Carrasco & Geñoso

16/06/2026

LAW AND BEHOLD: MAY A SCHOOL BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF A STUDENT DURING A SCHOOL ACTIVITY?

by: Atty. Lj Ramos

Yes, a school may be held liable for damages for the death of a student during a school activity.

Most of us have heard the tragic story that gripped the nation this week: promising young athletes who drowned during a training activity conducted with their school’s sports organization.

In the spirit of fairness, we await the results of the investigation while offering our prayers and condolences to the loved ones left behind by the departed. However, we can examine this tragedy through the lens of a similar case recently decided by the Supreme Court.

BURNING INCIDENT
In the case of University of Southeastern Philippines v. Sarate (G.R. No. 247617) promulgated last 2025, 16-year-old Cheryl Sarate joined a beauty pageant organized by a student organization of her university. The pageant runway was lined with candles placed in paper lantern bags. Cheryl’s costume was a snow fairy ensemble made of highly flammable materials. While she was posing and walking on the runway, Cheryl’s costume caught fire, engulfing her in flames. She later died due to the burns she sustained all over her body.

The organizers admitted that no faculty member was present to supervise the event, except for those who participated as judges. There were also no fire extinguishers available at the venue. The ambulance also arrived 30 minutes after the incident.

Cheryl’s parents sued the university and its officials, alleging that due to their gross negligence, they are liable for damages for the death of Cheryl.

THE COURT’S DECISION
The Supreme Court affirmed the University’s liability for the death of Cheryl.

Citing the Articles 218 and 219 of the Family Code, the Court stated that schools, its administrators, and its teachers have special parental authority and responsibility over minors under their supervision, instruction, or custody, making them principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by acts or omissions of the minor. Here, Cheryl’s university, administrators, and teachers have special parental authority and responsibility over the members of the organization, and they are liable for damages caused by them.

Furthermore, the university failed to exercise the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances. The university failed to train personnel to conduct first aid. It was only the students who put out the fire and attempted to help Cheryl. There were no fire extinguishers at the time, and the university failed to sound the fire alarm. Witnesses also testified that the fire and safety policy of the school was non-existent.

The Court also applied Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code, which state that:
“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, such as employees and teachers.”

Here, the student organization’s adviser, employed by the university, was negligent in supervising and instructing the organization's members. This negligence can be considered the natural, continuous sequence preceding the cause of Cheryl’s death.

The Court stated that there is also collective negligence on the part of the petitioner university, through its administrators and officers-in-charge, when it failed to exercise due diligence in taking safety measures to ensure that no unfortunate incident would happen for those who would use its facilities.

All told, Cheryl’s university is principally and solidarily liable for damages over Cheryl’s death.

The ponencia, Justice Leonen, began the decision with these words: “A wife who loses a husband is called a widow. A husband who loses a wife is called a widower. A child who loses his parents is called an orphan. There is no word for a parent who loses a child. That's how awful the loss is.” Indeed, one life lost is already too many.

We join the call in hoping that real safeguards will be in place for students’ protection in all schools and universities. That liable persons and institutions will be held accountable for their negligence and inaction.

Finally, we sincerely pray that no parent who sends their child to school, would receive him or her back in a casket, ever again.

15/06/2026

TABANG TORNI: KANUS-A MAGSUGOD ANG 15-YEAR PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD SA BIGAMY?

Dear Torni,

Akong asawa nasakpan nako pag 2025 nga kasado na diay daan pag 1995. Wala ko masayod niini mao nga nagpakasal mi pag 2001. Karon gusto nako siya pasakaan og kaso nga Bigamy. Pero ingon sa akong kompare nga dili na daw ko pwede makapasaka og kaso kay lapas na sa 15 years. Sakto ba siya?

– Rey

Dear Rey,

Dili sakto ang giingon sa imong kompare.

Tinuod nga 15 years ang prescriptive period sa Bigamy. Under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen (15) years. Ang penalty sa Bigamy kay Prision Mayor, which is an afflictive penalty. Busa ang iya prescriptive period kay 15 years.

Unsa diay nang prescription? Dili na siya reseta. Sa balaod, ang prescription or prescriptive period, in relation to criminal law, kay ang panahon kung kanus-a lang pwede mu institute og legal action. Kung mahuman na ang prescriptive period, di na pwede mupasaka og kaso against sa accused.

Sa bigamy, kung mulapas na ang 15 years, di na pwede mupasaka og kaso kontra sa akusado.

Pero ngano dili man sakto imong kompare? Kay niingon siya nga 15 ka tuig gikan sa inyong kasal ka pwede mupasaka og kaso.

Sa Sermonia v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 109454) og Tia v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 109454) ingon sa Korte magsugod og ihap ang 15 ka tuig dili gikan sa kon kanus-a inyong kasal, but rather kon kanus-a nimo nahibaw-an or na diskobre nga nagminyo og kaduha imong asawa nga wala pa na legally dissolve ang iyang first marriage.

Sa kaso sa Tria, gi explain sa Korte nga “The prescriptive period for the offense should be counted not from the registration of the bigamous marriage but from the discovery thereof. This is because in Bigamy, the second marriage is generally held in secret which renders the discovery thereof difficult. The application of constructive notice would then render the prosecution of the violators of the crime almost impossible.”

Applied sa imong sitwasyon Rey, na discover nimo ang bigamous marriage sa imong asawa last year lang, pag 2025. Sa 2025, dili sa 2001 kon kanus-a mo nagpakasal, magsugod og ihap ang 15 years. Busa pwede pa ka mupasaka og kaso sa imong asawa for Bigamy hangtod 2040.

Unta ikaw og imong kompare nalamdagan sa ani nga butang.

15/06/2026

14/06/2026

Dura Lex Sed Lex with Atty. Lj Ramos of Carrasco & Geñoso and Bombo Jerome of Bombo Radyo CDO

Topic: Intestate Succession

14/06/2026

Find out more this 2:30 pm in Bombo Radyo CDO for Dura Lex Sed Lex Episode with Atty. Lj Ramos.

13/06/2026

Saturday grind. From site inspection to title transfer, we help ensure a smooth, secure, and informed transaction every step of the way.

10/06/2026

LAW AND BEHOLD: ARE INTERMENT SERVICES FOR THE DEATH OF SENIOR CITIZENS SUBJECT TO THE 20% DISCOUNT UNDER THE SENIOR CITIZENS ACT?

By: Atty. Lj Ramos

Yes, the internment services for the death of senior citizens are subject to the 20% senior citizen discount.

The Supreme Court settled this issue in the case of Republic v. Pryce Corporation (G.R. No. 243133). Pryce Corp. is engaged in the business of selling memorial lots and offering interment services.

THE ARGUMENTS

Pryce contended that while the Expanded Senior Citizens Act states that a 20% discount is granted for “funeral and burial services for the death of senior citizens”, interment services are excluded in the said discount because neither the law nor its Implementing Rules and Regulation provided specific provisions for said services. Furthermore, it argued that the IRR explicitly listed the expenses covered by Funeral and Burial Services, and interment services were likewise not stated.

Therefore while the discount is granted for purchase of casket, embalming, hospital morgue, and transport to the intended burial site, Pryce cannot be compelled to grant the same privilege to interment services such as the digging of land for the deceased persons’ grave, concreting the gravesite, and other services done during the actual burial.

The Republic, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, argued otherwise. It stated that the phrase “funeral and burial services for the death of senior citizens” must be understood in its plain and ordinary meaning, which includes both the ceremony held for a dead person and the actual act of putting a dead body in the ground, along with other related acts.

THE COURT’S RULING

The Court ruled in favor of the Republic. Applying statutory construction that a statute should be interpreted in their natural, plain, and ordinary acceptation, the Court cited Black’s Law Dictionary which defined burial as the act of interring the human dead, or depositing a dead body in the earth, tomb, or vault.

Based on this natural and plain meaning, then burial services stated in the Expanded Senior Citizens Act must necessarily include interment services.

Furthermore, the Act’s IRR supports this same conclusion because the list of expenses covered by “Funeral and Services“ included the words “other related services”. This means that the list is not exclusive, and can be construed to cover interment services.

Finally, Article XV Section 4 of the Constitution declares that it is the duty of the family to care for its elderly members.This interpretation of the law is in line with this constitutional duty. As the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Zalameda stated, “Love and respect for the elderly are deeply entrenched in our culture and form part of the very fabric of our society. So much so that the duty to care for the elderly is enshrined in no less than our Constitution.”

08/06/2026

TABANGTORNI: MY EMPLOYER IS NOT RELEASING MY FINAL PAY AND CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYMENT MORE THAN A MONTH AFTER MY LAST DAY.

Dear Torni,
Early March, niresign ko sa akong kompanya. Ni-render ko og 1 month, ug pagkahuman akong giuli ang tanang assets, properties, ug uban pa nga gikan sa ilaha. Pero hangtod karon, wala pa nila girelease akong final pay ug Certificate of Employment (COE), sa rason nga naa daw koy giuli nga damaged assets bisan wala gyud toy isyu pag-uli nako. Wala sad silay girelease nako nga specifics kung unsay guba. Kada pangayo nako og update, ginaisbog ra nila kung kanus-a sila mohatag og update kay nag-pending pa daw sa laing team.

Salamat kaayo sa bisan unsa nga imong ikatambag, Atty.

— Agustin

Dear Agustin,

Your company- employer’s action to delay or withhold your final pay and employment records violates the DOLE Labor Advisory and the Labor Code, and they could be held liable or penalized.

Under Labor Advisory No. 06, Series of 2020 (Guidelines on the Payment of Final Pay and Issuance of Certificate of Employment), the final pay of a former employee shall be released within thirty (30) days from the date of separation or termination of employment, unless there is a more favorable company policy, individual, or collective bargaining agreement.

The employer is also required to issue a Certificate of Employment within three (3) days from the time of the employee's request.

Furthermore, under Art. 116 of the Labor Code, it is unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, to withhold any amount from the wages of a worker without the worker’s consent.

Applied to your case, kay April 14 man imong last day, dapat narelease na imong final pay kinadugayan niadtong Mayo 14, o 30 days human sa imong date of separation. Dapat narelease na sad imong Certificate of Employment 3 days human nimo kini girequest.

The employer cannot use the excuse that they are withholding your final pay due to alleged damaged assets when no documentation or specific details have been provided to you.

While the Supreme Court has recognized that requiring a clearance before the release of final payments is a standard procedure, these clearances are simply instituted to ensure that company properties in the possession of the separated employee are returned before departure. In Milan v. NLRC (G.R. No. 202961), the employer validly withheld the employees’ last pay because they failed to return company property. In Solas v. PLDT (G.R. No. 162332), the employer validly withheld the salary because the employee had an unpaid debt to the company.

These cases do not apply to your situation. Nauli na nimo tanang company properties. Wala kay unpaid debt sa imong amo. The 30-day period in the guidelines was more than enough time for them to check the returned items and provide substantiated or specific descriptions of the alleged damage, which they completely failed to do.

Therefore, your company’s action to withhold your final pay and Certificate of Employment violates the law, and they can be held legally liable.

05/06/2026

What are the different types of heirs? What are legitimes? Find out the answers to these questions and more with Atty. Mikko Doroja on Dura Lex Sed Lex this Sunday, 2:30 PM, at Bombo Radyo Cagayan De Oro.