Saludaga vs FEU (Civil Law)

G.R. No. 179337             April 30, 2008

JOSEPH SALUDAGA vs. FEU and EDILBERTO C. DE JESUS (President of FEU)

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner Joseph Saludaga was a sophomore law student of (FEU) when he was shot by Alejandro Rosete, one of the security guards on duty at the school premises on August 18, 1996. Petitioner was rushed to FEU Hospital due to the wound he sustained. 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.

Saludaga thereafter filed with RTC Manila 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 Complaint against Galaxy Dvpt and Mgt Corp. (Galaxy), the agency contracted by FEU to provide security services within its premises and Mariano D. Imperial (Imperial), Galaxy's President, to indemnify them for whatever would be adjudged in favor of petitioner, if any; and to pay attorney's fees and cost of the suit. On the other hand, Galaxy and Imperial filed a Fourth-Party Complaint against AFP General Insurance.

On Nov.10, 2004, the trial court ruled in favor of Saludaga, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, from the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered ordering:

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 xxx, exemplary damages xx, attorney's fees xx and cost of the suit;

2. Galaxy 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.

Respondents appealed to the CA which ruled in its favor, reversing the RTC decision, dismissing the complaint, and also denying Saludaga’s subsequent MR. Hence, the instant petition based on the following grounds:

THE CA SERIOUSLY ERRED....IN RULING THAT:

5.1. THE SHOOTING INCIDENT IS A FORTUITOUS EVENT;

5.2. RESPONDENTS ARE NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES FOR THE INJURY RESULTING FROM A GUNSHOT WOUND SUFFERED BY THE PETITIONER.....IN VIOLATION OF THEIR....CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO PETITIONER.......TO PROVIDE HIM WITH A SAFE AND SECURE EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT;

5.3. ALEJANDRO ROSETE....IS NOT FEU’S EMPLOYEE.....; and

5.4. RESPONDENT EXERCISED DUE DILIGENCE IN SELECTING GALAXY AS THE AGENCY WHICH WOULD PROVIDE SECURITY SERVICES WITHIN THE PREMISES OF RESPONDENT FEU.

ISSUES:

WON Saludaga may claim damages from FEU for breach of student-school contract for a safe learning environment

Whether FEU’s liability is based on quasi-delict or on contract

From what source of obligation did the other claims arose?

HELD:

1) Yes.

2) FEU’s liability is based on contract, not quasi-delict.

3) Quasi-delict – vicarious liability between Galaxy Agency and security guard Rosete

Quasi-delict – but SC held that there is no vicarious liability between FEU and Rosete

Quasi-delict – damage to FEU due to the negligence of Galaxy Agency in supplying FEU with an unqualified guard (Imperial, the president of Galaxy is solidarily liable with the agency)

It is undisputed that Saludaga was enrolled as a sophomore law student in FEU. As such, there was created a contractual obligation between the two parties. On Saludaga's part, he was obliged to comply with the rules and regulations of the school. On the other hand, 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. In the instant case when Saludaga 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 FEU failed to comply with its obligation to provide a safe and secure environment to its students.

In order to avoid liability, however, FEU alleged 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; 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, the SC found that FEU 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 ensured that the guards assigned in the campus met the requirements stipulated in the Security Service Agreement. 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. FEU 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.

Consequently, FEU's defense of force majeure must fail. In order for force majeure to be considered, FEU 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. When the effect is found to be partly the result of a person's 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.

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.

We note that the trial court held respondent De Jesus solidarily liable with respondent FEU. In Powton Conglomerate, Inc. v. Agcolicol, we held that:

... 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.

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. However, 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 respondents' 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.

As to the Third Party Claim against Galaxy, evidence duly supports 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 petitioner's condition or extend the necessary assistance. For these acts of negligence and for having supplied respondent FEU with an unqualified security guard, which resulted to the latter's 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.