LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

A. In General

Doctrine of official immunity from liabilities for public officers.

It is generally recognized that public officers and employees would be unduly hampered,
deterred, and intimidated in the discharge of their duties, if those who act improperly, or even exceed
the authority given them, were not protected to some reasonable degree by being relieved from private
liability.

Official immunity and State immunity distinguished.

The immunity of public officials is a more limited principle than State or governmental immunity, since
its purpose is not directly to protect the sovereign, but rather to do so only collaterally, by protecting
the public official in the performance of his government function.

Official immunity not absolute.

1. Suit to enforce liability for personal torts

2. Suit to compel performance of official duty or restrain performance of an act.

Three-fold responsibility of public officers

Firstly, if the individual is damaged by such violation, the official shall, in some cases, be held liable civilly
to reimburse the injured party.

Secondly, if the law has attached a penal sanction, the officer may be punished criminally.

Thirdly, if the administration's disciplinary power is strong, such violation may lead to imposition of fine,
reprimand, suspension, or removal from office, as the case may be.

Criminal and civil cases different from administrative matters. .

1. The purpose of administrative proceedings is mainly to protect the public services based on the
time-honored principle that a public office is a public trust. On the other hand, the purpose of a
criminal prosecution is the punishment of crime.
2. The acts or omissions of a public officer may constitute one and at the same time a violation of
the criminal law and an administrative offense. A prosecution in one is not a bar to the other.
Administrative cases are independent from criminal actions for the same act or omission.
3. The fact that a public officer has already been administratively penalized for his wrongful act or
omission, will not bar his conviction under the general penal laws.
4. Similarly, the dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence does not
foreclose administrative action against an erring public officer.
5. Neither does the dismissal of an administrative complaint necessarily bar the filing of a criminal
information for the same or similar acts which were the subject of the administrative case.
Double jeopardy does not lie.
6. A finding of guilt in the criminal case will not necessarily result in finding of liability in the
administrative case.
7. The basic premise is that criminal and civil cases are altogether different from administrative
matters, such that the disposition in the first two will not inevitably govern or affect the third
and vice versa. Verily, administrative cases may proceed independently of criminal and civil
proceedings.
8. The concept of prejudicial question involves a civil and a criminal case. There is no prejudicial
question where one case is administrative and the other is civil or criminal.
Proceedings against public officers.

1. Evidence and procedure.

2. Right to be informed of findings and recommendations of an investigating committee.
3. Object of administrative proceedings.
4. Right to counsel.
5. Effect of death

Administrative liability incurred in a previous term by an elective official.

1. Reelection operates as electorate condonation of a previous misconduct

2. Condonation does not extend to reappointed coterminous employees.
3. Reelection does not extinguish criminal or civil liability.

B. Civil Liability

Requisites for recovery of damages arising from acts of public officers

The extant rule is that a public officer shall not be liable by way of moral and exemplary damages for
acts done in the performance of official duties, unless there is clear showing of bad faith, malice or
gross negligence. Absent of any showing of bad faith or malice, every public official is entitled to the
presumption of good faith as well as regularity in the performance or discharge of official duties.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASES:

Phil. Racing Club, Inc. v. Bonifacio, 109 Phil. 233 [I960]

Issue: Is it within the power of the Commission on Races to annul the race contrary to the opinion of
the board of judges?

Ruling: No, it is not within the power of the Commission on Races to annul the race contrary to the
opinion of the board of judges. The action by the Commission of Races was in excess of its authority
granted by law.

Dumlao v. Court of Appeals, 114 SCRA 247 [1982].

Issue: Is D personally liable for damages?

Ruling: No, D is not personally liable for damages. From the complaint itself, no sufficient cause of
action was alleged, and the evidence utterly fails to provide a basis for imposing on petitioner the
liability as has been declared jointly with his co-defendants, the City of Davao and Hermanos de Yap,
by the trial court.

Rama v. Court of Appeals, 148 SCRA 496 [1987].

Issue: Are the respondents personally liable for damages?

Ruling: Yes, the respondents are personally liable for damages. A public officer who commits tort or
other wrongful act, done in excess or beyond the scope of his duty, is not protected by his office and
is personally liable therefor, like any private individual.

Effect of contributory negligence of injured party.

As a rule, public officers should be held to a faithful performance of their official duties, and made to
answer in damages to all persons who may have been injured through their malfeasance, omission
or negligence. However, it is equally true that if the result complained of would have followed,
 notwithstanding their misconduct, or if the injured party himself contributed to the result in any
degree by his own fault or neglect, i.e., he is guilty of contributory negligence, they cannot be held
responsible.

Liability of the President for official acts.

1. Civil responsibility.
2. Criminal liability.
3. Liability for damages.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE:

Moon v. Harrison, 43 Phil. 27 [1922]

Issue: Are the defendants personally liable for damages?

Ruling: No, the defendants are not personally liable for damages. No court has ever held and no
final decision will ever be found holding an Executive personally liable in damages for the exercise of
discretionary power under a law before it has been held unconstitutional.

Liability of other executive officials for official acts.

1. Functions involve exercise of discretion.

2. Reasons for immunity
3. Acts of heads of executive departments

Liability of legislative officials for official acts.

1. Privileges accorded members of Congress.

2. Reasons for immunity.

Liability of members of the judiciary for official acts

1. Reasons for immunity

2. Liability for rendering an unjust judgment
3. Liability for gross ignorance of law and incompetence
4. Quantum of proof necessary to support administrative charges

Liability of quasi-judicial officers for official acts.

1. Nature of functions. —Their functions are said to be "quasijudicial" and they are called "quasi-
judicial officers."
2. Reasons for immunity. — The same reasons of private interest and public policy which operate
to render the judicial officer exempt from civil liability for his judicial acts within his jurisdiction
apply to the quasi-judicial officer as well, and it is well-settled that the quasi-judicial officer
cannot be called upon to respond in damages to the private individual for the honest exercise of
his judgment within his jurisdiction however erroneous or misguided his judgment may be.
3. Liability for ministerial acts. —If it be judicial or quasi-judicial in its nature, the officer acts
judicially and is exempt.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE:

(Mercado v. Medina, 22 SCRA 577 [1968]

Issue: Is respondent Commissioner guilty of (1) nonfeasance or dereliction of duty? (2) misfeasance,
misconduct, and conduct unworthy of a public official? (3) abuse of discretion and partiality?
Ruling: No, respondent Commissioner is not guilty of (1) nonfeasance or dereliction of duty? (2)
misfeasance, misconduct, and conduct unworthy of a public official? (3) abuse of discretion and
partiality. Complaint is dismissed, and the respondent is absolved from all the charges.

Liability of ministerial officers for official acts.

1. General rule. — If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide
how or when the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary and not ministerial.
2. Requisites for liability. — The individual suing must show that he has suffered an injury from the
breach of a duty owing to himself.
3. Liability where officer also acts extra-judicially. —As to such acts, they are governed by the same
rules which control ministerial action in other cases.

Kinds of liability of ministerial officers.

1. Nonfeasance or the neglect or refusal, without sufficient excuse, to perform an act which it was
the officer's legal duty to the individual to perform;
2. Misfeasance or the failure to use, in the performance of a duty owing to an individual, that
degree of care, skill and diligence which the circumstances of the case reasonably demand; and
3. Malfeasance or the doing, either through ignorance, inattention or malice, of that which the
officer has no legal right to do at all, as where he acts without any authority whatever, or
exceeds, ignores or abuses his powers.

Liability of superior officer for acts of subordinates.

General rule: The negligence of subordinates cannot always be ascribed to their superior in the absence
of the latter's own negligence.

Exceptions:

1. Where, being charged with the duty of employing or retaining his subordinates, he negligently
or wilfully employs or retains unfit or improper persons;
2. Where, being charged with the duty to see that they are appointed or qualified in a proper
name, he negligently or wilfully fails to require them the due conformity to the prescribed
regulations; or
3. Where he so carelessly or negligently oversees, conducts or carries on the business of his office
as to furnish the opportunity for the default; or
4. A fortiori, where he has directed, authorized or cooperated in the wrong
5. Where liability is expressly provided in the statute

Liability of subordinates.

1. Same rules as those applicable to officers of higher rank

2. Where acts done pursuant to orders or instructions of a superior. — A subordinate official who
acts in good faith under orders or instructions of a superior officer acting in pursuance to law, is
not personally liable in an action for damages.

Liability for tortious acts.

1. Acts done within scope of official authority- A public officer, whether judicial, quasi-judicial, or
executive, is generally not personally liable to one injured in consequence of an act performed
within the scope of official authority, and in line of official duty.
2. Acts done without or in excess of official authority- Officers and employees of a state are not
immune from suit for their own tortious conduct, even where such conduct is committed in the
course of their employment.
 ILLUSTRATIVE CASES:

Quimsing v. Lachica, 2 SCRA 182 [1961]

Issue: Are the respondents personally liable for damages?

Ruling: No, the respondents are not personally liable for damages because the Law enforcing
agents acted in good faith.

Mabutol v. Pascual, 124 SCRA 867 [1983]

Issue: Are defendants personally liable for damages?

Ruling: No, the defendants are not personally liable for damages because the Public officials acted in
good faith

Festejo v. Fernando, 94 Phil. 504 [1954]

Issue: Did the lower court err in dismissing the case?

Ruling: Yes, the lower court erred in dismissing the case. Ordinarily, the officer or employee
committing the tort is personally liable therefor, and may be sued as any other citizen and held
answerable for whatever injury or damage results from his tortious act.

Palma v. Graciano, 99 Phil. 72 [1956]

Issue: Whether or not there is a cause of action against the defendants.

Ruling: Yes, there is a cause of action against the defendants. P was denied due process. It is well-
settled that when a public officer goes outside the scope of his duty, particularly when acting
tortiously, he is not entitled to protection on account of his office, but is liable for his acts like any
private individual

Genson v. Adarle, 153 SCRA 512 [1987]

Issue: Is the suit against B, in effect, a suit against the Government, and, therefore, should be
dismissed under the principle of nonsuitability of the State?

Ruling: No, the suit against B, in effect, is not a suit against the Government, and, therefore, should
not be dismissed under the principle of nonsuitability of the State. There being no proof that the
making of the tortious inducement was authorized, neither the State nor its funds can be made
liable therefor.

Zulueta v. Nicolas, 102 Phil. 945 [1958]

Issue: Does Z's complaint state a cause of action?

Ruling: No. Z’s complaint does not state a cause of action. It is the duty of a Fiscal not to prosecute when
after an investigation he has become convinced that the evidence available is not enough to establish a
prima facie case.

Amaro v. Sumaguit, 5 SCRA 707 [1962]

Issue: Was the court a quo correct in dismissing the case?

Ruling: No, the court is not quo correct in dismissing the case. The fact that A has another recourse by
filing his complaint directly with the City Attorney of Silay or by lodging an administrative charges against
defendant does not preclude this action for damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code and hence, does
not justify its dismissal.

Vital-Gozon vs. Court of Appeals, 292 SCRA 124 [1998]

Issue: Was there a factual basis for the award of moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's
fees?

Ruling: Yes, there was a factual basis for the award of moral and exemplary damages as well as
attorney's fees. Petitioner's contention that she cannot be liable for damages since she was sued in her
official capacity is without merit.

Liability on contracts executed in behalf of the government.

The general rule is that a public officer acting within the scope of his authority and in his official capacity
is not personally liable on contracts executed in behalf of the government.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASES:

Rivera v. Municipality of Malolos, 102 Phil. 285 [1957]

Issue: Has R a valid claim against respondent?

Ruling: No, R has no valid claim against respondent. Before a contract may be entered into validly by a
municipality, the law requires that there should be an appropriation of municipal funds to meet the
obligation validly passed by the municipal council and approved by the municipal mayor

Rivera v. Maclang, 7 SCRA 58 [1963]

Issue: Is the dismissal erroneous?

Ruling: Yes, the dismissal is erroneous. His liability is personal, as if the transaction had been entered
into by him as a private party.

Almeda v. Perez, 5 SCRA 970 [1962]

Issue: Is the proceeding under R.A. No. 1379 civil or criminal?

Ruling: The Proceeding under R.A. No. 1379 is Civil in nature. — "A study of the provisions of R.A. No.
1379 readily discloses that the proceeding for forfeiture is civil in nature and not criminal.

Liability of accountable officers to the government.

1. Bond requirement. Every accountable officer shall be properly bonded in accordance with law.
2. Primary and secondary responsibility. — The head of any agency of the government is
immediately and primarily responsible for all government funds and property pertaining to his
agency.
3. General liability for unlawful expenditures. — Expenditures of government funds or uses of
government property in violation of law or regulations shall be a personal liability of the official
or employee found to be directly responsible therefor.
4. Measure of liability of accountable officers. — Every officer accountable for governmental
property shall be liable for its money value in case of improper or unauthorized use or
misapplication thereof, by himself or any person for whose acts he may be responsible.
5. Liability for acts done by direction of superior officer. —The officer directing any illegal payment
or disposition of the funds or property shall be primarily liable for the loss, while the
accountable officer who fails to serve the required notice shall be secondarily liable.
 Albert v. Gangan, 353 SCRA 673 [2001]

Issue: Whether or not petitioners can be held personally liable for the subject amount in the
absence of any finding that he has knowingly participated in the alleged fraudulent transactions and
of any clear showing that he acted in bad faith, with malice or gross negligence when he approved
the loan transaction

Ruling: No, the petitioners can be held personally liable because the Petitioner, as head of the
agency, cannot be held personally liable for the disallowance simply because he was the final
approving authority of the transaction in question and that the officers/employees who processed
the same were directly under his supervision.

C. Criminal Liability

Generally.

No public officer, however high his position, is above the law; all may be punished for criminal acts.

Crimes peculiar to certain public officers.

Under the Revised Penal Code, crimes committed by public officers are classified under the following
headings:

1. malfeasance and misfeasance in office

2. frauds and illegal exactions and transactions;
3. malversation of public funds or property;
4. infidelity of public officers; and
5. other offenses and irregularities committed by public officers which include disobedience,
refusal of assistance, maltreatment of prisoners, anticipation, prolongation and abandonment of
the duties and powers of public office, usurpation of powers, and unlawful appointments.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE:

Macadangdang v. Sandiganbayan, 170 SCRA 308 [1989]

Issue: In not questioning the "obvious" irregularity in the preparation of the subject vouchers, was the
finding of the Sandiganbayan that AM conspired with his co-accused conclusive?

Ruling: No, the finding of the Sandiganbayan that AM conspired with his co-accused not conclusive. The
records show that the only participation of the budget officer in the alleged conspiracy was to obligate
and allot funds.

Arias v. Sandiganbayan, 180 SCRA 309 [1989]

Issue: Did the Sandiganbayan commit a reversible error in convicting petitioners in connection with the
overpricing of the lands, purchased by the Government?

Ruling: Yes, the Sandiganbayan commit a reversible error in convicting petitioners in connection with
the overpricing of the lands, purchased by the Government. The petitioners are acquitted on grounds of
reasonable doubt.