G.R. No. 185597. August 2, 2017.

* negligence while performing his own duties, there arises the juris tantum presumption that the
JOHN E.R. REYES and MERWIN JOSEPH REYES, petitioners, vs. ORICO employer is negligent, rebuttable only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good father
DOCTOLERO, ROMEO AVILA, GRANDEUR SECURITY AND SERVICES of a family. The “diligence of a good father” referred to in the last paragraph of Article 2180
CORPORATION, and MAKATI CINEMA SQUARE, respondents. means diligence in the selection and supervision of employees. To rebut the presumption of
negligence, Grandeur must prove two things: first, that it had exercised due diligence in
Civil Law; Quasi-Delicts; Vicarious Liability; As a general rule, one is only responsible for his own act
the selection of respondents Doctolero and Avila, and second, that after hiring Doctolero and
or omission; One exception is an employer who is made vicariously liable for the tort committed by his employee
Avila, Grandeur had exercised due diligence in supervising them.
under paragraph 5 of Article 2180.—As a general rule, one is only responsible for his own act or
omission. This general rule is laid down in Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which provides: Art. Same; Same; Same; In Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 223 SCRA 521 (1993), the
2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is Supreme Court (SC) found that “[p]etitioner’s attempt to prove its diligentissimi patris familias in the selection
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no preexisting and supervision of employees through oral evidence must fail as it was unable to buttress the same with any other
contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the evidence, object or documentary, which might obviate the apparent biased nature of the testimony.”—In Metro
provisions of this Chapter. The law, however, provides for exceptions when it makes certain
Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 223 SCRA 521 (1993), the Court found that
persons liable for the act or omission of another. One exception is an employer who is made
vicariously liable for the tort committed by his employee under paragraph 5 of Article 2180. “[p]etitioner’s attempt to prove its diligentissimi patris familias in the selection and supervision of
Here, although the employer is not the actual tortfeasor, the law makes him vicariously liable employees through oral evidence must fail as it was unable to buttress the same with any
other evidence, object or documentary, which might obviate the apparent biased nature of the
on the basis of the civil law principle of pater familias for failure to exercise due care and
testimony.” There, the supposed clearances, results of seminars and tests which Leonardo
vigilance over the acts of one’s subordinates to prevent damage to another. It must be stressed,
allegedly submitted and complied with were never presented in court despite the fact that, if
however, that the above rule is applicable only if there is an employer-employee relationship.
true, then they were obviously in the possession and control of Metro Manila Transit
This employer-employee relationship cannot be presumed but must be sufficiently proven by
Corporation (MMTC). Subsequently, in a different case also involving MMTC, the Court held
the plaintiff. The plaintiff must also show that the employee was acting within the scope of his
that “in a trial involving the issue of vicarious liability, employers must submit concrete proof,
assigned task when the tort complained of was committed. It is only then that the defendant,
including documentary evidence.”
as employer, may find it necessary to interpose the defense of due diligence in the selection and
supervision of employees.
Same; Same; Same; Ordinarily, evidence demonstrating that the employer has exercised diligent
Same; Same; Same; Employer-Employee Relationship; In the absence of employer-employee relationship, supervision of its employee during the performance of the latter’s assigned tasks would be enough to relieve him
vicarious liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code cannot apply.—In Mamaril v. The Boy Scout of the of the liability imposed by Article 2180, in relation to Article 2176 of the Civil Code.—The question of
Philippines, 688 SCRA 437 (2013), we found that there was no employer-employee relationship diligent supervision, however, depends on the circumstances of employment. Ordinarily,
between Boy Scout of the Philippines (BSP) and the security guards assigned to it by an agency evidence demonstrating that the employer has exercised diligent supervision of its employee
pursuant to a Guard Service Contract. In the absence of such relationship, vicarious liability during the performance of the latter’s assigned tasks would be enough to relieve him of the
under Article 2180 of the Civil Code cannot apply as against BSP. Similarly, we find no liability imposed by Article 2180, in relation to Article 2176 of the Civil Code. Here, Grandeur’s
employer-employee relationship between MCS and respondent guards. The guards were HRD head, Ungui, likewise testified on Grandeur’s standard operational procedures, showing
merely assigned by Grandeur to secure MCS’ premises pursuant to their Contract of Guard the means by which Grandeur conducts close and regular supervision over the security guards
Services. Thus, MCS cannot be held vicariously liable for damages caused by these guards’ acts assigned to their various clients. Grandeur also submitted as evidence certificates of
or omissions. attendance to various seminars and the memoranda both those commending respondents for
their good works and reprimanding them for violations of various company policies. We agree
Same; Same; Same; When the employee causes damage due to his own negligence while performing his own with the CA that these may be considered, as they are related to the documents and
duties, there arises the juris tantum presumption that the employer is negligent, rebuttable only by proof of testimonies adduced during trial to show Grandeur’s diligence in the supervision of the actual
observance of the diligence of a good father of a family. The “diligence of a good father” referred to in the last work performance of its employees. Considering all the evidence borne by the records, we find
paragraph of Article 2180 means diligence in the selection and supervision of employees.—Paragraph 5 of that Grandeur has sufficiently exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the
selection and supervision of its employees. Hence, having successfully overcome the legal
Article 2180 of the Civil Code may be applicable to Grandeur, it being undisputed that
presumption of negligence, it is relieved of liability from the negligent acts of its employees,
respondent guards were its employees. When the employee causes damage due to his own
respondents Doctolero and Avila.
 JARDELEZA, J.: Doctolero and wrestled with him to get the firearm. This caused the gun to fire off and
hit John’s leg. Mervin then ran after Doctolero but was shot on the stomach by security
This is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court guard Avila.7
challenging the Decision2 dated July 25, 2008 and the Resolution3 dated December 5,
2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 88101. Petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati a complaint for
damages against respondents Doctolero and Avila and their employer Grandeur,
The case arose from an altercation between respondent Orico Doctolero charging the latter with negligence in the selection and supervision of its employees.
(Doctolero), a security guard of respondent Grandeur Security and Services They likewise impleaded MCS on the ground that it was negligent in getting
Corporation (Grandeur) and petitioners John E.R. Reyes (John) and Mervin Joseph Grandeur’s services. In their complaint, petitioners prayed that respondents be
Reyes (Mervin) in the parking area of respondent Makati Cinema Square (MCS).4 ordered, jointly and severally, to pay them actual, moral, and exemplary damages,
attorney’s fees and litigation costs.8
Petitioners recount the facts as follows: on January 26, 1996, between 4:30 to 5:00
P.M., John was driving a Toyota Tamaraw with plate no. PCL-349. As he was Respondents Doctolero and Avila failed to file an answer despite service of
approaching the entrance of the basement parking of MCS, Doctolero stopped him to summons upon them. Thus, they were declared in default in an Order dated December
give way to outgoing cars. After a few minutes, Doctolero gave John a signal to proceed 12, 1997.9
but afterwards stopped him to allow the opposite car to move to the right side. The
third time that Doctolero gave John the signal to proceed, only to stop him again to For its part, Grandeur asserted that it exercised the required diligence in the
allow a car on the opposite side to advance to his right, it almost caused a collision. selection and supervision of its employees. It likewise averred that the shooting
John then told Doctolero of the latter’s mistake in giving him signals to proceed, then incident was caused by the unlawful aggression of petitioners who took advantage of
stopping him only to allow cars from the opposite side to move to his side. Infuriated, their “martial arts” skills.10
Doctolero shouted “PUTANG INA MO A” at John. Then, as John was about to disembark
On the other hand, MCS contends that it cannot be held liable for damages simply
from his vehicle, he saw Doctolero pointing his gun at him. Sensing that Doctolero was
because of its ownership of the premises where the shooting incident occurred. It
about to pull the trigger, John tried to run towards Doctolero to tackle him.
argued that the injuries sustained by petitioners were caused by the acts of
Unfortunately, Doctolero was able to pull the trigger before John reached him, hitting
respondents Doctolero and Avila, for whom respondent Grandeur should be solely
the latter’s left leg in the process. Doctolero also shot at petitioner Mervin when he
responsible. It further argued that the carpark was, at that time, being managed by
rushed to John’s rescue. When he missed, Mervin caught Doctolero and pushed him
Park Asia Philippines and MCS had no control over the carpark when the shooting
down but was unable to control his speed. As a result, Mervin went inside MCS, where
incident occurred on January 26, 1996. It likewise denied liability for the items lost in
he was shot in the stomach by another security guard, respondent Romeo Avila
petitioners’ vehicle.11
(Avila).5
On January 18, 1999, the RTC rendered judgment12against respondents Doctolero
Grandeur advances a different version, one based on the Initial Report6 conducted
and Avila, finding them responsible for the injuries sustained by petitioners. The RTC
by Investigator Cosme Giron. While Doctolero was on duty at the ramp of the exit
ordered them to jointly and severally pay petitioners the following: P344,898.73 as
driveway of MCS’s basement parking, John took over the left lane and insisted entry
actual damages; P360,000.00 as lost income; P20,000.00 as school expenses;
through the basement parking’s exit driveway. Knowing that this is against traffic
P300,000.00 as moral damages; P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; P75,000.00 as
rules, Doctolero stopped John, prompting the latter to alight from his vehicle and
attorney’s fees; and costs of suit.13 The trial thereafter continued with respect to
confront Doctolero. With his wife unable to pacify him, John punched and kicked
Grandeur and MCS.
Doctolero, hitting the latter on his left face and stomach. Doctolero tried to step back
to avoid his aggressor but John persisted, causing Doctolero to draw his service firearm
and fire a warning shot. John ignored this and continued his attack. He caught up with
 On April 15, 2005, the RTC rendered a decision dismissing the complaint against Furthermore, the RTC held that Grandeur was able to show that it observed
MCS. It, however, held Grandeur solidarily liable with respondents Doctolero and diligence of a good father of the family during the existence of the employment when
Avila. According to the RTC, Grandeur was unable to prove that it exercised the it conducted regular and close supervision of its security guards assigned to various
diligence of a good father of a family in the supervision of its employees because it failed clients. In this regard, the RTC cited Grandeur’s standard operational procedures, as
to prove strict implementation of its rules, regulations, guidelines, issuances and testified to by Ungui, which include: (1) daily marking before the security guards are
instructions, and to monitor consistent compliance by respondents.14 posted; (2) post-to-post station conducted by the branch supervisor and vice-
supervisor; (3) round the clock inspection by the company inspector to determine the
On September 19, 2005, upon Grandeur’s motion for reconsideration, the RTC efficiency and fulfilment by the security guards of their respective duties; (4) a monthly
issued an Order modifying its April 15, 2005 Decision, to wit: area formation conducted by the operation officer; (5) a quarterly area formation
conducted by the operation officer; (6) a general formation conducted every six
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration is months by the president, vice president, operation officer and HRD head; (7) a yearly
hereby GRANTED, and the decision dated 15 April 2005 is hereby modified, as follows: neuropsychiatric test; (8) a special seminar conducted every two years; (9) retraining
The Court renders judgment in favor of plaintiffs finding defendants Orico course also held every two years; and (10) monthly briefing or orientation to those
Doctolero and [Romeo] Avila liable for negligence and to pay plaintiffs, the following security guards who committed violations.17 The RTC likewise gave weight to the
amounts: memorandum/certificates submitted by Grandeur as proof of its diligence in
1. [P]344,898.73 as actual damages;
the supervision of the actual work performances of its employees.18
2. [P]360,000.00 as the reasonable lost (sic) of income and P20,000.00 in the form of
tuition fees, books, and other school incidental expenses;
3. [P]300,000 as moral damages; Petitioners assailed the RTC Order dated September 19, 2005 before the CA.
4. [P]100,000.00 as exemplary damages;
5. [P]75,000.00 as attorney’s fees; The CA dismissed petitioners’ appeal and affirmed the RTC’s Order. It agreed that
6. costs of suit. Grandeur was able to prove with preponderant evidence that it observed the degree of
The Court, however, orders the DISMISSAL of the complaint filed against diligence required in both selection and supervision of its security guards.19
defendants Grandeur Security and Services Corporation and [MCS]. It is likewise
ordered the Dismissal of both the Counterclaims filed by defendants Grandeur Security The CA likewise rejected petitioners’ arguments against the additional evidence
and Services Corp., and [MCS] for the right to litigate is the price we pay in a civil belatedly adduced by Grandeur in support of its motion for reconsideration before the
society. RTC. It ruled that the additional memoranda and certificate of attendance to seminars
SO ORDERED.15 (Emphasis in the original)
which Grandeur attached to its motion for reconsideration can be considered as they
In reconsidering its Decision, the RTC held that it reevaluated the facts and the are related to the testimonial evidence adduced during trial.20
attending circumstances of the present case and was convinced that Grandeur has
sufficiently overcome the presumption of negligence. It gave credence to the testimony Finally, the CA rejected petitioners’ argument that MCS should be held liable as
of Grandeur’s witness, Eduardo Ungui, the head of the Human Resources Department indirect employers of respondents. According to the CA, the concept of indirect
(HRD) of Grandeur, as regards the various procedures in its selection and hiring of employer only relates to the liability for unpaid wages and, as such, finds no
security guards. Ungui testified that Grandeur’s hiring procedure included, among application to this case involving “imputed negligence” under Article 2180 of the Civil
others, several rounds of interview, submission of various clearances from different Code. It held that the lack of employer-employee relationship between respondents
government agencies, such as the NBI clearance and PNP clearance, undergoing Doctolero and Avila and respondent MCS bars petitioners’ claim against MCS for the
neuropsychiatric examinations, drug testing and physical examinations, attending former’s acts.21
prelicensing training and seminars, securing a security license, and undergoing on-the-
job training for seven days.16 Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA denied in its Resolution
dated December 5, 2008.22
 Hence, the present petition. show that the employee was acting within the scope of his assigned task when the tort
complained of was committed. It is only then that the defendant, as employer, may find
The sole issue for the consideration of this Court is whether Grandeur and MCS it necessary to interpose the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision
may be held vicariously liable for the damages caused by respondents Doctolero and of employees.29
Avila to petitioners John and Mervin Reyes.
In Mamaril v. The Boy Scout of the Philippines,30 we found that there was no employer-
We deny the petition. employee relationship between Boy Scout of the Philippines (BSP) and the security
guards assigned to it by an agency pursuant to a Guard Service Contract. In the
I absence of such relationship, vicarious liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code
cannot apply as against BSP.31 Similarly, we find no employer-employee relationship
Petitioner contends that MCS should be held liable for the negligence of between MCS and respondent guards. The guards were merely assigned by Grandeur
respondents Avila and Doctolero. According to petitioners, since the act or omission to secure MCS’ premises pursuant to their Contract of Guard Services. Thus, MCS
complained of took place in the vicinity of MCS, it is liable for all damages which are cannot be held vicariously liable for damages caused by these guards’ acts or omissions.
the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. They
reasoned that MCS hired the services of Grandeur, whose employees (the security Neither can it be said that a principal-agency relationship existed between MCS
guards), in turn, committed harmful acts that caused the damages suffered by and Grandeur. Section 8 of the Contract for Guard Services between them explicitly
petitioners. MCS should thus be declared as a joint tortfeasor with Grandeur and states:
respondent security guards.23
8. LIABILITY TO GUARDS AND THIRD PARTIES
We cannot agree. MCS is not liable to petitioners. The SECURITY COMPANY is NOT an agent or employees (sic) of the CLIENT and the
guards to be assigned by the SECURITY COMPANY to the CLIENT are in no sense employees
As a general rule, one is only responsible for his own act or omission.24 This general of the latter as they are for all intents and purposes under contract with the SECURITY
rule is laid down in Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which provides: COMPANY. Accordingly, the CLIENT shall not be responsible for any and all claims for
personal injury or death that arises of or in the course of the performance of guard
duties.32 (Emphasis in the original)
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
preexisting contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed II
by the provisions of this Chapter. On the other hand, paragraph 5 of Article 218033 of the Civil Code may be applicable
to Grandeur, it being undisputed that respondent guards were its employees. When
The law, however, provides for exceptions when it makes certain persons liable for the employee causes damage due to his own negligence while performing his own
the act or omission of another. One exception is an employer who is made vicariously duties, there arises the juris tantum presumption that the employer is negligent,
liable for the tort committed by his employee under paragraph 5 of Article 2180.25 Here, rebuttable only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a family.34 The
although the employer is not the actual tortfeasor, the law makes him vicariously liable “diligence of a good father” referred to in the last paragraph of Article 2180 means
on the basis of the civil law principle of pater familias for failure to exercise due care and diligence in the selection and supervision of employees.35
vigilance over the acts of one’s subordinates to prevent damage to another.26
To rebut the presumption of negligence, Grandeur must prove two things: first, that
It must be stressed, however, that the above rule is applicable only if there is an it had exercised due diligence in the selection of respondents Doctolero and Avila,
employer-employee relationship.27 This employer-employee relationship cannot be and second, that after hiring Doctolero and Avila, Grandeur had exercised due diligence
presumed but must be sufficiently proven by the plaintiff.28 The plaintiff must also
in supervising them.
 In Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, we held: A

On the matter of selection of employees, Campo vs. Camarote,supra, lays down this Here, both the RTC and the CA found that Grandeur was able to sufficiently prove,
admonition: through testimonial and documentary evidence, that it had exercised the diligence of
“x x x In order that the owner of a vehicle may be considered as having exercised all a good father of a family in the selection and hiring of its security guards. As testified to
diligence of a good father of a family, he should not have been satisfied with the mere by its HRD head Ungui, and corroborated by documentary evidence including
possession of a professional driver’s license; he should have carefully examined the clearances from various government agencies, certificates, and favorable test results in
applicant for employment as to his qualifications, his experience and record of service.
medical and psychiatric examinations, Grandeur’s selection and hiring procedure was
These steps appellant failed to observe; he has therefore, failed to exercise all due diligence
required of a good father of a family in the choice or selection of driver. outlined as follows:
Due diligence in the supervision of employees, on the other hand, includes the formulation
of suitable rules and regulations for the guidance of employees and the issuance of proper 1. Initial screening;
instructions intended for the protection of the public and persons with whom the employer 2. Submission of personal biodata;
has relations through his or its employees and the imposition of necessary disciplinary 3. Submission of the following documents and clearances: (1) NBI Clearance; (2)
measures upon employees in case of breach or as may be warranted to ensure the performance PDICE Clearance; (3) Barangay Clearance; (4) PNP Clearance; (5) Birth
of acts indispensable to the business of and beneficial to their employer. To this, we add that Certificate;
actual implementation and monitoring of consistent compliance with said rules should be the (6) High School Diploma/Transcript/College Diploma; (7) Reserved Officers
constant concern of the employer, acting through dependable supervisors who should Training Corps or Citizens Army Training certificate; (8) Court Clearances; and
regularly report on their supervisory functions.”36 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)
(9) resignation or clearance from previous employment;
In the earlier case of Central Taxicab Corp. v. Ex-Meralco Employees Transportation 4. Prelicensing training (15 days or 150 hours) for those without experience or
Co.,37 the Court held that there was no hard-and-fast rule on the quantum of evidence pretraining course (56 hours) for applicants with working experience as
needed to prove due observance of all the diligence of a good father of a family as would security guard;
constitute a valid defense to the legal presumption of negligence on the part of an 5. Undergo neuropsychiatric examination, drug testing and physical examination;
employer or master whose employee has, by his negligence, caused damage to another. 6. Submit and secure a security license before being given an application form;
Jurisprudence nevertheless shows that testimonial evidence, without more, is 7. Series of Interviews by Grandeur’s Recruiting Officer, Personnel Clerk, Head of
insufficient to meet the required quantum of proof.38 Human Resources Department, Operation Department or Security Officer,
Senior Security Officer, Chief Security Officer, Assistant Vice President for
In Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, the Court found that Operations, Assistant Vice President for Accounting, and recommending
approval by the Vice President and the President.
“[p]etitioner’s attempt to prove its diligentissimi patris familias in the selection and
8. The applicant undergoes on-the-job training (OJT) for seven days assigned in the
supervision of employees through oral evidence must fail as it was unable to buttress
field or within Grandeur’s office; and
the same with any other evidence, object or documentary, which might obviate the
9. The applicant then undergoes a probationary period of six months after which
apparent biased nature of the testimony.”39 There, the supposed clearances, results of
the employee automatically becomes regular upon meeting the company standards.41
seminars and tests which Leonardo allegedly submitted and complied with were never
presented in court despite the fact that, if true, then they were obviously in the
possession and control of Metro Manila Transit Corporation (MMTC). Subsequently, Unlike in the aforecited MMTC cases, the evidence presented by Grandeur consists
in a different case also involving MMTC, the Court held that “in a trial involving the not only in the testimony of its HRD head but also by documentary evidence showing
issue of vicarious liability, employers must submit concrete proof, including respondents Doctolero’s and Avila’s compliance with the above hiring and selection
documentary evidence.”40 process consisting of their respective: (1) private security licenses;42 (2) NBI
Clearances;43 (3) Medical Certificates;44 (4) Police Clearances;45 (5) Certificate of Live
Birth46/Certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar appertaining to date of
birth;47 (6) Certificates issued by the Safety Vocational and Training Center for presumption of negligence, it is relieved of liability from the negligent acts of its
satisfactory completion of the Prelicensing Training Course;48 (7) High School employees, respondents Doctolero and Avila.
Diplomas;49 (8) SSS Personal Data Records;50 (9) BarangayClearances;51 (10) Court
Clearance;52 (11) Neuropsychiatric result issued by Goodwill Medical Center, Inc. for WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July 25, 2008 and the
Doctolero’s pre-employment screening as Security Guard53/Evaluation Report by Resolution dated December 5, 2008 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. SO
Office Chief Surgeon Army, Headquarters, Phil. Army, Fort Bonifacio Metro Manila for ORDERED.
Avila showing an above average result and no psychotic ideations;54 (12) Certification
from Varsitarian Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. that Doctolero has been
employed with said agency;55 (13) Certificate issued by Cordova High School showing Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
that Doctolero had completed the requirements of the courts of Institution in Citizen Notes.—Under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code, when an injury is caused by the
Army Training-1;56 (14) Certification by Grandeur that Doctolero has submitted the negligence of the employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was
requirements for his application for the post of Security Guard.57 Thus, we agree with negligence on the part of the master or employer either in the selection of the servant
the RTC and CA’s evaluation that Grandeur was able to satisfactorily prove that it had or employee, or in the supervision over him after selection or both. (Manliclic vs.
exercised due diligence in the selection of respondents Doctolero and Avila.
Calaunan,512 SCRA 642 [2007])
Once evidence is introduced showing that the employer exercised the required When an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, a legal presumption
amount of care in selecting its employees, half of the employer’s burden is overcome.58 instantly arises that the employer was negligent, which presumption may be rebutted
only by a clear showing on the part of the employer that he exercised the diligence of
B a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of his employee. (The Heirs of
Redentor Completo vs. Albayda, Jr., 624 SCRA 97 [2010])
The question of diligent supervision, however, depends on the circumstances of
employment. Ordinarily, evidence demonstrating that the employer has exercised ——o0o——
diligent supervision of its employee during the performance of the latter’s assigned
tasks would be enough to relieve him of the liability imposed by Article 2180, in
relation to Article 2176 of the Civil Code.59

Here, Grandeur’s HRD head, Ungui, likewise testified on Grandeur’s standard

Considering all the evidence borne by the records, we find that Grandeur has
sufficiently exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and
supervision of its employees. Hence, having successfully overcome the legal