GR 148923; (August, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148923 . August 11, 2005
VICENTE LAMIS and SANDIGAN PROTECTIVE & INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC., Petitioners, vs. DAVID Y. ONG, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent David Y. Ong arrived at the Manila Chinese Cemetery’s south gate around 3:00 a.m., beyond visiting hours. Petitioner Vicente Lamis, a security guard employed by co-petitioner Sandigan Protective & Investigation Agency, Inc., refused him entry. Ong allegedly accelerated his car toward the closed gate. Lamis fired two warning shots. When Ong returned later at full speed, Lamis shot him, causing injuries. Lamis was charged with frustrated homicide. Ong subsequently filed a civil case for damages against Lamis and Sandigan.
The Regional Trial Court held petitioners jointly and severally liable for damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, rejecting Lamis’s claim of self-defense and Sandigan’s defense of having exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employee.
ISSUE
The core issues were: (1) whether Lamis acted in self-defense, negating his civil liability; and (2) whether Sandigan, as employer, was vicariously liable for the damages caused by its employee.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition but modified the awarded amounts. On the first issue, the Court upheld the lower courts’ factual findings that Lamis did not act in self-defense. The established facts showed that Lamis’s act of shooting the unarmed Ong was deliberate and unjustified. Factual findings of the trial court, especially on witness credibility, are binding when supported by evidence.
On the second issue, the Court affirmed Sandigan’s vicarious liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. An employer is solidarily liable for damages caused by its employee acting within the scope of assigned tasks, unless it proves it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in selection and supervision. Sandigan failed to prove such diligence. Its evidence was limited to company rules and testimony, and it notably failed to surrender the firearms used or submit a proper incident report to police, indicating negligent supervision.
The Court, however, reduced the damages, deeming the original awards excessive. It awarded ₱30,000.00 as moral damages for Ong’s physical suffering, ₱25,000.00 as exemplary damages to deter similar conduct, and ₱20,000.00 as attorney’s fees for being compelled to litigate. The awards serve the purposes of compensation, deterrence, and justice.