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