09/06/2026
๐๐: ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐
๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐
๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐-๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐-๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐
๐
-๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
For purposes of this opinion, the following issues arise based on the available news reports:
1. Whether a Higher Education Institution (HEI) possesses authority to conduct off-campus team-building activities;
2. Whether the activity falls within the regulatory framework of CHED Memorandum Order No. 63, Series of 2017;
3. What degree of diligence is legally required of the university in the conduct of such activity;
4. Whether the doctrines of special parental authority and in loco parentis apply to student-athletes participating in a university-sanctioned off-campus activity;
5. Whether the university may incur liability based on culpa contractual, statutory obligations, or a combination thereof;
6. Whether coaches, trainers, administrators, and supervising personnel may incur personal liability arising from their acts or omissions.
๐. ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐
๐
-๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
At the outset, it must be emphasized that the conduct of off-campus activities by Higher Education Institutions is NOT prohibited. On the contrary, such activities are expressly recognized and authorized under ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฌ๐ซ ๐ด๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐ ๐ถ๐๐
๐๐ ๐ต๐. 63, ๐บ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ 2017, ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ท๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐
๐ฎ๐๐๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ณ๐๐๐๐ ๐ถ๐๐-๐ช๐๐๐๐๐ ๐จ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐.
Section 2 thereof provides:
"All HEIs are given the authority to design, determine and approve the conduct of off-campus activities..."
The grant of authority extends not only to curricular activities but likewise to activities conducted pursuant to the institution's educational objectives, mission, or developmental programs.
A team-building activity organized for members of a university athletic program appears, prima facie, to fall under Section 7.4 of the CMO governing non-curricular activities, which are activities left to the discretion of the institution, provided that student safety and security are duly ensured.
Accordingly, the threshold issue is not whether the university had authority to organize the activity. The law clearly recognizes such authority.
Rather, the controlling legal inquiry is whether the university exercised such authority in accordance with the standards of care, diligence, supervision, and safety required by law.
๐. ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐
๐๐๐๐
The authority granted by CHED is not absolute.
Section 2 of the CMO expressly qualifies the authority of HEIs by requiring that it be exercised with "paramount consideration" for the safety and welfare of student participants.
Likewise, Section 3 imposes affirmative obligations upon HEIs:
(a) to adopt mechanisms for the safety and welfare of participants; and
(b) to observe due diligence and strict compliance with regulatory requirements.
The regulatory framework therefore establishes a positive duty on the part of educational institutions.
This duty is not satisfied by mere approval of the activity.
Rather, it requires active planning, supervision, hazard identification, risk mitigation, emergency preparedness, and continuous monitoring throughout the duration of the activity.
The standard imposed is preventive rather than reactive.
๐. ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐
๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
Under ๐ช๐ด๐ถ ๐ต๐. 63 ๐บ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ 2017, notarized parental consent constitutes one of the minimum compliance requirements ordinarily associated with off-campus activities.
The legal significance of parental consent, however, must not be overstated. A parental consent form merely evidences informed participation. It does not operate as a blanket waiver of the institution's obligations under law.
Neither does it immunize the institution from liability arising from negligence, recklessness, inadequate supervision, or violation of statutory duties.
Philippine jurisprudence has consistently recognized that obligations imposed by law, public policy, and special parental authority cannot simply be waived by private agreement.
Thus, even assuming full compliance with parental consent requirements, the university remains obligated to exercise the requisite degree of care demanded by law.
๐. ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐
๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐
๐
-๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
Perhaps the most significant legal doctrine applicable to the present hypothetical is the doctrine of in loco parentis.
The doctrine finds statutory expression in Articles 218 and 219 of the Family Code, which vest schools, administrators, teachers, and other persons exercising supervision over students with special parental authority and responsibility.
The Supreme Court in ๐ผ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐บ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ท๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐. ๐บ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐บ๐๐๐๐๐ (๐ฎ.๐น. ๐ต๐. 247617) unequivocally held that such authority extends to authorized school activities conducted outside school premises.
When students participate in a university-authorized activity, the institution temporarily assumes responsibilities ordinarily belonging to parents.
As explained in ๐ท๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐. ๐ฉ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐ ๐จ๐๐๐
๐๐๐ ๐. ๐ช๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐จ๐๐๐๐๐๐, the school assumes protective custody over students and is obligated to shield them from reasonably foreseeable dangers and hazards. The duty extends beyond mere instruction. It encompasses supervision, protection, discipline, risk prevention, and emergency response.
Consequently, if the activity involved aquatic environments, beaches, strong currents, or other foreseeable dangers, the university's duty necessarily included the implementation of corresponding safety measures proportionate to the identified risks.
๐. ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐
๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐
๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
The central issue in most school liability cases is whether the institution exercised the diligence of a good father of a family.
In ๐จ๐๐๐
๐๐๐ ๐. ๐ช๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐จ๐๐๐๐๐๐, the Supreme Court recognized that liability may be avoided where the institution successfully demonstrates that it exercised appropriate diligence in preventing harm.
The extent of diligence required necessarily varies according to the nature of the activity.
The law demands greater precautions where foreseeable risks are likewise greater.
For an off-campus team-building activity involving water-based recreational components, due diligence may reasonably require:
1. Comprehensive risk assessments;
2. Prior inspection of the venue;
3. Evaluation of weather advisories, tides, currents, and environmental conditions;
4. Deployment of trained lifeguards and rescue personnel;
5. Availability of emergency medical responders;
6. Safety orientation and hazard briefing;
7. Appropriate participant-to-supervisor ratios;
8. Continuous attendance monitoring;
9. Emergency communication protocols;
10. Rescue equipment and transportation readiness;
11. Activity restrictions during hazardous conditions.
The adequacy of these measures would ultimately be a factual determination.
๐
. ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐
๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐)
Apart from statutory duties, educational institutions may incur liability arising from contractual obligations.
Articles 1156 and 1157 of the Civil Code identify contracts as one of the primary sources of obligations.
The relationship between a university and its students is contractual in nature.
In ๐บ๐. ๐ณ๐๐๐'๐ ๐ช๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ด๐๐
๐๐๐๐๐ ๐. ๐บ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ท๐๐๐๐, the Supreme Court recognized that educational institutions owe students contractual obligations that extend beyond classroom instruction.
Foremost among these is the obligation to provide and maintain a reasonably safe learning environment. A university cannot abdicate this obligation merely because learning activities occur outside school premises.
Where the activity is organized, authorized, supervised, or sponsored by the institution, the contractual duty remains operative.
Accordingly, should evidence establish that injury resulted from inadequate planning, supervision, safety implementation, training, or emergency preparedness, liability may arise under the doctrine of culpa contractual.
Significantly, in contractual negligence, the burden generally shifts to the obligor to demonstrate that it exercised the diligence required by the nature of the obligation.
๐. ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐, ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐, ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐, ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
The inquiry should not be limited solely to institutional liability.
Coaches, trainers, athletic directors, team managers, faculty advisers, and other supervisory personnel may likewise incur personal liability where their individual acts or omissions contributed to the occurrence of the injury.
Potential bases may include: (a) Failure to supervise participants adequately; (b) Failure to implement safety protocols; (c) Failure to enforce restrictions despite known risks; (d) Disregard of weather advisories or environmental warnings; (e) Delay in rescue or emergency response; (f) Failure to secure qualified safety personnel; (g) Reckless authorization of hazardous activities.
Whether personal liability ultimately attaches will depend upon proof of fault, negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, or breach of duty.
๐. ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐
๐๐๐ ๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
Recent jurisprudence demonstrates that institutional liability may arise not only from direct negligence but also from systemic failures in training, preparedness, and risk management.
In ๐ด๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฎ๐๐๐๐ ๐บ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐บ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐บ๐๐๐๐๐, ๐ฐ๐๐. ๐. ๐บ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ท๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ (๐ฎ.๐น. ๐ต๐. 267331, ๐ฑ๐๐๐๐๐๐ 20, 2025), the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of adequate institutional preparation and personnel training.
The Court recognized that where an institution fails to provide sufficient training, awareness programs, emergency protocols, or preventive mechanisms necessary to address foreseeable risks, liability may arise from the institution's own negligence. Applied to the present hypothetical, legitimate questions would include:
1. Were supervising personnel trained in water safety?
2. Were emergency rescue procedures established?
3. Were personnel trained in emergency response and crisis management?
4. Were safety briefings conducted?
5. Were foreseeable hazards properly assessed and communicated?
In conclusion based solely on the hypothetical facts presented, Philippine law clearly authorizes Higher Education Institutions to conduct off-campus activities, including non-curricular team-building programs. However, such authority is inseparably accompanied by extensive duties arising from CHED regulations, the Family Code, the Civil Code, jurisprudence, and the contractual relationship between the institution and its students.
The doctrines of special parental authority and in loco parentis impose upon educational institutions a heightened obligation to protect students participating in authorized activities, whether conducted inside or outside school premises.
๐จ๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐๐๐, ๐๐๐ ๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
, ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐
๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐ ๐
๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐, ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐, ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐, ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐, ๐๐๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐ ๐๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐
๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐.
Should the evidence establish failures in risk assessment, supervision, personnel training, safety implementation, emergency preparedness, or regulatory compliance, the university may potentially incur liability arising from statutory duties, culpa contractual, and the legal obligations inherent in its special parental authority over students.
Conversely, if the university demonstrates that it exercised all reasonable precautions, complied with applicable regulations, deployed qualified personnel, implemented appropriate safety measures, and exercised the diligence of a good father of a family, liability may be mitigated or avoided altogether.
Ultimately, liability is not presumed from the occurrence of a tragic accident alone. It must be established through competent evidence demonstrating a breach of a legally recognized duty and a causal connection between such breach and the resulting harm.
DISCLAIMER
๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ด ๐๐ฆ๐จ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ฑ๐ช๐ฏ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ช๐ด ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ญ๐บ ๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ข๐ด๐ช๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฉ๐บ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ต๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ญ ๐ง๐ข๐ค๐ต๐ด ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ง๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฎ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ช๐ค๐ญ๐บ ๐ข๐ท๐ข๐ช๐ญ๐ข๐ฃ๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ธ๐ด ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ต๐ด ๐ณ๐ฆ๐จ๐ข๐ณ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ๐ต๐ถ๐ฏ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ข๐ต๐ฉ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ธ๐ฐ ๐ด๐ต๐ถ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต-๐ข๐ต๐ฉ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฆ๐ด ๐ฅ๐ถ๐ณ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ข ๐ต๐ฆ๐ข๐ฎ-๐ฃ๐ถ๐ช๐ญ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ข๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐ญ๐บ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ถ๐ค๐ต๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐๐ช๐ฑ๐ข๐ค๐ถ๐ญ๐ข๐ฐ, ๐๐ถ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ข.
๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ด ๐๐ฑ๐ช๐ฏ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ด๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด๐ต๐ณ๐ถ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ข๐ด ๐ข ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ง๐ช๐ฏ๐ช๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐ง๐ช๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ญ๐ช๐ข๐ฃ๐ช๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐ข๐จ๐ข๐ช๐ฏ๐ด๐ต ๐ข๐ฏ๐บ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ช๐ท๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ช๐ต๐บ, ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ช๐ฏ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ฐ๐ณ, ๐ค๐ฐ๐ข๐ค๐ฉ, ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฐ๐บ๐ฆ๐ฆ, ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ด๐ต๐ถ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต. ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ถ๐ญ๐ต๐ช๐ฎ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ช๐ฏ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ญ๐ช๐ข๐ฃ๐ช๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ข๐ช๐ฏ๐ด ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ง๐ข๐ค๐ต๐ด ๐ฆ๐ด๐ต๐ข๐ฃ๐ญ๐ช๐ด๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ถ๐จ๐ฉ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ซ๐ถ๐ฅ๐ช๐ค๐ช๐ข๐ญ, ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ช๐ฏ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ฆ, ๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ท๐ฆ๐ด๐ต๐ช๐จ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ค๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ๐ด.
