Safeguard Security Agency v Tangco

G.R. No. 165732

December 14, 2006

Austria-Martinez, J:
Evangeline Tangco was about to renew her Time Deposit Account with Ecology Bank in
Katipunan, Quezon City. She was a licensed firearm holder with permit to carry outside her
residence, so she brought it at the time she went to the bank. As she was about to deposit the
gun to security guard Admer Pajarillo for safekeeping, the latter shot Evangeline with a service
shotgun which caused her death. The family immediately filed a criminal case of homicide against
Pajarillo, and reserved the right to file a civil claim. Pajarillo was convicted. Meanwhile, the family
filed a civil suit against Pajarillo for negligence and Safeguard Security Agency, the employer of
Pajarillo, for failing to exercise due diligence of a good father of a family in the hiring and
supervision of its employees.

The RTC rendered its decision in favor of the family and found them entitled to damages.
It found that both Pajarillo and the Agency were liable jointly and severally. Safeguard Security
and Pajarillo appealed to the CA, but the affirmed with modifications the ruling of the RTC. In this
case, the CA declared that the liability of Safeguard Security was only subsidiary, in light of Article
103 of the Revised Penal Code on civil liability of employers. Petitioner agency went to the
Supreme Court to challenge the decision of the CA finding them negligent. The Supreme Court
ruled that the factual antecedents of the case would show that there was negligence, the only
thing left to resolve is whether the CA correctly ruled that the liability of Pajarillo and the Agency
were solidary or only subsidiary.

Issues:
Should the liability of an employee be based on delict, is a claim for quasi-delict against the
employer barred?

Held:
No. It is important to determine the nature of respondents' cause of action. The nature of
a cause of action is determined by the facts alleged in the complaint as constituting the cause of
action.[14] The purpose of an action or suit and the law to govern it is to be determined not by the
claim of the party filing the action, made in his argument or brief, but rather by the complaint itself,
its allegations and prayer for relief
Alleging negligence in the hiring and supervision of employees, a reading of respondents'
complaint shows that the latter are invoking their right to recover damages against Safeguard for
their vicarious responsibility for the injury caused by Pajarillo's act of shooting and killing
Evangeline under Article 2176, Civil Code.
The civil action filed by respondents was not derived from the criminal liability of Pajarillo
in the criminal case but one based on culpa aquiliana or quasi-delict which is separate and distinct
from the civil liability arising from crime.[18] The source of the obligation sought to be enforced in
the civil case is a quasi-delict not an act or omission punishable by law.
As clearly shown by the allegations in the complaint, respondents' cause of action is based
on quasi-delict. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, when the injury is caused by the negligence
of the employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law that there was negligence on the part
of the master or the employer either in the selection of the servant or employee, or in the
supervision over him after selection or both. The liability of the employer under Article 2180 is
direct and immediate. Therefore, it is incumbent upon petitioners to prove that they exercised the
diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employee.