Law of Public Officers: Chapter VI — Liability of Public Officers

 



Chapter VI 

Liability of Public Officers



General Rule on Liability.

  • A public officer is not liable for injuries sustained by another as a consequence of official acts done within the scope of his official authority, except as otherwise provided by law.

  • Sec. 38(1), Chapter 9, Book I, Administrative Code of 1987:

    • A public officer shall not be civilly liable for acts done in the performance of his official duties, unless there is a clear showing of bad faith, malice or negligence.

  • Sec. 39, Chapter 9, Book I, Administrative Code:

    • No subordinate officer or employee shall be civilly liable for acts done by him in good faith in the performance of his duties. However, he shall be liable for wilful or negligent acts done by him which are contrary to law, morals, public policy and good customs even if he acted under orders or instructions of his superiors.

  • But under Sec. 24, Local Government Code, it is explicitly provided that local governments and their officials are not exempt from liability:

  1. for death or injury to persons or 

  2. damage to property.


Statutory Liability.

  • Art. 27, Civil Code: 

    • Any person suffering moral or material loss because a public officer refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty, may file an action for damages and other relief against the public officer. This is without prejudice to administrative disciplinary action against the officer. 

  • Art. 32, Civil Code: 

    • Liability of public officer for violation of constitutional rights of individuals. 

  • Art. 34, Civil Code: 

    • Liability of peace officers who fail to respond or give assistance to persons in danger of injury to life or property. 

    • Note: The municipal corporation is subsidiarily liable.

  • Sec. 38(2), Chapter 9, Book I, Administrative Code: 

    • Any public officer who, without just cause, neglects to perform a duty within a period fixed by law or regulation, or within a reasonable period if none is fixed, shall be liable for damages to the private party concerned without prejudice to such other liability as may be prescribed by law. 



Liability on Contracts. 

  • The public officer shall be personally liable on contracts he enters into if he acted without, or exceeded his, authority. 


Liability for Tort. 

  • The public officer shall be personally liable if he goes beyond the scope of his authority, or exceeds the powers conferred upon him by law. 

  • Chavez v. Sandiganbayan, 193 SCRA 282: 

    • The Supreme Court said that public officials can be held personally accountable for acts claimed to be performed in connection with official duties where their actions are ultra vires or where there is a showing of bad faith. The immunity granted to PCGG officials under Executive Order No. 1 is not an absolute immunity; it merely refers to immunity from liability for damages in the official discharge of their task, much in the same manner that judges are immune from suit in the official discharge of the functions of their office. 

  • Shaufv. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 713:

    • It was held that unauthorized acts of government officials are not acts of State, and so the public officer may be held personally liable in damages for such unauthorized acts. 

    • Where a public official acted in ultra vires, or where there is a showing of bad faith, the officer can be held personally accountable for acts claimed to have been performed in connection with official duties.

  • Rama v. Court of Appeals, 148 SCRA 496: 

    • Provincial officials of Cebu were held liable in their personal capacity for illegally and in bad faith dismissing employees in the Provincial Engineer’s Office. 

    • In this case, it was shown that the dismissal was effected for partisan political reasons. 

  • Pilar v. Sangguniang Bayan of Dasol, Pangasinan, 128 SCRA 173: 

    • The Mayor was held personally liable for vetoing, without just cause, the Sanggunian ordinance appropriating the needed amount for the salary of the petitioner. 

  • Correa v. CPI of Bulacan, 92 SCRA 312: 

    • The Mayor who illegally dismissed employees was held personally liable, even if at the time of execution of judgment, he was no longer the Mayor. 2. 

  • Alinsugay v. Court of Appeals, 148 SCRA 521: 

    • It was held that in the absence of malice, provincial board members who disapproved the appointments of laborers are not personally liable.

  • Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court: 

    • The police station commander who confiscated petitioner's carabaos was held not personally liable in damages for enforcing Executive Order No. 626-A, because the executive order was presumptively valid, and it was his duty to enforce it. 


Presidential immunity from suit.

  • This privilege is enjoyed only during the tenure of the President. 

  • Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. No. 146710-15, March 2, 2001:

    • After his tenure, the Chief Executive cannot invoke immunity from suit for civil damages arising out of acts done by him while he was President which   were not performed in the exercise of official duties.

  • Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393:

    • The Supreme Court declared that while the President is immune from suit, she may not be prevented from instituting suit.

  • Forbes v. Chuoco Tiaco, 16 Phil 534:

    • It was held that the President is immune from civil liability. 


Threefold Liability Rule. 

  • The wrongful acts or omissions of a public officer may give rise to:

    1. civil liability 

    2. criminal liability and

    3. administrative liability. 

  • An action for each can proceed independently of the others. 

  • Dismissal of the criminal action does not foreclose the institution of an administrative action.

  • Relief from criminal liability does not carry with it relief from administrative liability.

  • Ocampo v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 114683, January 18, 2000: 

  • The Supreme Court said that the dismissal of the criminal case will not foreclose administrative action or give the accused a clean bill of health in all respects. 

  • After all, there is a difference in the quantum of evidence required: in criminal cases, conviction requires proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, while in administrative cases, what is required is merely substantial evidence. 


Liability of Ministerial Officers. 

  1. Nonfeasance: 

    • Neglect or refusal to perform an act which is the officer’s legal obligation to perform.

  2. Misfeasance: 

    • Failure to use that degree of care, skill and diligence required in the performance of official duty.

  3. Malfeasance: 

    • The doing, through ignorance, inattention or malice, of an act which he had no legal right to perform.


Command Responsibility. 

  • Sec. 38(3), Chapter 9, Book I, Administrative Code:

    • A head of a department or a superior officer shall not be civilly liable for the wrongful acts, omissions of duty, negligence or misfeasance of his subordinates, unless he has actually authorized by written order the specific act or misconduct complained of.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Sovereign Equality of States/Principle of sovereign equality UN Charter of 1945 All states are equal before international law no matter the size of their territory, population, economy or military. All states have equal rights and duties under international law, and that no state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state. Positive Consequences: All states have a voice in international affairs .   All states have the opportunity to participate in international organizations and to negotiate and conclude treaties. This helps to ensure that the interests of all states are represented in the development of international law and policy. No state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state.  This helps to protect the sovereignty of all states and to prevent the use of force or coercion to achieve political objectives. States have the right to develop their own political, economic, and social systems without interference from othe...
Read more

Commercial Laws 1: R.A. No. 11057 — Personal Property Security Act

  Commercial Law TITLE XVI Personal Property Security Act Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises are sources of growth and innovation. They contribute to and benefit from future growth. Their increased participation in global trade "can have significant impact in reducing poverty through employment creation, productivity improvements and economies of scale." Congress passed the Personal Property Security Act in order to provide Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) more access to "credit at the least cost through the establishment of a unified and modern legal framework for securing obligations with personal property ." It was explained:  According to the 2015 Philippine Statistics Authority data, there are 896,839 micro-small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) that established in the Philippines.  These MSMEs generated a total of 4,784,870 jobs in 2015 versus 2,181,819 for the large enterprises.  This indicates that the MSMEs contributed almost 61 % o...
Read more

Land Title and Deeds: Chapter 1 — What Lands are Capable of Being Registered

Chapter I What Lands are Capable of Being Registered All lands in the Philippines are presumed to be lands of the public domain, and therefore, owned by the State. This rule finds support in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution:  Section 2 . All lands of the public domain , waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State . With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least 60 per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be fo...
Read more