Sps. Mamaril vs The Boys Scout of the Philippines GR No.

179382
Principle:

Vicarious liablity lies with the true employer and not the employer’s client.

Liablity for illegal or harmful acts commited by the security guards attaches to the employer agency, and not to the clients or
customers of such agency.

Facts:

Spouses Benjamin Mamaril and Sonia P. Mamaril are jeepney operators. They would park their six passenger jeepneys every night
at the Boy Scout of the Philippines compound for a fee of P300.00 per month for each unit. However, one of the vehicles went
missing and was never recovered. BSP had contracted with AIB for its security and protection. Cesario Peña and Vicente Gaddi were
assigned by AIB Security to secure the BSP compound. One night a male person who has the key of the vehicle took the lost
jeepney out of the compound and iot was never recovered.

The Sps. Mamaril filed a complaint for damges against BSP, AIB and the two security guards.

Issue:

Whether or not the Boy Scout of the Philippines is not liable for the lost vehicle owned by the Spouses due to the negligence of the
security guards assigned by AIB to BSP under the Guard Service Contract?

Ruling:

It is undisputed that the proximate cause of the loss of the Sps. Mamaril’s vehicle was the negligent act of the security guards in
allowing unidentified person to take the vehicle but there is nothing that point negligence on the part of BSP for it to be liable.

The two security guards are employees of AIB and where thus assigned by AIB to BSP in pursuant of the Guard Service Contract
between them. There is no employer-employee relationship between the security guard and BSP. The negligence of the security
guard cannot be attributed to BSP but rather to its true employer AIB.

Liablity for illegal or harmful acts commited by the security guards attaches to the employer agency, and not to the clients or
customers of such agency. As a general rule, a client or customer of a secuirty agency has no hand in selecting who among the
pool of security guards or watchmen employed by the agency shall be assigned to it; the duty to observe the diligence of a good
father of a family in the selection of the guards cannot, in ordinary course of events, be demanded from a client company whose
premises or property are protected by the security guards. The fact that a client company may give instruction or direction to the
security guards assigned to it, does not, by it self render the client responsible as an employer of the secuirty guards concerned and
laible for their wrongful acts or omission.