Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    Dela Cruz v. Northern

    Uploaded by

    Abegail Galedo
    The plaintiff, a special guard employed by Northern Theatrical Enterprises Inc., shot and killed a man who attacked him with a bolo after being refused entry to the movie house. The plaintiff sought reimbursement for legal expenses from his employer, but the court found no principal-agent relationship existed since the plaintiff was merely an employee, not a representative of the company. The court ruled the employer was not obligated to reimburse legal expenses incurred by the plaintiff as a result of criminal charges filed against him by third parties in connection with the shooting.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dela Cruz v. Northern

    Uploaded by

    Abegail Galedo
    39 views2 pages
    The plaintiff, a special guard employed by Northern Theatrical Enterprises Inc., shot and killed a man who attacked him with a bolo after being refused entry to the movie house. The plaintiff sought reimbursement for legal expenses from his employer, but the court found no principal-agent relationship existed since the plaintiff was merely an employee, not a representative of the company. The court ruled the employer was not obligated to reimburse legal expenses incurred by the plaintiff as a result of criminal charges filed against him by third parties in connection with the shooting.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiff, a special guard employed by Northern Theatrical Enterprises Inc., shot and killed a man who attacked him with a bolo after being refused entry to the movie house. The plaintiff sought reimbursement for legal expenses from his employer, but the court found no principal-agent relationship existed since the plaintiff was merely an employee, not a representative of the company. The court ruled the employer was not obligated to reimburse legal expenses incurred by the plaintiff as a result of criminal charges filed against him by third parties in connection with the shooting.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    39 views2 pages

    Dela Cruz v. Northern

    Uploaded by

    Abegail Galedo
    The plaintiff, a special guard employed by Northern Theatrical Enterprises Inc., shot and killed a man who attacked him with a bolo after being refused entry to the movie house. The plaintiff sought reimbursement for legal expenses from his employer, but the court found no principal-agent relationship existed since the plaintiff was merely an employee, not a representative of the company. The court ruled the employer was not obligated to reimburse legal expenses incurred by the plaintiff as a result of criminal charges filed against him by third parties in connection with the shooting.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-7089             August 31, 1954 alleged that he was entitled to


    reimbursement of the expenses
    DOMINGO DE LA CRUZ, plaintiff-appellant, incurred by him in connection with the
    vs.
    agency (Arts. 1709-1729 of the old Civil
    NORTHERN THEATRICAL ENTERPRISES
    INC., ET AL., defendants-appellees. Code)

    DOCTRINE:  Trial court found that plaintiff had no


    cause of action against defendant.
    The relationship between the movie
    corporation and the plaintiff was not that of ISSUE: Whether an employee or servant who in
    principal and agent because the principle of while in the performance of the task assigned to
    representation was in no way involved. him, performs an act which eventually results in
    his incurring in expenses, caused not directly by
    FACTS: his employer but rather by a third party or
     Northern Theatrical Enterprises Inc., a stranger not in the employ of his employer, may
    domestic corporation operated a movie recover said damages against his employer.
    house in Laoag, Ilocos Norte RULING:

     It employed plaintiff Domingo dela Cruz The relationship between the movie
    as a special guard whose duties were to corporation and the plaintiff was not that of
    guard the main entrance of the cine, to principal and agent because the principle of
    maintain peace and order and to report representation was in no way involved.
    the commission of disorders within the
    Plaintiff was not employed to represent the
    premises. As such, he carried a revolver.
    defendant corporation in its dealings with
    third parties. He was a mere employee hired to
     One Benjamin Martin wanted to crash
    perform a certain specific duty or task, that of
    the gate or entrance of the movie
    acting as special guard and staying at the main
    house. Plaintiff refused to let him in
    entrance of the movie house to stop gate
    without presenting his ticket. This
    crashers and to maintain peace and order
    infuriated Martin and attacked him with
    within the premises.
    a bolo.
    Damage suffered by the plaintiff by reason of
     When he was cornered, he shot Martin the expenses incurred by him in remunerating
    resulting the latter’s death. his lawyer, is not caused by his act of shooting
    to death the gate crasher but rather by the
     Dela Cruz was charged with Homicide in filing of the charge of homicide which made it
    COFI-Ilocos Norte but his Motion to necessary for him to defend himself with the
    Dismiss was granted. He was charged aid of counsel.
    with another Homicide case in same
    Had no criminal charge been filed against him,
    court wherein he was acquitted.
    there would have been no expenses incurred or
    damage suffered. So the damage suffered by
     Plaintiff dela Cruz claimed
    plaintiff was caused rather by the improper
    reimbursement of his expenses such as
    filing of the criminal charge, possibly at the
    attys. Fees, moral damages, etc. He
    instance of the heirs of the deceased gate
    crasher.

    In such case, it is not a legal obligation of the


    employer to give assistance to its employees. 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.

    You might also like