View full case

MAXIMINO SOLIMAN v. JUDGE RAMON TUAZON

FACTS:

On 22 March 1983, petitioner Soliman, Jr. filed a civil complaint for damages against private respondent Republic Central Colleges ("Colleges"), the R.L. Security Agency Inc. and one Jimmy Solomon, a security guard. The complaint alleged that on 13 August 1982, while the petitioner was on the premises of the school attending his morning classes, the security guard employed by the R.L Security Agency Inc. without any provocation, shot and wounded the petitioner. The petitioner sought to hold the Colleges vicariously liable for the acts of the security guard. Private respondent Colleges filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that it was not liable for the actions of the security guard as they were not the employer of the guard. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, prompting the petitioner to file a petition for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the private respondent school can be held liable for the acts of the security guard.

  2. Whether or not the relevant provisions of the Civil Code apply in holding the private respondent liable.

RULING:

  1. No, the private respondent school cannot be held liable for the acts of the security guard. The employer of the security guard was the R.L. Security Agency Inc. and not the school. The school was only the client or customer of the security agency. As a general rule, the liability for the acts or omissions of security guards attaches to the employer agency, and not to the clients of such agency.

  2. No, the relevant provisions of the Civil Code do not apply in holding the private respondent liable. The private respondent was not the employer of the security guard, and the security guard was not a pupil, student, or apprentice of the school. Therefore, the provisions that hold teachers or heads of establishments liable for damages caused by their pupils, students, or apprentices do not apply in this case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Liability for acts or omissions of employees or household helpers rests with the employer, even if the employer is not engaged in any business or industry. (Article 2180, Civil Code)

  • The employer of security guards or watchmen is responsible for their illegal or harmful acts. The liability does not extend to the clients or customers of the security agency. (Article 2180, Civil Code)

  • A client or customer of a security agency has no hand in selecting the security guards assigned to them and cannot be held responsible for the actions of the security guards. (Doctrine)