DOMINGO DE LA CRUZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. NORTHERN THEATRICAL ENTERPRISES Case Digest
DOMINGO DE LA CRUZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. NORTHERN THEATRICAL ENTERPRISES INC., ET AL, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
Northern Theatrical Enterprises Inc., operated a movie house in Laoag and plaintiff DOMINGO DE LA CRUZ, hired as a special guard whose duties were to guard the main entrance of the cine, to maintain peace and order and to report the commission of disorders within the premises.
Benjamin Martin wanted to crash the gate or entrance of the movie house. Infuriated by the refusal of plaintiff De la Cruz to let him in without first providing himself with a ticket, Martin attacked him with a bolo. De la Cruz defended himself as best he could until he was cornered, at which moment to save himself he shot the gate crasher, resulting in the latter's death.
De la Cruz was charged with homicide, after a re-investigation conducted by the Provincial Fiscal the
latter filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted by the court in January 1943. On July 8, 1947, De la Cruz was again accused of the same crime of homicide, of the same Court. After trial, he was finally acquitted of the charge on January 31, 1948. In both criminal cases De la Cruz
employed a lawyer to defend him. He demanded from his former employer reimbursement of his expenses but was refused. He filed the present action against the movie corporation and the three members of its board of directors, to recover amounts he had paid his lawyers and also moral damages said to have been suffered, a total of P15,000.
Court of First Instance after rejecting the theory of the plaintiff that he was an agent of the defendants
and that as such agent he was entitled to reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him in connection with the agency found that plaintiff had no cause of action and dismissed the complaint without costs.
ISSUE
Whether an employee or servant who in line of duty and while in the performance of the task assigned to him, performs an act which eventually results in his incurring in expenses, caused not directly by his master or employer or his fellow servants or by reason of his performance of his duty, but rather by a third party or stranger not in the employ of his employer, may recover said damages against his employer.
HELD
Yes. We agree with the trial court that the relationship between the movie corporation and the plaintiff was not that of principal and agent because the principle of representation was in no way involved. Plaintiff was not employed to represent the defendant corporation in its dealings with third parties. He was a mere employee hired to perform a certain specific duty or task, that of acting as special guard and staying at the main entrance of the movie house to stop gate crashers and to maintain peace and order within the premises.
The plaintiff was innocent and blameless. If despite his innocence and despite the absence of any
criminal responsibility on his part he was accused of homicide, then 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, we fail to see how this responsibility can be transferred to the employer who in no way intervened, much less initiated the criminal proceedings and whose only connection or relation to the whole affairs was that he employed plaintiff to perform a specific duty or task, which task or duty was performed lawfully and without negligence.
In view of the foregoing, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
FACTS
Northern Theatrical Enterprises Inc., operated a movie house in Laoag and plaintiff DOMINGO DE LA CRUZ, hired as a special guard whose duties were to guard the main entrance of the cine, to maintain peace and order and to report the commission of disorders within the premises.
Benjamin Martin wanted to crash the gate or entrance of the movie house. Infuriated by the refusal of plaintiff De la Cruz to let him in without first providing himself with a ticket, Martin attacked him with a bolo. De la Cruz defended himself as best he could until he was cornered, at which moment to save himself he shot the gate crasher, resulting in the latter's death.
De la Cruz was charged with homicide, after a re-investigation conducted by the Provincial Fiscal the
latter filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted by the court in January 1943. On July 8, 1947, De la Cruz was again accused of the same crime of homicide, of the same Court. After trial, he was finally acquitted of the charge on January 31, 1948. In both criminal cases De la Cruz
employed a lawyer to defend him. He demanded from his former employer reimbursement of his expenses but was refused. He filed the present action against the movie corporation and the three members of its board of directors, to recover amounts he had paid his lawyers and also moral damages said to have been suffered, a total of P15,000.
Court of First Instance after rejecting the theory of the plaintiff that he was an agent of the defendants
and that as such agent he was entitled to reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him in connection with the agency found that plaintiff had no cause of action and dismissed the complaint without costs.
ISSUE
Whether an employee or servant who in line of duty and while in the performance of the task assigned to him, performs an act which eventually results in his incurring in expenses, caused not directly by his master or employer or his fellow servants or by reason of his performance of his duty, but rather by a third party or stranger not in the employ of his employer, may recover said damages against his employer.
HELD
Yes. We agree with the trial court that the relationship between the movie corporation and the plaintiff was not that of principal and agent because the principle of representation was in no way involved. Plaintiff was not employed to represent the defendant corporation in its dealings with third parties. He was a mere employee hired to perform a certain specific duty or task, that of acting as special guard and staying at the main entrance of the movie house to stop gate crashers and to maintain peace and order within the premises.
The plaintiff was innocent and blameless. If despite his innocence and despite the absence of any
criminal responsibility on his part he was accused of homicide, then 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, we fail to see how this responsibility can be transferred to the employer who in no way intervened, much less initiated the criminal proceedings and whose only connection or relation to the whole affairs was that he employed plaintiff to perform a specific duty or task, which task or duty was performed lawfully and without negligence.
In view of the foregoing, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
Comments
Post a Comment