Reyes v. Doctolero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An altercation occurred in the parking area of Makati Cinema Square (MCS) between respondent Orico Doctolero, a security guard of Grandeur Security and Services Corporation (Grandeur), and petitioners John E.R. Reyes and Mervin Joseph Reyes. According to Grandeur's version, John Reyes insisted on entering the exit driveway, prompting Doctolero to stop him. John Reyes then alighted and assaulted Doctolero. Doctolero drew his service firearm and fired a warning shot. John Reyes persisted, wrestled with Doctolero for the firearm, which discharged and hit John Reyes' leg. Mervin Reyes then ran after Doctolero and was shot by another security guard, Romeo Avila. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a complaint for damages against Doctolero, Avila, Grandeur (for negligence in selection and supervision), and MCS (for negligence in hiring Grandeur). Doctolero and Avila were declared in default. The RTC initially found Doctolero and Avila liable and ordered them to pay damages. Subsequently, the RTC dismissed the complaint against MCS but held Grandeur solidarily liable. Upon Grandeur's motion for reconsideration, the RTC modified its decision, dismissing the complaint against Grandeur and MCS, finding that Grandeur had sufficiently proven its diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. The Petition: Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's decision dismissing the complaint against Grandeur and MCS. The CA found that Grandeur had sufficiently proven its diligence in both selection and supervision. The CA also rejected petitioners' arguments regarding additional evidence presented by Grandeur and the liability of MCS as an indirect employer. Petitioners then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether MCS may be held vicariously liable for the damages caused by respondents Doctolero and Avila. Whether Grandeur may be held vicariously liable for the damages caused by respondents Doctolero and Avila.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated July 25, 2008 and the Resolution dated December 5, 2008 of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the liability of MCS: The Court held that MCS cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of Doctolero and Avila. The Court reiterated the general rule that liability arises from one's own act or omission, with exceptions provided by law, such as the employer's vicarious liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. However, this vicarious liability is predicated on an employer-employee relationship, which must be proven. In this case, no employer-employee relationship existed between MCS and the security guards; they were employees of Grandeur, assigned to MCS premises pursuant to a contract for guard services. Furthermore, the contract explicitly stated that Grandeur's guards were not employees of MCS and that MCS would not be responsible for claims arising from their duties. Therefore, MCS cannot be held liable under Article 2180. On the liability of Grandeur: The Court affirmed the findings of the RTC and CA that Grandeur successfully rebutted the presumption of negligence. Grandeur presented substantial evidence, both testimonial and documentary, demonstrating its exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees. The selection process included rigorous screening, submission of various clearances, pre-licensing training, medical and psychiatric examinations, and multiple interviews. The supervision process involved daily markings, post-to-post inspections, round-the-clock inspections, regular formations, and periodic re-training and seminars. The documentary evidence, including clearances, certificates, and test results, corroborated the testimony of Grandeur's HRD head. Thus, Grandeur was relieved of liability for the negligent acts of Doctolero and Avila.
Main Doctrine
An employer is vicariously liable for the torts committed by its employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, provided that the employer failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of said employees. The employer may rebut this presumption by presenting concrete proof, including documentary evidence, of its due diligence in both selection and supervision.