the key to the school workroom where he could get some rope. Before leaving, [Aquino]allegedly told the children "not to touch the stone."

A few minutes after [Aquino]left, three of the four kids, Alonso, Alcantara and Ylarde, playfully jumped into the pit. Then, without any warning at all, the remaining Abaga jumped on top of the concrete block causing it to slide down towards the opening. Alonso and Alcantara were able to scramble out of the excavation on time but unfortunately fo Ylarde, the concrete block caught him before he could get out, pinning him to the wall in a standing position. As a result thereof, Ylarde [sustained injuries].

Three days later, Novelito Ylarde died.” He was only 10 years old.

In awarding the boy’s parents indemnity for his death plus moral and exemplary damages, the Supreme held that Aquino “acted with fault and gross negligence when he: (1) failed to avail himself of services of adult manual laborers and instead utilized his pupils aged ten to eleven to make an excavation near the one-ton concrete stone which he knew to be a very hazardous task; (2) required the children to remain inside the pit even after they had finished digging, knowing that the huge block was lying nearby and could be easily pushed or kicked aside by any pupil who by chance may go to the perilous area; (3) ordered them to level the soil around the excavation when it was so apparent that the huge stone was at the brink of falling; (4) went to a place where he would not be able to check on the children's safety; and (5) left the children close to the excavation, an obviously attractive nuisance.”

For a student’s injury during a class science experiment

“On November 17, 1994, at around 1:30 in the afternoon inside St. Joseph College’s [SJC’s] premises, the class to which [respondent Jayson Val Miranda] belonged was conducting a science experiment about fusion of sulphur powder and iron fillings under the tutelage of [petitioner] Rosalinda Tabugo, she being the subject teacher and employee of [petitioner] SJC. The adviser of [Jayson’s] class is x x x Estefania Abdan.

Tabugo left her class while it was doing the experiment without having adequately secured it from any untoward incident or occurrence. In the middle of the experiment, [Jayson], who was the assistant leader of one of the class groups, checked the result of the experiment by looking into the test tube with magnifying glass. The test tube was being held by one of his group mates who moved it close and towards the eye of [Jayson]. At that instance, the compound in the test tube spurted out and several particles of which hit [Jayson’s] eye and the different parts of the bodies of some of his group mates. As a result thereof, [Jayson’s] eyes were chemically burned, particularly his left eye, for which he had to undergo surgery and had to spend for his medication. …

The school authorities alleged that [“b]efore the science experiment was conducted, [Jayson] and his classmates were given strict instructions to follow the written procedure for the experiment and not to look into the test tube until the heated compound had cooled off. [Jayson], however, a person of sufficient age and discretion and completely capable of understanding the English language and the instructions of his teacher, without waiting for the heated compound to cool off, as required in the written procedure for the experiment and as repeatedly explained by the teacher, violated such instructions and took a magnifying glass and looked at the compound, which at that moment spurted out of the test tube, a small particle hitting one of [Jayson’s] eyes.”


In awarding Jason actual and moral damages, attorney’s fees and the cost of the suit, the Supreme Court found that the school and the teacher acted with negligence and failed to exercise the requisite degree of care and caution as “demonstrated by the following: 1. [the] school did not take affirmative steps to avert damage and injury to its students although it had full information on the nature of dangerous science experiments conducted by the students during class; 2. [the] school did not install safety measures to protect the students who conduct experiments in class;  3. [the] school did not provide protective gears and devices, specifically goggles, to shield students from expected risks and dangers; and 4. [the teacher] was not inside the classroom the whole time her class conducted the experiment, specifically, when the accident involving Jayson occurred. In any event, the size of the class—fifty (50) students— conducting the experiment is difficult to monitor. Moreover, the school and the teacher cannot simply deflect their negligence and liability by insisting that [the teacher] gave specific instructions to her science class not to look directly into the heated compound...”

Schools, administrators and teachers should not take lightly the special responsibility they have for the students under their care. They are not only responsible for their students’ lessons but their lives as well, i.e., theirs students’ safety, security and well-being.  As can be seen in the cases and their tragic consequences, there may be no second chances, and mistakes made and lessons learned may prove just too costly.

[1]  2 students drown in bataan field trip. (2012, September 13). Retrieved from

[2]  Executive Order No. 209,  July 6, 1987.

[3]  Republic Act No. 386, June 18, 1949.
[4]  G.R. No. L-47745 April 15, 1988
[5]  School Of The Holy Spirit Of Quezon City vs. Corazon P. Taguiam, G.R. No. 165565, July 14, 2008.

[6]  Federico Ylarde, et al vs.Edgardo Aquino, et al, G.R. No. L-33722 July 29, 1988

[7]  St. Joseph’s College, et al. ,vs. Jayson Miranda, G.R. No. 182353,   June 29, 2010.


Tuesday, October 2, 2012


By Siesta-friendly

The wealth of information that you get to share over time as you fill up forms, with private companies and with government offices can be enormous. The same holds true on the internet and all this information can be accessed by third parties.  With this in mind, Congress has passed Republic Act No. 10173 (“Data Privacy Act of 2012″) establishing the National Privacy Commission to safeguard individual personal information found in the information communications systems of both the government and the private sector.   Under this law, personal information is defined as “any information whether recorded in a material form or not, from which the identity of an individual is apparent or can be reasonably and directly ascertained by the entity holding the information, or when put together with other information would directly and certainly identify an individual.”

Coverage and Application

The Act covers the “processing of all types of personal information and to any natural and juridical person involved in personal information processing including those personal information controllers and processors who, although not found or established in the Philippines, use equipment that are located in the Philippines, or those who maintain an office, branch or agency in the Philippines xxx (Section 4).”

Excluded from Coverage

No, the former Chief Justice would not have been able to use this law as defense in his impeachments case as the law has no application to governmental information or those necessary to carry out governmental functions, among others, namely:

“(a) Information about any individual who is or was an officer or employee of a government institution that relates to the position or functions of the individual, including: (1) The fact that the individual is or was an officer or employee of the government institution; (2) The title, business address and office telephone number of the individual; (3) The classification, salary range and responsibilities of the position held by the individual; and (4) The name of the individual on a document prepared by the individual in the course of employment with the government;

(b) Information about an individual who is or was performing service under contract for a government institution that relates to the services performed, including the terms of the contract, and the name of the individual given in the course of the performance of those services;

(c) Information relating to any discretionary benefit of a financial nature such as the granting of a license or permit given by the government to an individual, including the name of the individual and the exact nature of the benefit;

(d) Personal information processed for journalistic, artistic, literary or research purposes;

(e) Information necessary in order to carry out the functions of public authority which includes the processing of personal data for the performance by the independent, central monetary authority and law enforcement and regulatory agencies of their constitutionally and statutorily mandated functions. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as to have amended or repealed Republic Act No. 1405, otherwise known as the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act; Republic Act No. 6426, otherwise known as the Foreign Currency Deposit Act; and Republic Act No. 9510, otherwise known as the Credit Information System Act (CISA);

(f) Information necessary for banks and other financial institutions under the jurisdiction of the independent, central monetary authority or Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas to comply with Republic Act No. 9510, and Republic Act No. 9160, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Money Laundering Act and other applicable laws; and

(g) Personal information originally collected from residents of foreign jurisdictions in accordance with the laws of those foreign jurisdictions, including any applicable data privacy laws, which is being processed in the Philippines.”

The foregoing are not protected by the Act. 

With respect to concerns that the law may serve to curtail press freedom, it specifically provides as follows:

“SEC. 5. Protection Afforded to Journalists and Their Sources. – Nothing in this Act shall be construed as to have amended or repealed the provisions of Republic Act No. 53, which affords the publishers, editors or duly accredited reporters of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation protection from being compelled to reveal the source of any news report or information appearing in said publication which was related in any confidence to such publisher, editor, or reporter.”

How covered information must be processed

The Act seeks to regulate the processing of personal information in accordance with the “principles of transparency, legitimate purpose and proportionality.”  Such information must be:

“(a) Collected for specified and legitimate purposes determined and declared before, or as soon as reasonably practicable after collection, and later processed in a way compatible with such declared, specified and legitimate purposes only;

(b) Processed fairly and lawfully;

(c) Accurate, relevant and, where necessary for purposes for which it is to be used the processing of personal information, kept up to date; inaccurate or incomplete data must be rectified, supplemented, destroyed or their further processing restricted;

(d) Adequate and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and processed;

(e) Retained only for as long as necessary for the fulfillment of the purposes for which the data was obtained or for the establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims, or for legitimate business purposes, or as provided by law; and

(f) Kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data were collected and processed: Provided, That personal information collected for other purposes may lie processed for historical, statistical or scientific purposes, and in cases laid down in law may be stored for longer periods: Provided, further, That adequate safeguards are guaranteed by said laws authorizing their processing.

The personal information controller must ensure implementation of personal information processing principles set out herein.”(Section 11)

Conditions prior to processing

Processing can only be permitted if not prohibited by law and “when at least one of the following conditions exists:

(a) The data subject has given his or her consent;

(b) The processing of personal information is necessary and is related to the fulfillment of a contract with the data subject or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract;

(c) The processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the personal information controller is subject;

(d) The processing is necessary to protect vitally important interests of the data subject, including life and health;

(e) The processing is necessary in order to respond to national emergency, to comply with the requirements of public order and safety, or to fulfill functions of public authority which necessarily includes the processing of personal data for the fulfillment of its mandate; or

(f) The processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the personal information controller or by a third party or parties to whom the data is disclosed, except where such interests are overridden by fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection under the Philippine Constitution (Section 12 ). 

Please note that in one case decided by the Supreme Court, a national identification system pursuant to A.O. 308 was found to be unconstitutional and violative of the right to privacy (Ople vs. Torres, et al. G.R. 127685, July 23, 1998) for the following reasons, inter alia, -

“… Pursuant to said administrative order, an individual must present his PRN [Population Reference Number obtained via biometrics] everytime he deals with a government agency to avail of basic services and security. His transactions with the government agency will necessarily be recorded — whether it be in the computer or in the documentary file of the agency. The individual's file may include his transactions for loan availments, income tax returns, statement of assets and liabilities, reimbursements for medication, hospitalization, etc. The more frequent the use of the PRN, the better the chance of building a huge formidable information base through the electronic linkage of the files. The data may be gathered for gainful and useful government purposes; but the existence of this vast reservoir of personal information constitutes a covert invitation to misuse, a temptation that may be too great for some of our authorities to resist.

We can even grant, arguendo, that the computer data file will be limited to the name, address and other basic personal infomation about the individual. Even that hospitable assumption will not save A.O. No. 308 from constitutional infirmity for again said order does not tell us in clear and categorical terms how these information gathered shall be handled. It does not provide who shall control and access the data, under what circumstances and for what purpose. These factors are essential to safeguard the privacy and guaranty the integrity of the information. Well to note, the computer linkage gives other government agencies access to the information. Yet, there are no controls to guard against leakage of information. When the access code of the control programs of the particular computer system is broken, an intruder, without fear of sanction or penalty, can make use of the data for whatever purpose, or worse, manipulate the data stored within the system.

It is plain and we hold that A.O. No. 308 falls short of assuring that personal information which will be gathered about our people will only be processed for unequivocally specified purposes. The lack of proper safeguards in this regard of A.O. No. 308 may interfere with the individual's liberty of abode and travel by enabling authorities to track down his movement; it may also enable unscrupulous persons to access confidential information and circumvent the right against self-incrimination; it may pave the way for "fishing expeditions" by government authorities and evade the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The possibilities of abuse and misuse of the PRN, biometrics and computer technology are accentuated when we consider that the individual lacks control over what can be read or placed on his ID, much less verify the correctness of the data encoded. They threaten the very abuses that the Bill of Rights seeks to prevent.

The ability of sophisticated data center to generate a comprehensive cradle-to-grave dossier on an individual and transmit it over a national network is one of the most graphic threats of the computer revolution. The computer is capable of producing a comprehensive dossier on individuals out of information given at different times and for varied purposes. It can continue adding to the stored data and keeping the information up to date. Retrieval of stored date is simple. When information of a privileged character finds its way into the computer, it can be extracted together with other data on the subject. Once extracted, the information is putty in the hands of any person. The end of privacy begins.”

It would be interesting to see if R.A. 10173 has sufficiently addressed the concerns against the now defunct A.O. 308.

Other conditions prior to processing

In addition, processing of such information is declared to be prohibited except if:

“(a) The data subject has given his or her consent, specific to the purpose prior to the processing, or in the case of privileged information, all parties to the exchange have given their consent prior to processing;

(b) The processing of the same is provided for by existing laws and regulations: Provided, That such regulatory enactments guarantee the protection of the sensitive personal information and the privileged information: Provided, further, That the consent of the data subjects are not required by law or regulation permitting the processing of the sensitive personal information or the privileged information;

(c) The processing is necessary to protect the life and health of the data subject or another person, and the data subject is not legally or physically able to express his or her consent prior to the processing;

(d) The processing is necessary to achieve the lawful and noncommercial objectives of public organizations and their associations: Provided, That such processing is only confined and related to the bona fide members of these organizations or their associations: Provided, further, That the sensitive personal information are not transferred to third parties: Provided, finally, That consent of the data subject was obtained prior to processing;

(e) The processing is necessary for purposes of medical treatment, is carried out by a medical practitioner or a medical treatment institution, and an adequate level of protection of personal information is ensured; or

(f) The processing concerns such personal information as is necessary for the protection of lawful rights and interests of natural or legal persons in court proceedings, or the establishment, exercise or defense of legal claims, or when provided to government or public authority.”(Section 13)

Interestingly enough, the privilege extends to privileged information as controlled or processed by personal information controllers (Section 15).

Data Rights

A person has the following data rights, such as to:

“(a) Be informed whether personal information pertaining to him or her shall be, are being or have been processed;

(b) Be furnished the information indicated hereunder before the entry of his or her personal information into the processing system of the personal information controller, or at the next practical opportunity:

(1) Description of the personal information to be entered into the system;
(2) Purposes for which they are being or are to be processed;
(3) Scope and method of the personal information processing;
(4) The recipients or classes of recipients to whom they are or may be disclosed;
(5) Methods utilized for automated access, if the same is allowed by the data subject, and the extent to which such access is authorized;
(6) The identity and contact details of the personal information controller or its representative;
(7) The period for which the information will be stored; and
(8) The existence of their rights, i.e., to access, correction, as well as the right to lodge a complaint before the Commission.

Any information supplied or declaration made to the data subject on these matters shall not be amended without prior notification of data subject: Provided, That the notification under subsection (b) shall not apply should the personal information be needed pursuant to a subpoena or when the collection and processing are for obvious purposes, including when it is necessary for the performance of or in relation to a contract or service or when necessary or desirable in the context of an employer-employee relationship, between the collector and the data subject, or when the information is being collected and processed as a result of legal obligation;

(c) Reasonable access to, upon demand, the following:
(1) Contents of his or her personal information that were processed;
(2) Sources from which personal information were obtained;
(3) Names and addresses of recipients of the personal information;
(4) Manner by which such data were processed;
(5) Reasons for the disclosure of the personal information to recipients;
(6) Information on automated processes where the data will or likely to be made as the sole basis for any decision significantly affecting or will affect the data subject;
(7) Date when his or her personal information concerning the data subject were last accessed and modified; and
(8) The designation, or name or identity and address of the personal information controller;

(d) Dispute the inaccuracy or error in the personal information and have the personal information controller correct it immediately and accordingly, unless the request is vexatious or otherwise unreasonable. If the personal information have been corrected, the personal information controller shall ensure the accessibility of both the new and the retracted information and the simultaneous receipt of the new and the retracted information by recipients thereof: Provided, That the third parties who have previously received such processed personal information shall he informed of its inaccuracy and its rectification upon reasonable request of the data subject;

(e) Suspend, withdraw or order the blocking, removal or destruction of his or her personal information from the personal information controller’s filing system upon discovery and substantial proof that the personal information are incomplete, outdated, false, unlawfully obtained, used for unauthorized purposes or are no longer necessary for the purposes for which they were collected. In this case, the personal information controller may notify third parties who have previously received such processed personal information; and

(f) Be indemnified for any damages sustained due to such inaccurate, incomplete, outdated, false, unlawfully obtained or unauthorized use of personal information.” (Section 16)

Standards for protection of information

A personal information controller must “implement reasonable and appropriate organizational, physical and technical measures intended for the protection of personal information against any accidental or unlawful destruction, alteration and disclosure, as well as against any other unlawful processing. xxx” and it is accountable for the same (Section 21).  Heads of agencies are similar bound to secure sensitive personal information (Section 22).

Acts that are punishable

What happens to those who violate the Act?  Unauthorized processing of personal and Sensitive Personal Information; Accessing Personal Information and Sensitive Personal Information Due to Negligence; Improper Disposal of Personal Information and Sensitive Personal Information; Processing of Personal Information and Sensitive Personal Information for Unauthorized Purposes; Unauthorized Access or Intentional Breach; Concealment of Security Breaches Involving Sensitive Personal Information; Malicious Disclosure;  Unauthorized Disclosure or a Combination or Series of Acts consisting of the aforementioned have all been made punishable and penalized with imprisonment and  fines (Sections 25  to 33).

For corporations, partnerships and juridical persons, “the penalty shall be imposed upon the responsible officers, as the case may be, who participated in, or by their gross negligence, allowed the commission of the crime. If the offender is a juridical person, the court may suspend or revoke any of its rights under this Act. If the offender is an alien, he or she shall, in addition to the penalties herein prescribed, be deported without further proceedings after serving the penalties prescribed. If the offender is a public official or employee and lie or she is found guilty of acts penalized under Sections 27 and 28 of this Act, he or she shall, in addition to the penalties prescribed herein, suffer perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification from office, as the case may be (Section 34).” The aggrieved party can be entitled to restitution as well under the New Civil Code (Section 37).

While the truth may set you free, this law insures that some personal truths you can keep private. Currently, a person subject to arrest is to be warned that anything he says can and will be used against him.  It is a testament to the information age that individuals should now be aware that, even without the threat of arrest, anything he says or discloses can and will be used against him as well albeit for other purposes such as marketing.  And he has to look to this law for protection.