Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

TORTS : CASE #2 SALUDAGA VS.

FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY ( 553 SCRA 741, APRIL 30, 2008) FACTS: Petitioner Joseph Saludaga a sophomore law student of respondent Far Eastern University (FEU) when he was shot by Alejandro Rosete, one of the security guards on duty at the school premises. Saludaga was brought to the hospital while Rosete to the Police station who explained that the shooting was accidental. Rosete was released for no formal complaint was filed. Petitioner thereafter filed a complaint for damages on the ground of breach of contract. Respondents contention that the incident was a fortuitous event. Third Party Complaint filed by respondent against Galaxy Development, the agency who provide security services, to indemnify them for whatever cost adjudged in favor of petitioner. RTCs decision is in favor of petitioner that FEU and its President should pay jointly and severally. CAs decision Reversed RTC. Motion for Reconsideration by petitioner is denied. Appealed to SC. ISSUE: 1. Should FEU be liable for damages? 2. Should the President of the School be jointly and severally liable? 3. Should Galaxy be made liable under the 3rd party complaint? RULING: 1.YES. Under Art 1170. For the breach of contract due to negligence in providing a safe learning environment. Saludaga being enrolled in FEU creates a contractual obligation between the two parties. The former is obliged to comply with the rules and regulations of the school and 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 ensure and take adequate steps to maintain peace and order within the campus. 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. Art 1170 of the Civil Code provides that those who are negligent in the performance of their obligation are liable for damages., respondent FEU is liable for damages. Respondents 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. There was total reliance on the agency which showed negligence on their part.

FORCE MAJEURE can only be availed of only when there was no negligence and misconduct was committed that may have occasioned the loss. Not liable under Art. 2180 where the employer is liable for the acts of his employee for the FEU is not the employer of the security guard being employed by the Galaxy. Therefore the liability of FEU on damages would be the actual damages incurred supported with receipts with 6% interest per annum from the filing of the complaint until the finality of the decision. After the decision becomes final and executor the rate would be 12% per annum until its satisfaction. Other damages would be the temperate damages where the claimant suffered some pecuniary loss but the amount thereof cannot be proved with certainty, moral damages base on the testimony of the petitioner about his physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, and moral shock resulting from the incident. Attorneys fees and litigation expenses. But no exemplary damages for it was not shown that he acted with wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.

2. FEU alone is liable for damages for breach of obligation to the exclusion of the President for the corporation has separate and distinct personality from the persons composing it unless he ratifies or assents to the unlawful act of the corporation or he acted outside his authority. 3.Respondent Galaxy should be made liable for being negligent not only the selection of its employees but also in their supervision. No administrative sanction was given to the security guard infact he was even allowed to on leave which led to his disappearance. It has supplied FEU with unqualified guard which resulted to the breach of obligation to petitioner. Therefore it is proper to hold Galaxy liable to respondent FEU for such damages equivalent to the amount awarded to Saludaga.