Mercury Drug Corporation v. Libunao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Rodrigo B. Libunao and his friend Jesus Bustos Atencio were accosted by Remigio Sido, a security guard posted at the exit of Mercury Drug Store, after Libunao made purchases. Sido demanded to see the receipt, and after a heated exchange, Sido allegedly hit Libunao and pointed a gun at him, threatening to shoot. Libunao fled and reported the incident. Libunao later consulted a psychiatrist and was diagnosed with post-traumatic depression syndrome. Procedural History: Libunao filed a complaint for damages against Mercury Drug Corporation, its President, Store Manager Vilma Santos, and Security Guard Remigio Sido. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Libunao, holding Sido, Mercury Drug Corporation, and Vilma Santos jointly and severally liable for moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. The RTC later dismissed the complaint against Santos. Mercury Drug Corporation appealed. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modification, deleting the award of attorney's fees and reducing the moral and exemplary damages. The CA ruled that Sido was an employee of Mercury Drug Corporation and thus Mercury Drug was jointly and severally liable. The Petition: Mercury Drug Corporation filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the judicial admission that Sido was not its employee, disregarding documentary evidence, and in holding it liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Mercury Drug contended that Sido was an employee of Black Shield Security Services Corporation (BSSC), not Mercury Drug.
Issue(s)
Whether the certification against forum shopping is sufficient. Whether the remedy of petitioner is proper. Whether Mercury Drug Corporation is liable for damages for the tortious and delictual acts of Remigio Sido.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 9, 2000, and the Resolution dated August 9, 2000, of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint filed by the respondent against petitioner Mercury Drug Corporation is DISMISSED. The counterclaims of the latter are also DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of the certification against forum shopping: The Court held that the verification and certification executed by petitioner's in-house counsel, Atty. Joy Ann Marie C. Nolasco, was sufficient compliance with the Rules of Court. As an in-house counsel and legal officer, she was in the best position to verify the truthfulness of the allegations and to determine if a similar petition had been filed with other courts, citing the ruling in Robern Development Corporation v. Quitain. On the propriety of the remedy: The Court ruled that the remedy of petition for review under Rule 45 was proper. While generally limited to questions of law, exceptions exist, including instances of grave abuse of discretion, misapprehension of facts, conflicting findings, or when the CA's findings are contrary to undisputed facts or evidence on record. The Court found that the CA committed a misapprehension of facts and overlooked relevant facts that would have justified a different conclusion. On the liability of Mercury Drug Corporation for Sido's acts: The Court found that Mercury Drug Corporation was not liable for the tortious acts of Remigio Sido. The Court emphasized that the respondent failed to discharge the burden of proving that Mercury Drug was Sido's employer. Crucially, the respondent's counsel made a judicial admission during the trial court hearing that Sido was not an employee of Mercury Drug Corporation. This admission, under Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, is conclusive upon the parties unless shown to be a palpable mistake. Furthermore, the testimonies of Vilma Santos (Store Manager) and Sido himself consistently stated that Sido was employed by Black Shield Security Services Corporation (BSSC), which assigned him to Mercury Drug. The contract between Mercury Drug and BSSC explicitly stated that security guards were employees of the agency and not the client, and that the agency assumed full responsibility for claims arising from their employment. Therefore, the CA erred in applying Article 2180 of the Civil Code against Mercury Drug Corporation.
Main Doctrine
A client company is not liable for the tortious acts of a security guard if the guard is an employee of a security agency, not the client company, as the client has no hand in selecting the security guard and thus cannot be held to have failed in the diligence of a good father of a family in their selection. A judicial admission by the plaintiff's counsel that the security guard was not an employee of the defendant company is binding.