Lamis v. Ong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Sandigan Protective and Investigation Agency, Inc. (Sandigan) provided security services at the Manila Chinese Cemetery, with visiting hours from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. On September 20, 1994, at approximately 3:00 a.m., Vicente Lamis, a security guard assigned to the night shift, was on duty at the south gate. David Y. Ong arrived in his car and attempted to enter the cemetery, but Lamis refused entry, citing the expired visiting hours. Ong accelerated his car, attempting to force entry, which angered Lamis. Lamis closed the gate and retrieved a shotgun. Approximately thirty minutes later, Ong's car returned at full speed towards the closed gate. Lamis fired warning shots, but Ong did not stop. Lamis then shot Ong, hitting him in the right arm, left hip, and right waist. Ong managed to drive to a hospital, and the incident was reported to the police. Procedural History: Respondent David Y. Ong filed a complaint for frustrated homicide against Lamis (Criminal Case No. 94-J-27836) and a complaint for damages against both Lamis and Sandigan (Civil Case No. 95-73446). The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 45, Manila, found Lamis and Sandigan jointly and solidarily liable for damages, ordering them to pay Ong ₱500,000.00 for moral damages, ₱300,000.00 for exemplary damages, and ₱50,000.00 for attorney's fees, plus costs. The RTC dismissed the counterclaims of the defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, holding that Lamis' acts were deliberate and intentional, not self-defense, and that Sandigan failed to prove due diligence in the selection and supervision of its guards. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners Vicente Lamis and Sandigan Protective & Investigation Agency, Inc. filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution, raising issues regarding Lamis' plea of self-defense, Sandigan's liability for failure to exercise due diligence, and the correctness of the awarded damages.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Lamis acted in self-defense. Whether petitioner Sandigan exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its security guards. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly awarded damages in favor of the respondent.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals with modification. Petitioners were ordered to pay respondent ₱30,000.00 as moral damages, ₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages, and ₱20,000.00 as attorney's fees. Costs were against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of self-defense: The Court held that the findings of fact of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive and may not be reviewed in a petition for certiorari. The appellate court accords high respect to the trial court's findings because it had the unique advantage of observing the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses. The Court found no compelling reason to overturn the CA's conclusion that Lamis' acts were deliberate and intentional, not in self-defense, especially considering that Lamis was charged with frustrated homicide. The plea of self-defense was found to be barren of merit. On the issue of Sandigan's liability for failure to exercise due diligence: The Court reiterated that an employer is liable for the damages caused by its employee under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which covers acts or omissions causing damage to another, there being fault or negligence. Furthermore, Article 2180 makes an employer liable for the acts of its employees for which it is responsible. Sandigan, as the employer, failed to discharge its burden of proving it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. Its reliance solely on its Rules and Regulations and the testimony of one witness was insufficient. The failure to adduce in evidence a report on the incident or surrender the firearms used further demonstrated its neglect. On the issue of awarded damages: The Court found the original awards for moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees, to be excessive. While the trial court has discretion in determining damages, the appellate court may modify them if they are inordinate. The Court reiterated that moral damages are compensatory and should be proportional to the suffering inflicted, not intended to penalize or enrich the claimant. Exemplary damages serve as a deterrent. Considering the circumstances, the Court reduced the moral damages from ₱500,000.00 to ₱30,000.00, exemplary damages from ₱300,000.00 to ₱25,000.00, and attorney's fees from ₱50,000.00 to ₱20,000.00, deeming these amounts reasonable and sufficient.
Main Doctrine
An employer is liable for the damages caused by its employee if the employee's act was voluntary and intentional, and the employer failed to exercise due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. The award of damages must be reasonable and proportional to the suffering inflicted.