Case Summary (G.R. No. 184819)
Factual Background
On August 18, 1996, Saludaga was shot inside the FEU campus by Alejandro Rosete, a security guard provided by Galaxy. Rosete claimed the shooting was accidental and was released by police after no formal complaint was filed. Saludaga was treated at FEU’s medical foundation and later filed suit for breach of the implied student–school contract, alleging respondents failed to provide a safe learning environment.
Procedural History
- The Regional Trial Court (Manila, Branch 2) rendered judgment in November 2004 awarding Saludaga actual, moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees against FEU and De Jesus, and indemnity against Galaxy and Imperial.
- The Court of Appeals granted FEU’s appeal in June 2007, reversed the trial court, and dismissed Saludaga’s complaint.
- The Supreme Court granted review under Rule 45.
Applicable Law
• Student–school contract imposes a “built-in” duty on educational institutions to maintain campus safety (Philippine School of Business Administration v. Court of Appeals).
• Article 1170: liability for negligent breach of contractual obligation.
• Article 2180: employer’s liability for employees’ acts, subject to due diligence.
• Article 2208: award of attorney’s fees when compelled to litigate to protect interests.
• Article 2224: temperate damages when actual loss is shown but not proven in amount.
Issues
- Whether FEU breached its contractual duty to provide a safe campus.
- Whether the shooting was a fortuitous event absolving FEU of liability.
- Whether De Jesus is personally liable.
- Whether FEU may invoke vicarious liability under Article 2180.
- Whether Galaxy and Imperial must indemnify FEU.
Breach of Contractual Duty
The Court found that enrollment created reciprocal obligations: FEU to impart knowledge and maintain order, Saludaga to observe regulations. The shooting by a campus guard established a prima facie breach of FEU’s duty to provide a secure environment.
Defense of Fortuitous Event and Due Diligence
FEU’s contention that the incident was unforeseeable failed, as it did not prove due diligence in vetting guards. No evidence of Rosete’s qualifications or verification of clearances was presented. Reliance on Galaxy without oversight amounted to negligence, precluding invocation of force majeure.
Damages Award
• Actual damages: ₱35,298.25, with 6% interest from complaint filing until finality, 12% thereafter.
• Temperate damages: ₱20,000 for unreceipted losses.
• Moral damages: ₱100,000, based on physical suffering and mental anguish.
• Attorney’s fees and litigation expenses: ₱50,000.
• Exemplary damages deleted for lack of wanton or oppressive conduct proof.
Personal Liability of De Jesus
Corporate personality is separate from its officers. No evidence of De Jesus’s bad faith, gross negligence, or personal guarantee justified personal liability; his solidary liability was dismissed.
Vicarious Liability under Article 2180
FEU was not Rosete’s employer; Galaxy recruited, hired, and assigned guards. FEU’s instructions did n
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 184819)
Antecedent Facts
- Petitioner Joseph Saludaga, a sophomore law student at Far Eastern University (FEU), was accidentally shot on August 18, 1996 by Alejandro Rosete, a security guard on FEU premises.
- Petitioner was treated at the FEU–Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation for gunshot wounds.
- Rosete was taken into police custody, claimed the shooting was accidental, and was released when no formal complaint was filed.
- Petitioner filed a complaint for damages against FEU and its president, claiming breach of the student–school contract to provide a safe learning environment.
- Respondents impleaded Galaxy Development and Management Corporation and its president, Mariano D. Imperial, by third-party complaint for indemnity; Galaxy and Imperial in turn filed a fourth-party complaint against AFP General Insurance.
Trial Court Decision (Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 2)
- The trial court found FEU and its president liable for breach of contract and awarded:
• Actual damages of ₱35,298.25 with 12% annual interest from filing until paid
• Moral damages of ₱300,000
• Exemplary damages of ₱500,000
• Attorney’s fees of ₱100,000
• Costs of suit - Galaxy and Imperial were ordered to indemnify FEU and its president for the above amounts.
- Fourth-party complaint against AFP General Insurance was dismissed.
Court of Appeals Decision
- The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the trial court judgment.
- It dismissed the complaint against FEU and its president, holding that the shooting was a fortuitous event and that respondents had exercised due diligence in hiring Galaxy.
- Motion for reconsideration was denied.
Issues on Appeal to the Supreme Court
- Whether the shooting incident was a fortuitous event exempting FEU from liability.
- Whether FEU breached its built-in obligation under the student–school contract to maintain a safe learning environment.
- Whether Rosete was FEU’s employee or Galaxy’s, affecting vicarious liability.