TORTS AND DAMAGES Book I IX. Special Liabilities in Particular Activities E.

VIOLATION OF RIGHTS COMMITED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS DEFINITIONS AND DISCUSSIONS A. Public Officer a person who holds office; creation and conferring of an office involves a delegation to the individual of some of the sovereign functions of government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the public. B. Requisites for Filing Of Action y A public servant or employee refuses or neglects to perform his official duty

y y

There is no valid reason for the refusal or neglect to perform official duty That injury or damage is suffered by the plaintiff

C. General Rule on Liability y A public officer is not liable for injuries sustained by another as a consequence of official acts done within the scope of his official authority, except as otherwise provided by law. y Not civilly liable for acts done in official capacity UNLESS bad faith, malice, negligence y Liable for willful or negligent acts done by him which are contrary to morals, law public policy and good customs EVEN if he acted under instructions of his superiors. D. Non Nonfeasance, Misfeasance, and Malfeasance y Nonfeasance neglect or refusal to perform an act which is the officer s legal obligation y Misfeasance failure to exercise that degree of care, skill and diligence in the performance of official duty y Malfeasance doing, through ignorance, inattention or malice of an act which he had no legal right to perform. E. Command of Responsibility - Head of a department or a superior officer shall not be civilly liable for the wrongful acts, omission of duty, negligence or misfeasance of his subordinates, UNLESS he has actually authorized by written order the specific act or misconduct.

one who receives a definite and fixed order of commission. 2180. but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects without just cause to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter. The state is responble in the like manner when it acts through a special agent. Good Faith. that is. C. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 (quasi-delict) is demandable not only for one s own omissions.A. CODAL PROVISIONS A. Art. 28 of the New Civil Code the Article is not applicable when the public officer executed an act within the scope of his official capacity and in line of duty. he acted in a notoriously arbitrary manner. It applies only if there is an unjustifiable refusal to perform an official duty causing damage or prejudice to another or when there is an inexcusable negligence I. State s Imputed Liability the Government of the Philippines is only liable for the negligent acts of its officers. without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken. foreign to the exercise of the ordinary duties of his office. If the duty is discretionary. agents and employees when they are acting as special agents.F. it may mitigate the amount of damages G. Inapplicability of Art. Not a Defense Good faith or absence of malice could not be proffered as a defense if there is refusal or neglect to perform an imperative duty. Ministerial the refusal to act with an invalid reason must be a ministerial duty. the law absolutely requires him to perform. in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable. 3019. without justification. B. The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of the family to prevent damage. he is not liable for his refusal or neglect to perform it. unless. Nature Of Duty. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act: Section 3 (f) Neglecting or refusing. R. Doctrine of Imputed Liability/Vicarious Liability Art. or for purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor or discriminating against any other interested party. H. that is. to act within a reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining directly or indirectly. but not when the damage hass been caused by the official to whom the task done pertains. from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage. . after due demand or request.

The indemnity shall include moral damages. and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf. (17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self. and for other relief. (18) Freedom from excessive fines. (16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel. (3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication. or any private individual. the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages. or from being forced to confess guilt. and (19) Freedom of access to the courts. or cruel and unusual punishment. defeats. (7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. In any of the cases referred to in this article. (6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law. (13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances. (4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. to meet the witnesses face to face. or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession. (11) The privacy of communication and correspondence. to have a speedy and public trial. violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: (1) Freedom of religion. house. to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional. (12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law. (14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form. who directly or indirectly obstructs. The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.D. (5) Freedom of suffrage. . (10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same. except when the person confessing becomes a State witness. (8) The right to the equal protection of the laws. Any public officer or employee. (15) The right of the accused against excessive bail. 32. whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense. Art. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted). (2) Freedom of speech. (9) The right to be secure in one's person. and mat be proved by a preponderance of evidence. papers.

and municipalities. B. He had no mission or assignment foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office. it is submitted that the same is deemed covered by analogy. bridges. the Government is not responsible for the damage caused by such negligence C. Meritt vs. or injuries suffered by. cities. need not be owned by the political units. any person by reason of the defective condition of roads. and other public works under their control or supervision . 34 Phil. which are under the control or supervision of the provinces. Government of the Philippine Islands.JURISPRUDENTIAL SUPPORT A. Streets. Aberca vs. is not required the roads. and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of. . etc. Auditor General. Provisions. It suffices that there is control or supervision over them by the political unit CODAL PROVISIONS Art. Ownership of Roads. death. 453 Held: Since the officers of the Emergency Control Administration (ECA) did not act as special agents in storing gasoline in the ECA warehouse. Public Buildings. thus rendering the public officers liable for damages for violating the Constitutional rights and liberties of another because only judges are exempted therein. streets. B. CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES DEFINITIONS AND DISCUSSIONS A. bridges. streets. bridges. 311 Held: The driver was not a special agent of the Government. Rosete vs. cities. 2189. Etc. the said political subdivisions are liable therefor.If the damage consists in injury to property.If by reason of the defects in the existing roads. Ver. 160 SCRA 590 Held: The civil action for damages based on Art.. F. or injuries are caused to persons. streets. He was in the performance of his regular and special duties as driver. 81 Phil. and Other Public Works . etc. 32 of the Civil Code is not barred by the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. provided their acts or omissions do not constitute a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statue. Bridges. public buildings. Defective Conditions of the Roads.PROVINCES.

who was present in the car. city or municipality from which responsibility is exacted. 22 SCRA 267 Held: Under Art. 2189 of the Civil Code. still if he ratifies the wrongful acts. Effect. The city is liable. when driver is found negligent once a driver is proven negligent in causing damage. Effect of Ratification of Tortious Act of Driver or Employee even if the employer can prove diligence in the selection and supervision of the employee.JURISPRUDENTIAL SUPPORT Guilatco vs. 2184. OWNER OF A MOTOR VEHICLE DEFINITIONS AND DISCUSSIONS A. 171 SCRA 382 Held: It is not necessary for the defective road or street to belong to the province. who was in the vehicle. In motor vehicle mishaps. is likewise held liable if he could have presented the mishap by exercise of due diligence but did not do so. CODAL PROVISIONS A. or takes no step to avert further damage. The article only required that either control or supervision is exercised over the defective road street City of Manila vs. Teotico. but his driver was negligent. prevented the misfortune. Liability of the Car Owner y If present in the car . Art. city or municipality for liability to attach. the injured party may still sue the car owner under imputed liability. the owner of the car. y If not present in the car if the car owner was not in the car. the law presumes the vehicle owner equally negligent and imposes upon the latter the burden of proving proper selection of employee as a defense C. if he had been found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice within the next preceding two months.if the causative factor for the accident was the driver s negligence. B. City of Dagupan. . If the owner was not in the motor vehicle. if the former. the owner is solidarily liable with his driver. could have. What said article requires is that the province. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent. it is not necessary for the liability therein established to attach that the defective roads or streets belong to the province. the employer would still be liable. G. the provisions of Article 2180 are applicable. city or municipality has either control or supervision over the said street or road. by the use of due diligence.

to answer for damages to third persons. Art. .B. 2186. The amount of the bond and other terms shall be fixed by the competent public official. Every owner of a motor vehicle shall file with the proper government office a bond executed by a government-controlled corporation or office.