1) Alfred Pacis, a 17-year-old student, died from a gunshot wound to the head that occurred at Top Gun Firearms store owned by Jerome Morales.
2) Morales was found negligent by the Supreme Court for failing to ensure that a defective gun accepted for repair and stored in a drawer of the store was unloaded, which led to its accidental discharge and Alfred's death.
3) As a gun store owner, Morales had a duty to exercise a high degree of care in handling firearms given their dangerous nature, including ensuring any guns on the premises were unloaded, especially those accepted for repair. His failure to do so resulted in civil liability for damages.
1) Alfred Pacis, a 17-year-old student, died from a gunshot wound to the head that occurred at Top Gun Firearms store owned by Jerome Morales.
2) Morales was found negligent by the Supreme Court for failing to ensure that a defective gun accepted for repair and stored in a drawer of the store was unloaded, which led to its accidental discharge and Alfred's death.
3) As a gun store owner, Morales had a duty to exercise a high degree of care in handling firearms given their dangerous nature, including ensuring any guns on the premises were unloaded, especially those accepted for repair. His failure to do so resulted in civil liability for damages.
1) Alfred Pacis, a 17-year-old student, died from a gunshot wound to the head that occurred at Top Gun Firearms store owned by Jerome Morales.
2) Morales was found negligent by the Supreme Court for failing to ensure that a defective gun accepted for repair and stored in a drawer of the store was unloaded, which led to its accidental discharge and Alfred's death.
3) As a gun store owner, Morales had a duty to exercise a high degree of care in handling firearms given their dangerous nature, including ensuring any guns on the premises were unloaded, especially those accepted for repair. His failure to do so resulted in civil liability for damages.
1) Alfred Pacis, a 17-year-old student, died from a gunshot wound to the head that occurred at Top Gun Firearms store owned by Jerome Morales.
2) Morales was found negligent by the Supreme Court for failing to ensure that a defective gun accepted for repair and stored in a drawer of the store was unloaded, which led to its accidental discharge and Alfred's death.
3) As a gun store owner, Morales had a duty to exercise a high degree of care in handling firearms given their dangerous nature, including ensuring any guns on the premises were unloaded, especially those accepted for repair. His failure to do so resulted in civil liability for damages.
On January 19, 1991, Alfred Dennis Pacis, then 17 year-old student, died due to a gunshot wound in the head which he sustained while he was at the Top Gun Firearms and Ammunitions Store. The gun store was owned and operated by Jerome Jovanne Morales. With Alfred Pacis at the time of the shooting were Aristedes Matibag and Jason Herbolario. The caretakers of the gun store during that particular time of the incident. The bullet which killed Alfred Pacis 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 was in Manila at the time. Matibag and Herbolario were entrusted to the keys used in the gun store which included the key to the drawer where the fatal gun was kept. Matibag and Herbolario later brought out the gun from the drawer and placed it on top of the table. Attracted by the sight of the gun, Alfred Dennis Pacis got hold of the same. Matibag asked Alfred Pacis to return the gun. The latter followed and handed the gun to Matibag. It went off, the bullet hitting Alfred Pacis in the head.
A criminal case for homicide was filed against Matibag, however, he was acquitted of the charge against him because of the exempting circumstance of "accident" under Art. 12, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code.
On 17 January 1995, Spouses Alfredo and Cleopatra Pacis, the parents of Alfred Pacis, filed with the trial court a civil case for damages against Jerome Morales. Adopting the same evidence adduce in the criminal case by agreement of the parties.
TRIAL COURT’S RULING:
The trial court held Morales civilly liable for the death of Alfred under Article 2180 in relation to Article 2176 of the Civil Code. The trial court held that the accidental shooting of Alfred which caused his death was partly due to the negligence of Morales’ employee. The trial court held that Morales failed to observe the required diligence when he left the key to the drawer containing the loaded defective gun without instructing his employees to be careful in handling the loaded gun.
THE COURT OF APPEALS’ RULING:
The Court of Appeals held that Morales cannot be held liable since no negligence can be attributed to him. The test of negligence is this: "xxx Could a prudent man, in the position of the person to whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as a reasonable consequence of the course about to be pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from that course or take precaution against its mischievous results, and the failure to do so constitutes negligence. x x x." Morales exercised due diligence in keeping his loaded gun while he was on a business trip in Manila. He placed it inside the drawer and locked it. It was taken away without his knowledge and authority. Whatever happened to the deceased was purely accidental. THE ISSUE:
Whether Morales failed to prove that he observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage, hence must be civilly liable for damages, or not.
THE SUPREME COURT RULING:
YES. Sps. Pacis based their claim for damages under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code. Wherein the liability of the employer, or any person for that matter, under Article 2176 of the Civil Code is primary and direct, based on a person’s own negligence.
This case involves the accidental discharge of a firearm inside a gun store. Indeed, 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.
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. With more reason, guns accepted by the store for repair should not be loaded precisely because they are defective and may cause an accidental discharge such as what happened in this case. Morales was clearly negligent when he accepted the gun for repair and placed it inside the drawer without ensuring first that it was not loaded. In the first place, the defective gun should have been stored in a vault. Before accepting the defective gun for repair, respondent 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. For failing to insure that the gun was not loaded, Morales himself was negligent.
Clearly, Morales did not exercise the degree of care and diligence required of a good father of a family, much less the degree of care required of someone dealing with dangerous weapons, as would exempt him from liability in this case.
Joanna Domagała, Aleksandra Górecka, Monika Roman - Sustainable Logistics - How To Address and Overcome The Major Issues and Challenges-Routledge - Productivity Press (2022)
