[G.R. No. L-7089. August 31, 1954.

DOMINGO DE LA CRUZ, plaintiff-appellant

NORTHERN THEATRICAL ENTERPRISES INC., ET AL., defendants-appellees.

A domestic corporation, Northern Theatrical Enterprises Inc., ran a movie theater in Laoag, Ilocos Norte. Domingo De

La Cruz was hired, and his responsibilities included guarding the main entrance, maintaining peace and order, and reporting

any disturbances within the premises. He carried a revolver. Benjamin Martin intended to storm the movie theater's gate or

entrance. Martin was enraged by De la Cruz's refusal to let him in without first obtaining a ticket, so he attacked him with a

bolo. De la Cruz defended himself as best he could until he was cornered, at which point he shot Martin, killing him. De la

Cruz was charged with homicide. The Provincial Fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the complaint after conducting a re-

investigation, which was granted by the court. De la Cruz was charged with homicide for the second time. He was cleared of the

accusation after a trial. De la Cruz's claim was rejected by the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte because he was an agent of

Northern Theatrical Enterprises Inc. and as such, he was entitled to compensation for expenses paid in connection with the

agency. De La Cruz had no cause of action, according to the court, and the lawsuit was dismissed without costs.

Whether or not an agent acting in the course of his duties

commits an act that results in him incurring expenses as
a result of the actions of a stranger. May the latter be
able to recoup the costs from his previous employer.

YES NO
 Yes. We agree with the trial court that  No, because it could be argued that the
the relationship between the movie plaintiff's damage from the expenses
corporation and the plaintiff was not incurred in remunerating his lawyer was
caused not by his act of shooting to death
one of principal and agent because the
the gate crasher, but rather by the filing of
principle of representation was not the charge of homicide, which required
involved in any way. Plaintiff was not him to defend himself with the assistance
hired to represent the defendant of counsel. The plaintiff's shooting to
corporation in third-party transactions. death of the deceased was not the
proximate cause of the damages suffered,
He was merely an employee hired to
but may be regarded as only a remote
perform a specific duty or task, that of cause, because there was no natural and
acting as a special guard and continuous sequence required to fix civil
remaining at the main entrance of the responsibility between the shooting and
movie theater to deter gate crashers the damages suffered. It was decided that
the employer is under no obligation to
and maintain peace and order on the
provide free legal assistance.
premises.

It is in the employer's best interests to provide legal counsel to its employees. If the
employer is not legally required to provide legal assistance to its employee and
provide him with a lawyer, the employee will not be able to recover any fees paid to a
lawyer hired by him. However, the plaintiff's damages were caused by the improper
filing of the criminal charge, possibly at the request of the heirs of the deceased gate
crasher and by the State via the Fiscal. According to the Court, the filing was
improper based on the outcome of the court proceedings, namely acquittal. In other
words, the plaintiff was completely blameless and innocent. If he was accused of
homicide despite his innocence and the absence of any criminal responsibility on his
part, the responsibility for the improper accusation may be laid at the door of the
deceased's heirs and the State, and thus theoretically, they are the parties that may be
held civilly responsible for damages, and if this is so, the Court fails to see how this
responsibility can be transferred to the employer who in no way intervened, much less
initiated.

which task or duty was carried out in accordance with the law and without negligence.