G.R. No. 185597 August 2, 2017
JOHN E.R. REYES and MERWIN JOSEPH REYES, Petitioners, vs. ORICO DOCTOLERO, ROMEO A. VILA, GRANDEUR SECURITY AND SERVICES CORPORATION, and MAKATI CINEMA SQUARE, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners John and Mervin Reyes were shot and injured by security guards Orico Doctolero and Romeo Avila, employees of respondent Grandeur Security and Services Corporation, in the parking area of respondent Makati Cinema Square (MCS). The incident stemmed from an altercation after John allegedly attempted to enter through the parking exit driveway. Petitioners filed a complaint for damages against the guards, Grandeur, and MCS, alleging negligence in selection and supervision. The Regional Trial Court initially held the guards and Grandeur solidarily liable but, upon reconsideration, dismissed the complaint against Grandeur and MCS, holding only the defaulting guards personally liable.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the security agency, Grandeur, can be held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its security guard employees under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, and if so, whether it successfully rebutted the presumption of negligence in their selection and supervision.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision exonerating Grandeur. The legal logic rests on the principle of vicarious liability under Article 2180, where an employer is presumed negligent in the selection and supervision of an employee who causes damage. However, this presumption is juris tantum and can be rebutted by proof of due diligence. The Court meticulously examined Grandeur’s evidence, which detailed a rigorous hiring process including interviews, submission of NBI and police clearances, neuro-psychiatric exams, drug tests, and training. For supervision, Grandeur demonstrated established procedures like daily mustering, post inspections, and spot checks. This evidence sufficiently established that Grandeur observed the diligence of a good father of a family. Consequently, the presumption of negligence was overturned. Liability was correctly confined to the security guards as direct tortfeasors. The Court also upheld MCS’s exoneration, finding no evidence of negligence in engaging Grandeur’s services, as the agency is the direct employer of the guards under established jurisprudence. The decision underscores that while liability for employee acts generally attaches to the employer, this is not absolute and yields to contrary proof of observed care.