Title
Supreme Court
Mother Goose Special School System, Inc. vs. Spouses Samuel Palaganas and Villa Palaganas
Case
G.R. No. 267331
Decision Date
Jan 20, 2025
Mother Goose School was found liable for negligence after a bullying incident in which a student was punched multiple times. The school failed to provide a safe environment and took inadequate action following the event.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 267331)

Applicable Law and Procedural Posture

The case was decided under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, with the lower courts including Branch 56, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Carlos City, Pangasinan, and the Court of Appeals (CA). The RTC rendered its decision on March 17, 2017, with a subsequent order on January 3, 2019, later affirmed with modifications by the CA on May 23, 2023. The petition to the Supreme Court challenged the CA’s ruling.

Facts of the Case

Rhys Palaganas, a grade school student at Mother Goose School, was punched multiple times by his classmates, Noel Fernandez and Mark Dy, during class on January 26, 2007. The physical assault followed a dispute over a mechanical pencil alleged to belong to Noel, which Rhys had taken but forgot to return. The supervising teacher was absent during the incident, and initial complaints by Rhys were ignored by teaching personnel. The incident was only brought to the attention of Rhys’s parents after the mother of one assailant offered an apology. Subsequent school investigations were delayed, incomplete, and flawed, notably clearing Mark Dy despite his admission to multiple punches.

Lower Court Decisions

The RTC found Mother Goose School and the teacher-in-charge, Mr. Gerald Gomez, jointly and solidarily liable for negligence, holding the school responsible for failing to protect Rhys while under its custodial authority. The school was held negligent for its failure to prevent the punching incident and for inadequately addressing it afterward. The RTC awarded moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees in favor of the Palaganas.

The CA modified this ruling by dismissing liability ascribed to Mr. Gomez, citing his absence during the incident, and thus removing his personal negligence. The CA upheld the school's direct liability under the Anti-Bullying Act of 2013 (even though this law was not yet in force at the time of the incident) and reduced the amount granted for moral damages.

Legal Issue

Whether Mother Goose School can be held liable for negligence in handling the punching incident among its pupils.

Supreme Court’s Ruling: Standards on Judicial Review

The Court emphasized its limited function under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to review errors of law and not to re-examine factual findings affirmed by lower courts unless an exception applies. No such exception was present in the case.

Nature of School's Liability: Contractual, Not Quasi-Delictual

The Court clarified that Mother Goose School’s liability stemmed from breach of contractual obligation (culpa contractual), not from quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana). The school had a pre-existing duty arising from the contract of enrollment to provide and maintain a safe learning environment for its students. This obligation is distinct from quasi-delictual liability, which concerns independent wrongful acts outside of contractual relations.

Contractual Obligations of Educational Institutions

An educational institution, upon accepting a student, forms a bilateral contract imposing reciprocal obligations: the school must provide proper education and a safe environment, while the student must comply with the institution’s regulations. The school is obligated to ensure peace and order within its premises and official activities, as recognized in jurisprudence, including obligations beyond the physical campus.

Negligence Defined and Application to the Case

Negligence is the failure to exercise the diligence required by the nature of the obligation, considering relevant circumstances. The diligence of a good father of a family is the general standard in absence of a stipulated standard. Here, the Court found gross negligence on the part of Mother Goose School for:

  1. Ignoring Rhys’s initial complaint to his teacher.
  2. Delaying and inadequately conducting the investigation.
  3. Failing to inform the parents immediately after the incident.
  4. Downplaying the seriousness of the incident as mere "teasing" or "rough play."
  5. Allowing the key aggressor to evade discipline.
  6. Lacking any protocol or personnel trained to handle bullying.

This demonstrated the school’s failure to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling its contractual duty to provide a safe learning environment.

School’s Defense Rejected

Mother Goose School's claim that it exercised due diligence in employee selection and that employer vicarious liability should not attach due to the teacher’s exoneration was rejected. Under culpa contractual, liability arises from breach of existing contractual duties, and the defense applicable to quasi-delict (good father of a family in employee supervision) is not a complete defense here.

Award of Damages

The


    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.