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.
Evangelines 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 attorneys 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 attorneys 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 Pajarillos 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 RTCs 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 guards 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.