Our Beloved School Bus

By Tito Mon

 

Does your child ride the school bus every day?

Well, good. Then, you’re one of us. Riding the school bus is one of the basic cheap convenience that we parents afford our children at their young age. For a monthly fee, we are assured of a good ride for our kids to and from the school, while we ourselves get some piece of mind to do our work well for the day.

Unknown to many, the school bus has an awesome duty and obligation in our society, other than simply bringing our small children to school.

Under the Civil Code, a school bus is considered a “common carrier”, a class of vehicle which requires the exercise of extra-ordinary diligence to carry its passengers safely and cautiously to their due destination as far as human foresight can provide. This requirement imposed upon school bus operators is similar to public utility vehicles like the public utility buses, taxi cabs, light rail transits, air planes and sea vessels .

In the case of Bascos v. Court of Appeals, 221 SCRA 318 (1993), the Supreme Court held that.

“Art. 1732. Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air for compensation, offering their services to the public.

The above article makes no distinction between one whose principal business activity is the carrying of persons or goods or both, and one who does such carrying only as an ancillary activity (in local idiom, as "a sideline"). Article 1732 also carefully avoids making any distinction between a person or enterprise offering transportation service on a regular or scheduled basis and one offering such service on an occasional, episodic or unscheduled basis. Neither does Article 1732 distinguish between a carrier offering its services to the "general public," i.e., the general community or population, and one who offers services or solicits business only from a narrow segment of the general population.”

By the nature of their franchises, school buses thus are duty-bound to carry passengers to their point of destination with the utmost diligence and to ensure that they arrive their safely, peacefully and completely, with no injury, loss or risks to their life and property. The diligence requirement is utmost or extra-ordinary since the school bus carries minor children.

In legal context, once the school bus agrees to take the children as passengers, a contract of carriage is created between them. That contract is composed of the elements of consent (the trust given by the parents), consideration (the amount of fare) and object or purpose of the transaction (which is to fetch the child from point of origin to point of destination and vice versa). And that contract is consummated once the child steps on board his “beloved” school bus.

Compared to many contracts and agreements in the land, the contract of carriage is very special and unique. The proof of contract of carriage can be the agreement, verbal or written, that the guardians or parents conclude with the school bus operators or the ticket itself. In Philippine laws and jurisprudence, a ticket is considered having two-fold characteristics, that is, it is both a contract in itself and an official receipt or evidence of payment.

In cases of breach of the contract of carriage, the law presumes that the common carrier is negligent and remiss of its duties. Thus, it becomes liable for damages, fines and even possible suspension or revocation of its franchise.

Interestingly, the law imposes that presumption of fault and the corresponding liability to common carriers even for certain untoward incidents inside the vehicle, such as the negligence of the driver and that of other co-passengers.

Articles 1756 and 1759 of the Civil Code thus read:

“ART. 1759. Common carriers are liable for the death of or injuries to passengers through the negligence or willful acts of the former's employees, although such employees may have acted beyond the scope of their authority or in violation of the order of the common carriers.

This liability of the common carriers does not cease upon proof that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employees.

ART. 1763. A common carrier responsible for injuries suffered by a passenger on account of the willful acts or negligence of other passengers or of strangers, if the common carrier's employees through the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family could have prevented or stopped the act or omission.”

Further, in cases of mechanical troubles, the law provides that common carriers assume full responsibility as they are deemed at fault. In Lasam vs. Smith (45 Phil. 660) and Necesito, et al. vs. Paras, et al.,(104 Phil. 75.), the Supreme Court held that “an accident caused by defects in the automobile is not a caso fortuito. The rationale of the carrier's liability is the fact that "the passenger has neither the choice nor control over the carrier in the selection and use of the equipment and appliances in use by the carrier."

Thus, this opening of the new school year, you cannot afford to be complacent in choosing the school ride for your children.

Never mind the stories our children tell about their adventures or misadventures inside the school bus. All the talk about the bully in the block, the tardiness of some kids which delays the trip, the small thief among the child-passengers, and the smart aleck who fools around with the bus driver come close to nothing compared to the fact that our children are safe every morning and afternoon, after school.

Also, next time when you decide to choose a school bus for your kids, try a small chat with the bus operator or the bus driver, to be more precise, to remind them of their awesome duty and obligation not only to the child’s parents, but more importantly to the government and our society. This small chat will surely lift the driver’s spirit and make him proud and more diligent in his job.

After your small chat, surely, your regular morning ritual of sending your child to school via the school bus will never be the same again. Of course, never forget to keep the seemingly insignificant evidence of your child’s trip -- his bus ticket.

 

About Tito Mon
Atty. Solo V. Tibe a.k.a. Tito Mon is a private practicing lawyer based in Pasig City. He serves as a retainer counsel for several commercial corporations, businessmen, professionals, medical clinics and civic organizations. Aside from being busy with work and family, he is also an active officer of the Rotary Club of Cainta, Rizal. A father to one child, he is happily married to an OB-Gyne sonologist.

back to top

OUR CHILDREN’S SPECIAL PARENTS—THE  SCHOOL

By Tito Mon

1. Do you know that we don’t only send our children to school to get their education? 
   Yes. The school has more to offer to our children over and above a  formal education, or a temporary shelter as we parents pursue our respective careers. Lest we do not know, the school is our children’s special parents.
   
   
2. How is this so?
   Under Article 209-219 of the Family Code, there are three (3) types of parental authority.  The natural parents, who are either the legitimate or illegitimate parents, are vested with direct parental authority.  The grandparents, older brother or sister, aunties and uncles, in this order, are vested with substitute parental authority. Government institutions like the Department of Social Welfare and Development are also vested with substitute parental authority for foundlings, abandoned, neglected and abused children. And the schools, vocational centers, training institutions and their heads and teachers or professors are vested with special parental authority.
   
   As special parents, the schools therefore have the obligation to ensure that their students do not only learn their three (3) Rs (reading, ‘riting and ‘rithmetic) or the modern education that they offer, but also achieve balanced moral standards, good health and safety of their persons.
   
   As a whole, the law thus requires schools to pursue and promote the best interest of our children as young human persons.
   
   
3. What is the liability of the school if something bad happens to our  children or our children are the ones who caused damages or injuries to others?
   Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the school shall be held liable for all injuries, damages and civil liabilities that their students may have incurred so long as they are under the school’s custody.  The liability of the school is solidary, which means it is always a party to the case filed by the injured party.
   
   The definition of “under school’s custody”  however varies according to the circumstances of each case.
   
   In the case of Filamer Christian Institute vs. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court et. Al , G.R. No. 75112, 17 August 1992,  the school was made liable for the serious physical injuries brought by a working student who drove the school vehicle and sideswiped a pedestrian.  Despite the working student was not the authorized driver of the school, he was considered as under the school‘s custody.
   
   The school is also held liable for a student who inflicts serious physical injuries to his classmate inside school premises during school hours.  See Ciriaco L. Mercado vs. Court of Appeals, Manuel Quisumbing, Jr., et al., G.R. No. L-14862, May 30, 1960).
   
   In one case, the school was also held liable for a student who caused damage to private property while the students were in a school-authorized field activity.
   
   In contrast, there are instances that the school is not held liable if the court finds that it has exercised its duty of extra-ordinary diligence.
   
   In the case of St. Francis High School vs. CA, G.R. No. 82465, 25 February 1991, when a student who came to a beach outing with his parents’ consent, and he was drowned trying to save a drowning teacher, the school was not held liable as there was no negligence found on the part of the school.
   
   In one isolated case, when a student killed his classmate during semestral break, the school was not held liable as the court ruled that the school had no custody of the students during semestral break and there was no negligence on the school.  See Jose S. Amadora et al vs. CA, G.R. No. L-47745, 15 April 1988. 
   
   In the case of PSBA et al vs. CA et al, G. R. No. 84698, 04 February 1992, when a student was stabbed to death by intruders while inside the school’s premises, the school was not held liable as the court ruled that schools are not insurers of all risks.
   
   The moral of these case stories then is we, as parents, must exercise our utmost discretion in choosing the best school to send our children, not for its name or fame, but for its record of handling students as special parents.
   
   So every morning as we send our children to school, we can have peace of mind that the school will take care of our children as we do as parents, if not better.
   
   As our children board the school bus packed with their school bag, daily allowance and lunch or snack pack, and as we bid them goodbye with a loving hug and kiss, we have a security as we in effect relinquish our parental authority. For we then entrust the rest of the day to the school, its teachers and school head to fill in our shoes.
   
   With these law and jurisprudence, we hope that our schools in turn will exercise extra-ordinary diligence in taking care of their students “under their custody“, within or outside of their premises.
   
   Otherwise, in case the school fails to exercise its parental authority willingly or unwittingly, the law will hold it liable for whatever damages that may affect or involve our children.

About Tito Mon
Atty. Solo V. Tibe a.k.a. Tito Mon is a private practicing lawyer based in Pasig City. He serves as a retainer counsel for several commercial corporations, businessmen, professionals, medical clinics and civic organizations. Aside from being busy with work and family, he is also an active officer of the Rotary Club of Cainta, Rizal. A father to one child, he is happily married to an OB-Gyne sonologist.

back to top

CARING FOR OUR DOGS

By Tito Mon

 

 

In the Philippines, an average Filipino household has a local pet-dog, either a foreign bred or one that we loosely call “Bantay”, a namesake taken from the elementary school textbooks in the 80s, or the mixed breed.

 

 

Dogs are good for our households, especially for our children. They serve as kind friends and fun playmates. They are warm, affectionate, hyper-active and can be an ever-so-loyal companion of our growing kids. More importantly, they can play a crucial role in guarding our treasured homes, day and night. Talk about having security guards sans the uniforms, pistol and monthly salaries!

 

For the not- so-sensitive families, the “Bantays” are in fact fine as they are very easy to maintain. Just give them rice, soup and a residue of your table food or some left-overs of your parties, and they are more than satisfied. They don’t need expensive shampoos, vitamins or food supplements. You don’t even need to walk them to the park as you do for your foreign bred pets, if you’re that lazy enough. In fact, you can even only bathe them once a week! Just make sure they get their annual anti-rabies vaccine for your peace of mind. (How’s that for a household pet?)

 

In one trial case in Baguio City last 2002, a dog was presented as an evidence in court to prove the dog owner’s expertise in his particular business. In many criminal cases, dog bark was used as a circumstantial evidence of the crime of trespassing, robbery and even rape as committed by the accused. (See, for instance, People vs. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-676901-91, January 21, 1992) And, as we often see in malls, hotels and even in bomb-disposal scenarios, dogs come to sniff in to the picture and steal the show from their human masters.

 

Hence, there are quite many advantages of having pet-dogs. Yet despite of these, our country still gets a negative national image when it comes to the treatment and caring of our dogs.

I once saw this ugly news being aired in one local network: “Government agents arrested foreigners in cahoots with local businessmen conducting a dogfight in a city somewhere in Southern Luzon.” The crowd was applauding and shouting in the match-for-money of their bets while the hapless animals were bloodied and wounded, biting each other to their death

 

Worse, there was this news that a truck-load of impounded dogs was apprehended on its way to the slaughter house. How awful can you get? Some people can’t simply take away dog meat from their regular menu. And for this, others make a lucrative business. In either case, they sheerly don’t care.

 

If we are bent on helping raise the progress and dignity of our nation, sometimes we need not do heroic acts, launch a revolution, fight in the Olympics or wait for a civil war to volunteer in military service. No, far from it. We can simply start in our humblest way of taking care of our dogs, our faithful friend-companions.

 

Lest we are aware, there are two (2) major pieces of legislation that can guide us demonstrate our taking care of our dogs. As early as 1905, the Philippine congress enacted a law establishing the Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA). In PSPCA, we can report all sorts of activities that threaten the life and limbs of our dogs or even any inhumane treatment of such animals. The PSPCA also conducts researches studies on how to better grow, breed and groom our pet-dogs.

More recently, the Philippine congress also enacted the Philippine Animal Welfare Act of 1998 which effectively outlawed all forms of cruelty to animals, which includes dog slaughter and eating of dog meat, or treating animals for consumption purposes.

 

Under the law, no zoo, animal pet shops or market for animals can operate without the necessary permit from the Director of the Bureau of Animal Industry of the Department of Agriculture. The only meats authorized for sale in the Philippine public market are beef, chicken and pork.

 

The law even draws the line when it is necessary, killing of domesticated animals should follow certain scientific processes and protocols, and not with any act of brutality or any violent act offensive or repulsive to the general public

The conduct of dogfights thus is illegal and those caught perpetrating the offense with be meted with proper civil and penal sanctions.

 

The time when the rights of animals, or specifically our pet-dogs, will become a subject of litigation in the Philippines similar to the U.S. and Europe has yet to come. Put succinctly, the case of Brownie vs. Johnny is not yet within sight (thank goodness!). But then, we need not wait for that. Right now, we can have an active part in taking care of our pet-dogs. For it is settled that if we take care of them, they in turn will surely take care of our homes and our children.

 

 

About Tito Mon
Atty. Solo V. Tibe a.k.a. Tito Mon is a private practicing lawyer based in Pasig City. He serves as a retainer counsel for several commercial corporations, businessmen, professionals, medical clinics and civic organizations. Aside from being busy with work and family, he is also an active officer of the Rotary Club of Cainta, Rizal. A father to one child, he is happily married to an OB-Gyne sonologist.

 

 

back to top