DE LA CRUZ V NORTHERN THEATRIAL ENTERPRISES (security guard shot a man who

was literally a gate crasher)

- Obligations Arising from Law
- Obligations Arising from Quasi-delicts/Torts - Doctrine of Proximate Cause
FACTS:
- The Northern Theatrical Enterprises, a domestic corporation opearated a movie house in Laoag,
Ilocos Norte and among the persons employed by it was plaintiff De La Cruz, hired as special
guard whose duties were to guard the main entrance of the cine, to maintain peace and order and
to report the commission of disorder within the premises
- Benjamin Martin wanted to crash the gate or entrance of the movie house. Dela Cruz refused to
let him in without first providing himself with a ticket. Infuriated, Martin attacked him with a
bolo
- Dela Cruz defended himself and in the midst of being cornered, shot Martin dead.
- Dela Cruz was charged with homicide but was acquitted of charge after trial. In both criminal
cases against him, he employed a lawyer to defend him
- He then demanded from his employer, Northern Theatrical Enterprises (NTE), reimbursement of
expenses he begot from employing a lawyer but was refused thus filed present action against the
company to recover not only the amounts he had paid his lawyers but also moral damages said to
have been suffered due to his worry, neglect of his interests and his family as well in the
supervision of the cultivation of his land, a total of P 15,000.
ISSUE:
W/N an employee 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
employer or by reason of his performance of his duty, but rather by a 3 rd party or stranger not in
the employ of his employer may recover said damages against his employer?
HELD:
No.
DOCTRINE:
Obligations Arising from Law
- Although the employer has a moral obligation to give employee legal assistance to aid the latter
in his case, he has no legal obligation to do so.
- The court admits that it is not aware of any law or judicial authority that is directly applicable to
the present case.
- A case involving damages caused to an employee by a stranger or outsider while said employee
was in the performance of his duties, presents a novel question which under present legislation
we are neither able nor prepared to decide in favor of the employee.
- If the employer is not legally obliged to give legal assistance to employee and provide him with
a lawyer, naturally said employee may not recover the amount he may have paid a lawyer hired
by him.
Obligations Arising from Quasi-Delicts/Torts - Doctrine of Proximate Cause
- Plaintiff suffered damages by reason of the expenses incurred by him in remunerating his lawyer
which was caused by the filing of the charge of homicide against him which made it necessary for
him to defend himself with the aid of counsel at the instance of the heirs of the deceased gate
crasher and by the State through the Fiscal.
- Had no criminal charge been filed against him, there would have been no expenses incurred or

damages suffered.
- Plaintiffs acquittal considers him to be 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, the court fails to see now this responsibility can be transferred to the
employer who in no way intervened, much less initiated the criminal proceedings.
- Therefore, the damages suffered by the plaintiff (expenses in acquiring a lawyer, moral damages
said to have been suffered due to his worry, neglect of his interests and his family as well in the
supervision of the cultivation of his land, a total of P 15,000) were due to the criminal action filed
against him by the heirs of the defendant (heirs of Martin who died because of a gun shot from
the plaintiff) hence the responsibility of paying for the damages suffered by the plaintiff would
befall the heirs, not the plaintiffs employer (NTE) since said employer did not actually file the
criminal charges against the plaintiff.
Example:
A was employed by B as a surfing instructor at Bs resort.
C, who was a student of A, drowned during a surfing lesson conducted by B.
Criminal charges were filed against A by the heirs or relatives of C.
A acquired the services of a lawyer in his defense. A was acquitted.
A claims he suffered damages from the expenses of acquiring the services of a lawyer and moral
damages from the stress of dealing with a criminal case and demanded these damages from his
employer, B.
B cannot be liable for these damages since B was not the proximate cause of the damages
suffered by A. B was not the one who filed the criminal charges against A, but the heirs and
relatives of C and as such, the heirs are the one who A should demand damages from.
The heirs and relatives of C are the proximate cause of the that produced the damages suffered by
A.