Pacis v Morales

PACIS v MORALES

Topic: Owners and managers of establishments and enterprises

DOCTRINE:  A higher degree of care is required of someone who has in his possession or under his control an instrumentality extremely dangerous in character, such as dangerous weapons or substances. Such person in possession or control of dangerous instrumentalities has the duty to take exceptional precautions to prevent any injury being done thereby. Unlike the ordinary affairs of life or business which involve little or no risk, a business dealing with dangerous weapons requires the exercise of a higher degree of care.

FACTS: Alfredo Pacis and Cleopatra Pacis filed a civil case for damages against Jerome Jovanne Morales. Spouses Paceis are the parents of Alfred, 17 y.o. who died in a shooting incident inside the Top Gun Firearms and Ammunitions Store (gun store) in Baguio City. Morales is the owner.

Alfred died due to a gunshot wound in the head which he sustained while he was at gunstore. The bullet which killed Alfred was fired from a gun brought in by a customer of the gun store for repair. The gun, was left by Morales in a drawer of a table located inside the gun store.

Morales as in Manila at the time. His employee Armando Jarnague, who was the regular caretaker of the gun store was also not around. Jarnague entrusted to Matibag and Herbolario a bunch of keys which included the key to the drawer where the gun was kept. It appears that Matibag and Herbolario later brought out the gun from the drawer and palced it in top of the table. Attacted by it, Alfred got hold of it. Matibag asked Alfred to return the gun. Alfred followed but it went off the bullet hitting Alfred.

The trial court held Morales civilly liable for the death of Alftred under A2180 in relation to A2176, ruling that the accidental shooting of Alfred which caused his death was partyl due to the negligence of Morales’ emplyee – Matibag. CA reversed, ruling that there was no employee-employer relationship because Matibag was not under the control of Morales with respect to the means and methods in the performance of his worK, thus A2180 cannot apply. And even if Matibag was an employee, Morales still cannot be held civilly liable because there is no negligence can be attributed to Morales because he kept the gun.

ISSUE: WON Morales is civilly liable?

RULING: YES. Respondent was clearly negligent when he accepted the gun for repair and placed it inside the drawer without ensuring first that it was not loaded. For failing to insure that the gun was not loaded, Morales himself was negligent.

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 gun dealer, otherwise his License to Operate Dealership will be suspended or canceled.

As a gun store owner, Morales is presumed to be knowledgeable about firearms safety and should have known never to keep a loaded weapon in his store to avoid unreasonable risk of harm or injury to others. Morales 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 access defensive use.

In the first place, the defective gun should have been stored in a vault. Before accepting the defective gun for repair, Morales should have made sure that it was not loaded to prevent any untoward accident. Indeed, Morales 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

Clearly, Morales did not exercise the degree of care and diligence required of a good father of a family, much less the The bullet which killed Alfred was fired from a gun brought in by a customer of the gun store for repair.

Choice of claim of petitioners

This case for damages arouse out of the accidental shoting of Alfred.  Under A1161 of the Civil Code petitioners may enforce their claim for damages based on the civil liability arising from the crime under Article 100 of the RPC or they may opt to file an independent civil action for damages under the Civil Code.

In this case, instead of enforcing their claim for damages in the homicide case filed against Matibag, petitioners opted to file an independent civil action for damages against respondent whom they alleged was Matibag’s employer. Petitioners based their claim for damages under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. 

DISPOSITIVE: Morales is civilly liable to petitioners because he was negligent.