Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rambin Yes
Rambin Yes
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.
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
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.