Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MAXIMINO SOLIMAN v. JUDGE RAMON TUAZON

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 179382 2013-01-14	SPS. BENJAMIN C. MAMARIL v. BOY SCOUT OF PHILIPPINES PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In the case of Soliman, Jr. v. Tuazon,[19] the Court enunciated thus: It is settled that where the security agency, as here, recruits, hires and assigns the work of its watchmen or security guards, the agency is the employer of such guards and watchmen. Liability for illegal or harmful acts committed by the security guards attaches to the employer agency, and not to the clients or customers of such agency. As a general rule, a client or customer of a security agency has no hand in selecting who among the pool of security guards or watchmen employed by the agency shall be assigned to it; the duty to observe the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of the guards cannot, in the ordinary course of events, be demanded from the client whose premises or property are protected by the security guards. The fact that a client company may give instructions or directions to the security guards assigned to it, does not, by itself, render the client responsible as an employer of the security guards concerned and liable for their wrongful acts or omissions. Those instructions or directions are ordinarily no more than requests commonly envisaged in the contract for services entered into with the security agency.[20]
	GR No. 163609 2008-11-27	SPS. BUENAVENTURA JAYME v. RODRIGO APOSTOL REYES, R.T., J.
Even assuming arguendo that Mayor Miguel had authority to give instructions or directions to Lozano, he still can not be held liable. In Benson v. Sorrell,[23] the New England Supreme Court ruled that mere giving of directions to the driver does not establish that the passenger has control over the vehicle. Neither does it render one the employer of the driver. This Court, in Soliman, Jr. v. Tuazon,[24] ruled in a similar vein, to wit:x x x The fact that a client company may give instructions or directions to the security guards assigned to it, does not, by itself, render the client responsible as an employer of the security guards concerned and liable for their wrongful acts and omissions. Those instructions or directions are ordinarily no more than requests commonly envisaged in the contract for services entered into with the security agency. x x x[25] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 179337 2008-04-30	JOSEPH SALUDAGA v. FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY and EDILBERTO C. DE JESUS in his capacity as President of FEU YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
In Soliman, Jr. v. Tuazon,[30] we held that where the security agency recruits, hires and assigns the works of its watchmen or security guards to a client, the employer of such guards or watchmen is such agency, and not the client, since the latter has no hand in selecting the security guards. Thus, the duty to observe the diligence of a good father of a family cannot be demanded from the said client:... [I]t is settled in our jurisdiction that where the security agency, as here, recruits, hires and assigns the work of its watchmen or security guards, the agency is the employer of such guards or watchmen. Liability for illegal or harmful acts committed by the security guards attaches to the employer agency, and not to the clients or customers of such agency. As a general rule, a client or customer of a security agency has no hand in selecting who among the pool of security guards or watchmen employed by the agency shall be assigned to it; the duty to observe the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection of the guards cannot, in the ordinary course of events, be demanded from the client whose premises or property are protected by the security guards.