Wednesday, January 24, 2018

SAFEGUARD SECURITY VS. TANGCO (G.R No. 165732, December 14, 2006)



FACTS:

                The victim Evangeline Tangco was depositor of Ecology Bank. She was also a licensed-fire arm holder, thus during the incident, she was entering the bank to renew her time deposit and along with her was her firearm. Suddenly, the security guard of the bank, upon knowing that the victim carries a firearm, the security guard shot the victim causing the latter’s instant death. The heirs of the victim filed a criminal case against security guard and an action against Safeguard Security for failure to observe diligence of a goof father implied upon the act of its agent.

ISSUE:

                WON Safeguard Security can be held liable for the acts of its agent.

HELD:

                Yes. The law presumes that any injury committed either by fault or omission of an employee reflects the negligence of the employer. In quasi-delicts cases, in order to overcome this presumption, the employer must prove that there was no negligence on his part in the supervision of his employees.

It was declared that in the selection of employees and agents, employers are required to examine them as to their qualifications, experience and service records. Thus, due diligence on the supervision and operation  of employees includes the formulation of suitable rules and regulations for the guidance of employees and the issuance of proper instructions intended for the protection of the public and persons with whom the employer has relations through his employees. Thus, in this case, Safeguard Security committed negligence in identifying the qualifications and ability of its agents.

No comments:

Post a Comment