SC rules schools responsible on ‘bullying’ cases

‘BULLYING’ remains an alarming issue within Philippine schools, as evidenced by recent studies and court decisions highlighting institutional responsibilities.

According to the 2019 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 65 percent of Filipino students experienced bullying incidents at least several times monthly. Although the 2022 report indicated a slight decline, the concern persists, with one in three students still confronting bullying weekly.

The Department of Education’s (DepEd) Learner Rights and Protection Office data underscores this persistent challenge. Between November 2022 and July 2024, DepEd resolved merely 38 out of 339 reported cases—just 11 percent.

Clearly, bullying is an unresolved issue within our educational system, demanding rigorous scrutiny and robust intervention.

This critical issue gained further prominence in the recent landmark Supreme Court ruling in Mother Goose Special School System Inc. v. Palaganas (G.R. No. 267331, 2025). The Court unequivocally held the school accountable for its negligence, specifically for failing to adequately address a student’s bullying complaint, where he was physically assaulted multiple times. The school’s trivialization of the incident as mere “teasing or rough play” significantly contributed to its liability.

Central to this ruling is the principle of culpa contractual, which holds educational institutions to a stringent standard of care under their contractual obligations to students. Under Article 1172 of the New Civil Code, culpa contractual or contractual negligence refers to a liability arising from fault or negligence in the performance of a contractual obligation.

When a student enrolls, a binding contract is established, obligating schools to ensure a safe, conducive learning environment. This obligation is explicitly articulated in the 1992 case, Philippine School of Business Administration v. CA (G.R. No. 84698), where the Supreme Court stated: “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… 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.”

Thus, the Court’s recent ruling reiterates schools’ proactive duty not merely as moral guidance providers but as contractual guardians legally bound to protect students. Any dereliction in this regard subjects institutions to legal accountability under culpa contractual.

It is not sufficient for schools to react passively; rather, preventive measures and prompt, decisive responses to bullying complaints are mandatory.

Addressing bullying in schools thus requires a dual approach: comprehensive preventive strategies reinforced by rigorous enforcement mechanisms and clear, actionable policies ensuring accountability. Schools must recognize their significant legal obligations and actively uphold the safety and well-being of their students. Failing to do so not only perpetuates bullying but also exposes institutions to substantial legal liabilities.

In essence, safeguarding students against bullying is not merely an ethical imperative but a contractual and legal necessity.

Schools must fully embrace their responsibility to proactively create secure learning environments, reinforcing the principle that every child has the fundamental right to education free from fear and harm.