Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

AGENCY AND PARTNERSHIP | B2015 CASES

Dela Cruz v. Northern Theatrical


August 31, 1954 Montemayor alycat SUMMARY: Dela Cruz was employed as a security guard with Northern Theatrical. While on duty, Dela Cruz was attacked by a gatecrasher who took out a bolo and attacked him. In self-defense, Dela Cruz shot the gatecrasher. Dela Cruz was charged with homicide of the gatecrasher, but was acquitted. This is a complaint to recover the legal fees he spent in his criminal case, from Northern Theatrical. The CFI dismissed, and SC upheld. DOCTRINE: The relationship between employer and employee is not that of principal and agent when such employee was not employed to represent the employer in its dealings with third parties, and is merely assigned to perform certain duties or tasks. FACTS: Northern Theatrical operated a movie house in Laoag, Ilocos Norte. Among the persons employed was by it was Domingo Dela Cruz, hired as a guard. In line with his duties, Dela Cruz carried a revolver. One day, one Benjamin Martin wanted to crash the gate or entrance of the movie house. Infuriated by the refusal of Dela Cruz to let him in without first providing a ticket, Martin attacked Dela Cruz with a bolo and cornered him. In defense, Dela Cruz shot Martin. Dela Cruz was charged with homicide and was acquitted. In the criminal case, Dela Cruz employed lawyers to defend him. Dela Cruz demanded from Northern Theatrical reimbursement of his expenses for such. Northern Theatrical refused. Dela Cruz filed the present action against Northern Theatrical and the members of its Board of Directors, to recover not only the amounts he paid his lawyers, but also moral damages. His theory was that he was an agent of Northern Theatrical, and as such, was entitled to reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him in connection with such agency. Northern Theatrical asked for the dismissal of the complaint. The CFI found that Dela Cruz had no cause of action and dismissed the complaint. Hence, this appeal. ISSUE + RATIO:

WON Northern Theatrical is liable for the reimbursement of Dela Cruzs legal expenses NO The relationship between the Northern Theatrical and Dela Cruz was not that of principal and agent, because the principle of representation was in no way involved. Dela Cruz was not employed to represent the defendant corporation in its dealings with third parties. He was a mere employee hired to perform a certain duty or task. (After this, wala nang usapan regarding agency.) The question is whether an employee or servant, who in the line of duty, and while in the performance of the tasks assigned to him, performs an act which eventually results in incurring expenses, caused by a third party or stranger not in the employ of his employer, may recover said damages against his employer. The Supreme Court is not aware of any law or judicial authority that is directly applicable to the present case. All the laws and principles of law found refer to cases of physical injuries/ death suffered in the line of duty in the course of the performance of the duties. But a case involving damages caused to an employee by a stranger or outsider while said employee was in the performance of his duties, presents a novel question which the Court is neither able nor prepared to decide in favor the employee. In the case of say a driver employed by a transportation company, should the employee be held criminally liable and is found to be insolvent, the employer would be subsidiarily liable. That is why, in such case, it is to the interest of the employer to render legal assistance to its employee (to pay for the employees legal fees). But the Court is not prepared to say and to hold that the giving of said legal assistance to its employees is a legal obligation. Viewed from another angle, it may be said that damage suffered by Dela Cruz, that is, the expenses incurred by him in remunerating his lawyer, is not caused by his act of shooting the gatecrasher, but rather the filing of the charge. Had no criminal charge been filed against him, no expenses would have been incurred. So the damage suffered by Dela Cruz was caused by the improper filing of the criminal charge. If, despite his innocence and despite the absence of any criminal responsibility, he was accused of homicide, the responsibility for the improper accusation may be laid at the door of the heirs of the deceased and the State. And so, theoretically, they are the parties that may be held responsible civilly for damages. And if this is so, the Court fails to see how this responsibility can be transferred to the employer. Still another point of view is that the payment of the lawyers fee did not flow directly from the performance of Dela Cruzs duties, but only

AGENCY AND PARTNERSHIP | B2015 CASES

indirectly because there was an efficient intervening cause, i.e. the filing of the criminal charges. RULING: CFI affirmed.

sss The re The

Вам также может понравиться