CGO Law Davao

10/07/2026

17/05/2026

SUPREME COURT ORDERS UNIVERSITY TO PAY P6 MILLION IN DAMAGES FOR NEGLIGENCE THAT CAUSED STUDENT DEATH

FIRST ON BATAS PH: The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered the University of Southeastern Philippines to pay PHP 6,450,000 in total damages to the parents of a student who died from severe burn injuries after her costume caught fire during a university-organized event, which have arisen from negligence in the conduct and safety arrangements of the activity.

In a 46-page decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the SC En Banc has found the University of Southeastern Philippines, represented by its president, Dr. Romulo Dequito; Dr. Marie Rose Escalada; Dr. Gilbert Gordo; Professor Catherine Roble; and Ms. Emma Gobantes jointly and severally liable for damages for the death of Cheryl Sarate.

In 2006, the Guild of English Students, a recognized student organization in the university, organized a beauty pageant in the university's social hall. The organizers installed a T-shaped ramp lined with 12 small, lit candles in brown paper bags filled with damp soil. Each paper bag was tied with crepe paper, and the opening of the bags was structured like a crown to resemble a lantern. Some of the social hall's lights were switched off to highlight the candlelight.

Cheryl was the fourth candidate to walk for the pageant. She wore a snow fairy ensemble made of cotton balls glued to plastic cellophane, typically used to cover books. The lower skirt was on a tie wire to create a petticoat design. Its hem was covered with small feathers. Her tube top was covered with rolled cotton flattened to her chest.

The top of her blouse was attached to a tie wire. She held a rattan scepter and wore a butterfly headdress. Cheryl was standing on the leftmost side of the T-shaped ramp when her gown caught fire as she turned to pose. When she turned right to walk to the center ramp, she used her bare hands to ward off the small flames that
started to engulf her.

On the center ramp, the flames blazed, causing Cheryl to jump over the right side of the hall where the audience sat. She tripped as she screamed for help. Some students tried to help, and the fires were eventually put out. After the fire, Cheryl was seen topless, wearing only denim short pants. People tried to hug and console her. The ambulance arrived 30 minutes later and brought Cheryl to the hospital. Despite this, the pageant resumed. The organizers admitted that no faculty member was present to supervise the event, except for those who participated as judges.

Students said they had not seen fire extinguishers in the venue, although the university maintained that there were two inside the social hall. Eventually Cheryl died in the hospital due to "cardiac arrest due to septic shock; the antecedent cause is secondary to flame burn, 80% total body surface area (TBSA) involving face, neck, anterior chest, back, and both upper and lower extremities." Cheryl's parents, Antonio and Rosita Sarate, then filed a case for damages against the University of Southeastern Philippines and the Guild of English Students.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the University and the Guild of English Students jointly and severally liable for the incident. It found that the university is negligent for its lack of preparedness for foreseeable emergencies. The RTC later on modified its first ruling by granting the university's motion for partial reconsideration and absolving it from liability and declared the guild adviser and university faculty member solely liable for the incident. Dismayed, the parents of the victim elevated the case before the Court of Appeals.

The appellate court granted the appeal and reinstated the first ruling of the RTC. The CA found the university liable through its administrators and officers-in-charge based on paragraph 4 of Article 2180 of the Civil Code, since there was collective negligence between them. This paved the way for the university to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

In affirming the CA ruling with modification, the high court noted that under Articles 218 and 219 of the Family Code, 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 them, and this liability applies to all their authorized activities.

The SC emphasized that the university failed to exercise the diligence required of it as an educational institution. During the incident, it was only the students who put out the fire, without help from employees of the university. The university failed to train personnel to conduct first aid, shown by the fact that only students attempted to help Cheryl.

It also flagged the university's lack of preparedness to address the emergency due to its failure to sound the fire alarm and no one used the fire extinguishers the university claims were available.

The highest bench did not give credence to the defense of the university attempting to escape liability by arguing that the beauty pageant organized by the Guild was an unauthorized activity. It insisted that the Guild did not have the required permit to hold the event, making it a private affair, and the pageant, which was held on a weekday, violated the school policy to hold extracurricular activities only during weekends.

The court highlighted that it is not right for the university to easily deny any connection with the Guild, insisting that the pageant was a private affair, especially since the latter is a campus organization, of which the members are the enrolled students of the university and the adviser of which is a permanent employee of the university.

"The holding of the activity on a date different from the schedule and the fact that it violated the university's policy of holding activities only on weekends does not make the activity illegal or unauthorized but may only open [petitioner] Roble, as its adviser, to administrative sanctions from the school," the Supreme Court said.

It cited the findings of the RTC, holding petitioner Roble's negligence as Guild adviser in the supervision and instruction of the Guild members can be considered the natural, continuous sequence preceding the cause of Cheryl's death."

The high court held that Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code are also applicable in this case, which makes the university, as an employer, liable for the damages caused by its employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks.

"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," it added.

The high court ordered the university and its co-respondents to pay the parents of Cheryl PHP 300,000 as civil indemnity, PHP 5,000,000 as moral damages, PHP 1,000,000 as exemplary damages, and PHP 150,000 as attorney's fees.

10/02/2026

07/01/2026

27/12/2025

DEROGATORY SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS AGAINST EX-LOVER CONSTITUTE PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE UNDER VAWC—SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the criminal conviction of a man for committing "psychological violence" against his ex-girlfriend after he posted derogatory statements about her on social media.

In a 30-page decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the SC's First Division has sentenced a man to suffer the penalty of up to 8 years imprisonment after he was found guilty of violating Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (Anti-VAWC).

The accused and the complainant were in a relationship for three years when the woman became pregnant. He offered her marriage, but she refused because of their problems. She raised their child alone, living with her parents.

Years later, the complainant siblings received a private message on Facebook Messenger from an account they knew belonged to the accused. In the message, he insinuated that the complainant was causing his mother a heart attack.

The next day, the complainant learned from a friend that the same account posted a statement in Kapampangan on Facebook, calling her a dirty woman and an animal, and threatening to punch her when he sees her. He repeated the insults in the comments to the post, which was public.

Fearing for her safety, the woman decided to file a complaint against her former sweetheart for violating Republic Act No. 9262, or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (Anti-VAWC) Act. A protection order was issued in her favor pending the resolution of the case.

During the trial, the complainant presented printouts of the screenshot of the Facebook post. She also admitted that she created the account long ago for the accused but said he had been the one using it. Her two siblings testified that the account was being used by the accused and that they received messages from him through the same account.

The accused denied owning the account but identified the persons in the profile photo as himself and one of his children with his current live-in partner. He claimed "someone might have used his photo" to create a fake account. He also denied making the post because he was working as a waiter at a restaurant at the time, without access to his phone.

The Family Court and the Court of Appeals (CA) found him guilty, rejecting his arguments. The CA noted that he and his live-in partner were able to identify the people in the profile photo. This prompted the accused to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

In affirming his conviction, the High Court noted that the prosecution was able to sufficiently prove that the offender was the owner of the said account and the one who posted the derogatory remarks against the complainant, which caused public ridicule on her part and perfectly suited the definition of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of RA 9262.

It emphasized that there are several factors indicating that the man wrote the Facebook post as the account name itself bore his full name, and the profile photo showed him with his child with his current live-in partner.

The SC underscored that since Facebook is widely used in the Philippines, Facebook accounts can easily be created by anyone claiming to be at least 13 years old with an email address or mobile number.

It explained that for crimes committed through social media, the basic features of the platform, such as Facebook, must be considered, noting that once created, the user can add friends, exchange private messages, and post statements, photos, or videos visible to others depending on the user’s privacy settings.

With the proliferation of fake or dummy social media accounts that can easily be created, the Supreme Court (SC) has laid down guideposts to help identify who owns or controls an account involved in a criminal case.

The SC said there are seven guideposts to prove ownership or authorship: (1) Admission of ownership or authorship, (2) Being seen accessing the account or composing the post, (3) Containing information known only to the offender or a few people, (4) Language consistent with the offender’s characteristics, (5) Records from the internet service provider, telecommunications company, or social media site, and results from device forensic analysis showing geolocation features and other attributes linking the account to the offender, and (6) Acts consistent with previous posts. and (7) other instances showing ownership, access, or authorship.

The highest bench meted out the penalty of up to an eight-year jail term and a fine of P100,000 against the accused. He was also ordered to undergo psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment.