Title
Supreme Court
Safeguard Security Agency, Inc. vs. Tangco
Case
G.R. No. 165732
Decision Date
Dec 14, 2006
Security guard negligently shot a bank client, leading to her death; employer held solidarily liable for damages due to lack of supervision.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 176246)

Petitioners

  1. Safeguard Security Agency, Inc., the private security firm that employed Pajarillo.
  2. Admer A. Pajarillo, security guard assigned to Ecology Bank at the time of the incident.

Respondents

Lauro Tangco and his six minor children, heirs of the deceased Evangeline Tangco, who seek recovery of actual, moral, exemplary damages, death indemnity, attorney’s fees, and costs.

Key Dates

• November 3, 1997 – Shooting of Evangeline Tangco by Pajarillo.
• January 14, 1998 – Civil complaint for damages filed in RTC Marikina.
• January 19, 2000 – RTC Quezon City convicts Pajarillo of homicide.
• August 25, 2001 – Finality of RTC criminal judgment.
• January 10, 2003 – RTC Marikina awards damages in civil case.
• July 16, 2004 – CA affirms RTC civil decision, holds Safeguard subsidiarily liable.
• October 20, 2004 – CA denies motion for reconsideration.
• December 14, 2006 – Supreme Court issues final decision.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution of the Philippines.
• Civil Code Articles 2176 (quasi-delict), 2180 (employer liability).
• Revised Penal Code Articles 100 (civil liability from crime), 102–103 (subsidiary liability).
• Rule 111, Section 1, 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure (reservation/right to separate civil action).

Facts

Evangeline Tangco went to renew her time deposit and, per bank instructions, prepared to deposit her licensed firearm for safekeeping. Stationed outside the bank, Pajarillo observed her remove the weapon from her bag and—without warning—fired his service shotgun, killing her instantly. Pajarillo later claimed self-defense, alleging she aimed her gun at him to stage a robbery.

Procedural History

• Criminal Case (RTC Quezon City, Branch 78): Pajarillo convicted of homicide; affirmed by the CA with modified penalty.
• Civil Case (RTC Marikina, Branch 273): Respondents sued Pajarillo for negligence and Safeguard for vicarious liability under quasi-delict. RTC awarded actual, moral, exemplary damages, death indemnity, attorney’s fees; counterclaim by petitioners dismissed. CA affirmed RTC but deemed Safeguard’s liability subsidiary under the RPC. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Nature of Civil Cause of Action

Respondents’ complaint invoked liability under Civil Code Article 2176 (quasi-delict) for fault or negligence, not Article 100 RPC. Reservation of a separate civil action under Rule 111 does not limit the cause of action to the crime-based liability. This suit is independent and distinct from Pajarillo’s criminal case.

Negligence of Pajarillo

Both RTC and CA findings on Pajarillo’s negligence—rejected self-defense, uncorroborated fear of robbery, absence of unlawful aggression by Evangeline—are factual and binding. His immediate and unprovoked use of deadly force against a bank customer removing her own firearm for deposit was grossly negligent.

Employer’s Vicarious Liability

Under Civil Code Article 2180, an employer is solidarily liable for quasi-delict of an employee acting within assigned tasks, unless it proves it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in selection and supervision. Safeguard established reasonable selection measures (psycho-neuro evaluations, clearances, basic training) but failed to prove effective supervisory controls, documented inspections, or refresher training adapted to bank security duties.

Determination of Liability

The Supreme Court holds that Safeguard’s liability is





...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.