3S TORTS AND DAMAGES Case Digests

A.Y. 2021-2021

TOPIC
Unjustified Refusal or Neglect of a Public Servant to Perform AUTHOR
HIZON, Kate
Pearl L.
Official Duties

CASE TITLE Amaro vs Sumanguit GR NO G.R. No. L-

14986
TICKLER Petitioner went to Respondent’s office for assistance. DATE July 31, 1962
Instead of obtaining assistance to their complaint, they were
harassed and terrorized. They gave up and renounced their
right and interest in the prosecution of the crime.
DOCTRINE The refusal of the Chief of Police to give assistance, which it was his duty to do, constitutes
an actionable dereliction in light of Article 27 of the Civil Code.
FACTS On October 5, 1958, Jose Amaro was assaulted and shot at near the city government
building of Silay.
The next day, he went with Cornelio Amaro (his father) to the office of the Ambrosio
Sumanguit (defendant). Instead of obtaining assistance to their complaint, they were
harassed and terrorized. They gave up and renounced their right and interest in the
prosecution of the crime.
Having finished the investigation of the crime complained of, Sumanguit is now harassing the
plaintiffs in their daily work by ordering them to appear in his office when he is absent and
taking the plaintiiff’s signatures in prepared affidavits exempting the police from any
dereliction of duty in their case.
A case was filed against Sumanguit on the basis of:
ART. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the
damage.

ART. 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, without prejudice to any
disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.

ISSUE/S Whether chief of police may be held liable for damages under art 27 of the Civil Code.

RULING/S

3S (A.Y. 2021-2022)
San Beda University – College of Law
 3S TORTS AND DAMAGES Case Digests
A.Y. 2021-2021

YES, the facts set out constitute an actionable dereliction on appellee's part in the light of
Article 27 of the Civil Code.
The plaintiff’s claim for relief is not based on the fact of harassment but on the appellee’s
refusal to give them assistance, which it was his duty to do as an officer of the law.
In the case, the complaint was imperfectly drafted. But the Rules of Court require that there
be a showing , by a statement of ultimate facts, that the plaintiff has a right and that this
right was violated by the defendant. The compliant should not be dismissed upon mere
ambiguity. The remedy is to file a complaint directly with the city attorney by lodging an
administrative charge against Sumanguit.
This suggested remedy does not preclude the action for damages under Article 27 of the
Civil Code and hence does not justify the dismissal of the complaint.

NOTES

3S (A.Y. 2021-2022)
San Beda University – College of Law