TEACHERS

OBLIGATION TO
DISCIPLINE AND
LIABILITIES
Teachers Obligation to impose
Discipline
Basic Principle : TEACHERS
IMPOSITION OF DISCIPLINE
TO ERRING STUDENTS IS
NOT A RIGHT BUT AN
OBLIGATION
Right vs Obligation
Right
always connotes
discretion or choice; hence, it
can be waived.
Obligation
always connotes
mandatory action; it cannot be
waived.
On Corporal Punishment
While consider the parents have
a right to use corporal
punishment, can we teachers, in
our exercise of parental
authority, also use corporal
punishment?
On Corporal Punishment
Legally,corporal punishment
is physical contact principally
to inflict pain.
Two elements:
1) Physical contact, and 2) the
infliction of pain
On Corporal Punishment
Thereis the usual slapping or rough
pushing a student once a teacher
loses his temper. If the student
stands at a distance and an object
such as a book, or a blackboard
eraser is thrown at the student
the moment the student is hit that
is corporal punishment.
On Corporal Punishment
Another common punishment
inflicted by teachers is verbal
abuse. Even if body contact does
not take place, this is most
humiliating and demeaning
particularly for adolescent student
who are extremely self-conscious.
On Corporal Punishment
Forinstance, insults like kabulok
mo, siopongco ka, peste ka, tipatay
ka, gaga, wara ka man buot, etc
are strictly prohibited. The
Supreme Court said with regards
to that,
On Corporal Punishment
ATEACHER BOTH IN HIS
OFFICIAL AND PERSONAL
CONDUCT MUST DISPLAY
EXEMPLARY BEHAVIOR. HE OR
SHE MUST ACCEPT
RESTRICTIONS ON HIS/HER
CONDUCT THAT MAY BE
VIEWED AS SCANDALOUS BY
ORDINARY CITIZENS.
The Family Code, Art 233
Persons
exercising parental
authority and responsibility over
minor children are not allowed to
use any form of corporal
punishment.
Republic Act 7610
Otherwiseknown as Special
Protection of Children against
Abuse, Exploitation And
Discrimination
Republic Act 7610
Any form of corporal punishment is
already tantamount to child abuse
which could entail not only
administrative sanctions or dismissal
from service, but also criminal
liability where you will have to
languish in jail for 6 to 12 years
depending on the gravity of the
corporal punishment employed.
Civil Liability of Teachers and Heads
of Schools
Legal Basis: Civil Code of the
Philippines, Art.2180
Art.2180. The obligation imposed by
Article 2176 is demandable not only
for ones own acts or omissions, but
also for those of persons for whom one
is responsible.
Civil Liability of Teachers and Heads
of Schools
Lastly,
TEACHERS OR HEADS OF
ESTABLISHMENTS OF ART AND
TRADES SHALL BE LIABLE FOR
DAMAGES CAUSED BY THEIR
PUPILS AND STUDENTS OR
APPRENTICES, SO LONG AS THEY
REMAIN IN THEIR CUSTODY.
Leading Case: Palisoc vs. Brillantes,
et. al. 41 SCRA 548
Facts: Dominador Palisoc, 16, and
Virgilio Daffon were classmates at the
Manila Technical Institute, a non-
academic, technical vocational and
industrial school. In the afternoon of
March 10, 1966 they were in the
laboratory room located on the ground
floor of the school. At that time the
classes were in recess.
Leading Case: Palisoc vs. Brillantes,
et. al. 41 SCRA 548
WhileDaffon and another classmate
were working on a machine, Palisoc
was looking at them. Daffon made a
remark that Palisoc was acting like a
foreman and because of the remark
Palisoc slapped Daffon slightly on the
face. Daffon gave Palisoc a strong
blow on the face and other blows on
the stomach.
Leading Case: Palisoc vs. Brillantes,
et. al. 41 SCRA 548
They exchanged blows and Palisoc
stumbled on an engine block which
caused him for fall face downward.
From the injuries he sustained Palisoc
died. This action was instituted by the
parents and teacher-in-charge of the
school and against Daffon.
Leading Case: Palisoc vs. Brillantes,
et. al. 41 SCRA 548
Held: In the law of torts, the
governing principle is that the
protective custody of the school heads
and teachers is mandatorily
substituted fir that of the parents, and
hence, it becomes their obligation as
well as that of the school itself
Leading Case: Palisoc vs. Brillantes,
et. al. 41 SCRA 548
toprovide proper supervision of the
students activities during the whole
time that they are at attendance in
the school, including recess time, as
well as to take the necessary
precautions to protect the students in
their custody
Leading Case: Palisoc vs. Brillantes,
et. al. 41 SCRA 548
fromdangers and hazards that would
reasonably be anticipated, including
injuries that some student themselves
may inflict willfully or through
negligence on their fellow students.
Due diligence as a defense.
The liability imposed by Art. 2180
upon parents, guardians, and teachers
or heads presumed negligence in
failing to exercise the necessary care,
vigilance and supervision over their
dependents in order to prevent
damage to their persons.
Due diligence as a defense.
Thisis the clear implication form the
provisions of the last paragraph of
Art. 2180 which reads as follows:
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.
Due diligence as a defense.
Hence, if the parents, guardians and
teachers or heads of establishments of
arts and trades prove that they
exercised the diligence of a good
father of the family to prevent
damage, they are exempt from
liability.
 Explaining the legal basis of this
responsibility, the Supreme Court in
Cuadra vs. Monfort, 35 SCRA 160,
162-163