OBRA, ET AL. VS. COURT OF APPEALS, et al.

(G.R. No. 120852, October 28, 1999).

The plaintiffs in said case were accused of having been engaged in illegal mining. A letter was sent to the
Regional Director of the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences requesting the said director to stop the
alleged illegal mining activity.

On the same day the letter was sent, the Regional Director wrote the commanding general of the
Regional Command of the Philippine Constabulary requesting assistance in apprehending the truck of
the plaintiffs. The commanding general indorsed the letter to a subordinate office. Forthwith, the
plaintiffs’ truck was impounded and was prevented from leaving the mining area. When sued for
damages, the commanding general alleged that it was his ministerial duty to indorse the request of the
Regional Director. However, the Supreme Court rejected the argument stating that when the general
indorsed the letter, there could not have been any other foreseeable consequence but the eventual
seizure of the truck. Furthermore, the Court explained that under Article 32, it is not the actor alone
who is liable but also any person who indirectly violated the Constitutional right of the plaintiff.