G.R. No. 223635 - Oreta-Ferrer vs. Right Eight Security Agency, Inc.

Maureen Ann Oreta-Ferrer (petitioner) is a resident of Casa Verde Townhomes.
Right Eight Security Agency, Inc. (respondent) is the security provider of Casa Verde.
Casa Verde imposed standard operating procedures on respondent in its 1994 Revised Rules & Regulations requiring:

Checking of all articles brought in and out of the compound (Section 4.2.5).
Prevention of delivery and taking out of goods and articles by workers, contractors, helpers without unit owner’s permission (Section 4.2.6).

Unit owners were responsible for the conduct and compliance of their maids, helpers, and drivers with the rules (Section 2.9.1).
Casa Verde and respondent executed a Contract of Security Services providing:

Agency’s liability for losses due solely to negligence of the guards (Paragraph 5).
Exemption from liability when loss occurred in places inaccessible to guards or lost items are pocketable or easily concealed like jewelry or cash.

On April 15, 2008, petitioner’s househelper Melody Flor Perez (Perez) conversed for a long time on the landline phone.
Perez was instructed to bring some personal items and meet petitioner in Makati City.
Perez, accompanied by another househelper and petitioner’s son Emilio (Mio), went to the guardhouse.
Security guard Richard Almine (SG Almine) asked for Perez’s gate pass, but she had none.
Mio authorized Perez’s exit, assuring SG Almine that petitioner already knew and called him.
SG Almine checked Perez’s paper bag, found only hair gel sachets, did not frisk her due to rules, logged her exit, and allowed her to leave.
Upon petitioner’s arrival at around 3:30 p.m., she discovered forced entry into master’s bedroom and missing valuables and cash totalling P6,020,000.00.
Perez sent a text claiming to be a victim of the "Dugo-Dugo Gang," a modus operandi involving deception of househelpers.
Petitioner did not believe Perez and filed criminal charges against her.
Perez admitted concealing the valuables under her clothing.
Petitioner confronted SG Almine regarding his allowing Perez to leave; he replied authorization came from Mio.
Petitioner demanded respondent pay for damages; respondent denied liability after internal investigation and recommended equipment upgrades (metal detectors).
Petitioner filed a complaint for damages against respondent on June 27, 2008.

RTC found respondent liable but held petitioner contributorily negligent, reducing moral damages and denying exemplary damages. It awarded actual damages, moral damages, and attorney’s fees to petitioner and dismissed respondent’s counterclaim.
CA reversed RTC decision, ruling respondent not liable due to compliance with duties, dismissed both complaint and counterclaim.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s finding of negligence on the part of respondent.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding contributory negligence on the part of petitioner and dismissing petitioner’s claims for actual damages, moral damages, nominal damages, and attorney’s fees.