SAFEGUARD SECURITY VS.

TANGCO
G.R No. 165732 December 14, 2006
511 SCRA 67
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 latters
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:
Whether or not 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.