Liability of establishment’s security guard

DearPAO, Iwasinvolvedina fistfightwith thesecurityguardofonehotel.I sustainedaninjuryasaresultof theincidentbecausetheguard shotmyleg.Iwouldliketoclaim damagesagainstthehotel,buta representativefromthelattertold methattheywerenotliableforthe actionoftheguardbecausehewas notoneoftheiremployees.Isthe hotelcorrect?

Junthy

Dear Junthy,

Damages arising from one’s act or omission are governed by Article 2176 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines which states:

“Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions or this Chapter.”

An employer may also be liable for the acts or omission of its employee while the latter is performing his assigned task or duty. This is in consonance with Article 2180 (4) of the same law which provides:

“The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

“X x x

“The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.

“Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. X x x.”

Thus, the liability of the hotel is subject to the condition that there is an employer-employee relationship between the security guard and the establishment. This is in consonance with the decision of the court in the case entitled ReyesandReyes vs.Doctolero,etal. (GR 185597, Aug. 2, 2017), where the Supreme Court speaking through Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza stated:

“It must be stressed, however, that the above rule is applicable only if there is an employer-employee relationship. This employer-employee relationship cannot be presumed but must be sufficiently proven by the plaintiff. The plaintiff must also show that the employee was acting within the scope of his assigned task when the tort complained of was committed. It is only then that the defendant, as employer, may find it necessary to interpose the defense of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees.

“In Mamarilv.TheBoyScout ofthePhilippines, we found that there was no employer-employee relationship between Boy Scout of the Philippines (BSP) and the security guards assigned to it by an agency pursuant to a Guard Service Contract. In the absence of such relationship, vicarious liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code cannot apply as against BSP. Similarly, we find no employer-employee relationship between MCS and respondent guards. The guards were merely assigned by Grandeur to secure MCS’ premises pursuant to their Contract of Guard Services. Thus, MCS cannot be held vicariously liable for damages caused by these guards’ acts or omissions.”

Applying the above-quoted decision in your situation, the hotel may be held liable for the actions of the guard provided that there is an existing employer-employee relationship between the two and that the security guard is acting within the scope of his assigned task.

To hold the hotel liable, it is then necessary that the employeremployee relationship between the hotel and the erring security guard must be sufficiently established and proven. One of the proofs which can be presented is the written contract signed by the hotel and the security guard/ security agency. Absent any proof to establish the afore-mentioned conditions, the hotel cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of the erring security guard.

Thus, the hotel is correct in its claim that it cannot be made liable for the acts or omissions of the guard if the latter was merely supplied by a security agency. The agency in this circumstance is the real employer of the guard.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’snote:DearPAOisadaily columnofthePublicAttorney’s Office.Questionsfor ChiefAcosta maybesenttodearpao@manilatimes.