Saludaga vs. FEU

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 553 8/18/19, 3:27 PM
Where the accused were charged with separate crimes of

carnapping and murder, they cannot be convicted of the
qualified carnapping constitutive of the various crimes
alleged in the two informations without running afoul of
the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against them. (People vs. Ubaldo,
342 SCRA 338 [2000])
··o0o··
G.R. No. 179337. April 30, 2008.*
JOSEPH SALUDAGA, petitioner, vs. FAR EASTERN

UNIVERSITY and EDILBERTO C. DE JESUS in his
capacity as President of FEU, respondents.
Colleges and Universities; Obligations and Contracts; Where a

student is enrolled in an educational institution, there is created a
contractual obligation between the two parties·the student is
obliged to comply with the rules and regulations of the school while
the latter, as a learning institution, is mandated to impart
knowledge and equip its students with the necessary skills to pursue
higher education or a profession, as well as to ensure and take
adequate steps to maintain peace and order within the campus.·It
is undisputed that petitioner was enrolled as a sophomore law
student in respondent FEU. As such, there was created a
contractual obligation between the two parties. On petitionerÊs part,
he was obliged to comply with the rules and regulations of the
school. On the other hand, respondent FEU, as a learning
institution is mandated to impart knowledge and equip its students
with the necessary skills to pursue higher education or a profession.
At the same time, it is obliged to ensure and take adequate steps to
maintain peace and order within the campus. It is settled that in
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016ca3997eea476c6cb3003600fb002c009e/p/AUB820/?username=Guest Page 1 of 22
culpa contractual, the mere proof of the existence of the contract

and the failure of its compliance justify, prima facie, a
corresponding right of relief. In the instant case, we find that, when
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
742
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Saludaga vs. Far Eastern University
petitioner was shot inside the campus by no less the security guard
who was hired to maintain peace and secure the premises, there is
a prima facie showing that respondents failed to comply with its
obligation to provide a safe and secure environment to its students.
Same; Same; Security Guards; A learning institution should not
be allowed to completely relinquish or abdicate security matters in
its premises to the security agency it hired·to do so would result to
contracting away its inherent obligation to ensure a safe learning
environment for its students.·Respondents also failed to show that
they undertook steps to ascertain and confirm that the security
guards assigned to them actually possess the qualifications
required in the Security Service Agreement. It was not proven that
they examined the clearances, psychiatric test results, 201 files, and
other vital documents enumerated in its contract with Galaxy. Total
reliance on the security agency about these matters or failure to
check the papers stating the qualifications of the guards is
negligence on the part of respondents. A learning institution should
not be allowed to completely relinquish or abdicate security matters
in its premises to the security agency it hired. To do so would result
to contracting away its inherent obligation to ensure a safe learning
environment for its students.
Same; Same; Force Majeure; An act of God cannot be invoked to
protect a person who has failed to take steps to forestall the possible
adverse consequences of such a loss.·RespondentsÊ defense of force
majeure must fail. In order for force majeure to be considered,
respondents must show that no negligence or misconduct was
committed that may have occasioned the loss. An act of God cannot
be invoked to protect a person who has failed to take steps to
forestall the possible adverse consequences of such a loss. OneÊs
negligence may have concurred with an act of God in producing
damage and injury to another; nonetheless, showing that the
immediate or proximate cause of the damage or injury was a
fortuitous event would not exempt one from liability. When the
effect is found to be partly the result of a personÊs participation·
whether by active intervention, neglect or failure to act·the whole
occurrence is humanized and removed from the rules applicable to
acts of God.
Same; Same; Negligence; For breach of contract due to negligence in
providing a safe learning environment, an educational institution is
liable to petitioner for damages.·Article 1170 of the Civil
743
VOL. 553, APRIL 30, 2008 743
Code provides that those who are negligent in the performance of

their obligations are liable for damages. Accordingly, for breach of
contract due to negligence in providing a safe learning environment,
respondent FEU is liable to petitioner for damages. It is essential in
the award of damages that the claimant must have satisfactorily
proven during the trial the existence of the factual basis of the
damages and its causal connection to defendantÊs acts. In the
instant case, it was established that petitioner spent P35,298.25 for
his hospitalization and other medical expenses. While the trial
court correctly imposed interest on said amount, however, the case
at bar involves an obligation arising from a contract and not a loan
or forbearance of money. As such, the proper rate of legal interest is
six percent (6%) per annum of the amount demanded. Such interest
shall continue to run from the filing of the complaint until the
finality of this Decision. After this Decision becomes final and
executory, the applicable rate shall be twelve percent (12%) per
annum until its satisfaction.
Same; Same; Same; Damages; Trial courts must guard against the
award of exorbitant damages; they should exercise balanced,
restrained and measured objectivity to avoid suspicion that it was
due to passion, prejudice, or corruption on the part of the trial court.

·As regards the award of moral damages, there is no hard and fast
rule in the determination of what would be a fair amount of moral
damages since each case must be governed by its own peculiar
circumstances. The testimony of petitioner about his physical
suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, and moral shock
resulting from the shooting incident justify the award of moral
damages. However, moral damages are in the category of an award
designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered and
not to impose a penalty on the wrongdoer. The award is not meant
to enrich the complainant at the expense of the defendant, but to
enable the injured party to obtain means, diversion, or amusements
that will serve to obviate the moral suffering he has undergone. It is
aimed at the restoration, within the limits of the possible, of the
spiritual status quo ante, and should be proportionate to the
suffering inflicted. Trial courts must then guard against the award
of exorbitant damages; they should exercise balanced, restrained
and measured objectivity to avoid suspicion that it was due to
passion, prejudice, or corruption on the part of the trial court. We
deem it just and reason-
744
able under the circumstances to award petitioner moral damages in

the amount of P100,000.00.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Corporation Law; A corporation is

invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from those
of the persons composing it, such that, save for certain exceptions,
corporate officers who entered into contracts in behalf of the
corporation cannot be held personally liable for the liabilities of the
latter.·We note that the trial court held respondent De Jesus
solidarily liable with respondent FEU. In Powton Conglomerate,
Inc. v. Agcolicol, 400 SCRA 523 (2003), we held that: [A] corporation
is invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from
those of the persons composing it, such that, save for certain
exceptions, corporate officers who entered into contracts in behalf of
the corporation cannot be held personally liable for the liabilities of
the latter. Personal liability of a corporate director, trustee or officer
along (although not necessarily) with the corporation may so validly

attach, as a rule, only when·(1) he assents to a patently unlawful
act of the corporation, or when he is guilty of bad faith or gross
negligence in directing its affairs, or when there is a conflict of
interest resulting in damages to the corporation, its stockholders or
other persons; (2) he consents to the issuance of watered down
stocks or who, having knowledge thereof, does not forthwith file
with the corporate secretary his written objection thereto; (3) he
agrees to hold himself personally and solidarily liable with the
corporation; or (4) he is made by a specific provision of law
personally answerable for his corporate action. None of the
foregoing exceptions was established in the instant case; hence,
respondent De Jesus should not be held solidarily liable with
respondent FEU.
Same; Labor Law; Security Guards; Where the security agency
recruits, hires and assigns the works of its watchmen or security
guards to a client, the employer of such guards or watchmen is such
agency, and not the client, since the latter has no hand in selecting
the security guards·the duty to observe the diligence of a good
father of a family cannot be demanded from the said client.·We
agree with the findings of the Court of Appeals that respondents
cannot be held liable for damages under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code
because respondents are not the employers of Rosete. The latter
was employed by Galaxy. The instructions issued by respondentsÊ
Security Consultant to Galaxy and its security guards are
ordinarily no more than re-
745
VOL. 553, APRIL 30, 2008 745
quests commonly envisaged in the contract for services entered into

by a principal and a security agency. They cannot be construed as
the element of control as to treat respondents as the employers of
Rosete. As held in Mercury Drug Corporation v. Libunao, 434 SCRA
404 (2004): In Soliman, Jr. v. Tuazon, 209 SCRA 47 (1992), we held
that where the security agency recruits, hires and assigns the
works of its watchmen or security guards to a client, the employer
of such guards or watchmen is such agency, and not the client, since
the latter has no hand in selecting the security guards. Thus, the
duty to observe the diligence of a good father of a family cannot be

demanded from the said client.
Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Third-Party Complaints; The
third-party complaint is a procedural device whereby a „third party‰
who is neither a party nor privy to the act or deed complained of by
the plaintiff, may be brought into the case with leave of court, by the
defendant, who acts as third-party plaintiff to enforce against such
third-party defendant a right for contribution, indemnity,
subrogation or any other relief, in respect of the plaintiffÊs claim.·
We now come to respondentsÊ Third Party Claim against Galaxy. In
Firestone Tire and Rubber Company of the Philippines v.
Tempongko, 27 SCRA 418 (1969), we held that: The third-party
complaint is, therefore, a procedural device whereby a Âthird partyÊ
who is neither a party nor privy to the act or deed complained of by
the plaintiff, may be brought into the case with leave of court, by
the defendant, who acts as third-party plaintiff to enforce against
such third-party defendant a right for contribution, indemnity,
subrogation or any other relief, in respect of the plaintiff Ês claim.
The third-party complaint is actually independent of and separate
and distinct from the plaintiff Ês complaint. Were it not for this
provision of the Rules of Court, it would have to be filed
independently and separately from the original complaint by the
defendant against the third-party. But the Rules permit defendant
to bring in a third-party defendant or so to speak, to litigate his
separate cause of action in respect of plaintiff Ês claim against a
third-party in the original and principal case with the object of
avoiding circuitry of action and unnecessary proliferation of law
suits and of disposing expeditiously in one litigation the entire
subject matter arising from one particular set of facts.
Same; Same; Same; Security Guards; For acts of negligence and for
having supplied an educational institution with an unquali-
746
fied security guard, which resulted in the latterÊs breach of

obligation to its student, it is proper to hold the security agency
liable to the client for such damages equivalent to the amounts
awarded to the student.·Respondents and Galaxy were able to

litigate their respective claims and defenses in the course of the
trial of petitionerÊs complaint. Evidence duly supports the findings
of the trial court that Galaxy is negligent not only in the selection of
its employees but also in their supervision. Indeed, no
administrative sanction was imposed against Rosete despite the
shooting incident; moreover, he was even allowed to go on leave of
absence which led eventually to his disappearance. Galaxy also
failed to monitor petitionerÊs condition or extend the necessary
assistance, other than the P5,000.00 initially given to petitioner.
Galaxy and Imperial failed to make good their pledge to reimburse
petitionerÊs medical expenses. For these acts of negligence and for
having supplied respondent FEU with an unqualified security
guard, which resulted to the latterÊs breach of obligation to
petitioner, it is proper to hold Galaxy liable to respondent FEU for
such damages equivalent to the above-mentioned amounts awarded
to petitioner.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Cacho & Chua Law Offices for petitioner.
Antonio H. Abad & Associates for respondents.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court assails the June 29, 2007 Decision2 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 87050, nullifying
and setting aside the November 10, 2004 Decision3 of the
Regional
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 3-33.

2 Id., at pp. 38-62; penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. Del
Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices Arcangelita Romilla-
Lontok and Romeo F. Barza.
3 Id., at pp. 67-75; penned by Judge Alejandro G. Bijasa.
747
VOL. 553, APRIL 30, 2008 747
Trial Court of Manila, Branch 2, in Civil Case No. 98-89483

and dismissing the complaint filed by petitioner; as well as
its August 23, 2007 Resolution4 denying the Motion for
Reconsideration.5
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Petitioner Joseph Saludaga was a sophomore law
student of respondent Far Eastern University (FEU) when
he was shot by Alejandro Rosete (Rosete), one of the
security guards on duty at the school premises on August
18, 1996. Petitioner was rushed to FEU-Dr. Nicanor Reyes
Medical Foundation (FEU-NRMF) due to the wound he
sustained.6 Meanwhile, Rosete was brought to the police
station where he explained that the shooting was
accidental. He was eventually released considering that no
formal complaint was filed against him.
Petitioner thereafter filed a complaint for damages
against respondents on the ground that they breached their
obligation to provide students with a safe and secure
environment and an atmosphere conducive to learning.
Respondents, in turn, filed a Third-Party Complaint7
against Galaxy Development and Management Corporation
(Galaxy), the agency contracted by respondent FEU to
provide security services within its premises and Mariano
D. Imperial (Imperial), GalaxyÊs President, to indemnify
them for whatever would be adjudged in favor of petitioner,
if any; and to pay attorneyÊs fees and cost of the suit. On
the other hand, Galaxy and Imperial filed a Fourth-Party
Complaint against AFP General Insurance.8
On November 10, 2004, the trial court rendered a
decision in favor of petitioner, the dispositive portion of
which reads:
„WHEREFORE, from the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered

ordering:
_______________
4 Id., at pp. 64-65.

5 Id., at pp. 160-177.
6 Id., at p. 188.
7 Records, Vol. I, pp. 136-139.
8 Id., at pp. 287-290.
748

1. FEU and Edilberto de Jesus, in his capacity as

president of FEU to pay jointly and severally Joseph
Saludaga the amount of P35,298.25 for actual damages with
12% interest per annum from the filing of the complaint until
fully paid; moral damages of P300,000.00, exemplary
damages of P500,000.00, attorneyÊs fees of P100,000.00 and
cost of the suit;
2. Galaxy Management and Development Corp. and its
president, Col. Mariano Imperial to indemnify jointly and
severally 3rd party plaintiffs (FEU and Edilberto de Jesus in
his capacity as President of FEU) for the above-mentioned
amounts;
3. And the 4th party complaint is dismissed for lack of
cause of action. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.‰9
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals which

rendered the assailed Decision, the decretal portion of
which provides, viz.:
„WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision

dated November 10, 2004 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The complaint filed by Joseph Saludaga against appellant Far
Eastern University and its President in Civil Case No. 98-89483 is
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.‰10
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was

denied; hence, the instant petition based on the following
grounds:
THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN MANNER

CONTRARY TO LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE IN RULING THAT:
5.1. THE SHOOTING INCIDENT IS A FORTUITOUS EVENT;
_______________
9 Rollo, pp. 74-75.

10 Id., at p. 61.
749
VOL. 553, APRIL 30, 2008 749

5.2. RESPONDENTS ARE NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES

FOR THE INJURY RESULTING FROM A GUNSHOT WOUND
SUFFERED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE HANDS OF NO
LESS THAN THEIR OWN SECURITY GUARD IN VIOLATION
OF THEIR BUILT-IN CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO
PETITIONER, BEING THEIR LAW STUDENT AT THAT TIME,
TO PROVIDE HIM WITH A SAFE AND SECURE EDUCATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT;
5.3. SECURITY GUARD, ALEJANDRO ROSETE, WHO SHOT
PETITIONER WHILE HE WAS WALKING ON HIS WAY TO THE
LAW LIBRARY OF RESPONDENT FEU IS NOT THEIR
EMPLOYEE BY VIRTUE OF THE CONTRACT FOR SECURITY
SERVICES BETWEEN GALAXY AND FEU NOTWITHSTANDING
THE FACT THAT PETITIONER, NOT BEING A PARTY TO IT, IS
NOT BOUND BY THE SAME UNDER THE PRINCIPLE OF
RELATIVITY OF CONTRACTS; and
5.4. RESPONDENT EXERCISED DUE DILIGENCE IN
SELECTING GALAXY AS THE AGENCY WHICH WOULD
PROVIDE SECURITY SERVICES WITHIN THE PREMISES OF
RESPONDENT FEU.11
Petitioner is suing respondents for damages based on

the alleged breach of student-school contract for a safe
learning environment. The pertinent portions of
petitionerÊs Complaint read:
6.0. At the time of plaintiff Ês confinement, the defendants or

any of their representative did not bother to visit and inquire about
his condition. This abject indifference on the part of the defendants
continued even after plaintiff was discharged from the hospital
when not even a word of consolation was heard from them. Plaintiff
waited for more than one (1) year for the defendants to perform
their moral obligation but the wait was fruitless. This indifference
and total lack of concern of defendants served to exacerbate
plaintiff Ês miserable condition.
xxxx
_______________
11 Id., at pp. 13-14.
750

11.0. Defendants are responsible for ensuring the safety of its

students while the latter are within the University premises. And
that should anything untoward happens to any of its students while
they are within the UniversityÊs premises shall be the responsibility
of the defendants. In this case, defendants, despite being legally
and morally bound, miserably failed to protect plaintiff from injury
and thereafter, to mitigate and compensate plaintiff for said injury;
12.0. When plaintiff enrolled with defendant FEU, a contract
was entered into between them. Under this contract, defendants are
supposed to ensure that adequate steps are taken to provide an
atmosphere conducive to study and ensure the safety of the plaintiff
while inside defendant FEUÊs premises. In the instant case, the
latter breached this contract when defendant allowed harm to befall
upon the plaintiff when he was shot at by, of all people, their
security guard who was tasked to maintain peace inside the
campus.‰12
In Philippine School of Business Administration v. Court

of Appeals,13 we held that:
„When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment,

there is established a contract between them, resulting in bilateral
obligations which both parties are bound to comply with. For its
part, the school undertakes to provide the student with an
education that would presumably suffice to equip him with the
necessary tools and skills to pursue higher education or a
profession. On the other hand, the student covenants to abide by
the schoolÊs academic requirements and observe its rules and
regulations.
Institutions of learning must also meet the implicit or „built-in‰
obligation of providing their students with an atmosphere that
promotes or assists in attaining its primary undertaking of
imparting knowledge. Certainly, no student can absorb the

intricacies of physics or higher mathematics or explore the realm of
the arts and other sciences when bullets are flying or grenades
exploding in the air or where there looms around the school
premises a constant threat to life and limb. Necessarily, the school
must ensure that
_______________
12 Records, Vol. I, pp. 1-6.

13 G.R. No. 84698, February 4, 1992, 205 SCRA 729.
751
VOL. 553, APRIL 30, 2008 751

adequate steps are taken to maintain peace and order within the
campus premises and to prevent the breakdown thereof.‰14
It is undisputed that petitioner was enrolled as a

sophomore law student in respondent FEU. As such, there
was created a contractual obligation between the two
parties. On petitionerÊs part, he was obliged to comply with
the rules and regulations of the school. On the other hand,
respondent FEU, as a learning institution is mandated to
impart knowledge and equip its students with the
necessary skills to pursue higher education or a profession.
At the same time, it is obliged to ensure and take adequate
steps to maintain peace and order within the campus.
It is settled that in culpa contractual, the mere proof of
the existence of the contract and the failure of its
compliance justify, prima facie, a corresponding right of
relief.15 In the instant case, we find that, when petitioner
was shot inside the campus by no less the security guard
who was hired to maintain peace and secure the premises,
there is a prima facie showing that respondents failed to
comply with its obligation to provide a safe and secure
environment to its students.
In order to avoid liability, however, respondents aver
that the shooting incident was a fortuitous event because
they could not have reasonably foreseen nor avoided the
accident caused by Rosete as he was not their employee;16
and that they complied with their obligation to ensure a

safe learning environment for their students by having
exercised due diligence in selecting the security services of
Galaxy.
After a thorough review of the records, we find that
respondents failed to discharge the burden of proving that
they exercised due diligence in providing a safe learning
environment for their students. They failed to prove that
they en-
_______________
14 Id., at pp. 733-734.

15 FGU Insurance Corporation v. G.P. Sarmiento Trucking
Corporation, 435 Phil. 333, 341; 386 SCRA 312, 320 (2002).
16 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 76-86.
752

sured that the guards assigned in the campus met the

requirements stipulated in the Security Service Agreement.
Indeed, certain documents about Galaxy were presented
during trial; however, no evidence as to the qualifications of
Rosete as a security guard for the university was offered.
Respondents also failed to show that they undertook
steps to ascertain and confirm that the security guards
assigned to them actually possess the qualifications
required in the Security Service Agreement. It was not
proven that they examined the clearances, psychiatric test
results, 201 files, and other vital documents enumerated in
its contract with Galaxy. Total reliance on the security
agency about these matters or failure to check the papers
stating the qualifications of the guards is negligence on the
part of respondents. A learning institution should not be
allowed to completely relinquish or abdicate security
matters in its premises to the security agency it hired. To
do so would result to contracting away its inherent
obligation to ensure a safe learning environment for its
students.
Consequently, respondentsÊ defense of force majeure

must fail. In order for force majeure to be considered,
respondents must show that no negligence or misconduct
was committed that may have occasioned the loss. An act of
God cannot be invoked to protect a person who has failed to
take steps to forestall the possible adverse consequences of
such a loss. OneÊs negligence may have concurred with an
act of God in producing damage and injury to another;
nonetheless, showing that the immediate or proximate
cause of the damage or injury was a fortuitous event would
not exempt one from liability. When the effect is found to be
partly the result of a personÊs participation·whether by
active intervention, neglect or failure to act·the whole
occurrence is humanized and removed from the rules
applicable to acts of God.17
_______________
17 Mindex Resources Development v. Morillo, 428 Phil. 934, 944; 379

SCRA 144, 153 (2002).
753
VOL. 553, APRIL 30, 2008 753

Article 1170 of the Civil Code provides that those who

are negligent in the performance of their obligations are
liable for damages. Accordingly, for breach of contract due
to negligence in providing a safe learning environment,
respondent FEU is liable to petitioner for damages. It is
essential in the award of damages that the claimant must
have satisfactorily proven during the trial the existence of
the factual basis of the damages and its causal connection
to defendantÊs acts.18
In the instant case, it was established that petitioner
spent P35,298.25 for his hospitalization and other medical
expenses.19 While the trial court correctly imposed interest
on said amount, however, the case at bar involves an
obligation arising from a contract and not a loan or
forbearance of money. As such, the proper rate of legal
interest is six percent (6%) per annum of the amount
demanded. Such interest shall continue to run from the

filing of the complaint until the finality of this Decision.20
After this Decision becomes final and executory, the
applicable rate shall be twelve percent (12%) per annum
until its satisfaction.
The other expenses being claimed by petitioner, such as
transportation expenses and those incurred in hiring a
personal assistant while recuperating were however not
duly supported by receipts.21 In the absence thereof, no
actual damages may be awarded. Nonetheless, temperate
damages under Art. 2224 of the Civil Code may be
recovered where it has been shown that the claimant
suffered some pecuniary loss but the amount thereof
cannot be proved with certainty. Hence, the amount of
P20,000.00 as temperate damages is awarded to petitioner.
_______________
18 Roque, Jr. v. Torres, G.R. No. 157632, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA
336, 348.
19 TSN, September 20, 1999, pp. 20-21; Records, Vol. I, pp. 316-322;
Records, Vol. II, p. 597.
20 Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97412,
July 12, 1994, 234 SCRA 78, 95-97.
21 TSN, September 27, 1999, pp. 5, 9.
754

As regards the award of moral damages, there is no hard

and fast rule in the determination of what would be a fair
amount of moral damages since each case must be
governed by its own peculiar circumstances.22 The
testimony of petitioner about his physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, and moral shock resulting
from the shooting incident23 justify the award of moral
damages. However, moral damages are in the category of
an award designed to compensate the claimant for actual
injury suffered and not to impose a penalty on the
wrongdoer. The award is not meant to enrich the
complainant at the expense of the defendant, but to enable

the injured party to obtain means, diversion, or
amusements that will serve to obviate the moral suffering
he has undergone. It is aimed at the restoration, within the
limits of the possible, of the spiritual status quo ante, and
should be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. Trial
courts must then guard against the award of exorbitant
damages; they should exercise balanced, restrained and
measured objectivity to avoid suspicion that it was due to
passion, prejudice, or corruption on the part of the trial
court.24 We deem it just and reasonable under the
circumstances to award petitioner moral damages in the
amount of P100,000.00.
Likewise, attorneyÊs fees and litigation expenses in the
amount of P50,000.00 as part of damages is reasonable in
view of Article 2208 of the Civil Code.25 However, the
award of
_______________
22 Roque v. Torres, supra note 18 at p. 349.

23 TSN, September 20, 1999, pp. 10, 12-13; September 27, 1999, pp. 3,
5-9.
24 ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil.
499, 529-530; 301 SCRA 572, 602 (1999).
25 Civil Code, Art. 2208:
In the absence of stipulation, attorneyÊs fees and expenses of
litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
755
VOL. 553, APRIL 30, 2008 755

exemplary damages is deleted considering the absence of

proof that respondents acted in a wanton, fraudulent,
reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.
We note that the trial court held respondent De Jesus
solidarily liable with respondent FEU. In Powton
Conglomerate, Inc. v. Agcolicol,26 we held that:
„[A] corporation is invested by law with a personality separate and
distinct from those of the persons composing it, such that, save for
certain exceptions, corporate officers who entered into contracts in
behalf of the corporation cannot be held personally liable for the
liabilities of the latter. Personal liability of a corporate director,
trustee or officer along (although not necessarily) with the
corporation may so validly attach, as a rule, only when·(1) he
assents to a patently unlawful act of the corporation, or when he is
guilty of bad faith or gross negligence in directing its affairs, or
when there is a conflict of interest resulting in damages to the
corporation, its stockholders or other persons; (2) he consents to the
issuance of watered down stocks or who, having knowledge thereof,
does not forthwith file with the corporate secretary his written
objection thereto; (3) he agrees to hold himself personally and
solidarily liable with the corporation; or (4) he is made by a specific
provision of law personally answerable for his corporate action.‰27
None of the foregoing exceptions was established in the

instant case; hence, respondent De Jesus should not be
held solidarily liable with respondent FEU.
Incidentally, although the main cause of action in the
instant case is the breach of the school-student contract,
petitioner, in the alternative, also holds respondents
vicariously liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code,
which provides:
_______________
(2) when the defendantÊs act or omission has compelled the

plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to
protect his interest;
26 448 Phil. 643; 400 SCRA 523 (2003).
27 Id., at p. 656; pp. 531-532.
756

„Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is

demandable not only for oneÊs own acts or omissions, but also for
those of persons for whom one is responsible.
xxxx
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their

employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their
assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry.
xxxx
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the
persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence
of a good father of a family to prevent damage.‰
We agree with the findings of the Court of Appeals that

respondents cannot be held liable for damages under Art.
2180 of the Civil Code because respondents are not the
employers of Rosete. The latter was employed by Galaxy.
The instructions issued by respondentsÊ Security
Consultant to Galaxy and its security guards are ordinarily
no more than requests commonly envisaged in the contract
for services entered into by a principal and a security
agency. They cannot be construed as the element of control
as to treat respondents as the employers of Rosete.28
As held in Mercury Drug Corporation v. Libunao:29
„In Soliman, Jr. v. Tuazon,30 we held that where the security

agency recruits, hires and assigns the works of its watchmen or
security guards to a client, the employer of such guards or
watchmen is such agency, and not the client, since the latter has no
hand in selecting the security guards. Thus, the duty to observe the
diligence of a good father of a family cannot be demanded from the
said client:
⁄ [I]t is settled in our jurisdiction that where the security
agency, as here, recruits, hires and assigns the work of its
watchmen or security guards, the agency is the employer of
_______________
28 Records, Vol. I, pp. 43-55 (FEU) and pp. 56-68 (Galaxy).

29 G.R. No. 144458, July 14, 2004, 434 SCRA 404.
30 G.R. No. 66207, May 18, 1992, 209 SCRA 47.
757
VOL. 553, APRIL 30, 2008 757

such guards or watchmen. Liability for illegal or harmful acts

committed by the security guards attaches to the employer
agency, and not to the clients or customers of such agency. As
a general rule, a client or customer of a security agency has
no hand in selecting who among the pool of security guards or
watchmen employed by the agency shall be assigned to it; the
duty to observe the diligence of a good father of a family in
the selection of the guards cannot, in the ordinary course of
events, be demanded from the client whose premises or
property are protected by the security guards.
xxxx
The fact that a client company may give instructions or
directions to the security guards assigned to it, does not, by itself,
render the client responsible as an employer of the security guards
concerned and liable for their wrongful acts or omissions.‰31
We now come to respondentsÊ Third Party Claim against

Galaxy. In Firestone Tire and Rubber Company of the
Philippines v. Tempongko,32 we held that:
„The third-party complaint is, therefore, a procedural device

whereby a Âthird partyÊ who is neither a party nor privy to the act or
deed complained of by the plaintiff, may be brought into the case
with leave of court, by the defendant, who acts as third-party
plaintiff to enforce against such third-party defendant a right for
contribution, indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect
of the plaintiff Ês claim. The third-party complaint is actually
independent of and separate and distinct from the plaintiff Ês
complaint. Were it not for this provision of the Rules of Court, it
would have to be filed independently and separately from the
original complaint by the defendant against the third-party. But the
Rules permit defendant to bring in a third-party defendant or so to
speak, to litigate his separate cause of action in respect of plaintiff Ês
claim against a third-party in the original and principal case with
the object of avoiding circuitry of action and unnecessary
proliferation of law suits and of
_______________
31 Mercury Drug Corporation v. Libunao, supra at pp. 414-418.

32 137 Phil. 239; 27 SCRA 418 (1969).
758

disposing expeditiously in one litigation the entire subject matter

arising from one particular set of facts.‰33
Respondents and Galaxy were able to litigate their

respective claims and defenses in the course of the trial of
petitionerÊs complaint. Evidence duly supports the findings
of the trial court that Galaxy is negligent not only in the
selection of its employees but also in their supervision.
Indeed, no administrative sanction was imposed against
Rosete despite the shooting incident; moreover, he was
even allowed to go on leave of absence which led eventually
to his disappearance.34 Galaxy also failed to monitor
petitionerÊs condition or extend the necessary assistance,
other than the P5,000.00 initially given to petitioner.
Galaxy and Imperial failed to make good their pledge to
reimburse petitionerÊs medical expenses.
For these acts of negligence and for having supplied
respondent FEU with an unqualified security guard, which
resulted to the latterÊs breach of obligation to petitioner, it
is proper to hold Galaxy liable to respondent FEU for such
damages equivalent to the above-mentioned amounts
awarded to petitioner.
Unlike respondent De Jesus, we deem Imperial to be
solidarily liable with Galaxy for being grossly negligent in
directing the affairs of the security agency. It was Imperial
who assured petitioner that his medical expenses will be
shouldered by Galaxy but said representations were not
fulfilled because they presumed that petitioner and his
family were no longer interested in filing a formal
complaint against them.35
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The June 29,
2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
87050 nullifying the Decision of the trial court and
dismissing the complaint as well as the August 23, 2007
Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration are
REVERSED and SET
_______________
33 Id., at pp. 243-244; pp. 422-423.

34 Rollo, p. 74.
35 Records, Vol. I, p. 330.
759
VOL. 553, APRIL 30, 2008 759

ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila,

Branch 2, in Civil Case No. 98-89483 finding respondent
FEU liable for damages for breach of its obligation to
provide students with a safe and secure learning
atmosphere, is AFFIRMED with the following
MODIFICATIONS:
„a. respondent Far Eastern University (FEU) is

ORDERED to pay petitioner actual damages in the amount
of P35,298.25, plus 6% interest per annum from the filing
of the complaint until the finality of this Decision. After
this decision becomes final and executory, the applicable
rate shall be twelve percent (12%) per annum until its
satisfaction;
b. respondent FEU is also ORDERED to pay petitioner
temperate damages in the amount of P20,000.00; moral
damages in the amount of P100,000.00; and attorneyÊs fees
and litigation expenses in the amount of P50,000.00;
c. the award of exemplary damages is DELETED.‰
The Complaint against respondent Edilberto C. De

Jesus is DISMISSED. The counterclaims of respondents
are likewise DISMISSED.
Galaxy Development and Management Corporation
(Galaxy) and its president, Mariano D. Imperial are
ORDERED to jointly and severally pay respondent FEU
damages equivalent to the above-mentioned amounts
awarded to petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Austria-Martinez, Chico-Nazario, Nachura and Reyes,

JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and

set aside.
Notes.·A school principal is tasked to see to the

maintenance of the school grounds and safety of the
children within the school and its premises. (Capili vs.
Cardaña, 506 SCRA 569 [2006])
760

The term „chartered institution‰ includes the state

universities and colleges and the monetary authority of the
State. (Gumaru vs. Quirino State College, 525 SCRA 412
[2007])
··o0o··
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Saludaga vs. FEU

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saludaga vs. FEU

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 553 8/18/19, 3:27 PM

Where the accused were charged with separate crimes of

G.R. No. 179337. April 30, 2008.*

JOSEPH SALUDAGA, petitioner, vs. FAR EASTERN

Colleges and Universities; Obligations and Contracts; Where a

culpa contractual, the mere proof of the existence of the contract

742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Saludaga vs. Far Eastern University

VOL. 553, APRIL 30, 2008 743

Saludaga vs. Far Eastern University

Code provides that those who are negligent in the performance of

due to passion, prejudice, or corruption on the part of the trial court.

744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Saludaga vs. Far Eastern University

able under the circumstances to award petitioner moral damages in

Same; Same; Same; Same; Corporation Law; A corporation is

along (although not necessarily) with the corporation may so validly

VOL. 553, APRIL 30, 2008 745

Saludaga vs. Far Eastern University

quests commonly envisaged in the contract for services entered into

duty to observe the diligence of a good father of a family cannot be

746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Saludaga vs. Far Eastern University

fied security guard, which resulted in the latterÊs breach of

awarded to the student.·Respondents and Galaxy were able to

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

1 Rollo, pp. 3-33.

VOL. 553, APRIL 30, 2008 747

Saludaga vs. Far Eastern University

Trial Court of Manila, Branch 2, in Civil Case No. 98-89483

„WHEREFORE, from the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered

4 Id., at pp. 64-65.

8 Id., at pp. 287-290.

748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

1. FEU and Edilberto de Jesus, in his capacity as

Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals which

„WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was

THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN MANNER

9 Rollo, pp. 74-75.

VOL. 553, APRIL 30, 2008 749

5.2. RESPONDENTS ARE NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES

Petitioner is suing respondents for damages based on

6.0. At the time of plaintiff Ês confinement, the defendants or

11 Id., at pp. 13-14.

750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

11.0. Defendants are responsible for ensuring the safety of its

In Philippine School of Business Administration v. Court

„When an academic institution accepts students for enrollment,

imparting knowledge. Certainly, no student can absorb the

12 Records, Vol. I, pp. 1-6.

VOL. 553, APRIL 30, 2008 751

It is undisputed that petitioner was enrolled as a

and that they complied with their obligation to ensure a

14 Id., at pp. 733-734.

752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

sured that the guards assigned in the campus met the

Consequently, respondentsÊ defense of force majeure

17 Mindex Resources Development v. Morillo, 428 Phil. 934, 944; 379

VOL. 553, APRIL 30, 2008 753

Article 1170 of the Civil Code provides that those who

demanded. Such interest shall continue to run from the

754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

As regards the award of moral damages, there is no hard