De la Cruz vs.

Northern Theatrical Enterprises

G.R. No. L-7089, August 31, 1954
MONTEMAYOR, J.

Digest by: Mac Duguiang Jr.

PETITIONER: Domingo de la Cruz

RESPONDENT: Northern Theatrical Enterprises

TOPIC: What are the obligations and liabilities of principals to agents?

SUMMARY:
A guard was in a movie house had an encounter with a gatecrasher. The gatecrasher, in trying
to enter the premises of the theater without buying a ticket, attacked the guard with a bolo. In
trying to protect himself, the guard shot the gatecrasher, causing the latter’s death. A criminal
case was filed against the guard, but was later dismissed. The guard filed a complaint against
his employer to recover the amounts he paid for his lawyer.

The Court ruled that the guard was not, in anyway, an agent of the movie house. He was only
engaged as an employee. And the employer has no obligation to give legal assistance to its
employees since no law requires so. Furthermore, the Court ruled that his performance of his
duty was not the proximate cause of the damage he incurred; it was the erroneous filing of the
suit against him. (debatable)

FACTS

 Northern Theatrical Enterprises Inc., a movie house operator, employed the plaintiff
DOMINGO DE LA CRUZ, hired as a special guard, to maintain peace and order and to
report the commission of disorders within the premises.

o As such guard he carried a revolver.

 One Benjamin Martin wanted to crash the gate or entrance of the movie house.

 Infuriated by the refusal of De la Cruz to let him in without first providing himself with a
ticket, Martin attacked him with a bolo.

 De la Cruz defended himself as best he could until he was cornered.

o To save himself he shot the gate crasher, resulting in the latter's death.

 De la Cruz was charged with homicide.

o After a re-investigation, the Provincial Fiscal filed a motion to dismiss the

complaint, which was granted by the trial court.
  De la Cruz was again accused of the same crime of homicide, in the same Court.

o After trial, he was finally acquitted of the charge.

 In both criminal cases De la Cruz employed a lawyer to defend him.

o He demanded from his former employer reimbursement of his expenses but was
refused.

 Hence, he filed the present action against NTE and the three members of its board of
directors to recover the amounts he had paid his lawyers and also moral damages said
to have been suffered.

 CFI dismissed the complaint, holding that:

o He was not an agent of the NTE and that as such agent he was not entitled to
reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him in connection with the agency.

 De la Cruz appealed directly to the SC for the reason that only questions of law are
involved in the appeal.

ISSUE:

1. W/N Dela Cruz was an agent of NTE --- NO

o The relationship between the movie corporation and the plaintiff was not that of
principal and agent because the principle of representation was in no way involved.

o Dela Cruz was not engaged to represent NTE in its dealings with third
parties.

o He was an employee hired to perform a certain specific duty or task, that of

acting as special guard and staying at the main entrance of the movie house
to maintain peace and order within the premises.

2. W/N Dela Cruz may recover his claims against his employer --- NO

o The Court is not aware of any law or judicial authority that is directly applicable to the
present case.

o All the laws and principles of law found, as regards employer and employee,
refer to cases physical injury, disability, or death, suffered in line of duty and
in the course of the performance of the duties assigned to the servant or
employee.
 o But a case involving damages caused to an employee by a stranger or
outsider while said employee was in the performance of his duties is not
anywhere contemplated by law.

o While it is to the interest of the employer to render legal assistance to its employee to
prevent subsidiary liability to third parties claiming against its employee, the giving of
said legal assistance to its employees is not a legal obligation.

o While it might yet and possibly be regarded as a normal obligation, it does not
at present count with the sanction of man-made laws.

o If the employer is not legally obliged to give, legal assistance to its employee and
provide him with a lawyer, naturally said employee may not recover the amount he
may have paid a lawyer hired by him.

o Viewed from another angle, the damage suffered by Dela Cruz was not caused by
his performance of duty but rather by the improper filing of the criminal charge, at the
instance of the heirs of the deceased gate crasher and by the State through the
Fiscal.

o 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 is on the heirs of the deceased and the State.

o If this is so, this responsibility should not be transferred to the employer

whose only connection or relation to the whole affairs was that he employed
plaintiff to perform a special duty or task.

o TLDR; the Court was saying that the efficient, intervening cause was the filing of the
criminal charges. The shooting to death of the deceased by the plaintiff was not the
proximate cause of the damages suffered but may be regarded as only a remote
cause; because from the shooting to the damages suffered, there was not that
natural and continuous sequence required to fix civil responsibility.

RULING:

In view of the foregoing, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. No costs.

DISSENT:

 By Mac Duguiang
o His duty was to keep the theater premises safe. He performed the same, even
almost at the expense of his life.
o You can’t blame the family of the deceased for filing a suit and not knowing that
the guard was without criminal liability.
o The suit was brought by his faithful performance of his duty. If he didn’t stop
Martin, he’d probably get fired. If he didn’t shoot Martin, he’d probably be dead.
o Equity jurisdiction – since no law applies