Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Baguio City
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 179337 April 30, 2008
OSEPH SA!UDAGA, petitioner,
vs.
"AR EASTERN UNIVERSIT# $%& EDI!'ERTO C. DE ESUS i% (i) *$p$*i+, $) Pr-)i&-%+ o. "EU,respondents.
D E C I S I O N
#NARES/SANTIAGO, J.0
This Petition for Review on Certiorari
1
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the une !", !##$ %ecision
!
of the
Court of &ppeals in C&'(.R. C) *o. +$#5#, nullifying and setting aside the *ove,ber 1#, !##4 %ecision
-
of the
Regional Trial Court of .anila, Branch !, in Civil Case *o. "+'+"4+- and dis,issing the co,plaint filed by petitioner/
as well as its &ugust !-, !##$ Resolution
4
denying the .otion for Reconsideration.
5
The antecedent facts are as follows0
Petitioner oseph 1aludaga was a sopho,ore law student of respondent 2ar 3astern 4niversity 52346 when he was
shot by &le7andro Rosete 5Rosete6, one of the security guards on duty at the school pre,ises on &ugust 1+, 1""8.
Petitioner was rushed to 234'%r. *icanor Reyes .edical 2oundation 5234'*R.26 due to the wound he
sustained.
8
.eanwhile, Rosete was brought to the police station where he e9plained that the shooting was
accidental. :e was eventually released considering that no for,al co,plaint was filed against hi,.
Petitioner thereafter filed a co,plaint for da,ages against respondents on the ground that they breached their
obligation to provide students with a safe and secure environ,ent and an at,osphere conducive to learning.
Respondents, in turn, filed a Third'Party Co,plaint
$
against (ala9y %evelop,ent and .anage,ent Corporation
5(ala9y6, the agency contracted by respondent 234 to provide security services within its pre,ises and .ariano %.
;,perial 5;,perial6, (ala9y<s President, to inde,nify the, for whatever would be ad7udged in favor of petitioner, if
any/ and to pay attorney<s fees and cost of the suit. =n the other hand, (ala9y and ;,perial filed a 2ourth'Party
Co,plaint against &2P (eneral ;nsurance.
+
=n *ove,ber 1#, !##4, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of petitioner, the dispositive portion of which
reads0
>:3R32=R3, fro, the foregoing, 7udg,ent is hereby rendered ordering0
1. 234 and 3dilberto de esus, in his capacity as president of 234 to pay 7ointly and severally
oseph 1aludaga the a,ount of P-5,!"+.!5 for actual da,ages with 1!? interest per annu, fro,
the filing of the co,plaint until fully paid/ ,oral da,ages of P-##,###.##, e9e,plary da,ages of
P5##,###.##, attorney<s fees of P1##,###.## and cost of the suit/
!. (ala9y .anage,ent and %evelop,ent Corp. and its president, Col. .ariano ;,perial to inde,nify
7ointly and severally -rd party plaintiffs 5234 and 3dilberto de esus in his capacity as President of
2346 for the above',entioned a,ounts/
-. &nd the 4th party co,plaint is dis,issed for lac@ of cause of action. *o pronounce,ent as to
costs.
1= =R%3R3%.
"
Respondents appealed to the Court of &ppeals which rendered the assailed %ecision, the decretal portion of which
provides, viz0
>:3R32=R3, the appeal is hereby (R&*T3%. The %ecision dated *ove,ber 1#, !##4 is hereby
R3)3R13% and 13T &1;%3. The co,plaint filed by oseph 1aludaga against appellant 2ar 3astern
4niversity and its President in Civil Case *o. "+'+"4+- is %;1.;113%.
1= =R%3R3%.
1#
Petitioner filed a .otion for Reconsideration which was denied/ hence, the instant petition based on the following
grounds0
T:3 C=4RT =2 &PP3&A1 13R;=41AB 3RR3% ;* .&**3R C=*TR&RB T= A&> &*%
4R;1PR4%3*C3 ;* R4A;*( T:&T0
5.1. T:3 1:==T;*( ;*C;%3*T ;1 & 2=RT4;T=41 3)3*T/
5.!. R31P=*%3*T1 &R3 *=T A;&BA3 2=R %&.&(31 2=R T:3 ;*4RB R314AT;*( 2R=. &
(4*1:=T >=4*% 14223R3% BB T:3 P3T;T;=*3R 2R=. T:3 :&*%1 =2 *= A311 T:&* T:3;R
=>* 13C4R;TB (4&R% ;* );=A&T;=* =2 T:3;R B4;AT';* C=*TR&CT4&A =BA;(&T;=* T=
P3T;T;=*3R, B3;*( T:3;R A&> 1T4%3*T &T T:&T T;.3, T= PR=);%3 :;. >;T: & 1&23 &*%
13C4R3 3%4C&T;=*&A 3*);R=*.3*T/
5.-. 13C4R;TB (&4R%, &A3&*%R= R=13T3, >:= 1:=T P3T;T;=*3R >:;A3 :3 >&1 >&AC;*(
=* :;1 >&B T= T:3 A&> A;BR&RB =2 R31P=*%3*T 234 ;1 *=T T:3;R 3.PA=B33 BB );RT43 =2
T:3 C=*TR&CT 2=R 13C4R;TB 13R);C31 B3T>33* (&A&DB &*% 234 *=T>;T:1T&*%;*( T:3
2&CT T:&T P3T;T;=*3R, *=T B3;*( & P&RTB T= ;T, ;1 *=T B=4*% BB T:3 1&.3 4*%3R T:3
PR;*C;PA3 =2 R3A&T;);TB =2 C=*TR&CT1/ and
5.4. R31P=*%3*T 3D3RC;13% %43 %;A;(3*C3 ;* 13A3CT;*( (&A&DB &1 T:3 &(3*CB >:;C:
>=4A% PR=);%3 13C4R;TB 13R);C31 >;T:;* T:3 PR3.;131 =2 R31P=*%3*T 234.
11
Petitioner is suing respondents for da,ages based on the alleged breach of student'school contract for a safe
learning environ,ent. The pertinent portions of petitioner<s Co,plaint read0
8.#. &t the ti,e of plaintiff<s confine,ent, the defendants or any of their representative did not bother to visit
and inEuire about his condition. This ab7ect indifference on the part of the defendants continued even after
plaintiff was discharged fro, the hospital when not even a word of consolation was heard fro, the,.
Plaintiff waited for ,ore than one 516 year for the defendants to perfor, their ,oral obligation but the wait
was fruitless. This indifference and total lac@ of concern of defendants served to e9acerbate plaintiff<s
,iserable condition.
9 9 9 9
11.#. %efendants are responsible for ensuring the safety of its students while the latter are within the
4niversity pre,ises. &nd that should anything untoward happens to any of its students while they are within
the 4niversity<s pre,ises shall be the responsibility of the defendants. ;n this case, defendants, despite
being legally and ,orally bound, ,iserably failed to protect plaintiff fro, in7ury and thereafter, to ,itigate and
co,pensate plaintiff for said in7ury/
1!.#. >hen plaintiff enrolled with defendant 234, a contract was entered into between the,. 4nder this
contract, defendants are supposed to ensure that adeEuate steps are ta@en to provide an at,osphere
conducive to study and ensure the safety of the plaintiff while inside defendant 234<s pre,ises. ;n the
instant case, the latter breached this contract when defendant allowed har, to befall upon the plaintiff when
he was shot at by, of all people, their security guard who was tas@ed to ,aintain peace inside the ca,pus.
1!
;n Philippine School of Business Administration v. Court of Appeals,
1-
we held that0
>hen an acade,ic institution accepts students for enroll,ent, there is established a contract between the,,
resulting in bilateral obligations which both parties are bound to co,ply with. 2or its part, the school
underta@es to provide the student with an education that would presu,ably suffice to eEuip hi, with the
necessary tools and s@ills to pursue higher education or a profession. =n the other hand, the student
covenants to abide by the school<s acade,ic reEuire,ents and observe its rules and regulations.
;nstitutions of learning ,ust also ,eet the i,plicit or Fbuilt'inF obligation of providing their students with an
at,osphere that pro,otes or assists in attaining its pri,ary underta@ing of i,parting @nowledge. Certainly,
no student can absorb the intricacies of physics or higher ,athe,atics or e9plore the real, of the arts and
other sciences when bullets are flying or grenades e9ploding in the air or where there loo,s around the
school pre,ises a constant threat to life and li,b. *ecessarily, the school ,ust ensure that adeEuate steps
are ta@en to ,aintain peace and order within the ca,pus pre,ises and to prevent the brea@down thereof.
14
;t is undisputed that petitioner was enrolled as a sopho,ore law student in respondent 234. &s such, there was
created a contractual obligation between the two parties. =n petitioner<s part, he was obliged to co,ply with the
rules and regulations of the school. =n the other hand, respondent 234, as a learning institution is ,andated to
i,part @nowledge and eEuip its students with the necessary s@ills to pursue higher education or a profession. &t the
sa,e ti,e, it is obliged to ensure and ta@e adeEuate steps to ,aintain peace and order within the ca,pus.
;t is settled that in culpa contractual, the ,ere proof of the e9istence of the contract and the failure of its co,pliance
7ustify, pri,a facie, a corresponding right of relief.
15
;n the instant case, we find that, when petitioner was shot inside
the ca,pus by no less the security guard who was hired to ,aintain peace and secure the pre,ises, there is a
pri,a facie showing that respondents failed to co,ply with its obligation to provide a safe and secure environ,ent
to its students.
;n 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 e,ployee/
18
and
that they co,plied with their obligation to ensure a safe learning environ,ent for their students by having e9ercised
due diligence in selecting the security services of (ala9y.
&fter a thorough review of the records, we find that respondents failed to discharge the burden of proving that they
e9ercised due diligence in providing a safe learning environ,ent for their students. They failed to prove that they
ensured that the guards assigned in the ca,pus ,et the reEuire,ents stipulated in the 1ecurity 1ervice &gree,ent.
;ndeed, certain docu,ents about (ala9y were presented during trial/ however, no evidence as to the Eualifications
of Rosete as a security guard for the university was offered.
Respondents also failed to show that they undertoo@ steps to ascertain and confir, that the security guards
assigned to the, actually possess the Eualifications reEuired in the 1ecurity 1ervice &gree,ent. ;t was not proven
that they e9a,ined the clearances, psychiatric test results, !#1 files, and other vital docu,ents enu,erated in its
contract with (ala9y. Total reliance on the security agency about these ,atters or failure to chec@ the papers stating
the Eualifications of the guards is negligence on the part of respondents. & learning institution should not be allowed
to co,pletely relinEuish or abdicate security ,atters in its pre,ises to the security agency it hired. To do so would
result to contracting away its inherent obligation to ensure a safe learning environ,ent for its students.
ConseEuently, respondents< defense of force majeure ,ust fail. ;n order for force majeure to be considered,
respondents ,ust show that no negligence or ,isconduct was co,,itted that ,ay have occasioned the loss. &n
act of (od cannot be invo@ed to protect a person who has failed to ta@e steps to forestall the possible adverse
conseEuences of such a loss. =ne<s negligence ,ay have concurred with an act of (od in producing da,age and
in7ury to another/ nonetheless, showing that the i,,ediate or pro9i,ate cause of the da,age or in7ury was a
fortuitous event would not e9e,pt one fro, liability. >hen 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 hu,aniGed and
re,oved fro, the rules applicable to acts of (od.
1$
&rticle 11$# of the Civil Code provides that those who are negligent in the perfor,ance of their obligations are liable
for da,ages. &ccordingly, for breach of contract due to negligence in providing a safe learning environ,ent,
respondent 234 is liable to petitioner for da,ages. ;t is essential in the award of da,ages that the clai,ant ,ust
have satisfactorily proven during the trial the e9istence of the factual basis of the da,ages and its causal connection
to defendant<s acts.
1+
;n the instant case, it was established that petitioner spent P-5,!"+.!5 for his hospitaliGation and other ,edical
e9penses.
1"
>hile the trial court correctly i,posed interest on said a,ount, however, the case at bar involves an
obligation arising fro, a contract and not a loan or forbearance of ,oney. &s such, the proper rate of legal interest is
si9 percent 58?6 per annu, of the a,ount de,anded. 1uch interest shall continue to run fro, the filing of the
co,plaint until the finality of this %ecision.
!#
&fter this %ecision beco,es final and e9ecutory, the applicable rate shall
be twelve percent 51!?6 per annu, until its satisfaction.
The other e9penses being clai,ed by petitioner, such as transportation e9penses and those incurred in hiring a
personal assistant while recuperating were however not duly supported by receipts.
!1
;n the absence thereof, no
actual da,ages ,ay be awarded. *onetheless, te,perate da,ages under &rt. !!!4 of the Civil Code ,ay be
recovered where it has been shown that the clai,ant suffered so,e pecuniary loss but the a,ount thereof cannot
be proved with certainty. :ence, the a,ount of P!#,###.## as te,perate da,ages is awarded to petitioner.
&s regards the award of ,oral da,ages, there is no hard and fast rule in the deter,ination of what would be a fair
a,ount of ,oral da,ages since each case ,ust be governed by its own peculiar circu,stances.
!!
The testi,ony of
petitioner about his physical suffering, ,ental anguish, fright, serious an9iety, and ,oral shoc@ resulting fro, the
shooting incident
!-
7ustify the award of ,oral da,ages. :owever, ,oral da,ages are in the category of an award
designed to co,pensate the clai,ant for actual in7ury suffered and not to i,pose a penalty on the wrongdoer. The
award is not ,eant to enrich the co,plainant at the e9pense of the defendant, but to enable the in7ured party to
obtain ,eans, diversion, or a,use,ents that will serve to obviate the ,oral suffering he has undergone. ;t is ai,ed
at the restoration, within the li,its of the possible, of the spiritual status Euo ante, and should be proportionate to the
suffering inflicted. Trial courts ,ust then guard against the award of e9orbitant da,ages/ they should e9ercise
balanced restrained and ,easured ob7ectivity to avoid suspicion that it was due to passion, pre7udice, or corruption
on the part of the trial court.
!4
>e dee, it 7ust and reasonable under the circu,stances to award petitioner ,oral
da,ages in the a,ount of P1##,###.##.
Ai@ewise, attorney<s fees and litigation e9penses in the a,ount of P5#,###.## as part of da,ages is reasonable in
view of &rticle !!#+ of the Civil Code.
!5
:owever, the award of e9e,plary da,ages is deleted considering the
absence of proof that respondents acted in a wanton, fraudulent, rec@less, oppressive, or ,alevolent ,anner.
>e note that the trial court held respondent %e esus solidarily liable with respondent 234. ;n Powton
Conglomerate, Inc. v. Agcolicol,
!8
we held that0
H&I corporation is invested by law with a personality separate and distinct fro, those of the persons
co,posing it, such that, save for certain e9ceptions, 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 5although not necessarily6 with the corporation ,ay so validly
attach, as a rule, only when ' 516 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
da,ages to the corporation, its stoc@holders or other persons/ 5!6 he consents to the issuance of watered
down stoc@s or who, having @nowledge thereof, does not forthwith file with the corporate secretary his
written ob7ection thereto/ 5-6 he agrees to hold hi,self personally and solidarily liable with the corporation/ or
546 he is ,ade by a specific provision of law personally answerable for his corporate action.
!$
*one of the foregoing e9ceptions was established in the instant case/ hence, respondent %e esus should not be
held solidarily liable with respondent 234.
;ncidentally, although the ,ain 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 &rticle !1+# of the Civil Code, which
provides0
&rt. !1+#. The obligation i,posed by &rticle !1$8 is de,andable not only for one<s own acts or o,issions,
but also for those of persons for who, one is responsible.
9 9 9 9
3,ployers shall be liable for the da,ages caused by their e,ployees and household helpers acting within
the scope of their assigned tas@s, even though the for,er are not engaged in any business or industry.
9 9 9 9
The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein ,entioned prove that they
observed all the diligence of a good father of a fa,ily to prevent da,age.
>e agree with the findings of the Court of &ppeals that respondents cannot be held liable for da,ages under &rt.
!1+# of the Civil Code because respondents are not the e,ployers of Rosete. The latter was e,ployed by (ala9y.
The instructions issued by respondents< 1ecurity Consultant to (ala9y and its security guards are ordinarily no ,ore
than reEuests co,,only envisaged in the contract for services entered into by a principal and a security agency.
They cannot be construed as the ele,ent of control as to treat respondents as the e,ployers of Rosete.
!+
&s held in Mercur !rug Corporation v. "i#unao0
!"
;n Soliman, $r. v. %uazon,
-#
we held that where the security agency recruits, hires and assigns the wor@s of
its watch,en or security guards to a client, the e,ployer of such guards or watch,en 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 fa,ily cannot be de,anded fro, the said client0
J H;It is settled in our 7urisdiction that where the security agency, as here, recruits, hires and assigns
the wor@ of its watch,en or security guards, the agency is the e,ployer of such guards or
watch,en. Aiability for illegal or har,ful acts co,,itted by the security guards attaches to the
e,ployer agency, and not to the clients or custo,ers of such agency. &s a general rule, a client or
custo,er of a security agency has no hand in selecting who a,ong the pool of security guards or
watch,en e,ployed by the agency shall be assigned to it/ the duty to observe the diligence of a
good father of a fa,ily in the selection of the guards cannot, in the ordinary course of events, be
de,anded fro, the client whose pre,ises or property are protected by the security guards.
9 9 9 9
The fact that a client co,pany ,ay give instructions or directions to the security guards assigned to it, does
not, by itself, render the client responsible as an e,ployer of the security guards concerned and liable for
their wrongful acts or o,issions.
-1
>e now co,e to respondents< Third Party Clai, against (ala9y. ;n &irestone %ire and 'u##er Compan of the
Philippines v. %empeng(o,
-!
we held that0
The third'party co,plaint is, therefore, a procedural device whereby a <third party< who is neither a party nor
privy to the act or deed co,plained of by the plaintiff, ,ay 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, inde,nity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of the plaintiff<s clai,. The third'party
co,plaint is actually independent of and separate and distinct fro, the plaintiff<s co,plaint. >ere it not for
this provision of the Rules of Court, it would have to be filed independently and separately fro, the original
co,plaint by the defendant against the third'party. But the Rules per,it defendant to bring in a third'party
defendant or so to spea@, to litigate his separate cause of action in respect of plaintiff<s clai, against a third'
party in the original and principal case with the ob7ect of avoiding circuitry of action and unnecessary
proliferation of law suits and of disposing e9peditiously in one litigation the entire sub7ect ,atter arising fro,
one particular set of facts.
--
Respondents and (ala9y were able to litigate their respective clai,s and defenses in the course of the trial of
petitioner<s co,plaint. 3vidence duly supports the findings of the trial court that (ala9y is negligent not only in the
selection of its e,ployees but also in their supervision. ;ndeed, no ad,inistrative sanction was i,posed against
Rosete despite the shooting incident/ ,oreover, he was even allowed to go on leave of absence which led
eventually to his disappearance.
-4
(ala9y also failed to ,onitor petitioner<s condition or e9tend the necessary
assistance, other than the P5,###.## initially given to petitioner. (ala9y and ;,perial failed to ,a@e good their
pledge to rei,burse petitioner<s ,edical e9penses.
2or these acts of negligence and for having supplied respondent 234 with an unEualified security guard, which
resulted to the latter<s breach of obligation to petitioner, it is proper to hold (ala9y liable to respondent 234 for such
da,ages eEuivalent to the above',entioned a,ounts awarded to petitioner.
4nli@e respondent %e esus, we dee, ;,perial to be solidarily liable with (ala9y for being grossly negligent in
directing the affairs of the security agency. ;t was ;,perial who assured petitioner that his ,edical e9penses will be
shouldered by (ala9y but said representations were not fulfilled because they presu,ed that petitioner and his
fa,ily were no longer interested in filing a for,al co,plaint against the,.
-5
1HERE"ORE, the petition is GRANTED. The une !", !##$ %ecision of the Court of &ppeals in C&'(.R. C) *o.
+$#5# nullifying the %ecision of the trial court and dis,issing the co,plaint as well as the &ugust !-, !##$
Resolution denying the .otion for Reconsideration are REVERSED $%& SET ASIDE. The %ecision of the Regional
Trial Court of .anila, Branch !, in Civil Case *o. "+'+"4+- finding respondent 234 liable for da,ages for breach of
its obligation to provide students with a safe and secure learning at,osphere, is A""IRMED with the
followingMODI"ICATIONS0
a. respondent 2ar 3astern 4niversity 52346 is ORDERED to pay petitioner actual da,ages in the a,ount of
P-5,!"+.!5, plus 8? interest per annu, fro, the filing of the co,plaint until the finality of this %ecision. &fter this
decision beco,es final and e9ecutory, the applicable rate shall be twelve percent 51!?6 per annu, until its
satisfaction/
b. respondent 234 is also ORDERED to pay petitioner te,perate da,ages in the a,ount of P!#,###.##/ ,oral
da,ages in the a,ount of P1##,###.##/ and attorney<s fees and litigation e9penses in the a,ount of P5#,###.##/
c. the award of e9e,plary da,ages is DE!ETED.
The Co,plaint against respondent 3dilberto C. %e esus is DISMISSED. The counterclai,s of respondents are
li@ewise DISMISSED.
(ala9y %evelop,ent and .anage,ent Corporation 5(ala9y6 and its president, .ariano %. ;,perial
are ORDEREDto 7ointly and severally pay respondent 234 da,ages eEuivalent to the above',entioned a,ounts
awarded to petitioner.
SO ORDERED.