Sarah Jade P.

Layug | JD 1A, Obligations and Contracts

G.R. No. L-7089

DOMINGO DE LA CRUZ, plaintiff
v. NORTHERN THEATRICAL ENTERPRISES INC., ET. AL., defendants

FACTS:

Northern Theatrical Enterprises Inc. (NTE) is a domestic corporation which operated

a movie house in Laoag. Plaintiff De la Cruz was employed by NTE as a special guard
to watch the main entrance of cinema, maintain peace and order, and to report
disorder.
On July 4 1941, one Benjamin Martin wanted to enter the movie house but De
la Cruz did not allow him as he did not have a ticket.
Infuriated by De la Cruz’ refusal to let him in, Martin attacked De la Cruz with a bolo.
De la Cruz defended himself the best he could until he was cornered, at which
moment he shot Martin with the revolver he carried, resulting into Martin’s death.
De la Cruz was charged with homicide. After reinvestigation, the Fiscal filed a motion
to dismiss which was granted by the court.
De la Cruz was again accused of the same crime in the same court. He was
acquitted. Since De la Cruz employed a lawyer to defend him in both cases, he
demanded a reimbursement of his expenses from NTE, but NTE refused. De la Cruz
filed an action against NTE for reimbursement, arguing that he was an agent of NTE
and as such he was entitled to reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him in
connection with the agency.
CFI found that plaintiff had no cause of action and dismissed the complaint. Hence,
this present case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not De la Cruz may recover said damages.

HELD:

No. De la Cruz and NTE had no principal-agent relationship. De la Cruz was not
employed to represent NTE as he was merely an employee.
There is no known law or jurisprudence mandating or ordering employers to give
legal assistance their employees. Hence, naturally, an employee cannot recover the
amount he may have paid a lawyer.

Viewed from another angle, the expenses he incurred was not caused by his act of
shooting to death Martin but the improper filing of the criminal charge by the heirs
of the deceased and the State. Hence, the heirs and the State are the ones civilly
responsible.

JUDGEMENT OF THE LOWER COURT IS AFFIRMED.