Leonardo Palafox et. Al.

vs Province of Ilocos Norte, District Engineer and Provincial Treasurer

31 January 1958 | G.R. No. L-10659 | Bengzon, J.

FACTS
 The Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte dismissed plaintiffs' claim against the above appellees
for damages arising from the death of their father Proceto Palafox, who had been run over by a
freight truck driven by Sabas Torralba on September 30, 1948.
 Torralba was a chauffeur of the Provincial Government of Ilocos Norte detailed to the office of
the District Engineer; and on the said date he drove the motor vehicle along the National
Highway in compliance with his duties as such. Prosecuted for homicide through reckless
imprudence, Torralba pleaded guilty and was accordingly sentenced.
 Having reserved their right to file civil action, the heirs subsequently began these proceedings
against the employer the province, the District Engineer, the Provincial Treasurer and Sabas
Torralba.
 Upon a motion to dismiss, the Hon. Fidel Villaneuva, Judge, quashed the case against the
defendants, except Sabas Torralba.

Reasoning of Judge Villanueva: There being no allegation that said province and officers had been
“engaged in some kind of industry” as provided in Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code, no cause of action
exists against them. For purposes of clarification said article is quoted herewith.
“ART. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. - The subsidiary liability established in the next
preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in any
kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or
employees in the discharge of their duties.”

Palafox’s assertion: the basis of their demand for indemnity is not the above Art. 103, but Art. 1903 of
the Civil Code providing as follows:
“ART. 1903. The obligation imposed by the next preceding articles is enforceable not only for
personal acts and omissions, but also for those of persons for whom another is responsible. x x x.
The State is liable in this sense when it acts through a special agent, but not when the damage has
been caused by the official upon whom properly devolved the duty of doing the act performed, in
which case the provisions of the preceding article shall be applicable. x x x.”
As an alternative the Palafox’s invoke the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior.

ISSUE
W/N the Province of Ilocos Norte may be held liable for the acts of Torralba? NO.

RATIO
It will be observed that to attach liability to the State for the negligence of Sabas Torralba a declaration
must be made that he was a “special agent,” - and not one upon whom properly devolved the duty of
driving the truck on that occasion.

While the Court has interpreted “the State” to mean “Government of the Philippines,” and these words
include both central and the local governments (Sec. 2 Revised Administrative Code.), “The municipality
is not liable for the acts of its officers or agents in the performance of its governmental functions.”

Governmental affairs do not lose their governmental character by being delegated to the municipal
governments. Nor does the fact that such duties are performed by officers of the municipality which,
for convenience, the state allows the municipality to select, change their character. To preserve the
peace, protect the morals and health of the community and so on to administer government,
whether it be done by the central government itself or is shifted to a local organization. And the state
being immune for injuries suffered by private individuals in the administration of strictly
governmental functions, like immunity is enjoyed by the municipality in the performance of the same
duties, unless it is expressly made liable by statute.

“A municipality is not exempt from liability for the negligent performance of its corporate or
proprietary or business functions. In the administration of its patrimonial property, it is to be regarded
as a private corporation or individual so far as its liability to third persons on contract or in tort is
concerned. Its contracts, validly entered into, may be enforced and damages may be collected from it
for the torts of its officers or agents within the scope of their employment in precisely the same
manner and to the same extent as those of private corporations or individuals. As to such matters the
principles of respondeat superior applies. It is for these purposes that the municipality is made liable
to suits in the courts.”

Here we see that if the negligent employee was engaged in the performance of governmental duties, as
distinguished from corporate or proprietary or business functions – the government is not liable. The
construction or maintenance of roads in which the truck and the driver worked at the time of the
accident are admittedly governmental activities.

Wherefore, the death of Palafox - tragic and deplorable though as it may be – imposed on the province
no duty to pay monetary compensation.

The reason for the exemption according to Mr. Justice Story is that the Government “does not
undertake to guarantee to any person the fidelity of the officers or agents whom it employs, since that
would involve in all its operations in endless embarrassments, difficulties and loses which would be
subversive of the public interest.”