August 2, 2017 the supervision of its employees because it failed to prove strict

implementation of its rules, regulations, guidelines, issuances and

G.R. No. 185597 instructions, and to monitor consistent compliance by respondents. 14

JOHN E.R. REYES and MERWIN JOSEPH REYES, Petitioners, On September 19, 2005, upon Grandeur's motion for reconsideration, the
vs. RTC issued an Order modifying its April 15, 2005 Decision, to wit:
ORICO DOCTOLERO, ROMEO A VILA, GRANDEUR SECURITY AND
SERVICES CORPORATION, and MAKATI CINEMA WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration is
SQUARE, Respondents. hereby GRANTED, and the decision dated 15 April 2005 is hereby
modified, as follows:
DECISION
The Court renders judgment in favor of plaintiffs finding defendants Orico
JARDELEZA, J.: Doctolero and [Romeo] Avila liable for negligence and to pay plaintiffs, the
following amounts:
This is a petition for review on certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court challenging
the Decision2 dated July 25, 2008 and the Resolution3 dated December 5, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in 1. [P]344,898. 73 as actual damages;
CA-G.R. CV No. 88101.

2. [P]360,000.00 as the reasonable lost (sic) or income and

The case arose from an altercation between respondent Orico Doctolero P20,000.00 in the form or tuition fees, books, and other school
(Doctolero ), a security guard of respondent Grandeur Security and incidental expenses;
Services Corporation (Grandeur) and petitioners John E.R. Reyes (John)
and Mervin Joseph Reyes (Mervin) in the parking area of respondent 3. [P]300,000 as moral damages;
Makati Cinema Square (MCS).4
4. [P] 100,000.00 as exemplary damages;
Grandeur advances a different version, one based on the Initial
Report6 conducted by Investigator Cosme Giron. While Doctolero was on duty at the ramp of the exit 5. [P]75,000.00 as attorney's fees;
driveway of MCS's basement parking, John took over the left lane and insisted entry through the basement
parking's exit driveway. Knowing that this is against traffic rules, Doctolero stopped John, prompting the latter to
alight from his vehicle and confront Doctolero. With his wife unable to pacify him, John punched and kicked 6. costs of suit.
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
The Court, however, orders the DISMISSAL of the complaint filed against
continued his attack.
defendants Grandeur Security and Services Corporation and
[MCS].1âwphi1 It is likewise ordered the Dismissal or both the
He caught up with Doctolero and wrestled with him to get the firearm. This Counterclaims filed by defendants Grandeur Security and Services Corp.,
caused the gun to fire off and hit John's leg. Mervin then ran after and [MCS] for the right to litigate is the price we pay in a civil society.
Doctolero but was shot on the stomach by security guard Avila. 7
SO ORDERED. 15 (Emphasis in the original.)
Petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati a complaint
for damages against respondents Doctolero and Avila and their employer In reconsidering its Decision, the RTC held that it re-evaluated the facts
Grandeur, charging the latter with negligence in the selection and and the attending circumstances of the present case and was convinced
supervision of its employees. They likewise impleaded MCS on the ground that Grandeur has sufficiently overcome the presumption of negligence. It
that it was negligent in getting Grandeur's services. In their complaint, gave credence to the testimony of Grandeur's witness, Eduardo Ungui, the
petitioners prayed that respondents be ordered, jointly and severally, to head of the Human Resources Department (HRD) of Grandeur, as
pay them actual, moral, and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and regards the various procedures in its selection from and hiring of security
litigation 8 costs. guards. Ungui testified that Grandeur's hiring procedure included, among
others, several rounds of interview, submission of various clearances from
Respondents Doctolero and Avila failed to file an answer despite service different government agencies, such as the NBI clearance and PNP
of summons upon them. Thus, they were declared in default in an Order clearance, undergoing neuro-psychiatric examinations, drug testing and
dated December 12, 1997.9 physical examinations, attending pre-licensing training and seminars,
securing a security license, and undergoing on the job training for seven
days. 16
For its part, Grandeur asserted that it exercised the required diligence in
the selection and supervision of its employees. It likewise averred that the
shooting incident was caused by the unlawful aggression of petitioners Furthermore, the RTC held that Grandeur was able to show that it
who took advantage of their "martial arts" skills. 10 observed diligence of a good father of the family during the existence of
the employment when it conducted regular and close supervision of its
security guards assigned to various clients. In this regard, the RTC cited
On the other hand, MCS contends that it cannot be held liable for Grandeur's standard operational procedures, as testified to by Ungui,
damages simply because of its ownership of the premises where the which include: (1) daily marking before the security guards are posted; (2)
shooting incident occurred. It argued that the injuries sustained by post-to-post station conducted by the branch supervisor and vice-
petitioners were caused by the acts of respondents Doctolero and Avila, supervisor; (3) round the clock inspection by the company inspector to
for whom respondent Grandeur should be solely responsible. It further determine the efficiency and fulfilment by the security guards of their
argued that the carpark was, at that time, being managed by Park Asia respective duties; (4) a monthly area formation conducted by the operation
Philippines and MCS had no control over the carpark when the shooting officer; (5) a quarterly area formation conducted by the operation officer;
incident occurred on January 26, 1996. It likewise denied liability for the (6) a general formation conducted every six months by the president, vice-
items lost in petitioners' vehicle. 11 president, operation officer and HRD head; (7) a yearly neuro-psychiatric
test; (8) a special seminar conducted every two years; (9) re-training
On January 18, 1999, the RTC rendered judgment 12 against respondents Doctolero course also held every two years; and (10) monthly briefing or orientation
and Avila, finding them responsible for the injuries sustained by petitioners. The RTC ordered them to jointly to those security guards who committed violations. 17 The RTC likewise gave weight
and severally pay petitioners the following: ₱344,898.73 as actual damages; ₱360,000.00 as lost income; to the memorandum/certificates submitted by Grandeur as proof of its diligence in the supervision of the actual
₱20,000.00 as school expenses; ₱300,000.00 as moral damages; ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages; work performances of its employees. 18
₱75,000.00 as attorney's fees; and costs of suit. 13 The trial thereafter continued with respect to Grandeur and
MCS.
Petitioners assailed the RTC Order dated September 19, 2005 before the
CA.
On April 15, 2005, the RTC rendered a decision dismissing the complaint
against MCS. It, however, held Grandeur solidarily liable with respondents The CA dismissed petitioners' appeal and affirmed the RTC's Order. It
Doctolero and Avila. According to the RTC, Grandeur was unable to prove agreed that Grandeur was able to prove with preponderant evidence that it
that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in
1
observed the degree of diligence required in both selection and 8. LIABILITY TO GUARDS AND THIRD PARTIES
supervision of its security guards. 19
The SECURITY COMPANY is NOT an agent or employees (sic) of the
The CA likewise rejected petitioners' arguments against the additional CLIENT and the guards to be assigned by the SECURITY COMP ANY to
evidence belatedly adduced by Grandeur in support of its motion for the CLIENT are in no sense employees of the latter as they arc for all
reconsideration before the RTC. It ruled that the additional memoranda intents and purposes under contract with the SECURITY COMPANY.
and certificate of attendance to seminars which Grandeur attached to its Accordingly, the CLIENT shall not be responsible for any and all claims for
motion for reconsideration can be considered as they are related to the personal injury or death that arises of or in the course of the performance
testimonial evidence adduced during trial. 20 of guard duties. 32 (Emphasis in the original.)

Finally, the CA rejected petitioners' argument that MCS should be held II

liable as indirect employers of respondents. According to the CA, the
concept of indirect employer only relates to the liability for unpaid wages On the other hand, paragraph 5 of Article 218033 of the Civil Code may be applicable to
and, as such, finds no application to this case involving "imputed Grandeur, it being undisputed that respondent guards were its employees. When the employee causes damage
negligence" under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. It held that the lack of due to his own negligence while performing his own duties, there arises the Juris tantum presumption that the
employer-employee relationship between respondents Doctolero and Avila employer is negligent, rebuttable only by proof of observance of the diligence of a good father of a
and respondent MCS bars petitioners' claim against MCS for the former's family. 34 The "diligence of a good father" referred to in the last paragraph of Article 2180 means diligence in
acts. [[21] the selection and supervision of employees. 35

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA denied in its To rebut the presumption of negligence, Grandeur must prove two things:
Resolution dated December 5, 2008.22 first, that it had exercised due diligence in the selection of respondents
Doctolero and Avila, and second, that after hiring Doctolero and Avila,
Hence, the present petition. Grandeur had exercised due diligence in supervising them.

The sole issue for the consideration of this Court is whether Grandeur and In Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, we held:
MCS may be held vicariously liable for the damages caused by
respondents Doctolero and Avila to petitioners John and Mervin Reyes. On the matter of selection of employees, Campo vs. Camarote, supra,
lays down this admonition:
We deny the petition.
x x x In order that the owner of a vehicle may be considered as having
Petitioner contends that MCS should be held liable for the negligence of exercised all diligence of a good father of a family, he should not have
respondents Avila and Doctolero. According to petitioners, since the act or been satisfied with the mere possession of a professional driver's
omission complained of took place in the vicinity of MCS, it is liable for all license; he should have carefully examined the applicant for
damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or employment as to his qualifications, his experience and record of
omission complained of. They reasoned that MCS hired the services of service. These steps appellant failed to observe; he has therefore, failed
Grandeur, whose employees (the security guards), in turn, committed to exercise all due diligence required of a good father of a family in the
harmful acts that caused the damages suffered by petitioners. MCS choice or selection of driver.
should thus be declared as joint tortfeasor with Grandeur and respondent
security guards. 23 Due diligence in the supervision of employees, on the other hand, includes
the formulation of suitable rules and regulations for the guidance of
We cannot agree. MCS is not liable to petitioners. employees and the issuance of proper instructions intended for the
protection of the public and persons with whom the employer has relations
As a general rule, one is only responsible for his own act or through his or its employees and the imposition of necessary disciplinary
omission. 24 This general rule is laid down in Article 2176 of the Civil Code, which provides: measures upon employees in case of breach or as may be warranted to
ensure the performance of acts indispensable to the business of and
beneficial to their employer. To this, we add that actual implementation
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there and monitoring of consistent compliance with said rules should be the
being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage clone. Such constant concern of the employer, acting through dependable supervisors
fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between who should regularly report on their supervisory functions. 36 (Emphasis supplied;
the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions or citations omitted.)
this Chapter.
In the earlier case of Central Taxicab Corp. v. Ex-Meralco Employees
The law, however, provides for exceptions when it makes certain persons Transportation Co.,37 the Court held that there was no hard-and-fast rule on the quantum of evidence
liable for the act or omission of another.1âwphi1One exception is an needed to prove due observance of all the diligence of a good father of a family as would constitute a valid
employer who is made vicariously liable for the tort committed by his defense to the legal presumption of negligence on the part of an employer or master whose employee has, by
employee under paragraph 5 of Article 2180.25 Here, although the employer is not the his negligence, caused damage to another. Jurisprudence nevertheless shows that testimonial evidence,
actual tortfeasor, the law makes him vicariously liable on the basis of the civil law principle of paterfamilias for without more, is insufficient to meet the required quantum of proof.38
failure to exercise due care and vigilance over the acts of one's subordinates to prevent damage to another.26

In Metro Manila Transit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, the Court found

It must be stressed, however, that the above rule is applicable only if there that "[p]etitioner's attempt to prove its diligentissimi patris familias in the
is an employer-employee relationship. 27This employer-employee relationship cannot be selection and supervision of employees through oral evidence must fail
presumed but must be sufficiently proven by the plaintiff.28 The plaintiff must also show that the employee was
as it was unable to buttress the same with any other evidence, object or
acting within the scope of his assigned task when the tort complained of was committed. It is only then that the
documentary, which might obviate the apparent biased nature of the
defendant, as employer, may find it necessary to interpose the defense of due diligence in the selection and
testimony."39 There, the supposed clearances, results of seminars and
supervision of 29employees.
tests which Leonardo allegedly submitted and complied with were never
presented in court despite the fact that, if true, then they were obviously in
In Mamaril v. The Boy Scout of the Philippines,30 we found that there was no employer- the possession and control of Metro Manila Transit Corporation (MMTC).
employee relationship between Boy Scout of the Philippines (BSP) and the security guards assigned to it by an Subsequently, in a different case also involving MMTC, the Court held that
agency pursuant to a Guard Service Contract. In the absence of such relationship, vicarious liability under "in a trial involving the issue of vicarious liability, employers must
Article 2180 of the Civil Code cannot apply as against BSP. 31 Similarly, we find no employer-employee submit concrete proof, including documentary evidence." 40
relationship between MCS and respondent guards. The guards were merely assigned by Grandeur to secure
MCS' premises pursuant to their Contract of Guard Services. Thus, MCS cannot be held vicariously liable for
A
damages caused by these guards' acts or omissions.

Here, both the R TC and the CA found that Grandeur was able to
Neither can it be said that a principal-agency relationship existed between sufficiently prove, through testimonial and documentary evidence, that it
MCS and Grandeur. Section 8 of the Contract for Guard Services between had exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in
them explicitly states:
2
the selection and hiring of its security guards. As testified to by its HRD Here, Grandeur's HRD head, Ungui, likewise testified on Grandeur's
head Ungui, and corroborated by documentary evidence including standard operational procedures, showing the means by which Grandeur
clearances from various government agencies, certificates, and favorable conducts close and regular supervision over the security guards assigned
test results in medical and psychiatric examinations, Grandeur's selection to their various clients. 60 Grandeur also submitted as evidence certificates of the 62 attendance to
and hiring procedure was outlined as follows: various seminars and the memoranda both those commending respondents for their good works63 and
reprimanding them for violations of various company policies.64 We agree with the CA that these may be
considered, as they are related to the documents and testimonies adduced during trial to show Grandeur's
1. Initial screening; diligence in the supervision of the actual work performance of its employees.

2. Submission of personal bio-data;

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
3. Submission of the following documents and clearances: (1) selection and supervision of its employees. Hence, having successfully
NBI Clearance; (2) PDICE Clearance; (3) Barangay Clearance; overcome the legal presumption of negligence, it is relieved of liability from
(4) PNP Clearance; (5) Birth Certificate; (6) High School the negligent acts of its employees, respondents Doctolero and Avila.
Diploma/Transcript/College Diploma; (7) Reserved Officers
Training Corps or Citizens Army Training ce1iificate; (8) Court
Clearances; and (9) resignation or clearance from previous WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July 25, 2008
employment; and the Resolution dated December 5, 2008 of the Court of Appeals
are AFFIRMED.
4. Pre-licensing training (15 days or 150 hours) for those
without experience or pre-training course (56 hours) for SO ORDERED.
applicants with working experience as security guard;

5. Undergo neuro-psychiatric examination, drug testing and

physical examination;

6. Submit and secure a security license before being given an

application form;

7. Series of Interviews by Grandeur's Recruiting Officer,

Personnel Clerk, Head of Human Resources Department,
Operation Department or Security Officer, Senior Security
Officer, Chief Security Officer, Assistant Vice President for
Operations, Assistant Vice President for Accounting, and
recommending approval by the Vice President and the
President.

8. The applicant undergoes on-the-job training (OJT) for seven

days assigned in the field or within Grandeur's office; and

9. The applicant then undergoes a probationary period of six

months after which the employee automatically becomes
regular upon meeting the company standards. 41

Unlike in the aforecited MMTC cases, the evidence presented by

Grandeur consists not only in the testimony of its HRD head but also by
documentary evidence showing respondents Doctolero's and Avila's
compliance with the above hiring and selection 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 satisfactory completion of the Pre-Licensing Training Course;48 (7) High School Diplomas;49 (8) SSS
Personal Data Records;50 (9) Barangay Clearances;51 (10) Court Clearance; 52 (11) Neuro-psychiatric result
issued by Goodwill Medical Center, Inc. for Doctolero's pre-employment screening as Security
Guard 53 /Evaluation Report by Office Chief Surgeon Army, Headquarters, Phil. Army, Fort Bonifacio Metro-
Manila for 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)
Ce1iificate issued by Cordova High School showing that Doctolero had completed the requirements of the
courts of Institution in Citizen Army Training-I ; 56 (14) Certification by Grandeur that Doctolero has submitted
the requirements for his application for the post of Security Guard. 57 Thus, we agree with the RTC and CA's
evaluation that Grandeur was able to satisfactorily prove that it had exercised due diligence in the selection of
respondents Doctolero and Avila.

Once evidence is introduced showing that the employer exercised the

required amount of care in selecting its employees, half of the employer's
burden is overcome.58

The question of diligent supervision, however, depends on the

circumstances of employment.1âwphi1 Ordinarily, evidence demonstrating
that the employer has exercised 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