Chato vs.

Fortune Tobacco, GR 141309, June 19, 2007 The circular reclassified Fortune Tobacco¶s cigarettes, specifically ³Champion,´ ³Hope´ and ³More,´ as locally manufactured cigarettes bearing foreign brand names, leading to an increase in its ad valorem tax from 20-45 % to 55 %. Fortune Tobacco challenged to validity of the order, which the Court of Tax Appeals declared invalid. With this, the firm filed the civil case before the Marikina RTC against Chato seeking damages for what they said was the violation of it constitutional rights. In seeking the suit¶s dismissal, Chato said she issued RMC 37-93 in the performance of her official duties as head of the BIR. She added that there is no cause of action against her because Fortune Tobacco failed to show bad faith on her part. ISSUE: May a public officer be validly sued in his/her private capacity for acts done in connection with the discharge of the functions of his/her office? RULING: Yes. The general rule is that a public officer is not liable for damages which a person may suffer arising from the just performance of his official duties and within the scope of his assigned tasks. However, a public officer is by law not immune from damages in his/her personal capacity for acts done in bad faith which, being outside the scope of his authority, are no longer protected by the mantle of immunity for official actions. In addition, the Court held in Cojuangco, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, that a public officer who directly or indirectly violates the constitutional rights of another, may be validly sued for damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code even if his acts were not so tainted with malice or bad faith. Thus, the rule in this jurisdiction is that a public officer may be validly sued in his/her private capacity for acts done in the course of the performance of the functions of the office, where said public officer: (1) acted with malice, bad faith, or negligence; or (2) where the public officer violated a constitutional right of the plaintiff.

Professional Video Inc. vs. TESDA , GR 155504, June 26, 2009 TESDA filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA to question the RTC orders, imputing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the trial court for issuing a writ of preliminary attachment against TESDA¶s public funds. The CA set aside the RTC¶s orders after finding that: (a) TESDA¶s funds are public in nature and, therefore, exempt from garnishment; and (b) TESDA¶s purchase of the PVC cards was a necessary incident of its governmental function; consequently, it ruled that there was no legal basis for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment/garnishment. The CA subsequently denied PROVI¶s motion for reconsideration; hence, the present petition.

ISSUE: Can TESDA be sued without consent? RULING: TESDA, as an agency of the State, cannot be sued without its consent. The rule that a state may not be sued without its consent is embodied in Section 3, Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution and has been an established principle that antedates this Constitution. It is as well a universally recognized principle of international law that exempts a state and its organs from the jurisdiction of another state. The principle is based on the very essence of sovereignty, and on the practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. It also rests on reasons of public policy that public service would be hindered, and the public endangered, if the sovereign authority could be subjected to law suits at the instance of every

nor can these suits control the use and disposition of the means for the performance of governmental functions.. consequently. TESDA performs governmental functions.citizen and. testing. From the perspective of this function. controlled in the uses and dispositions of the means required for the proper administration of the government. and the issuance of certifications is a task within its function of developing and establishing a system of skills standardization. the public policy reason that the performance of governmental function cannot be hindered or delayed by suits.e. and certification in the country. . the core reason for the existence of state immunity applies i. the writ of attachment was issued against a government agency covered by its own charter. In the present case.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful