Safeguard Security Agency, Inc. vs. Tangco

When the offended party reserves the right to file a separate civil action and the complaint alleges quasi-delict under Article 2176 and vicarious liability of the employer under Article 2180, the employer's liability is direct and solidary, not subsidiary under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, and the employer may raise the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employee — which it must prove by concrete evidence.

Safeguard Security Agency, Inc. is a security agency that employed Admer Pajarillo as a security guard assigned to Ecology Bank, Katipunan Branch, Quezon City. Evangeline Tangco was a bank client and a duly licensed firearm holder who went to the bank to renew her time deposit. Lauro Tangco is Evangeline's husband, and the respondents are Lauro and his six minor children. The case arose in the context of Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended, which governs the institution of criminal and civil actions and the reservation of the right to file a separate civil action, and the interplay between civil liability arising from crimes under the Revised Penal Code and independent civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code.

On November 3, 1997, at about 2:50 p.m., Evangeline Tangco went to Ecology Bank, Katipunan Branch, Quezon City, to renew her time deposit, having been advised by the bank's cashier that she would need to sign a specimen card. Evangeline was a duly licensed firearm holder with a corresponding permit to carry the firearm outside her residence. Upon arriving at the bank, she approached security guard Admer Pajarillo, who was stationed outside the bank, and pulled out her firearm from her bag, apparently to deposit the same for safekeeping before entering the premises. Suddenly, Pajarillo shot Evangeline with his service shotgun, hitting her in the abdomen and instantly causing her death.

Lauro Tangco, Evangeline's husband, together with his six minor children, filed a criminal case of Homicide against Pajarillo with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, docketed as Criminal Case No. 0-97-73806 and assigned to Branch 78. In that criminal case, respondents reserved their right to file a separate civil action. The RTC convicted Pajarillo of Homicide on January 19, 2000, and the conviction was affirmed with modification as to penalty by the Court of Appeals on July 31, 2000, with Entry of Judgment made on August 25, 2001. Pajarillo was serving his sentence in Muntinlupa.

Meanwhile, on January 14, 1998, respondents filed a separate complaint for damages with the RTC, Branch 273, Marikina City, against Pajarillo for negligently shooting Evangeline and against Safeguard for failing to observe the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage committed by its security guard. Respondents prayed for actual, moral, and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. Petitioners denied the material allegations and alleged that Safeguard exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of Pajarillo, and that Evangeline's death was not due to Pajarillo's negligence as the latter acted only in self-defense. Petitioners also set up a compulsory counterclaim for moral damages and attorney's fees.

Pajarillo claimed that Evangeline drew a gun from her bag and aimed it at him from a distance of about one meter, and that, acting instinctively, he stepped backward, loaded the chamber of his gun, and shot her in self-defense. He also testified that prior to the incident, he saw Evangeline roaming under a fly-over about 10 meters away from the bank and talking to a man, after which she crossed the street and approached the bank. However, no evidence showed that Pajarillo reported these observations to his head guard, the bank's branch manager, or the police authorities whose outpost was about 15 meters from the bank. The RTC rejected Pajarillo's claim of self-defense, gave no credence to his bare claim that Evangeline was seen roaming suspiciously, and found that the situation demanded he exercise proper prudence by asking Evangeline to ascertain the matter instead of shooting her instantly. The RTC found Safeguard jointly and severally liable with Pajarillo, holding that while Safeguard may have exercised care in the selection of Pajarillo, there was insufficient evidence of diligence in supervision. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed but modified Safeguard's liability to subsidiary under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, reasoning that the civil action was based on the crime of homicide rather than quasi-delict.

• Pajarillo's Liability: Petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals erred in finding Pajarillo liable for damages, maintaining that Pajarillo acted in self-defense when Evangeline drew a gun from her bag and aimed it at him, prompting him to shoot out of pure instinct and self-preservation.
• Applicable Law and Employer Liability: Safeguard insisted that respondents' claim was based on culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, in which case Safeguard's liability would be joint and solidary with Pajarillo, but since Safeguard had established that it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of Pajarillo, it should be exonerated from civil liability. Petitioners also argued that the CA erred in applying Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code to hold Safeguard subsidiary liable.
• Due Diligence in Supervision: Safeguard contended that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employees, requiring guards to undergo necessary training and submit requisite qualifications and credentials, conducting monitoring of personnel activities through supervisors who routinely check guards' posts and equipment, and performing regular evaluations of employees' performance. It argued that one isolated incident of Pajarillo loading his firearm contrary to operating procedure was insufficient to conclude that Safeguard failed in its duty of proper supervision.
• Contributory Negligence: Petitioners argued that Evangeline was guilty of contributory negligence, as she had no business bringing a gun into an establishment where people would react instinctively upon seeing it, and that had she been prudent, she could have warned Pajarillo before drawing the gun and should not have conducted herself with suspicion by roaming outside the vicinity of the bank.

• Nature of the Civil Action: Whether the separate civil action filed by respondents is based on quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code or on civil liability arising from the crime of homicide under the Revised Penal Code, which determines whether Safeguard's liability as employer is solidary under Article 2180 or subsidiary under Article 103.
• Pajarillo's Negligence: Whether Pajarillo was negligent in shooting Evangeline, such that his claim of self-defense must be rejected.
• Employer's Due Diligence: Whether Safeguard exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of Pajarillo, such that it should be excused from civil liability.
• Damages: Whether the awards of actual damages, death indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees were proper.

• Nature of the Civil Action: The action is based on quasi-delict under Article 2176, not on civil liability ex delicto. The nature of the cause of action is determined by the allegations in the complaint, which invoked vicarious liability under Article 2180 and the employer's failure to observe the diligence of a good father of a family.
• Pajarillo's Negligence: Yes. Pajarillo was negligent; his claim of self-defense was rejected for absence of unlawful aggression, and his apprehension of a bank robbery was a figment of his imagination unsupported by evidence.
• Employer's Due Diligence: No. Safeguard failed to prove diligence in the supervision of Pajarillo, having shown that Pajarillo was unaware of company rules and regulations and received inadequate training for his bank assignment, with no records of daily inspections presented.
• Damages: Yes. The awards of actual damages, death indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees were all upheld as proper and supported by evidence and law.

• Nature of the Civil Action: The Court held that the nature of a cause of action is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint as constituting the cause of action, not by the claims made in party briefs or arguments. The complaint alleged that Pajarillo, employed by Safeguard, shot and killed Evangeline without exercising necessary caution or care, and that Safeguard failed to observe the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. These allegations squarely invoked quasi-delict under Article 2176 and vicarious liability under Article 2180. The Court distinguished between civil liability ex delicto under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code and independent civil liabilities such as culpa aquiliana under Article 2176, noting that either may be enforced against the offender subject to the caveat under Article 2177 that the offended party cannot recover damages twice for the same act. The reservation of the right to file a separate civil action did not preclude respondents from choosing to file an action for quasi-delict, as held in Bermudez vs. Melencio-Herrera. The final and executory judgment in the criminal case finding Pajarillo guilty of Homicide had no relevance to the quasi-delict action. Had the cause of action been for damages arising from a delict, the CA would have been correct in finding Safeguard only subsidiarily liable under Article 103, but the complaint clearly established quasi-delict as the basis. Under Article 2180, the employer's liability is direct and immediate, and a presumption of negligence arises against the employer in the selection or supervision of the employee, which presumption may be overcome only by proof of the diligence of a good father of a family.

• Pajarillo's Negligence: The issue of negligence is factual in nature, and as a general rule, factual findings of the trial court affirmed by the CA are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed in a petition for review on certiorari. A thorough review of the records failed to show any cogent reason to deviate from the factual finding that Pajarillo was guilty of negligence. Pajarillo testified that Evangeline aimed a gun at him from about one meter away, prompting him to step backward, load the chamber of his gun, and shoot. The Court found it unimaginable that Pajarillo could make such movements if the gun was already pointed at him, as any movement could have prompted Evangeline to pull the trigger. Pajarillo's claim that Evangeline was roaming suspiciously near the bank prior to the incident was uncorroborated by any evidence, and he had not reported his concerns to his head guard, the bank's branch manager, or the police authorities whose outpost was only 15 meters away. The Court found it incredible that Evangeline, if she intended to rob the bank, would leave a companion under a fly-over 10 meters away and attempt a robbery alone, knowing that Pajarillo was armed with a shotgun and two guards manned the entrance door inside. Since unlawful aggression on the part of Evangeline was absent, Pajarillo's claim of self-defense could not be accepted, especially as it was uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence. The alleged threat of bank robbery was a figment of Pajarillo's imagination. The argument that Evangeline was guilty of contributory negligence was rejected, as Pajarillo failed to substantiate his claim that she was roaming suspiciously, and her death was due to Pajarillo's negligence in shooting her based on an imagined threat.

• Employer's Due Diligence: Under Article 2180, Safeguard as employer of Pajarillo was primarily and solidarily liable for the quasi-delict committed by Pajarillo, and was presumed negligent in the selection and supervision of its employee by operation of law. This presumption could be overcome only by satisfactorily showing that the employer exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family. The Court agreed with the RTC that Safeguard exercised diligence in the selection of Pajarillo, as the record showed Pajarillo underwent psychological and neuro-psychiatric evaluation, submitted certification on pre-licensing training, and presented police and NBI clearances. However, Safeguard fell short of the diligence required in supervision. While Safeguard presented Capt. James Camero, its Director for Operations, who testified on company rules and regulations, it was established during cross-examination that Pajarillo was not aware of such rules and regulations. Although Camero clarified on re-direct that these were lesson plans used by instructors during classroom instructions and not necessarily given to students, the records did not show that Pajarillo had attended such classroom instructions. The records also failed to show adequate training and continuous evaluation of Pajarillo's performance. Pajarillo had only attended an in-service training on March 1, 1997 conducted by Toyota Sta. Rosa, his first assignment, which focused purely on security of equipment and protection of employees' lives. No further training was conducted when Pajarillo was later assigned to guard a bank, which has a different nature of business. Pajarillo himself testified that being on duty in a bank is different from being on duty in a factory, as a bank is a very sensitive area. His immediate shooting of Evangeline, who was merely depositing her firearm for safekeeping, confirmed the absence of training on how to handle bank clients and on human psychology. While Safeguard claimed inspectors went around the bank twice daily to check guards' performance, no records of such daily inspections were presented, and if such inspections had been made, Evangeline's alleged suspicious act could have been noticed and reported.

• Damages: The award of actual damages in the amount of ₱157,430.00 was supported by receipts for burial expenses. The award of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the death of Evangeline was in order. As to moral damages, Article 2206 of the Civil Code provides that the spouse, legitimate children, and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. Respondents testified as to their moral suffering caused by Evangeline's sudden death, which left Lauro without a wife and six children without a mother, all being minors at the time. Citing People vs. Teehankee, Jr. and Metro Manila Transit Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, where one million pesos was awarded as moral damages, the Court held that respondents were entitled to ₱1,000,000.00 as moral damages because Evangeline's death left a void in the lives of her husband and minor children. The award of exemplary damages in the amount of ₱300,000.00 was upheld under Article 2229, as exemplary damages may be granted in quasi-delict if the defendant acted with gross negligence. Pursuant to Article 2208, attorney's fees may be recovered when exemplary damages are awarded, and the award of ₱30,000.00 as attorney's fees was affirmed.

• Nature of Cause of Action Determined by Complaint — The nature of a cause of action is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint as constituting the cause of action, and the purpose of an action or suit and the law to govern it is determined not by the claim of the party filing the action made in argument or brief, but by the complaint itself, its allegations, and prayer for relief. The Court applied this principle to hold that respondents' complaint, which alleged negligence and the employer's failure to observe the diligence of a good father of a family, was based on quasi-delict under Article 2176, not on civil liability ex delicto.

• Dual Civil Liability from a Single Act — An act or omission causing damage to another may give rise to two separate civil liabilities: (1) civil liability ex delicto under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, and (2) independent civil liabilities, such as culpa aquiliana under Article 2176 of the Civil Code, or actions under Articles 32, 33, and 34. Either may be enforced against the offender, subject to Article 2177's prohibition against recovering damages twice for the same act or omission. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that respondents could choose to file a separate civil action for quasi-delict despite the reservation in the criminal case, and that the final judgment in the criminal case had no relevance to the quasi-delict action.

• Scope of Article 2176 (Quasi-delict) — Article 2176 covers not only acts committed with negligence but also acts which are voluntary and intentional, including acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. A separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided the offended party is not allowed to recover damages on both scores. The extinction of civil liability referred to in Rule 111 refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas civil liability for the same act considered as quasi-delict is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not been committed by the accused.

• Presumption of Employer Negligence under Article 2180 — When injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part of the employer either in the selection of the employee or in the supervision over him after selection, or both. The liability of the employer under Article 2180 is direct and immediate. The presumption may be overcome only by satisfactorily showing that the employer exercised the care and diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of its employee. Due diligence in the selection of prospective employees requires examination of their qualifications, experience, and service records. Due diligence in supervision includes the formulation of suitable rules and regulations for the guidance of employees, the issuance of proper instructions for the protection of the public, the imposition of necessary disciplinary measures, and the actual implementation and monitoring of consistent compliance with said rules through dependable supervisors who should regularly report on their supervisory functions. Employers must submit concrete proof, including documentary evidence, to establish these factors.

• Reservation Does Not Determine Cause of Action — The fact that the offended party reserved the right to institute a separate civil action in the criminal case did not preclude them from choosing to file a civil action for quasi-delict. In cases of negligence, the injured party or his heirs has the choice between an action to enforce civil liability arising from crime under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code and an action for quasi-delict under Article 2176-2194 of the Civil Code. If a party chooses the latter, the employer may be held solidarily liable for the negligent act of the employee, subject to the employer's defense of exercise of the diligence of a good father of the family.

• "The civil action filed by respondents was not derived from the criminal liability of Pajarillo in the criminal case but one based on culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict which is separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from crime. The source of the obligation sought to be enforced in the civil case is a quasi-delict not an act or omission punishable by law." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the nature of the civil action, establishing that the complaint's allegations of quasi-delict govern the action regardless of the criminal conviction, and that the employer's liability is direct and solidary under Article 2180 rather than subsidiary under Article 103.

• "In cases of negligence, the injured party or his heirs has the choice between an action to enforce the civil liability arising from crime under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code and an action for quasi-delict under Article 2176-2194 of the Civil Code. If a party chooses the latter, he may hold the employer solidarily liable for the negligent act of his employee, subject to the employer's defense of exercise of the diligence of a good father of the family." — This passage, quoted from Bermudez vs. Melencio-Herrera, defines the doctrine of election of remedies available to the offended party and the corresponding liability regime for the employer, and is the canonical formulation relied upon in this decision.

• "To this, we add that actual implementation and monitoring of consistent compliance with said rules should be the constant concern of the employer, acting through dependable supervisors who should regularly report on their supervisory functions." — This passage extends the doctrine on due diligence in supervision of employees, articulating the affirmative duty of employers to not only formulate rules but to ensure their actual implementation and monitoring through supervisors, a formulation frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on vicarious liability.

• "Evidence, to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but it must be credible in itself — such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances." — This passage states the standard for evaluating the credibility of evidence, applied here to reject Pajarillo's self-defense claim as inherently improbable given the circumstances he described.

• Dulay vs. Court of Appeals, 313 Phil. 8 (1995) — Followed. The Court relied on Dulay for the doctrine that Article 2176 covers not only negligent acts but also voluntary and intentional acts, including those criminal in character, and that a separate civil action for quasi-delict lies independently of the criminal action. The Court also cited Dulay for the principle that the nature of a cause of action is determined by the allegations in the complaint.

• Bermudez vs. Melencio-Herrera, G.R. No. L-32055, February 26, 1988 — Followed. The Court relied on Bermudez for the doctrine that the injured party has the choice between an action for civil liability arising from crime under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code and an action for quasi-delict under Article 2176-2194 of the Civil Code, and that the reservation of the right to file a separate civil action does not preclude the party from choosing quasi-delict as the basis.

• Elcano vs. Hill, 77 SCRA 98 (1977) — Followed, as cited within Dulay. The Court quoted Elcano for the proposition that Article 2176, where it refers to "fault or negligence," covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent.

• Metro Manila Transit Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 359 Phil. 18 (1998) and G.R. No. 104408, June 21, 1993 — Followed. The Court relied on this case for the definition of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees, including the requirement of actual implementation and monitoring of compliance through dependable supervisors. The Court also cited it for the award of one million pesos as moral damages.

• People vs. Teehankee, Jr., 319 Phil. 128 (1995) — Followed. Cited as precedent for the award of one million pesos as moral damages to the heirs of a murder victim.

• Cancio, Jr. vs. Isip, 440 Phil. 29 (2002) — Cited for the principle that an act or omission causing damage may give rise to two separate civil liabilities and that the offended party cannot recover damages twice for the same act under Article 2177.

• McKee vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 68102, July 16, 1992 — Cited for the proposition that a final and executory judgment in a criminal case has no relevance to a separate quasi-delict action, and that civil liability ex delicto would have been the proper basis for subsidiary liability under Article 103 had the cause of action been based on the crime.

• Article 2176, Civil Code — Defines quasi-delict: whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Applied as the substantive basis of respondents' cause of action, the Court holding that the complaint's allegations squarely invoked quasi-delict.

• Article 2180, Civil Code — Provides that employers shall be liable for damages caused by their employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, and that the responsibility ceases when the employer proves it observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. Applied to hold Safeguard directly and solidarily liable, with the presumption of negligence in supervision arising by operation of law.

• Article 2177, Civil Code — Provides that the offended party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission under both civil liability ex delicto and quasi-delict. Cited as the caveat governing the election between the two causes of action.

• Article 100, Revised Penal Code — Provides that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Distinguished from quasi-delict; the Court held that respondents' action was not based on this provision.

• Article 103, Revised Penal Code — Provides for the subsidiary civil liability of employers for felonies committed by their employees in the discharge of their duties. The Court held this provision inapplicable because the action was based on quasi-delict, not on the crime.

• Article 2206, Civil Code — Provides that the spouse, legitimate children, and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. Applied to sustain the award of moral damages.

• Article 2229, Civil Code — Provides that exemplary damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages. Applied to sustain the award of exemplary damages.

• Article 2231, Civil Code — Provides that in quasi-delicts, exemplary damages may be granted if the defendant acted with gross negligence. Applied as the basis for awarding exemplary damages in this quasi-delict case.

• Article 2208, Civil Code — Provides that attorney's fees may be recovered when exemplary damages are awarded. Applied to sustain the award of attorney's fees.

• Rule 111, Section 1, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure (as amended) — Governs the institution of criminal and civil actions, providing that the civil action for recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives, reserves, or institutes it separately, and that such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code and damages under Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176 of the Civil Code arising from the same act or omission. Applied to determine the procedural framework governing respondents' reservation and separate filing.

Justice Ynares-Santiago (Working Chairperson), Justice Callejo Sr., and Justice Chico-Nazario concurred. Chief Justice Panganiban retired as of December 7, 2006.