G.R. No. 144458 ; July 14, 2004
MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. ATTY. RODRIGO B. LIBUNAO, respondent.

FACTS

On May 25, 1992, Atty. Rodrigo Libunao and a companion exited a Mercury Drug store in Robinson’s Galleria after purchasing items. Security Guard Remigio Sido, assigned to the store, accosted Libunao to check his receipt. A confrontation ensued where Sido allegedly uttered invectives, struck Libunao on the face, and pointed his service revolver at him. Libunao reported the incident to the mall’s security, and Sido was eventually brought to the police station. Libunao filed a complaint for damages against Mercury Drug Corporation, its officers, and Sido, claiming moral and exemplary damages. Mercury Drug, in its defense, asserted that Sido was not its employee but was employed by Black Shield Security Services Corporation (BSSC), a licensed independent security agency, and thus it could not be held vicariously liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

ISSUE

Whether Mercury Drug Corporation is vicariously liable for the tortious acts committed by Security Guard Remigio Sido against Atty. Rodrigo Libunao.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that Mercury Drug is not liable. The legal logic hinges on the established principle that a security guard assigned to a client company remains the employee of the security agency, not the client. The Court emphasized that the employer-employee relationship is determined by the “four-fold test”: selection and engagement, payment of wages, power of dismissal, and power of control. The evidence showed that Sido was hired, paid, and could be dismissed only by BSSC. While Mercury Drug may have given Sido specific instructions related to his guard duties at its premises (e.g., checking receipts), this level of direction concerning the details of the work necessary for the protection of its property does not constitute the employer’s control required to establish an employer-employee relationship. The client company is not expected to oversee the security guard’s conduct with the diligence of a good father of a family. Since Sido was not Mercury Drug’s employee, the company cannot be held answerable under Article 2180 for his alleged wrongful acts. The liability, if any, rests with Sido and his direct employer, the security agency. The complaint against Mercury Drug was therefore dismissed.