DULAY v CA [G.R. No. 108017. April 3, 1995.] MARIA BENITA A. DULAY, in her, own behalf and in behalf of the minor children
KRIZTEEN ELIZABETH, BEVERLY MARIE and NAPOLEON II, all surnamed DULAY, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS,
Former Eighth Division, HON. TEODORO P. REGINO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital
Region, Quezon City, Br. 84, SAFEGUARD INVESTIGATION AND SECURITY CO., INC., and SUPERGUARD SECURITY
CORPORATION, respondents.
FACTS:
On December 7, 1988, an altercation between Benigno Torzuela and Atty. Napoleon Dulay occurred at the "Big Bang sa Alabang," Alabang Village, Muntinlupa as a result of which Benigno Torzuela, the security guard on duty at the said carnival, shot and killed Atty. Napoleon Dulay.
Herein petitioner Maria Benita A. Dulay, widow of the deceased Napoleon Dulay, in her own behalf and in behalf of her minor children, filed on February 8, 1989 an action for damages against Benigno Torzuela and herein private respondents Safeguard Investigation and Security Co., Inc., ("SAFEGUARD") and/or Superguard Security Corp. ("SUPERGUARD"), alleged employers of defendant Torzuela. The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-89-1751.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) RTC: the complaint against the alternative defendants Superguard Security Corporation and Safeguard Investigation and Security Co., Inc., must be and (sic) it is hereby dismissed.
ISSUE:
Whether Superguard is liable
RULING:
The case is remanded to the Regional Trial Court for trial on the merits.
The complaint sufficiently alleged an actionable breach on the part of the defendant Torzuela and respondents SUPERGUARD and/or SAFEGUARD. It is enough that the complaint alleged that Benigno Torzuela shot Napoleon Dulay resulting in the latter's death; that the shooting occurred while Torzuela was on duty; and that either SUPERGUARD and/or SAFEGUARD was Torzuela's employer and responsible for his acts. This does not operate however, to establish that the defendants below are liable. Whether or not the shooting was actually reckless and wanton or attended by negligence and whether it was actually done within the scope of Torzuela's duties; whether the private respondents SUPERGUARD and/or SAFEGUARD failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family; and whether the defendants are actually liable, are questions which can be better resolved after trial on the merits where each party can present evidence to prove their respective allegations and defenses.
It is well-settled that the filing of an independent civil action before the prosecution in the criminal action presents evidence is even far better than a compliance with the requirement of an express reservation (Yakult Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 190 SCRA 357 [1990]). This is precisely what the petitioners opted to do in this case. However, the private respondents opposed the civil action on the ground that the same is founded on a delict and not on a quasi-delict as the shooting was not attended by negligence. What is in dispute therefore is the nature of the petitioner's cause of action.
Well-entrenched is the doctrine that Article 2176 covers not only acts committed with negligence, but also acts which are voluntary and intentional. As far back as the definitive case of Elcano v. Hill (77 SCRA 98 [1977]), this Court already held that: ". . . Article 2176, where it refers to 'fault or negligence,' covers not only acts 'not punishable by law' but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if he is actually charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. In other words, the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111, refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused. Briefly stated, We here hold, in reiteration of Garcia, that culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law." The same doctrine was echoed in the case of Andamo v. Intermediate Appellate Court (191 SCRA 195 [1990]), wherein the Court held: "Article 2176, whenever it refers to "fault or negligence," covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is prosecuted or found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, (if the tortfeasor is actually also charged criminally), to recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary." [Citing Virata v. Ochoa, 81 SCRA 472]
Under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code as aforequoted, when an 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 employer either in the selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him after selection or both (Layugan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 167 SCRA 363 [1988]). The liability of the employer under Article 2180 is direct and immediate; it is not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior showing of the insolvency of such employee (Kapalaran Bus Lines v. Coronado, 176 SCRA 792 [1989]). Therefore, it is incumbent upon the private respondents to prove that they exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employee.
On December 7, 1988, an altercation between Benigno Torzuela and Atty. Napoleon Dulay occurred at the "Big Bang sa Alabang," Alabang Village, Muntinlupa as a result of which Benigno Torzuela, the security guard on duty at the said carnival, shot and killed Atty. Napoleon Dulay.
Herein petitioner Maria Benita A. Dulay, widow of the deceased Napoleon Dulay, in her own behalf and in behalf of her minor children, filed on February 8, 1989 an action for damages against Benigno Torzuela and herein private respondents Safeguard Investigation and Security Co., Inc., ("SAFEGUARD") and/or Superguard Security Corp. ("SUPERGUARD"), alleged employers of defendant Torzuela. The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-89-1751.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) RTC: the complaint against the alternative defendants Superguard Security Corporation and Safeguard Investigation and Security Co., Inc., must be and (sic) it is hereby dismissed.
ISSUE:
Whether Superguard is liable
RULING:
The case is remanded to the Regional Trial Court for trial on the merits.
The complaint sufficiently alleged an actionable breach on the part of the defendant Torzuela and respondents SUPERGUARD and/or SAFEGUARD. It is enough that the complaint alleged that Benigno Torzuela shot Napoleon Dulay resulting in the latter's death; that the shooting occurred while Torzuela was on duty; and that either SUPERGUARD and/or SAFEGUARD was Torzuela's employer and responsible for his acts. This does not operate however, to establish that the defendants below are liable. Whether or not the shooting was actually reckless and wanton or attended by negligence and whether it was actually done within the scope of Torzuela's duties; whether the private respondents SUPERGUARD and/or SAFEGUARD failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family; and whether the defendants are actually liable, are questions which can be better resolved after trial on the merits where each party can present evidence to prove their respective allegations and defenses.
It is well-settled that the filing of an independent civil action before the prosecution in the criminal action presents evidence is even far better than a compliance with the requirement of an express reservation (Yakult Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 190 SCRA 357 [1990]). This is precisely what the petitioners opted to do in this case. However, the private respondents opposed the civil action on the ground that the same is founded on a delict and not on a quasi-delict as the shooting was not attended by negligence. What is in dispute therefore is the nature of the petitioner's cause of action.
Well-entrenched is the doctrine that Article 2176 covers not only acts committed with negligence, but also acts which are voluntary and intentional. As far back as the definitive case of Elcano v. Hill (77 SCRA 98 [1977]), this Court already held that: ". . . Article 2176, where it refers to 'fault or negligence,' covers not only acts 'not punishable by law' but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if he is actually charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. In other words, the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111, refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused. Briefly stated, We here hold, in reiteration of Garcia, that culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law." The same doctrine was echoed in the case of Andamo v. Intermediate Appellate Court (191 SCRA 195 [1990]), wherein the Court held: "Article 2176, whenever it refers to "fault or negligence," covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is prosecuted or found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, (if the tortfeasor is actually also charged criminally), to recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary." [Citing Virata v. Ochoa, 81 SCRA 472]
Under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code as aforequoted, when an 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 employer either in the selection of the servant or employee, or in supervision over him after selection or both (Layugan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 167 SCRA 363 [1988]). The liability of the employer under Article 2180 is direct and immediate; it is not conditioned upon prior recourse against the negligent employee and a prior showing of the insolvency of such employee (Kapalaran Bus Lines v. Coronado, 176 SCRA 792 [1989]). Therefore, it is incumbent upon the private respondents to prove that they exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of their employee.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment