20. Alan, a mall security guard, negligently shot Kazuto, a customer who died on the spot. The heirs of Kazuto filed an action for damages against Alan, for his own negligence, and his employer, Ryota Security Agency (RSA), for failure to observe diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. In due course, the trial court ruled that both Alan and RSA are negligent and ordered them to pay damages in favor of the heirs of Kazuto, to wit: FOR THESE REASONS, the complaint for quasi-delict is GRANTED. Alan is civilly liable to pay the heirs of Kazuto PHP 1,000,000.00 actual damages, PHP 500,000.00 moral damages, and PHP 500,000.00 exemplary damages. Ryota Security Agency, as employer, is subsidiarily liable to pay the award of damages in case of the employee’s insolvency. The award of damages shall earn interest at the rate of 12% from filing of the complaint until finality of the decision. SO ORDERED. Did the trial court properly impose the civil liabilities of Alan and RSA? Explain.