GR 157632; (December, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 157632 ; December 6, 2006
JOSE S. ROQUE, JR., substituted by his wife NORMA ROQUE, petitioner, vs. JAIME T. TORRES, substituted by his son JAMES KENLEY M. TORRES, and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Jose Roque, Jr., as administrator of land titled in his son’s name, was barred from entering the property by security guards allegedly hired by respondent Jaime Torres. On August 27, 1989, Roque visited the land and was confronted by the guards. After an argument where Roque presented the titles, a guard fired at him, hitting him in the back. He was then mauled by several guards, resulting in severe injuries including paralysis and near-total blindness in one eye. Roque filed a civil action for damages against Torres.
Torres admitted posting guards but claimed they were deployed by a landowners’ association he headed, not personally by him. He asserted the guards were instructed only to prevent intruders and use reasonable force. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Roque, awarding damages. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding no sufficient evidence to prove that Torres instructed the guards to inflict harm, thus absolving him of liability under the principle of respondeat superior.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Jaime Torres is civilly liable for the damages inflicted upon petitioner Jose Roque, Jr., by the security guards.
RULING
Yes, Torres is liable. The Supreme Court reinstated the RTC decision. The legal logic centers on the application of Article 2180 of the Civil Code, which establishes vicarious liability. An employer is liable for damages caused by employees acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even if the employer did not specifically authorize the wrongful act.
The Court found that Torres, by his own admission, caused the security guards to be stationed on the disputed property with instructions to guard it and repel intruders. This act of deployment created a situation where the guards, in the performance of their duty to secure the area as ordered by Torres, confronted and attacked Roque. The tortious acts were committed in the course of executing Torres’s instructions. Torres’s defense that the guards belonged to an association was unavailing, as he, as president, effectively exercised control over their deployment to the property. His failure to exercise the diligence of a good father of the family to prevent the harm made him directly liable. Consequently, he was ordered to pay actual, moral, and exemplary damages.