Peoples Car, Inc. vs.

Commando Security Service Agency

Facts: The Petitioner in this case seeks reversal of the adverse judgement of the CFI of Davao (Decision:
Recovery of P1,000 instead of actual damages of P8,489.10 claimed and suffered by Peoples Car as a
direct result of the wrongful act of the security guard of the security agency.)

The security guard, at 1:00 AM, without any authority, brought out of the compound and drove car to
places unknown, abandoning his post. As a result of the guards wrongful act, the car of the petitioners
customer suffered extensive damage amounting to P7,079 plus rental value of P1,410 for a car that the
petitioner had to rent and make available to its customer to enable him to pursue his business and
occupation for 47days.

It was said in the Guard Service Contract, par 4, that the Security agency, through the negligence of its
guards, after investigation has been conducted by the Petitioner, wherein the agency has been duly
represented, shall assume full responsibilities for any loss or damages that may occur to any property of
the Petitioner for which it is accountable during the watch hours of the guard. Provided that after
proper investigation, the amount of loss shall not exceed P1,000 per guard post.

The CFI of Davao based its judgment of the above paragraph of Service contract.

Par.5 however, states that, the Security agency assumes responsibility for the proper performance by
the guards employed, of their duties and shall be solely responsible for the acts done during their watch
hours, the Party of the First Part (Peoples Car) being specifically released from any and all liabilities to
the formers employee or to the 3rd parties arising the acts or omissions done by the guard during their
tour of .. duty..

Issue: W/N the Security agency shall be liable for the entire amount (actual damage)?

Ruling: Yes, the Court reversed the CFIs decision, ordering the security agency to pay for the actual
damage of P8,489.10.

Based on paragraph 5, the security agency is undoubtedly liable to indemnify plaintiff for the entire
damages thus incurred. Since the it was stated in the Contract, paragraph 5, that the security assumes
responsibility for the proper performance by the guards employed, and the guard acted wrongfully, the
Security is obligated to fulfil its duties as stated in the contract.