Supreme Court Reports Annotated Volume 553

Close Reader
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 553
Information | Reference
Case Title:
JOSEPH SALUDAGA, petitioner, vs.
FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY and
EDILBERTO C. DE JESUS in his
capacity as President of FEU, Where the accused were charged with separate crimes
respondents. of carnapping and murder, they cannot be convicted of the
Citation: 553 SCRA 741 qualified carnapping constitutive of the various crimes
More... 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,
Search Result 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 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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169c873d…03600fb002c009e/p/AUB820/?username=Guest&device=ipad 29/03/2019, 3I58 PM

Page 1 of 16
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

Page 2 of 16
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

Page 3 of 16
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

Page 4 of 16
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-

Page 5 of 16
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

Page 6 of 16
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

Page 7 of 16
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


Page 8 of 16
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

Page 9 of 16
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

Page 10 of 16
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

Page 11 of 16
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

Page 12 of 16
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

Page 13 of 16
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
_______________

Page 14 of 16
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··

Page 15 of 16
© Copyright 2010 CentralBooks Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 16 of 16

Supreme Court Reports Annotated Volume 553

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

Supreme Court Reports Annotated Volume 553

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Close Reader

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 553

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

JOSEPH SALUDAGA, petitioner, vs. FAR EASTERN

Colleges and Universities; Obligations and Contracts; Where

742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Saludaga vs. Far Eastern University

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169c873d…03600fb002c009e/p/AUB820/?username=Guest&device=ipad 29/03/2019, 3I58 PM

VOL. 553, APRIL 30, 2008 743

Saludaga vs. Far Eastern University

Code provides that those who are negligent in the performance of

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169c873d…03600fb002c009e/p/AUB820/?username=Guest&device=ipad 29/03/2019, 3I58 PM

744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Saludaga vs. Far Eastern University

able under the circumstances to award petitioner moral damages

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169c873d…03600fb002c009e/p/AUB820/?username=Guest&device=ipad 29/03/2019, 3I58 PM

VOL. 553, APRIL 30, 2008 745

Saludaga vs. Far Eastern University

quests commonly envisaged in the contract for services entered

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169c873d…03600fb002c009e/p/AUB820/?username=Guest&device=ipad 29/03/2019, 3I58 PM

746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Saludaga vs. Far Eastern University

fied security guard, which resulted in the latterÊs breach of

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

1 Rollo, pp. 3-33.

VOL. 553, APRIL 30, 2008 747

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

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169c873d…03600fb002c009e/p/AUB820/?username=Guest&device=ipad 29/03/2019, 3I58 PM

„WHEREFORE, from the foregoing, judgment is hereby

4 Id., at pp. 64-65.

748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

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

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169c873d…03600fb002c009e/p/AUB820/?username=Guest&device=ipad 29/03/2019, 3I58 PM

„WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was

THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN

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

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169c873d…03600fb002c009e/p/AUB820/?username=Guest&device=ipad 29/03/2019, 3I58 PM

11 Id., at pp. 13-14.

750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

11.0. Defendants are responsible for ensuring the safety of

In Philippine School of Business Administration v.

„When an academic institution accepts students for

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

VOL. 553, APRIL 30, 2008 751

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169c873d…03600fb002c009e/p/AUB820/?username=Guest&device=ipad 29/03/2019, 3I58 PM

It is undisputed that petitioner was enrolled as a

14 Id., at pp. 733-734.

752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

sured that the guards assigned in the campus met the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169c873d…03600fb002c009e/p/AUB820/?username=Guest&device=ipad 29/03/2019, 3I58 PM

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

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169c873d…03600fb002c009e/p/AUB820/?username=Guest&device=ipad 29/03/2019, 3I58 PM

18 Roque, Jr. v. Torres, G.R. No. 157632, December 6, 2006, 510

754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

As regards the award of moral damages, there is no

22 Roque v. Torres, supra note 18 at p. 349.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000169c873d…03600fb002c009e/p/AUB820/?username=Guest&device=ipad 29/03/2019, 3I58 PM