Saludaga v. FEU,
G.R. No. 179337,
April 30, 2008.
DOCTRINE:
• School obliged to provide a safe learning environment
Institutions of learning must also meet the implicit or “built-in” obligation of providing
their students with an atmosphere that promotes of assists in attaining its primary
undertaking of imparting knowledge.
FACTS:
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.
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 Complaint against Galaxy Development and Management Corporation
(Galaxy), the agency contracted by respondent FEU to provide security services within
its premises to indemnify them for whatever would be adjudged in favor of petitioner.
RTC: ruled that FEU and its President was ordered to pay jointly and severally
Saludaga damages. Galaxy and its President was ordered to indemnify jointly and
severally FEU for such amount.
CA: Dismissed the case stating that:
a) the incident was a fortuitous event;
b) that respondents are not liable for damages for the injury suffered by the petitioner
from the hands of their own security guard in violation of their built-in contractual
obligation to petitioner, being their law student at the time, to provide him with a safe
and secure educational environment;
c) that Rosete, who shot petitioner, was not FEU’s 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,
d) FEU exercised due diligence in selecting Galaxy as the agency which would provide
security services within the respondent FEU.
In his appeal, petitioner sued respondents for damages based on the alleged breach
of student-school contract for a safe learning environment. 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;
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.
ISSUES:
Whether respondent FEU is liable for damages under the student-school contract?
HELD:
Yes, it is undisputed that petitioner was enrolled as a sophomore law student in
respondent FEU. As such, there was a contractual obligation between the two parties.
On petitioner’s 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. 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 the petitioner for damages.
No comments:
Post a Comment