JOSEPH SALUDAGA, petitioner,

vs.
FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY and EDILBERTO C. DE JESUS in his capacity as
President of FEU, respondents.
G.R. No. 179337 April 30, 2008

FACTS
The petitioner, a former sophomore law student of Far Eastern University (FEU), Joseph
Saludaga filed a complaint for damages against the respondent, Far Easter University for the
failure to comply with its obligation to provide a safe environment for the students.

The petitioner was shot inside the campus by Alejandro Rosete, one of the on duty security
guards of the campus on August 18, 1996. Rosete was brought to the police station and
explained that the event was an accident.

The respondents also filed a Third-Party Complaint against the environment Galaxy
Development and Management Corporation, the agency that the university contracted with in
regards of providing the campus and the students a safe environment.

ISSUES

(1) Whether or not a contractual obligation between Saludaga and Far Eastern University
exist.
(2) Whether or not Galaxy Development and Management Corporation are liable for
damges.
(3) Whether or not FEU is guilty of culpa contractual

HELD (1)
The incident took place inside the premise of the respondent and the petitioner was enrolled as
a second year law student in the university when the incident happened. Therefore, a
contractual obligation between the two parties exist. The petitioner, as a student of the
respondent shall comply with the rules and regulations of the university and the respondent as
a learning institution is obliged to provide the students to pursue education and a safe learning
environment.

HELD (2)
The on duty security guard, Alejandro Rosete who accidentally shot the petitioner is not an
employee of Far Eastern University but an employee of Galaxy Development and Management
Corporation, a third party company which the respondents have a contract with in regards of
providing security for the university. Therefore, Galaxy Development and Management
Corporations is liable for damages.
HELD (3)
The respondents failed to fulfill its obligation of giving the students a safe learning environment
by the incident that happened within the campus and that the respondents failed to show that
they assed their guards if they met the requirements in the Security Service Agreement.

SPOUSES SALVADOR ABELLA v. SPOUSES ROMEO ABELLA

G.R. No. 195166, July 08, 2015

Petitioners Spouses Salvador and Alma Abella filed a Complaint for the sum of money
and damages against the respondents, Spouses Romeo and Annie Abella. It was alleged
that the respondents loaned from the petitioners an amount of P500K which is payable
within 1 year. The loan was acknowledged by a receipt dated on March 22, 1999.
According to the petitioners, the respondents payed P200k on two separate payments,
P100K each.

In the defense of the respondents, the amount involved was not a loan. Instead, the
petitioners lend money to the respondents for the capital of a joint venture.

On December 28, 2005, the RTC ruled in favor of petitioners resulting that the
respondents were in debt of P500K which was payable within 1 year and that the latter
still have to pay an amount of P300K to the petitioners. The indebtedness of the
respondents was subject to interest.

However, the Court of Appeals ruled that the respondents are no longer liable to pay the
P300K debt. The loan could not have interest because according to Article 1956 of the
Civil Code, interest should be made in writing for it to be applicable. No proof or evidence
was presented to showcase the interest to be charged. Thus, the interest payment of
2.5% per month were invalid.

ISSUE
(1) What contract was entered into by the parties?
(2) Whether or not interest accrued on the loan

HELD (1)
The parties entered into a simple contract of loan (mutuum) whereby one of the parties
delivers to another money or another consumable thing with the understanding that the
same amount of the same kind and quality shall be paid.

HELD (2)
According to article 1956 of the Civil Code, no interest shall be due unless it has been
expressly stipulated in writing. In this case, a particular interest rate was not specified in
the acknowledgement receipt of the parties. However, it should be noted in the
absences of a stipulation of an interest rate, the rate allowed shall not go forth above
6% per annum.