G.R. No. 144458 - Mercury Drug Corp. vs. Libunao

The case originates from a petition for review on certiorari filed by Mercury Drug Corporation challenging decisions rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and subsequently modified by the Court of Appeals.
The incident that gave rise to the litigation occurred on May 25, 1992, at a Mercury Drug Store located in Robinsons Galleria, Pasig City.
The RTC rendered a judgment in April 1997 in favor of the plaintiff, Atty. Rodrigo B. Libunao, awarding moral and exemplary damages, which was later modified by the Court of Appeals on June 9, 2000.
Mercury Drug Corporation, along with its store manager Vilma Santos and security guard Remigio Sido, became parties to the case.
Mercury Drug Corporation appealed the decision, contending that Sido was not its employee but rather employed by the Black Shield Security Services Corporation (BSSC).

At about 8:00 p.m. on May 25, 1992, Atty. Rodrigo Libunao and his companion, Jesus Bustos Atencio, dined at Robinsons Galleria and subsequently shopped at the self-service section of the Mercury Drug Store.
After completing his purchases and receiving a tape receipt, Libunao was accosted by Sido—described as a relatively short, armed security guard—when leaving the store.

Sido demanded that Libunao produce the receipt and, upon a delay caused by Sido’s physical hold on Libunao’s arm, berated him with profanity and physical aggression.
Libunao showed the receipt only after some delay, which escalated the conflict; Sido continued to hurl invectives and physically assaulted Libunao by striking his face, nose, chin, and mouth.
Sido then pointed his revolver at Libunao while issuing further threatening remarks, causing Libunao to flee the scene in fear for his life.
The altercation led to an intervention by store employees and eventually to Sido’s surrender and subsequent arrest.

Libunao sustained both physical and psychological trauma, eventually consulting a psychiatrist and being diagnosed with post-traumatic depression syndrome.

In its answer, Mercury Drug Corporation contended that it was not the direct employer of Sido.
It argued that Sido was employed by the Black Shield Security Services Corporation (BSSC), based on the content of its contract with the security agency.

Sido testified that his employment was with BSSC, affirming that his assignment at the Mercury Drug Store was an arrangement by the security agency.
Store Manager Vilma Santos also testified that Sido was not her direct employee but rather employed by an external agency (BSSC).
Such testimonies were supported by the contract provisions between Mercury Drug Corporation and BSSC indicating that security guards were the responsibility and employees of the agency, not the client company.

RTC Initially Held Mercury Drug Corporation and Sido Jointly and Severally Liable

The RTC awarded moral damages of P300,000.00 and exemplary damages of P200,000.00 (later modified by the Court of Appeals to P150,000.00 and P100,000.00, respectively), in addition to attorney’s fees and costs.

The appellate court affirmed the decision with modifications and ruled that, based on the evidence including the employment testimony and contractual provisions, Sido was considered an employee of Mercury Drug Corporation.
The appellate court leaned on existing judicial admissions and the evidence on record to affirm the application of Article 2180 of the New Civil Code.

Mercury Drug Corporation filed a petition arguing that the evidence—particularly the stipulations and admissions during trial—proved that Sido was not its employee but that of BSSC.
Mercury Drug claimed that the Court of Appeals misapplied the law, specifically the last paragraph of Article 2180, and that the remedy under Rule 45 was proper only for questions of law rather than dispute over the facts related to employment status.

Whether the certification against forum shopping submitted by petitioner’s in-house counsel was sufficient and complied with Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Whether the remedy provided under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court was proper in this instance, given that only questions of law should be raised, notwithstanding certain exceptions provided for evidence that is undisputed.

Whether Remigio Sido was, in fact, an employee of Mercury Drug Corporation or of the Black Shield Security Services Corporation (BSSC).
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding Mercury Drug Corporation jointly and severally liable for the tortious and delictual acts of Sido under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code, in light of the evidence showing Sido’s employment by BSSC.
Whether the respondent, Libunao, had a legitimate cause of action against Mercury Drug Corporation given that the duty to supervise and control security personnel was not within the petitioner’s direct employment responsibilities.