[G.R. No. L-7089. August 31, 1954.

]
DOMINGO DE LA CRUZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. NORTHERN He was a mere employee hired to perform a certain specific duty or task,
THEATRICAL ENTERPRISES INC., that of acting as special guard and staying at the main entrance of the movie
ET AL, defendants-appellees. house to stop gate crashers and to maintain peace and order within the
FACTS premises.
Northern Theatrical Enterprises Inc., operated a movie house in Laoag and
plaintiff DOMINGO DE LACRUZ, hired as a special guard whose duties The plaintiff was innocent and blameless. If despite his innocence and
were to guard the main entrance of the cine, to maintain peace and order despite the absence of any criminal responsibility on his part he was
and to report the commission of disorders within the premises. accused of homicide, then the responsibility for the improper accusation
One Benjamin Martin wanted to crash the gate or entrance of the movie may be laid at the door of the heirs of the deceased and the State, and so
house. Infuriated by the refusal of plaintiff De la Cruz to let him in without theoretically, they are the parties that may be held responsible civilly for
first providing himself with a ticket, Martin attacked him with a bolo. De la damages and if this is so, we fail to see how this responsibility can be
Cruz defended himself as best he could until he was cornered, at which transferred to the employer who in no way intervened, much less initiated
moment to save himself he shot the gate crasher, resulting in the latter's the criminal proceedings and whose only connection or relation to the
death. whole affairs was that he employed plaintiff to perform a specific duty or
De la Cruz was charged with homicide, after a re-investigation conducted task, which task or duty was performed lawfully and without negligence.
by the Provincial Fiscal the latter filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which was granted by the court in January 1943. On July 8, 1947, De la In view of the foregoing, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
Cruz was again accused of the same crime of homicide, of the same Court.
After trial, he was finally acquitted of the charge on January 31, 1948. In
both criminal cases De la Cruz employed a lawyer to defend him. He
demanded from his former employer reimbursement of his expenses but
was refused. He filed the present action against the movie corporation and
the three members of its board of directors, to recover amounts he had paid
his lawyers and also moral damages said to have been suffered, a total of
P15,000.
Court of First Instance after rejecting the theory of the plaintiff that he was
an agent of the defendants and that as such agent he was entitled to
reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him in connection with the
agency found that plaintiff had no cause of action and dismissed the
complaint without costs.

ISSUE
Whether an employee or servant who in line of duty and while in the performance of
the task assigned to him, performs an act which eventually results in his incurring in
expenses, caused not directly by his master or employer or his fellow servants or by
reason of his performance of his duty, but rather by a third party or stranger not in
the employ of his employer, may recover said damages against his employer.

HELD
We agree with the trial court that the relationship between the movie
corporation and the plaintiff was not that of principal and agent because the
principle of representation was in no way involved.

Plaintiff was not employed to represent the defendant corporation in its

dealings with third parties.