NESSIA v.

FERMIN

FACTS

Nessia was the Deputy Municipal Assesor of Victorias, Negros Occidental. He filed a complaint for
recovery of damages and reimbursement of expenses against respondent Fermin and Municipality of
Victorias. He alleged that respondent deliberately ignored and caused non-payment of the vouchers
because he defiedthe latter’s request to register and vote in the local elections. On the other hand,
Fermin countered that Nessia’s claims could not be approved because they exceeded budgetary
appropriations. The Municipality, for its part, added that Nessia was also at fault since he did not give
justification for drawing funds in excess of the budget. RTC decided in favour of Nessia. Both of them
elevated the case to the Court of Appeals: Nessia praying for an increase in award of damages;
Fermin seeking exoneration from liability; Municipality did not appeal.

ISSUE

Whether Fermin maliciously refused to act on the vouchers, hence liable under Art. 27 of
the Civil Code.

HELD

YES. It is contended that Nessia may not claim relief under Art 27 because his theory of unjust
inaction is incompatible with his allegations in the complaint that Fermin denied/refused the
vouchers. However, the allegations alluded to, i.e. “plaintiff presented the said claims
to defendant Mayor Fermin, but refused and continue to refuse to pay,” should be construed
as admission of the act of disapproval of the claims. Refusal to pay is not inferred solely from
disapproval of claims but from inaction thereon as well. Accordingly, said allegations cannot
be considered as contradictory to Nessia’s theory of unjust inaction. He may be held liable under Art.
27 for malicious inaction because he did not act on the vouchers