PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION vs. COURT OF APPEALSG.R. No. 84698 Februr! 4" #99$FACTS%Carlitos Bautista, an enrolled third year commerce student of Philippine School of Business Administration (PSBA), died due to a stabbing incident happenedon the 2nd foor premises of the latter by assailants who were not members of the schools academic community but were elements from outside the school! "he parents of the deceased #led a suit against the school! PSBA sought to ha$e the suitdismissed, alleging that they are beyond the ambit of the complaint under Art! 2%&'and Art!2%() of the Ci$il Code, *nown as +uasi,delicts!ISSUE%-hether or not PSBA is liable under the rule of .uasi, delicts of the Ci$il Code/ RULING%NO. But they could be held liable for breach of contractual obligation and for tort, in con0unction with Art! 2% of the Ci$il Code, e$en if there is a contractual obligation!"he law (Article 2%()) plainly pro$ides that the damage should ha$e been caused orinficted by pupils or students of he educational institution sought to be held liable for the acts of its pupils or students while in its custody! 1owe$er, this material situation does not e2ist in the present case for, as earlier indicated, the assailants ofCarlitos were not students of the PSBA, for whose acts the school could be made liable!ELCANO vs. HILLG.R. No. L&$48'( M! $6" #9))FACTS%3espondent 3eginald 1ill *illed the son of the plainti4s named Agapito 5lcano! A criminal complaint was instituted against him but he was ac.uitted on the ground that his act was not criminal, because of lac* of intent to *ill, couple with mista*e! Subse.uently, plainti4s #led a complaint for reco$ery of damages against defendant3eginald 1ill, a minor, married at the time of the occurrence, and his father, the defendant 6ar$in 1ill, with who he was li$ing and getting subsistence, for the same *illing! A motion to dismiss was #led by the defendants!7SS859-hether or not the present ci$il action for damages is barred by the ac.uittal of 3eginald in the criminal case/ -hether or not Article 2%() (2nd and last paragraphs) of the Ci$il Code may be applied against Atty! 1ill, notwithstanding the undisputed fact that at the time of theoccurrence complained of! 3eginald, though a minor, li$ing with and getting subsistence from his father, was already legally married/RULING%NO. "he present ci$il action for damages is not barred by the ac.uittal of 3eginald in the criminal case! :irstly, there is a distinction as regards the proof re.uired in acriminal case and a ci$il case! "o #nd the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is re.uired, while in a ci$il case, preponderance of e$idence is su;cient to ma*e the defendant pay in damages! "he#rst issue presents no more problem than the need for a reiteration and further clari#cation of the dual character, criminal and ci$il, of fault or negligence as a source of obligation which was #rmly established in this 0urisdiction in Barredo vs. Garcia, &< Phil! ')&! 7n that case, this Court postulated, on the basis of a scholarly dissertation by =ustice Bocobo on the nature of culpa aquiliana in relation to culpa criminal or delito and mere culpa or fault, with pertinent citation of decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain, the wor*s of recogni>ed ci$ilians, and earlier 0urisprudence of our own, that the same gi$en act can result in ci$il liability not only under the Penal Code but also under the Ci$il Code! :urthermore, a ci$il case for damages on the basis of .uasi,delict does is independently instituted from acriminal act! As suchthe ac.uittal of 3eginald 1ill in the criminal case has not e2tinguished his liability for.uasi,delict, hence that ac.uittal is not a bar to the instant action against him!*ES. -hile it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child (Article