Section 21. Right to Housing. - The State shall develop housing
programs for women that are localized, simple, accessible, with
potable water, and electricity, secure, with viable employment
opportunities and affordable amortization. In this regard, the
State shall consult women and involve them in community planning
and development, especially in matters pertaining to land use,
zoning, and relocation.Section 22. Right to Decent Work. - The
State shall progressively realize and ensure decent work standards
for women that involve the creation of jobs of acceptable uality in
conditions of freedom, euity, security, and human dignity.!a"
#ecent work involves opportunities for work that are productive and
fairly remunerative as family living wage, security in the
workplace, and social protection for families, better prospects for
personal development and social integration, freedom for people to
e$press their concerns organize,participate in the decisions that
affect their lives, and euality of opportunity and treatment for
all women and men.!b" The State shall further ensure%!&"
Support services and gears to protect them from occupational and
health hazards taking into account women's maternal functions(!)"
Support services that will enable women to balance their family
obligations and work responsibilities including, but not limited
to, the establishment of day care centers and breast-feeding
stations at the workplace, and providing maternity leave pursuant
to the *abor+ode and other pertinent laws(!," -embership in unions
regardless of status of employment and place of employment( and!."
/espect for the observance of indigenous peoples' cultural
practices even in the workplace.!c" In recognition of the temporary
nature of overseas work, the State shall e$ert all efforts to
address the causes of out-migration by developing local employment
and other economic opportunities for women and by introducing
measures to curb violence and forced and involuntary displacement
of local women. The State shall ensure the protection and promotion
of the rights and welfare of migrant women regardless of their work
status, and protect them against discrimination in wages,
conditions of work, and employment opportunities in host
countries.Section 23. Right to Livelihood, Credit, Capital, and
Technology. - The State shall ensure that women are provided with
the following%!a" 0ual access to formal sources of credit and
capital(!b" 0ual share to the produce of farms and auatic
resources( and!c" 0mployment opportunities for returning women
migrant workers taking into account their skills and ualifications.
+orollarily, the State shall also promote skills and
entrepreneurship development of returning women migrant
workers.Section 24. Right to Education and Training. - The State
shall ensure the ST. 12S0345S +2**060, S/. 12S034I7I 8-98T8*I,
S:I+, 87# /2S8*I7#8 T89;62, petitionersvs.18,, 1une )?,
)@&@:8+TS%- 7ovember &A, &??., &%,@3-, inside S1+5s
premises, the class to which 1ayson -iranda !a si$th-grader"
belonged was conducting a science e$periment about fusion of
sulphur powder and ironfillingsunder thetutelageof petitioner
/osalindaTabugo, shebeingthesubject teacher andemployee of S1+. The
adviser of 1ayson is 0stefania 8bdan.- Tabugo left her class while
it was doing the e$periment without having adeuately secured it
fromanyuntowardincident or occurrence. Inthemiddleof thee$periment,
1ayson, whowastheassistant leader of one of the class groups,
checked the result of the e$periment by looking intothe test tube
with magnifying glass. The test tube was being held by one of his
group mates whomoved it close and towards the eye of 1ason. 8t that
instance, the compound in the test tubespurted out and several
particles of which hit 1ayson5s eye and the different parts of the
bodies ofsome of his group mates. 8s a result thereof, 1ayson5s
eyes were chemically burned, particularlyhis left eye, for which he
had to undergo surgery and had to spend for his medication.- ;pon
learning of the incident and because of the need for finances,
1ayson5s mother, who wasworking abroad, had to rush back home for
which she spent 3,B,@A@.@@ for her fares, and had toforego her
salary from 7ovember ), C #ecember )B, &??., in the amount of
at least 3.@,@@@.@@.- 1ayson and his parents
sufferedsleeplessnights, mentalanguish and wounded feelings as
aresult of his injury due to petitioners5 fault and failure to
e$ercise the degree of care and diligenceupon each one of them. -
1ayson sent a demand letter to petitioners for the payment of his
medical e$penses as well asother e$penses incidental thereto, which
the latter failed to heed.- 2n the other hand, petitioners alleged
that before the science e$periment was conducted, theclass was
given strict instructions to follow the written procedure for the
e$periment and not tolook into the test tube until the heated
compound had cooled off. 1ayson violated suchinstructions.- 1ayson
was rushed by the school employees to the school clinic and
thereafter transferred to St.*uke5s -edical +enter for treatment.-
8fter the treatment, 1ayson was pronounced ready for discharge and
an eye test showed that hisvision has not been impaired or
affected. In order to avoid additional hospital charges due to
thedelay in 1ayson5s discharge, 1ayson5s father /odolfo reuested
S1+ to advance the amount of3)B,&AB.,> !the hospital bill"
until his wife could arrive from abroad and pay back the money.
S1+acceded to the reuest.- 2n#ecemberB, &??.,
however,theparentsof 1aysonwroteS1+aletterdemandingthat itshould
shoulder all the medical e$penses of 1ayson that had been incurred
and will be incurredfurther arising from the accident. S1+ refused,
saying that the accident occurred by reason
of1ayson5sfailuretocomplywiththewrittenprocedurefor thee$periment
andhisteacher5srepeatedwarnings. 9ecauseof this,
the-irandasfiledfor anactionfor damages againstpetitioners.- /T+
ruled in favor of the -irandas, holding the petitioners jointly and
solidarily liable to pay theamount of 3AA.,,=.)>asactual
damages. 4owever,1aysonisoderedtoreimburseS1+theamount of
3)B,&AB.,B representing the advances given to pay the hospital
e$penses or to deductsaid amount to the AA,,,=.)> by way of
compensation( 3>@,@@@ for moral damages( and 3,@,@@@for
attorney5s fees. +8 affirmed in toto.ISS;0%- D27 the pro$imate
cause of 1ayson5s injury was his own act of looking at the heated
test tube,hence petitioners shouldn5t be held liable40*#%- 72.-
/T+% The immediate and pro$imate cause of the accident which caused
injury to 1ayson was thesuddenandune$pectede$plosionof
thechemicals, independent of anyinterveningcause.3etitioners failed
to show that the negligence of 1ayson was the pro$imate cause of
the injury. - 3etitioners could have prevented the mishap if they
e$ercised a higher degree of care, cautionand foresight. 8ll of the
petitioners are eually at fault and are liable for negligence
because all ofthemareresponsiblefore$ercising
thereuiredreasonablecare and prudence toprevent oravoid injuries to
the students. The individualpetitioners are persons charged with
the teachingand vigilance over their students as well as the
supervision and ensuring their well-being. 9asedon the facts
presented before this +ourt, they were remiss in their
responsibilities and lacking inthe degree of vigilance e$pected of
them.-
7oevidencewaspresentedtoestablishthatTabugowasinsidetheclassroomforthewholedurationof
thee$periment. The+ourt isinclinedtobelievethat Tabugowas72T
insidetheclassroom when the incident happened. It was unnatural in
the ordinary course of events that1ayson was brought to the school
clinic for immediate treatment not by Tabsugo but by somebodyelse.
0stefania 8bdan is eually at fault as the subject adviser in charge
because she e$ercisedcontrol and supervision over Tabugo and the
students themselves. It was her obligation to insurethat nothing
would go wrong and that the science e$periment would be conducted
safely andwithout harm to the students. Sr. 1osephini8mbataliis
likewise culpable under the doctrine ofcommand responsibility
because the other individual petitioners were under her direct
control andsupervision. - It was shown that it was guilty of
ine$cusable la$ity in the supervision of its teachers !despite
anapparent rigid screening process for hiring" and in the
maintenance of what should have been asafe and secured environment
for conducting dangerous e$periments. The school is still liable
forthe wrongful acts of the teachers and employees because it had
full information on the nature ofdangerous science e$periments but
did not take affirmative steps to avert damage and injury
tostudents.- 8n educational institution may be held liable under
the principle of /0S327#07T S;30/I2/.The liability of the employer
for the tortuous acts of negligence of its employees is primary
andsolidary, direct and immediate and not conditioned upon the
insolvency or prior recourse againstthe negligent employee.-
3ro$imate cause was the concurrent failure of petitioners to
prevent the forseeable mishap thatoccurred during the conduct of
the science e$periment. They were negligent by failing to
e$ercisethe higher degree of care, caution and foresight incumbent
upon the school, its administratorsand teachers.- 8rticle )&=
of the :amily +ode bestows special parental authority on the
following persons withthe corresponding obligation, thus%o :+
)&=% The school, its administrators and teachers, or the
individual, entity or institutionengaged inchild care shallhave
specialparentalauthority and responsibilityover theminor child
while under their supervision, instruction or custody.- 8uthority
and responsibility shallapply to allauthorized activities whether
inside or outside thepremises of the school, entity or
institution.- 8nd as provided in 8rt. )&=@%o 8rt. )&=@% The
obligation imposed by 8rt )&AB is demandable not only for one5s
own actsor omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible.- Teachers or heads of establishments of arts and
trades shall be liable for damages caused
bytheirpupilsandstudentsorapprentices,
solongastheyremainintheircustody.3etitioners5negligence and failure
to e$ercise the reuisite degree of care is demonstrated by the
following%o 3etitioner school did not take affirmative steps to
avert damage and injury to its students,although uit had full
information on the nature of dangerous science e$perimentsconducted
by the students during class(o 3etitioner school didnot install
safetymeasurestoprotect thestudentswhoconducte$periments in class(o
3etitioner school didnot provideprotectivegearsanddevices,
especiallygoggles, toshield students from e$pected risks and
dangers( ando 3etitioner Tabugo was not inside the classroom the
whole time her class conducted thee$periment, specifically when the
accident involving 1ayson occurred.- The mishap which happened was
forseeable by the school. This neglect in preventing aforseeable
injury and damage euates to neglect in e$ercising the utmost degree
of diligencereuired of schools, its administrators and teachers,
and ultimately, was the pro$imate cause ofthe damage and injury to
1ayson.- 8s regards the contributory negligence of 1ayson, he
should not be entitled to recover damagesin full but must likewise
bear the conseuences of his own negligence. 3etitioners should be
heldliable only for the damages actually caused by their
negligence.- 8ward of actual and moral damages, and attorney5s fees
affirmed.The SC applied new rule on BP22 specifically, The criminal
actionfor violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to
necessarily include the corresponding civil action, and no
reservation to file such civil action separatelyshall be allowed or
recognized.The aforequoted provisions of the Rules of Court, even
if not yetin effect when Chan commenced Civil Case No. 915-00 on
August 3, 2000, are nonethelessapplicable. It is axiomatic that the
retroactive application of procedural lawsdoes not violate any
right of a person who may feel adversely affected, nor isit
constitutionally objectionable. The reason is simply that, as a
general rule,no vested right may attach to, or arise from,
procedural laws. Any new rules may validly be made to apply to
cases pending at the time of theirpromulgation,considering that no
party to an action has a vested right in the rules of procedure,
except that in criminal cases, the changes do not retroactively
apply if they permit or require a lesser quantum of evidence to
convict than what is required at the time of the commission of the
offenses, because such retroactivity would be unconstitutional for
being ex post facto under the ConstitutionFurthermore, for litis
pendentia to be successfully invoked as a bar toan action, the
concurrence of the following requisites is necessary, namely:
(a)there must be identity of parties or at least such as represent
the same interest in both actions; (b) there must be identity of
rights assertedand reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being founded on
the same facts; and, (c) the identity inthe two cases should be
such that the judgment that may be rendered in one would,
regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicatain
respect ofthe other. Absent the first two requisites, the
possibility of the existence ofthe third becomes nil.A perusal of
Civil Case No. 01-0033 and Criminal Case No. 275381 ineluctably
shows that all the elements of litis pendentia are attendant. First
of all, the parties in the civil action involved in Criminal Case
No. 275381 andin Civil CaseNo. 915-00, that is, Chan and Simon, are
the same. Secondly, the information inCriminal Case No. 275381 and
the complaint in Civil Case No. 915-00 both allegedthat Simon had
issued Landbank Check No. 0007280 worth P336,000.00 payable to
cash, thereby indicating that the rights asserted and the reliefs
prayed for, as well as the facts upon which the reliefs sought were
founded, were identical in all respects. And, thirdly, any judgment
rendered in one case wouldnecessarily bar the other by res
judicata; otherwise, Chan would be recovering twice upon thesame
claim.It is clear, therefore, that the MeTC in Pasay City properly
dismissed Civil Case No. 915-00 on the ground of litis pendentia
through its decision dated October- 23, 2000; and that the RTC in
Pasay City did not err inaffirming the MeTC.- JOSEPH SALUDAGA,
petitioner, vs.FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY n! EDIL"ERTO #. DE JESUS in
$i% c&cit' % P(e%i!ent o) FEU, respondents.- D E # I S I O N-
YNARES*SANTIAGO, J.+- This 3etition for /eview on Certiorari&
under /ule .> of the /ules of +ourt assails the1une )?, )@@A
#ecision) of the +ourt of 8ppeals in +8-6./. +E 7o. =A@>@,
nullifying and setting aside the 7ovember &@, )@@. #ecision, of
the /egional Trial +ourt of -anila, 9ranch ), in +ivil +ase 7o.
?=-=?.=, and dismissing the complaint filed by petitioner( as well
as its 8ugust ),, )@@A /esolution. denying the -otion for
/econsideration.>- The antecedent facts are as follows%-
3etitioner 1oseph Saludaga was a sophomore law student of
respondent :ar 0astern;niversity !:0;" when he was shot by
8lejandro /osete !/osete", one of the securityguards on duty at the
school premises on 8ugust &=, &??B. 3etitioner was rushed
to :0;-#r. 7icanor /eyes -edical :oundation !:0;-7/-:" due to the
wound he sustained.B -eanwhile, /osete was brought to the police
station where he e$plained that the shooting was accidental. 4e was
eventually released considering that no formal complaint was filed
against him. - 3etitioner thereafter filed a complaint for damages
against respondents on the ground that they breached their
obligation to provide students with a safe and secureenvironment
and an atmosphere conducive to learning. /espondents, in turn,
filed a Third-3arty +omplaintA against 6ala$y #evelopment and
-anagement +orporation !6ala$y", the agency contracted by
respondent :0; to provide security services within its premises and
-ariano #. Imperial !Imperial", 6ala$y's 3resident, to indemnify
them for whatever would be adjudged in favor of petitioner, if any(
and to pay attorney's fees and cost of the suit. 2n the other hand,
6ala$y and Imperial filed a :ourth-3arty +omplaint against 8:3
6eneral Insurance.= - 2n 7ovember &@, )@@., the trial court
rendered a decision in favor of petitioner, the dispositive portion
of which reads% - D40/0:2/0, from the foregoing, judgment is hereby
rendered ordering%- &. :0; and 0dilberto de 1esus, in his
capacity as president of :0; to pay jointly and severally 1oseph
Saludaga the amount of 3,>,)?=.)> for actual damages with
&)F interest per annum from the filing of the complaint until
fully paid( moral damages of 3,@@,@@@.@@, e$emplary damages of
3>@@,@@@.@@, attorney's fees of 3&@@,@@@.@@ and cost of the
suit(- ). 6ala$y -anagement and #evelopment +orp. and its
president, +ol. -ariano Imperial to indemnify jointly and severally
,rd party plaintiffs !:0; and 0dilberto de 1esus in his capacity as
3resident of :0;" for the above-mentioned amounts(- ,. 8nd the .th
party complaint is dismissed for lack of cause of action. 7o
pronouncement as to costs.- S2 2/#0/0#.? - /espondents appealed to
the +ourt of 8ppeals which rendered the assailed #ecision, the
decretal portion of which provides, viz% - D40/0:2/0, the appeal is
hereby 6/87T0#. The #ecision dated 7ovember &@, )@@. is hereby
/0E0/S0# and S0T 8SI#0. The complaint filed by 1oseph Saludaga
against appellant :ar 0astern ;niversity and its 3resident in +ivil
+ase 7o.?=-=?.=, is #IS-ISS0#. - S2 2/#0/0#.&@ - 3etitioner
filed a -otion for /econsideration which was denied( hence, the
instant petition based on the following grounds% - T40 +2;/T 2:
83308*S S0/I2;S*< 0//0# I7 -8770/ +27T/8/< T2 *8D87#
1;/IS3/;#07+0 I7 /;*I76 T48T%- >.&. T40 S422TI76 I7+I#07T IS
8 :2/T;IT2;S 0E07T(- >.). /0S327#07TS 8/0 72T *I89*0 :2/ #8-860S
:2/ T40 I71;/< /0S;*TI76 :/2- 8 6;7S42T D2;7# S;::0/0# 9< T40
30TITI270/ :/2- T40 487#S 2: 72 *0SS T487 T40I/ 2D7 S0+;/IT<
6;8/# I7 EI2*8TI27 2: T40I/ 9;I*T-I7 +27T/8+T;8* 29*I68TI27 T2
30TITI270/, 90I76 T40I/ *8D ST;#07T 8T T48T TI-0, T2 3/2EI#0 4I-
DIT4 8 S8:0 87# S0+;/0 0#;+8TI278* 07EI/27-07T(- >.,.
S0+;/IT< 68;/#, 8*0187#/2 /2S0T0, D42 S42T 30TITI270/ D4I*040
D8S D8*GI76 27 4IS D8< T2 T40 *8D *I9/8/< 2: /0S327#07T :0;
IS 72T T40I/ 0-3*2... /0S327#07T 0H0/+IS0# #;0 #I*I607+0 I7
S0*0+TI76
