Alfredo Pacis and Cleopatra Pacis vs Jerome Jovanne Morales earlier and requested sales agents Matibag and

quested sales agents Matibag and Herbolario to look after the gun store
while he and defendant Morales were away. Jarnague entrusted to Matibag and
Herbolario a bunch of keys used in the gun store which included the key to the drawer
The Case where the fatal gun was kept.
This petition for review1[1] assails the 11 May 2005 Decision2[2] and the 19 August
2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 60669. It appears that Matibag and Herbolario later brought out the gun from the
drawer and placed it on top of the table. Attracted by the sight of the gun, the young
The Facts Alfred Dennis Pacis got hold of the same. Matibag asked Alfred Dennis Pacis to return
the gun. The latter followed and handed the gun to Matibag. It went off, the bullet
On 17 January 1995, petitioners Alfredo P. Pacis and Cleopatra D. Pacis hitting the young Alfred in the head.
(petitioners) filed with the trial court a civil case for damages against respondent
Jerome Jovanne Morales (respondent). Petitioners are the parents of Alfred Dennis A criminal case for homicide was filed against Matibag before branch VII of
Pacis, Jr. (Alfred), a 17-year old student who died in a shooting incident inside the Top this Court. Matibag, however, was acquitted of the charge against him because of the
Gun Firearms and Ammunitions Store (gun store) in Baguio City. Respondent is the exempting circumstance of accident under Art. 12, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code.
owner of the gun store.

The facts as found by the trial court are as follows: By agreement of the parties, the evidence adduced in the criminal case for
homicide against Matibag was reproduced and adopted by them as part of their
On January 19, 1991, Alfred Dennis Pacis, then 17 years old and a first year evidence in the instant case.3[3]
student at the Baguio Colleges Foundation taking up BS Computer Science, died due to
a gunshot wound in the head which he sustained while he was at the Top Gun On 8 April 1998, the trial court rendered its decision in favor of petitioners.
Firearm[s] and Ammunition[s] Store located at Upper Mabini Street, Baguio City. The The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
gun store was owned and operated by defendant Jerome Jovanne Morales.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of
With Alfred Pacis at the time of the shooting were Aristedes Matibag and the plaintiffs [Spouses Alfredo P. Pacis and Cleopatra D. Pacis] and against the
Jason Herbolario. They were sales agents of the defendant, and at that particular time, defendant [Jerome Jovanne Morales] ordering the defendant to pay plaintiffs
the caretakers of the gun store. (1) P30,000.00 as indemnity for the death of Alfred Pacis;
(2) P29,437.65 as actual damages for the hospitalization and burial
The bullet which killed Alfred Dennis Pacis was fired from a gun brought in by expenses incurred by the plaintiffs;
a customer of the gun store for repair. (3) P100,000.00 as compensatory damages;
(4) P100,000.00 as moral damages;
The gun, an AMT Automag II Cal. 22 Rimfire Magnum with Serial No. SN- (5) P50,000.00 as attorneys fees.
H34194 (Exhibit Q), was left by defendant Morales in a drawer of a table located inside
the gun store. SO ORDERED.4[4]

Defendant Morales was in Manila at the time. His employee Armando

Jarnague, who was the regular caretaker of the gun store was also not around. He left
 Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its Decision5[5] dated 11 Granting arguendo that an employer-employee relationship existed between
May 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial courts Decision and absolved Aristedes Matibag and the defendant-appellant, we find that no negligence can be
respondent from civil liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.6[6] attributed to him.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals Negligence is best exemplified in the case of Picart vs. Smith (37 Phil. 809).
denied in its Resolution dated 19 August 2005. The test of negligence is this:

Hence, this petition. x x x. Could a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom negligence
is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the
The Trial Courts Ruling course about to be pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from
that course or take precaution against its mischievous results, and the failure to do so
The trial court held respondent civilly liable for the death of Alfred under constitutes negligence. x x x.
Article 2180 in relation to Article 2176 of the Civil Code.7[7] The trial court held that
the accidental shooting of Alfred which caused his death was partly due to the Defendant-appellant maintains that he is not guilty of negligence and lack of
negligence of respondents employee Aristedes Matibag (Matibag). Matibag and Jason due care as he did not fail to observe the diligence of a good father of a family. He
Herbolario (Herbolario) were employees of respondent even if they were only paid on submits that he kept the firearm in one of his table drawers, which he locked and such
a commission basis. Under the Civil Code, respondent is liable for the damages caused is already an indication that he took the necessary diligence and care that the said gun
by Matibag on the occasion of the performance of his duties, unless respondent would not be accessible to anyone. He puts [sic] that his store is engaged in selling
proved that he observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the firearms and ammunitions. Such items which are per se dangerous are kept in a place
damage. The trial court held that respondent failed to observe the required diligence which is properly secured in order that the persons coming into the gun store would
when he left the key to the drawer containing the loaded defective gun without not be able to take hold of it unless it is done intentionally, such as when a customer is
instructing his employees to be careful in handling the loaded gun. interested to purchase any of the firearms, ammunitions and other related items, in
which case, he may be allowed to handle the same.
The Court of Appeals Ruling
We agree. Much as We sympathize with the family of the deceased,
The Court of Appeals held that respondent cannot be held civilly liable since defendant-appellant is not to be blamed. He exercised due diligence in keeping his
there was no employer-employee relationship between respondent and Matibag. The loaded gun while he was on a business trip in Manila. He placed it inside the drawer
Court of Appeals found that Matibag was not under the control of respondent with and locked it. It was taken away without his knowledge and authority. Whatever
respect to the means and methods in the performance of his work. There can be no happened to the deceased was purely accidental.8[8]
employer-employee relationship where the element of control is absent. Thus, Article The Issues
2180 of the Civil Code does not apply in this case and respondent cannot be held
liable. Petitioners raise the following issues:

Furthermore, the Court of Appeals ruled that even if respondent is I. THE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN RENDERING THE DECISION
considered an employer of Matibag, still respondent cannot be held liable since no AND RESOLUTION IN QUESTION IN DISREGARD OF LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE BY
negligence can be attributed to him. As explained by the Court of Appeals: REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (BRANCH 59) OF BAGUIO CITY
NOTWITHSTANDING CLEAR, AUTHENTIC RECORDS AND TESTIMONIES PRESENTED Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being
DURING THE TRIAL WHICH NEGATE AND CONTRADICT ITS FINDINGS. fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if
there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict
II. THE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED GRAVE, REVERSIBLE ERROR IN RENDERING THE and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
DECISION AND RESOLUTION IN QUESTION BY DEPARTING FROM THE ACCEPTED AND
USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS THEREBY IGNORING THE FACTUAL
FINDINGS OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (BRANCH 59) OF BAGUIO CITY SHOWING This case involves the accidental discharge of a firearm inside a gun store.
PETITIONERS CLEAR RIGHTS TO THE AWARD OF DAMAGES.9[9] Under PNP Circular No. 9, entitled the Policy on Firearms and Ammunition
Dealership/Repair, a person who is in the business of purchasing and selling of
firearms and ammunition must maintain basic security and safety requirements of a
The Ruling of the Court gun dealer, otherwise his License to Operate Dealership will be suspended or
canceled.14[14]
We find the petition meritorious. Indeed, a higher degree of care is required of someone who has in his
possession or under his control an instrumentality extremely dangerous in character,
This case for damages arose out of the accidental shooting of petitioners son. such as dangerous weapons or substances. Such person in possession or control of
Under Article 116110[10] of the Civil Code, petitioners may enforce their claim for dangerous instrumentalities has the duty to take exceptional precautions to prevent
damages based on the civil liability arising from the crime under Article 10011[11] of any injury being done thereby.15[15] Unlike the ordinary affairs of life or business
the Revised Penal Code or they may opt to file an independent civil action for damages which involve little or no risk, a business dealing with dangerous weapons requires the
under the Civil Code. In this case, instead of enforcing their claim for damages in the exercise of a higher degree of care.
homicide case filed against Matibag, petitioners opted to file an independent civil
action for damages against respondent whom they alleged was Matibags employer. As a gun store owner, respondent is presumed to be knowledgeable about
Petitioners based their claim for damages under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil firearms safety and should have known never to keep a loaded weapon in his store to
Code. avoid unreasonable risk of harm or injury to others. Respondent has the duty to
ensure that all the guns in his store are not loaded. Firearms should be stored
unloaded and separate from ammunition when the firearms are not needed for ready-
Unlike the subsidiary liability of the employer under Article 10312[12] of the access defensive use.16[16] With more reason, guns accepted by the store for repair
Revised Penal Code,13[13] the liability of the employer, or any person for that matter, should not be loaded precisely because they are defective and may cause an
under Article 2176 of the Civil Code is primary and direct, based on a persons own accidental discharge such as what happened in this case. Respondent was clearly
negligence. Article 2176 states: negligent when he accepted the gun for repair and placed it inside the drawer without
ensuring first that it was not loaded. In the first place, the defective gun should have
been stored in a vault. Before accepting the defective gun for repair, respondent
should have made sure that it was not loaded to prevent any untoward accident.
Indeed, respondent should never accept a firearm from another person, until the
cylinder or action is open and he has personally checked that the weapon is
completely unloaded.17[17] For failing to insure that the gun was not loaded,
respondent himself was negligent. Furthermore, it was not shown in this case whether
respondent had a License to Repair which authorizes him to repair defective firearms
to restore its original composition or enhance or upgrade firearms.18[18]

Clearly, respondent did not exercise the degree of care and diligence required
of a good father of a family, much less the degree of care required of someone dealing
with dangerous weapons, as would exempt him from liability in this case.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the 11 May 2005

Decision and the 19 August 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
60669. We REINSTATE the trial courts Decision dated 8 April 1998.

SO ORDERED.