View full case

JOHN E.R. REYES v. ORICO DOCTOLERO

FACTS:

On January 26, 1996, an altercation occurred between petitioners John and Mervin Reyes and respondent Orico Doctolero, a security guard of respondent Grandeur Security and Services Corporation (Grandeur), in the parking area of respondent Makati Cinema Square (MCS). Petitioners claimed that Doctolero gave conflicting signals while they were driving, almost causing a collision. They confronted Doctolero, who then shouted expletives and pointed his gun at John. John tried to tackle Doctolero, but was shot in the leg. Mervin, who came to John's aid, was shot in the stomach by another security guard, respondent Romeo Avila.

Grandeur, the employer of Doctolero and Avila, asserted that it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. MCS argued that it cannot be held liable as the shooting incident was the result of the actions of Doctolero and Avila. They denied liability for the items lost in the petitioners' vehicle.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) held Doctolero and Avila liable for the injuries sustained by the petitioners. Grandeur was also held solidarily liable with its employees, as it failed to prove strict implementation of rules and regulations. The complaint against MCS was dismissed. Petitioners were awarded damages, lost income, and attorney's fees.

Upon Grandeur's motion for reconsideration, the RTC modified its decision, holding Doctolero and Avila liable for negligence and ordering them to pay damages to petitioners.

The plaintiffs filed a complaint against Grandeur Security and Services Corporation (Grandeur) and MCS for the damages caused by their security guards, Avila and Doctolero. The RTC initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and held both Grandeur and MCS liable for the damages. However, upon reconsideration, the RTC dismissed the complaint against Grandeur and MCS, stating that Grandeur sufficiently proved that it observed diligence in the selection and supervision of its security guards. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision, stating that Grandeur was able to prove that it observed the required degree of diligence. The CA also ruled that MCS cannot be held liable as an indirect employer of Avila and Doctolero. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied. Thus, the present petition was filed before the Supreme Court, raising the issue of whether Grandeur and MCS can be held vicariously liable for the damages caused by Avila and Doctolero.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Grandeur Security and Services Corporation (Grandeur) may be held vicariously liable for the damages caused by its employees, respondents Orico Doctolero and Romeo Avila, to petitioners John E.R. Reyes and Mervin Joseph Reyes.

  2. Whether Makati Cinema Square (MCS) may be held vicariously liable for the actions of respondents Doctolero and Avila.

RULING:

  1. Grandeur's Liability Grandeur cannot be held vicariously liable for the damages caused by its security guards. The evidence presented (both testimonial and documentary) demonstrated that Grandeur exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its security guards (respondents Doctolero and Avila). Having successfully rebutted the legal presumption of negligence, Grandeur is relieved of liability from its employees' negligent acts.

  2. MCS's Liability MCS cannot be held vicariously liable for the actions of respondents Doctolero and Avila. There is no employer-employee relationship between MCS and the security guards, as they were merely assigned by Grandeur pursuant to their Contract of Guard Services. Additionally, the contract explicitly states that the security guards are not employees of MCS. Therefore, without an employer-employee or principal-agent relationship, MCS is not vicariously liable for their acts or omissions.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Article 2176 of the Civil Code Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. This constitutes a quasi-delict in the absence of a pre-existing contractual relation.

  2. Article 2180 of the Civil Code An employer may be vicariously liable for the torts committed by their employee, based on the principle of pater familias, provided there is an employer-employee relationship and the employee was acting within the scope of their duties.

  3. Due Diligence in Selection and Supervision Employers must show they have exercised due diligence in both the selection and supervision of their employees to rebut the presumption of negligence under Article 2180.

  4. Employer-Employee Relationship Vicarious liability under Article 2180 necessitates a proven employer-employee relationship. Without this, the employer cannot be held liable for the acts of the employee.