Case Digest

Rama vs. CA
G.R. No. L-44484
Decided on: March 16, 1987
Ponente: ALAMPAY, J.:

Facts: A resolution was passed by herein petitioner Rama, then Vice Governor or Cebu, with co-
respondents Mandeola and Castillo, members Sangguniang Panlunsod of Cebu, to mechanize the
maintenance and repair of all roads and bridges of the province, to economize in the expenditure of its Road
and Bridges (R&B) Fund, etc. To implement such policy, the Provincial Board resolved to abolish around
30 positions and 200 employees were dismissed – the salaries of whom were derived from the R&B
fund. The Local Government, however, bought heavy equipment worth 4 million pesos, hired around 1000
new employees, renovated the office of the provincial engineer and provided him with a Mercedes Benz.

Upon petition by herein respondents (dismissed employees), the then CFI of Cebu declared said
Resolution null and void and ordered the reinstatements of 56 dismissed employees and pay their
back wages. Upon appeal by both parties, then CA affirmed the lower court’s decision, plus an
award of moral damages of P1000 for each of the employees, considering that the case involved
quasi-delict. The CA found that the employees were dismissed because of their different political
affiliations – that they were identified with the Liberal Party of Sergio Osmeña Jr.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners-public officials (Gov. Espina, Rama, Mendiola and Carillo) are
personally liable for damages for adopting a resolution which abolished positions to the detriment
of the occupants thereof.

HELD: In principle, a public officer by virtue of his office alone is not immune from damages in his
personal capacity arising from illegal acts done in bad faith. A different rule sould sanction the use
of public office as a tool of oppression. [Tabuena vs. CA, 8 SCRA 413,1961].

Thus, in Correa vs. CFI of Bulacan, 92 SCRA 312 (1979), a mayor was held liable for illegally
dismissing a policeman even if he had relinquished his position. The SC in that case held that a
public officer who commits a 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 thereof like any private individual. This
personal liability has been applied to cases where a public officer removes another officer or
discharges an employee wrongfully, the reported cases saying that by reason of non-compliance
with the requirements of law in respect to removal from office, the officials were acting outside
their official authority.

The officials in these consolidated cases are personally liable for damages because their precipitate
dismissal of provincial employees through an ostensibly legal means. Such act of the petitioners
of dismissing employees who are of rival political party, to recommend their own protégées who
even outnumbered the dismissed employees, reflected the petitioners’ malicious intent. Municipal
officers are liable for damages if they act maliciously or wantonly, and if the work which they
perform is done rather to injure an individual than to discharge a public duty. A public officer is
civilly liable for failure to observe honestly and in good faith in the performance of their duties as
public officers or for willfully or negligently causing loss or injury to another (Art. 20, CC) or for
willfully causing loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good custom and/or
public policy (Art. 21, CC).
Dismissed employees are entitled to damages because they suffered a special and peculiar injury
from the wrongful act. The dismissed employees who were holding such positions as foreman,
watchman and drivers belonged to a low-salaried group, who, if deprived of wages, would generally
incur considerable economic hardship.