Safeguard Security Agency Inc vs Tangco case digest

Safeguard Security Agency Inc. and Admer Pajarillo vs. Lauro Tangco, et.al G.R. No. 165732, 14 December 2006 Nature: Petition for review on certiorari Ponente: Austria-Martinez, J. FACTS: On 3 November 1997, at about 2:50 p.m., Evangeline Tangco went to Ecology Bank, Katipunan Branch in Quezon City to renew her time deposit. Evangeline, a duly licensed firearm holder with corresponding permit to carry the same outside of her residence, approached Pajarillo, security guard of Ecology Bank to deposit the firearm for safekeeping, suddenly, Pajarillo shot Evangeline with his service shotgun hitting her in the abdomen instantly causing her death. Evangeline’s husband, Lauro, together with his six minor children filed with the RTC of QC a criminal case against Pajarillo, where they likewise reserved their right to file a separate civil action on the said criminal case. Pajarillo was subsequently convicted of homicide in 19 January 2000 by the RTC and the CA upheld the decision with modification on the penalty on 31 July 2000. On 14 January 1998, respondents filed with the RTC of Marikina City a complaint for damages against Pajarillo for negligently shooting Evangeline and against Safeguard Security Agency Inc. for failing to observe the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage committed by its security guard. The respondents prayed for actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The RTC of Marikina rendered judgment in favor of Lauro Tangco et. al. ordering Pajarillo and Safeguard Security agency Inc. ,jointly and severally, to pay: a. ₱157,430.00 as actual damages; b. ₱50,000 as death indemnity; c. ₱1million pesos as moral damages; d. ₱300,000.00 as exemplary damages; e. ₱30,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and costs of suit. The RTC ruled that Pajarillo did not act in self-defense; giving no weight to his claim that Evangeline was seen roaming around the area prior to the incident given that Pajarillo had not made any such reports to the head office and the police authorities. Pajarillo should have exercised proper prudence and necessary care in ascertaining the matter instead of shooting her instantly. The RTC likewise found Safeguard to be jointly and severally liable with Pajarillo since there was no sufficient evidence to show that Safeguard exercised the diligence of a good father by simply showing that it required its guards to attend trainings and seminars which is not the supervision as contemplated under the law. It includes the duty to see to it that such regulations and instructions are faithfully complied with. The CA modified that decision of the RTC saying that Safeguard Security Agency Inc. is only subsidiarily liable. A motion for reconsideration was subsequently filed and denied by the CA, hence this petition. ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the Pajarillo is guilty of negligence in shooting Evangeline

2. Whether or not Safeguard Security Agency Inc. should be held solidarily liable for the damages awarded to respondents in relation to Article 2176 of the Civil Code. RATIO: 1. Yes, Pajarillo is guilty of negligence in shooting Evangeline as upheld by both the RTC and CA in separate decisions. The SC affirms these decisions since based on the evidence presented, Pajarillo failed to substantiate his claims that Evangeline was seen roaming outside the vicinity of the bank and acting suspiciously which Pajarillo mistook as a bank robbery which led him to draw his service firearm and shot Evangeline. 2. Yes, Safeguard Security Agency Inc. should be held solidarily liable for the damages awarded to the respondents. The nature of the respondents’ cause of action is determined in the complaint itself, its allegations and prayer for relief. In the complaint, the respondents are invoking their right to recover damages against Safeguard for their indirect responsibility for the injury caused by Pajarillo’s act of shooting and killing Evangeline under Article 2176. Thus, the civil action filed by respondents was not derived from the criminal liability of Pajarillo but one based on culpa aquiliana or quasi delict which is a separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from crime. As the employer of Pajarillo, Safeguard is primarily and solidarily liable for the quasi-delict committed by Pajarillo and is presumed to be negligent in the selection and supervision of his employee by operation of law. The Court agrees with the RTC’s finding that Safeguard had exercised diligence in the selection of Pajarillo since records show that he underwent psychological and neuropsychiatric evaluation, pre-licensing training course for security guards, as well as police and NBI clearances. However, Safeguard was not diligent in providing trainings, classroom instructions and continuous evaluation of the security guard’s performance. Thus, the SC affirms with modification that the civil liability of Safeguard Security Agency Inc. is solidary and primary under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.