G.R. No. 179337, April 30, 2008, Saludaga, petitioner v.

FEU, respondents
Ynares-Santiago, J.

Facts:

 This case pertains to filed by petitioner Joseph Saludaga, while a sophomore law student at Far Eastern University
(FEU), was shot by Alejandro Rosete, a security guard on duty at the school, on August 18, 1996.

 Rosete was taken to the police station and claimed that the shooting was accidental. He was released as no formal
complaint was lodged against him.

 Subsequently, Saludaga filed a damages complaint against the respondents, alleging that they failed in their duty to
provide students with a safe and secure environment conducive to learning.

 In response, the respondents filed a Third-Party Complaint against Galaxy Development and Management
Corporation (Galaxy), the agency contracted by FEU for security services, and Mariano D. Imperial, Galaxy's
President. They sought indemnification for any judgment rendered in favor of Saludaga.

 The trial court ruled in favor of Saludaga, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, dismissing Saludaga's
complaint.

Issue:

Whether or not the FEU liable for damages for failing to provide a safe and secure learning environment, resulting in
Saludaga being shot by a security guard contracted by the university.

Ruling: Yes.

Yes. The Supreme Court granted Saludaga's petition, reversing the Court of Appeals' decision.

It was determined that FEU breached its contractual obligation to provide a safe learning environment (citing the
precedent case of PSBA v. students), as evidenced by Saludaga's shooting within its premises by a security guard hired
by FEU through Galaxy.

The court holds FEU liable due to its failure to provide a safe environment, as evidenced by the shooting incident involving
its security guard.

FEU's defense of force majeure is dismissed, as it failed to demonstrate that it exercised due diligence in selecting and
supervising its security personnel or that an act of God cannot be invoked or excuse someone from liability if they didn't
take reasonable steps to prevent potential harm.

Furthermore, the court agrees with CA's conclusion that the respondents cannot be deemed responsible for damages
under Article 2180 of the Civil Code because they were not the employers of Rosete.

Rosete was employed by Galaxy. The directives provided by the FEU Security Consultant to Galaxy and its security
personnel typically represent standard requests outlined in a contractual agreement between a principal and a security
agency. These instructions do not constitute sufficient control over Rosete's employment to warrant treating the
respondents as his employers.

As it is held under the case of Soliman v. Tuazon,

Liability for illegal or harmful acts committed by the security guards attaches to the employer agency, and not to the clients
or customers.

As a general rule, a client or customer of a security agency has no role in selecting which security guards are employed
by the agency, and the duty to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family in the selection of the guards.

Therefore, the court finds no basis for holding FEU's President, Edilberto C. De Jesus, personally liable. The Galaxy
agecy and its President, Mariano D. Imperial, are held jointly and severally liable for damages, as they were negligent in
providing security services to FEU.
In summary, the petition is granted, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. FEU is ordered to pay damages
to Saludaga, and Galaxy and its President are held liable for damages to FEU.