The name Celine Concepcion LeBron may not be immediately recognizable to the general public. However, her story, intertwined with the legal battle surrounding the Creative Play Corner School (CPC) and the landmark case *Dasmariñas v. Creative Play Co.* (G.R. No. 169942), offers a compelling glimpse into the complexities of educational negligence and the pursuit of justice within the Philippine legal system. While Celine Concepcion LeBron herself isn't directly named in the publicly available case documents associated with G.R. No. 169942, her case serves as a representative example of the broader issues highlighted in *Dasmariñas v. Creative Play Co.* This article will analyze the case, exploring its implications for parents, educational institutions, and the legal framework surrounding child safety in educational settings. The absence of Celine Concepcion LeBron's direct mention in the case documents necessitates a broader examination of the *Dasmariñas v. Creative Play Co.* case, using it as a lens through which to understand the potential experiences of children affected by educational negligence.
G.R. No. 169942: A Foundation for Understanding
The Supreme Court of the Philippines' decision in G.R. No. 169942, *Dasmariñas v. Creative Play Co.*, dated January 24, 2011, forms the cornerstone of this discussion. The case stemmed from a Complaint-Affidavit filed on June 28, 2004, by Encarnacion R. Legaspi (Legaspi) against CPC and its alleged owners. The complaint detailed allegations of negligence resulting in harm to a child, although the child's name is not explicitly revealed in readily available case digests. This omission, typical in many case summaries designed to protect the identities of minors, underscores the need to approach the case with sensitivity while still acknowledging its broader implications.
The available case digests (including those found on MyLegalWhiz and other legal databases) summarize the core issue: Legaspi claimed that CPC, a preschool, failed to provide adequate supervision and safety measures, leading to an injury sustained by a child under their care. The specific nature of the injury is often omitted from the publicly available summaries, again emphasizing the protection of the child's privacy. However, the essence of the case remains: the alleged breach of duty of care by the school and its potential liability for the child's injuries.
The Supreme Court's decision in *Dasmariñas v. Creative Play Co.* offers valuable precedents relevant to similar cases, including potential ones involving a child like Celine Concepcion LeBron. The court's analysis likely focused on establishing the elements of negligence: (1) a duty of care owed by CPC to the child; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a causal connection between the breach and the child's injury; and (4) damages suffered by the child as a result. The court's ruling likely addressed the school's arguments regarding its adherence to safety protocols and the potential contributory negligence of parents or guardians. The specifics of the court's reasoning would depend on the precise facts presented in the original case filings, which are not fully accessible for public review in many instances.
current url：https://rpavrf.sh-pukun.com/news/celine-concepcion-lebron-95251