1C81S #6 Safeguard SecurlLy Agency lnc vs 1angco

C8 no163732 uecember 14 2006

lacLs* Cn november 3 1997 aL abouL 230 pm Lvangellne 1angco (Lvangellne) wenL Lo Lcology 8ank
kaLlpunan 8ranch Cuezon ClLy Lo renew her Llme deposlL per advlse of Lhe banks cashler as she would
slgn a speclmen card Lvangellne a duly llcensed flrearm holder wlLh correspondlng permlL Lo carry Lhe
same ouLslde her resldence approached securlLy guard a[arlllo who was sLaLloned ouLslde Lhe bank
and pulled ouL her flrearm from her bag Lo deposlL Lhe same for safekeeplng Suddenly a[arlllo shoL
Lvangellne wlLh hls servlce shoLgun hlLLlng her ln Lhe abdomen lnsLanLly causlng her deaLh
*Lauro 1angco Lvangellnes husband LogeLher wlLh hls slx mlnor chlldren (respondenLs) flled wlLh Lhe
81C of Cuezon ClLy a crlmlnal case of Pomlclde agalnsL a[arlllo 8espondenLs reserved Lhelr rlghL Lo flle
a separaLe clvll acLlon ln Lhe sald crlmlnal case
* 1he 81C rendered a declslon ln favor of Lhe helrs of Lvangellng 1angco convlcLed a[arlllo of
Pomlclde and orderlng a[arlllo and Safeguard SecurlLy Agency lnc Lo pay [olnLly and severally Lhe
acLual moral and exemplary damages ln addlLlon Lo Lhe cosL of Lhe sulL and deaLh lndemnlLy
* Cn appeal Lo Lhe CA Lhe 81C declslon was afflrmed wlLh modlflcaLlon as Lo Lhe penalLy
*8espondenLs flled a complalnL for damages agalnsL a[arlllo for negllgenLly shooLlng Lvangellne and
agalnsL Safeguard for falllng Lo observe Lhe dlllgence of a good faLher of a famlly Lo prevenL Lhe damage
commlLLed by lLs securlLy guard 8espondenLs prayed for acLual moral and exemplary damages and
aLLorneys fees
*eLlLloners denled Lhe maLerlal allegaLlons ln Lhe complalnL and alleged LhaL Safeguard exerclsed Lhe
dlllgence of a good faLher of a famlly ln Lhe selecLlon and supervlslon of a[arlllo LhaL Lvangellnes deaLh
was noL due Lo a[arlllos negllgence as Lhe laLLer acLed only ln selfdefense
lssues 1 wheLher Lhe CA correcLly held LhaL respondenLs ln flllng a separaLe clvll acLlon agalnsL
peLlLloners are llmlLed Lo Lhe recovery of damages arlslng from a crlme or dellcL ln whlch case Lhe
llablllLy of Safeguard as employer under ArLlcles 102 and 103 of Lhe 8evlsed enal Code12 ls subsldlary
and Lhe defense of due dlllgence ln Lhe selecLlon and supervlslon of employee ls noL avallable Lo lL
2 WheLher a[arlllo was negllgenL ln shooLlng Lvangellne
8ullng 1 An acL or omlsslon causlng damage Lo anoLher may glve rlse Lo Lwo separaLe clvll llablllLles on
Lhe parL of Lhe offender le (1) clvll llablllLy ex dellcLo under ArLlcle 100 of Lhe 8evlsed enal Code and
(2) lndependenL clvll llablllLles such as Lhose (a) noL arlslng from an acL or omlsslon complalned of as a
felony eg culpa conLracLual or obllgaLlons arlslng from law under ArLlcle 31 of Lhe Clvll Code
lnLenLlonal LorLs under ArLlcles 32 and 34 and culpa aqulllana under ArLlcle 2176 of Lhe Clvll Code or (b)
where Lhe ln[ured parLy ls granLed a rlghL Lo flle an acLlon lndependenL and dlsLlncL from Lhe crlmlnal
acLlon under ArLlcle 33 of Lhe Clvll Code LlLher of Lhese llablllLles may be enforced agalnsL Lhe offender
sub[ecL Lo Lhe caveaL under ArLlcle 2177 of Lhe Clvll Code LhaL Lhe offended parLy cannoL recover
damages Lwlce for Lhe same acL or omlsslon or under boLh causes
1he scope of ArLlcle 2176 ls noL llmlLed Lo acLs or omlsslons resulLlng from negllgence ln uulay v CourL
of Appeals17 we held
x x x WellenLrenched ls Lhe docLrlne LhaL ArLlcle 2176 covers noL only acLs commlLLed wlLh negllgence
buL also acLs whlch are volunLary and lnLenLlonal As far back as Lhe deflnlLlve case of Llcano v Plll (77
SC8A 98 1977) Lhls CourL already held LhaL

x x x ArLlcle 2176 where lL refers Lo faulL or negllgence covers noL only acLs noL punlshable by law
buL also acLs crlmlnal ln characLer wheLher lnLenLlonal and volunLary or negllgenL ConsequenLly a
separaLe clvll acLlon lles agalnsL Lhe offender ln a crlmlnal acL wheLher or noL he ls crlmlnally prosecuLed
and found gullLy or acqulLLed provlded LhaL Lhe offended parLy ls noL allowed lf he ls acLually charged
also crlmlnally Lo recover damages on boLh scores and would be enLlLled ln such evenLuallLy only Lo Lhe
blgger award of Lhe Lwo assumlng Lhe awards made ln Lhe Lwo cases vary ln oLher words Lhe
exLlncLlon of clvll llablllLy referred Lo ln ar (e) of SecLlon 3 8ule 111 refers excluslvely Lo clvll llablllLy
founded on ArLlcle 100 of Lhe 8evlsed enal Code whereas Lhe clvll llablllLy for Lhe same acL consldered
as quasldellcL only and noL as a crlme ls noL exLlngulshed even by a declaraLlon ln Lhe crlmlnal case LhaL
Lhe crlmlnal acL charged has noL happened or has noL been commlLLed by Lhe accused 8rlefly sLaLed
We here hold ln relLeraLlon of Carcla LhaL culpa aqulllana lncludes volunLary and negllgenL acLs whlch
may be punlshable by law
As clearly shown by Lhe allegaLlons ln Lhe complalnL respondenLs cause of acLlon ls based on quasl
dellcL under ArLlcle 2180 of Lhe Clvll Code when Lhe ln[ury ls caused by Lhe negllgence of Lhe employee
Lhere lnsLanLly arlses a presumpLlon of law LhaL Lhere was negllgence on Lhe parL of Lhe masLer or Lhe
employer elLher ln Lhe selecLlon of Lhe servanL or employee or ln Lhe supervlslon over hlm afLer
selecLlon or boLh 1he llablllLy of Lhe employer under ArLlcle 2180 ls dlrecL and lmmedlaLe 1herefore lL
ls lncumbenL upon peLlLloners Lo prove LhaL Lhey exerclsed Lhe dlllgence of a good faLher of a famlly ln
Lhe selecLlon and supervlslon of Lhelr employee
2 1he lssue of negllgence ls facLual ln naLure WheLher a person ls negllgenL or noL ls a quesLlon of facL
whlch as a general rule we cannoL pass upon ln a peLlLlon for revlew on cerLlorarl as our [urlsdlcLlon ls
llmlLed Lo revlewlng errors of law23 Cenerally facLual flndlngs of Lhe Lrlal courL afflrmed by Lhe CA are
flnal and concluslve and may noL be revlewed on appeal 1he esLabllshed excepLlons are (1) when Lhe
lnference made ls manlfesLly mlsLaken absurd or lmposslble (2) when Lhere ls grave abuse of
dlscreLlon (3) when Lhe flndlngs are grounded enLlrely on speculaLlons surmlses or con[ecLures (4)
when Lhe [udgmenL of Lhe CA ls based on mlsapprehenslon of facLs (3) when Lhe flndlngs of facL are
confllcLlng (6) when Lhe CA ln maklng lLs flndlngs wenL beyond Lhe lssues of Lhe case and Lhe same ls
conLrary Lo Lhe admlsslons of boLh appellanL and appellee (7) when Lhe flndlngs of facL are concluslons
wlLhouL clLaLlon of speclflc evldence on whlch Lhey are based (8) when Lhe CA manlfesLly overlooked
cerLaln relevanL facLs noL dlspuLed by Lhe parLles and whlch lf properly consldered would [usLlfy a
dlfferenL concluslon and (9) when Lhe flndlngs of facL of Lhe CA are premlsed on Lhe absence of
evldence and are conLradlcLed by Lhe evldence on record 24
A Lhorough revlew of Lhe records of Lhe case falls Lo show any cogenL reason for us Lo devlaLe from Lhe
facLual flndlng of Lhe Lrlal courL and afflrmed by Lhe CA LhaL peLlLloner a[arlllo was gullLy of negllgence
ln shooLlng Lvangellne