TUZON v.

COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS

The Sangguniang Bayan of Camalaniugan, Cagayan adopted Resolution No. 9. Said

resolution authorized the municipal treasurer to enter into an agreement with all
thresher operators who apply for a Permit to Thresh Palay to donate 1% of all the palay
threshed by them. Thereafter, Jurado offered to pay the license fee for
thresher operators. Municipal Treasurer Magapu refused to accept payment and
required him to first secure a Mayor’s permit. Mayor Tuzon said that Jurado should first
comply with Resolution No. 9 and sign the agreement before the permit could be issued.
Jurado filed with the Court of First Instance of Cagayan for mandamus, and another
with the same court for judgement against the said resolution. CFI upheld the
Resolution, and dismissed the claim for damages. CA affirmed the validity of the
Resolution and found Tuzon and Mapagu to have acted maliciously and in bad faith
when they denied Jurado’s application.

ISSUE

Whether or not  petitioners are liable in damages for having withheld

Mayor’s permit and license because of respondent’s refusal to comply with said
Resolution.

HELD

NO. Article 27 presupposes that the refusal or omission of a public official to perform
his official duty is attributable to malice or inexcusable negligence. There was no
evidence offered to show that petitioners singled out respondent for persecution.
Neither does it appear that the petitioners stood to gain personally from refusing to
issue the mayor’s permit and license. Moreover, the resolution was uniformly applied to
all the threshers in the municipality without preference. A public officer is
not personally liable to one injured in consequence of an act performed within the scope
of his official authority and in line of his official duty. In the absence of a judicial
decision declaring said Resolution invalid, its legality would have to be presumed.
As executive officials of the municipality, they had the duty to enforce it. An erroneous
interpretation of