Case Digest (G.R. No. 179337) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Saludaga v. Far Eastern University, petitioner Joseph Saludaga, then a sophomore law student at Far Eastern University (FEU), was accidentally shot by Alejandro Rosete, a security guard assigned to campus duty, on August 18, 1996 at FEU’s Taft Avenue premises. Petitioner was treated at FEU–Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation and Rosete was detained but later released for lack of complaint. Saludaga sued FEU and its president, Edilberto C. De Jesus, for breach of the implied student–school contract to provide a safe and secure learning environment. FEU impleaded Galaxy Development and Management Corporation and its president Mariano D. Imperial for indemnity; they, in turn, filed against their insurer. On November 10, 2004, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 2, ruled for the petitioner, ordering FEU and De Jesus to pay ₱35,298.25 actual damages with 12% interest from filing, ₱300,000 moral, ₱500,000 exemplary, ₱100,000 attorney’s fees, and costs. Galaxy and Imperial w Case Digest (G.R. No. 179337) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Incident
- Petitioner Joseph Saludaga, a sophomore law student at Far Eastern University (FEU), was accidentally shot by FEU security guard Alejandro Rosete on August 18, 1996, while on campus.
- Rosete was briefly detained by police and released for lack of formal complaint; petitioner was treated at FEU-Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation.
- Contractual and Procedural Posture
- Petitioner sued FEU and its president, Edilberto C. de Jesus, for breach of the student–school contract to provide a safe learning environment, claiming actual, moral, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
- FEU impleaded Galaxy Development and Management Corporation (Galaxy) and its president Mariano D. Imperial via third-party complaint for indemnity; Galaxy filed a fourth-party complaint against its insurer.
- Trial Court and Appeals
- RTC, Branch 2, Manila (Nov. 10, 2004) found FEU liable: awarded P35,298.25 actual damages + 12% interest, P300,000 moral, P500,000 exemplary, P100,000 attorney’s fees; imposed indemnity obligation on Galaxy and Imperial; dismissed fourth-party complaint.
- CA (June 29, 2007) reversed and set aside the RTC decision, dismissed petitioner’s complaint; denied motion for reconsideration (Aug. 23, 2007).
- Petitioner filed this Rule 45 petition, challenging (a) classification of shooting as fortuitous event, (b) FEU’s non-liability under breach of contract and due diligence, (c) FEU’s lack of employer status over Rosete, and (d) denial of indemnity.
Issues:
- Whether FEU breached its implied contractual obligation to provide a safe and secure learning environment.
- Whether the shooting was a fortuitous event excusing FEU’s liability.
- Whether Rosete was FEU’s employee for purposes of vicarious liability under Art. 2180, Civil Code.
- Whether FEU properly exercised due diligence in selecting and supervising Galaxy’s security personnel.
- Whether Galaxy and its president are liable to indemnify FEU for amounts awarded to petitioner.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)