G.R. No. 223635 , June 14, 2021
MAUREEN ANN ORETA-FERRER, PETITIONER, VS. RIGHT EIGHT SECURITY AGENCY, INC., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Maureen Ann Oreta-Ferrer is a resident of Casa Verde Townhomes, where respondent Right Eight Security Agency, Inc. provides security services under a Contract of Security Services. The contract stipulates the agency’s liability for losses due solely to the negligence of its guards, provided there is no contributory negligence from the client. It also excludes liability for losses of pocketable items like jewelry and cash, or for losses inside closed houses without signs of forcible entry. Casa Verde’s rules require security to check all articles brought in and out and prevent unauthorized removal of goods.
On April 15, 2008, petitioner’s 9-year-old son, Emilio (Mio), informed her that their househelper, Melody Flor Perez, was on a long phone call. Perez later told Mio that petitioner instructed her to bring personal items and meet her in Makati City. Accompanied by Mio and another helper, Elsie Matibad, Perez went to the guardhouse with a red shopping bag. Guard-on-duty Richard Almine asked for a gate pass, which Perez did not have. Mio then told SG Almine, “My mommy already knows about that. She called me already,” and upon further questioning, said, “Ako na nga ang nagsasabi sayo na okey na.” SG Almine checked the paper bag, saw plastic sachets of hair gel, and allowed Perez to exit, logging it in the security logbook. He did not frisk Perez, as bodily frisking was not allowed by the homeowner’s association.
When petitioner arrived home later, she discovered Perez had not been authorized to leave and found her jewelry and cash, valued at P6,020,000.00, missing from her forcibly opened drawer. Perez later claimed she was victimized by a “Dugo-Dugo Gang.” Petitioner filed a criminal charge against Perez, who admitted concealing the valuables under her clothing. Petitioner demanded compensation from respondent, alleging negligence by SG Almine. Respondent refused, concluding SG Almine followed security protocols. Petitioner filed a complaint for damages.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) held respondent liable but found petitioner contributorily negligent, awarding actual damages (P6,020,000.00), reduced moral damages (P200,000.00), and attorney’s fees (P50,000.00). The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, dismissing the complaint and counterclaim, finding no negligence on respondent’s part.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that petitioner cannot recover damages from respondent due to the absence of negligence on respondent’s part.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s decision. The Court held that respondent did not commit a breach of contract through negligence. SG Almine followed the established security protocol: he checked the contents of Perez’s bag, sought confirmation from petitioner’s son (who had previously been used to authorize egress), and logged the exit. The contract and Casa Verde’s rules did not require personal verification from the homeowner if authorization was confirmed through a family member, a practice petitioner had previously allowed. The loss was primarily due to Perez’s deceit and petitioner’s own contributory negligence in entrusting authorization to her young son and failing to secure her valuables. The exclusion clauses in the contract (loss of pocketable items like jewelry and cash, and loss inside a closed house without signs of forcible entry) further absolved respondent from liability. Thus, respondent exercised the diligence required under the circumstances and was not liable for the loss.