(5) De La Cruz Vs Vs. Northern Theatrical Enterprises

De la Cruz vs. Northern Theatrical Enterprises, Inc. Facts: Northern Theatrical Enterprises operated a movie house in Laoag, Ilocos Norte. It employed DOMINGO DE LA CRUZ as a special guard who has the following duties: (1)To guard the main entrance of the cine;(2) To maintain peace and order; and (3)To report the commission of disorders in the premises. As a guard he carried a revolver. BENJAMIN MARTIN wanted to crash the gate or entrance of the movie house.DE LA CRUZ refused to let him in without first securing himself with a ticket. Infuriated, Martin attacked him with a bolo. De la Cruz defended himself as best as he could until he was cornered, at which moment to save himself. He shot the gate crasher, resulting in the latter’s death. For the killing, De la Cruz was charged with two Criminal cases of homicide. After trial he was acquitted of the charges. In both criminal cases De la Cruz employed a lawyer. He demanded from his employer reimbursement but it was refused. He filed an action against the movie corp. and the three member of its board of directors: (1)To recover the amount he had paid his lawyer; and (2) Moral damages. Defandants asked for the dismissal of the complaint. CFI, Ilocos rejected the theory of De la Cruz that he was an agent of the Defendants and dismiss the complaint without costs. De la Cruz appealed. Issue: •

Whether De la Cruz is an agent of Northern Theatrical Enterprises.

Held: Negative.The principle of representation is no way involved.He was not employed to represent the defendant corporation in its dealings with third parties.He was mere employee hired to perform a certain specific duty or task.  Can de la Cruz recover the expenses he incurred from his employer? NO. The employer is not legally obliged to give legal assistance to its employee and provide him with a lawyer. Therefore, said employee may not recover the amount he may have paid a lawyer hired by him. The damage suffered by the plaintiff by reason of the expenses incurred by him in remunerating his lawyer, is not caused by his act of shooting to death the gate crasher but rather the filing of the charge of homicide which made it necessary for him to defend himself with the aid of counsel. The damage incurred, consisting of the payment of the lawyer’s fee did not flow directly from the performance of his duties but only indirectly because there was an efficient, intervening cause, namely the filing of the criminal charges.

Teachings: •

For a contract of agency to exist: –

There must be principle of representation.

–

Plaintiff (agent) must be employed to represent the defendant corporation (principal) in its dealings with third persons.

•

The giving of legal assistance to an employee by the employer is not a legal obligation. While it might yet and possibly be regarded as a normal obligation, it does not at present count with the sanction of manmade laws.

•

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.