GR 165732; (December, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 165732 ; December 14, 2006
SAFEGUARD SECURITY AGENCY, INC., and ADMER PAJARILLO, petitioners, vs. LAURO TANGCO, et al., respondents.
FACTS
On November 3, 1997, Evangeline Tangco, a licensed firearm holder, went to Ecology Bank in Quezon City. As she approached security guard Admer Pajarillo, stationed outside the bank, she pulled out her firearm from her bag intending to deposit it for safekeeping. Pajarillo suddenly shot her with his service shotgun, causing her instant death. Pajarillo was subsequently convicted of Homicide in a final and executory criminal case.
Meanwhile, the heirs of Evangeline filed a separate civil action for damages against Pajarillo and his employer, Safeguard Security Agency, Inc. The Regional Trial Court held both defendants jointly and severally liable. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the liability but modified its nature. It ruled that Pajarillo’s civil liability is based on the crime of Homicide, and thus, his employer Safeguard’s liability is only subsidiary under the Revised Penal Code, not solidary under the Civil Code provisions on quasi-delict.
ISSUE
Whether the civil liability of the employer, Safeguard Security Agency, Inc., for the wrongful act of its employee is solidary (as in quasi-delict) or merely subsidiary (as arising from a crime).
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that Safeguard’s liability is only subsidiary. The civil action filed by the heirs is deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action for Homicide, from which it cannot be separated. Since Pajarillo was convicted in a final judgment, the basis for the employer’s liability is Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, which governs subsidiary civil liability for felonies committed by employees in the discharge of their duties.
The legal logic is clear: when an employee commits a crime, the employer’ civil liability is subsidiary, not solidary. This is distinct from liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code for quasi-delicts, where the defense of due diligence in selection and supervision is applicable and liability can be solidary. Here, the source of obligation is the crime itself. The employer’s liability attaches only after the employee’s primary civil liability has been established and the latter is insolvent. The Court emphasized that the nature of the civil liability is determined by the source of the obligation—in this case, a felony—making the provisions of the Revised Penal Code exclusively applicable.