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.

FACTS

Petitioner Joseph Saludaga, a law student at respondent Far Eastern University (FEU), was accidentally shot by security guard Alejandro Rosete on August 18, 1996, while within the school premises. Rosete was employed by Galaxy Development and Management Corporation, a security agency contracted by FEU. Saludaga filed a complaint for damages against FEU and its President, alleging a breach of their contractual obligation to provide students with a safe and secure educational environment. FEU, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against Galaxy and its president for indemnity.
The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Saludaga, ordering FEU to pay him actual, moral, and exemplary damages, plus attorney’s fees. It also ordered Galaxy to indemnify FEU. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, dismissing Saludaga’s complaint. It held that the shooting was a fortuitous event, that Rosete was not FEU’s employee, and that FEU exercised due diligence in selecting Galaxy. Saludaga elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether respondent FEU is liable for damages arising from the shooting of petitioner by a security guard provided by an independent contractor.

RULING

Yes, FEU is liable. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s decision with modifications on the award of attorney’s fees. The Court held that a contract exists between a school and its student, which includes an implicit obligation to ensure the student’s safety within the campus. This duty is not delegable to an independent security agency. FEU’s failure to provide a safe environment constitutes a breach of this contractual obligation, making it liable for damages.
The shooting was not a fortuitous event, as the act of negligently handling a firearm, which led to the accidental discharge, is a preventable human act. The principle of relativity of contracts does not shield FEU, as the contract for security services between FEU and Galaxy cannot bind the petitioner, who is not a party thereto. The school’s primary duty to ensure safety remains. While FEU may have exercised diligence in selecting Galaxy, this does not absolve it of its direct contractual liability to its students for failing to provide a secure premises. Consequently, FEU is solidarily liable for damages, but it is entitled to be indemnified by Galaxy, the security agency whose employee’s negligent act directly caused the injury.