023 REYES v. RBSMI (Peliño) and they were able to take note of 20 defiencies.
February 27, 2004 | Tinga, J. | Liability of superior officers for acts of the
subordinate
PETITIONERS: Alberto V. Reyes, Wilfredo B. Domo-Ong, and Herminio C.
Principio
RESPONDENT: Rural Bank of San Miguel (Bulacan), Inc., represented by
Hilario P. Soriano, President and Principal Stockholder
SUMMARY: This case is a Motion for Reconsideration of the liability of Reyes
and Domo-Ong, who were BSP officials. In the previous Decision, RBSMI was
found to be in violation of several policies and also had deficiencies, to the point
that the president already considered selling the bank. In a seminar conducted by
the BSP, the training materials used RBSMI as a case study although the bank
was not specifically mentioned, RBSMI finds that this inclusion is a salt to their
wounded reputation. In that decision, the court found them liable albeit no
evidence showing that they distributed the materials, but because they were
Heads of the BSP Supervision and Examination Sector and Dir. Of the BSP
Department of Rural Banks, they should have exercised their power of control
and supervision so that the incident could have been prevented or remedied.
Hence, this petition. The issue in this case is whether or not Reyes and Domo-
Ong are liable for the acts of their subordinates. The SC held in the negative
since: there was no evidence that the seminar was conducted under their
patronage and there was another separate office in charge of conducting
seminars. Negligence of the subordinate cannot be ascribed to the superior in the
absence of evidence of the superior’s own negligence. Negligence of the
subordinate is not tantamount to negligence of the superior official. Moreover,
the Administrative Code of 1987 provides that the head of a department of a
superior officer shall not eb civilly liable for the wrongful acts, omissions of
duty, negligence, or misfeasance of his subordinates, unless eh has actually
authorized by written order the specific act or misconduct complained of.
DOCTRINE: The head of a department of a superior officer shall not eb civilly
liable for the wrongful acts, omissions of duty, negligence, or misfeasance of his
subordinates, unless eh has actually authorized by written order the specific act
or misconduct complained of.
FACTS:
1. This case is a Motion for Reconsideration of Reyes and Domo-Ong, BSP
officials.
2. The facts of the previous case are as follows:
a. In a letter addressed to BSP Gov. Singson, RBSMI charged Reyes
Domo-Ong, and Principio with violation of RA 6713.
b. The investaigation disclosed that RBSMI had a history of major
violations/exceptions; the examination team was headed by Principio
c. MB required RBSMI to submit a witten explanation of the findings.
d. RBSMI president, Soriano, claimst hat he was pressured into issuing a
memo to the bank employees authorizing the team to review the banks
accounting and internal control system.
e. Soriano alleged that Reyes urged him to consider selling the bank and
that he introduced him to Villacorta.
f. Villacorta confirmed that he and Soriano did meet but never got past
the exploratory stage.
g. Soriano said that when the talks failed, Reyes asked him if he wanted to
meet another buyer, so he introduced him to Castillo. But no
negotiation took place since Soriano wanted a total sale but the other
only wanted a JVA.
h. MB issued a reso ordering RBMSI to correct the exceptions.
i. Soriano submitted the answers and stated that the actions taken were
deliberated and ratified by the BOD.
j. RBMSI asked for a recon of the MB Reso since they imposed a fine.
k. The incidents, particularly, the brokering by Reyes and the unsupported
recommendation to impose a penalty prompted RBMSI to file them a
charge with unprofessionalism.
ISSUE/s:
1. WON Reyes and Domo-Ong are liable for the acts that they did. – NO, SC
reversed their decision.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to GRANT the MR of Deputy
Governor Reyes and Domo-Ong. The Decision is SET ASIDE and another entered
DISMISSING the admin complaint and EXONERATING all the petitioners. The
MPR of RBMSI is DENIED.
RATIO:
On whether Reyes and Domo-Ong are liable
1. The pinning of liability on Reyes and Domo-Ong for the seminar which
used the rural bank as case study, the court in their Decision said that
although there was no evidence showing that they distributed the materials.
2. Conclusion on the culpability is grounded but on a mere inference that the
seminar was conducted under their auspices.
3. There was no evidence that the seminar was conducted under their
patronage.
4. It was the BSPI an office separate which is charged with conducting
seminars.
5. RBSMI argues that since the information found its way on training
materials, the event could have transpired only because the SES permitted
it. Even if the subordianates were the source of the information, they could
be held libale for the principle of command responsibility.
a. RBSMI’s effort to cast vicarious liability to Reyes and Domo-Ong bya
superficial resort to the principle of command responsibility.
b. But the principal itself would not be relevant in this case since as such
officers, they cannot be expected to monitor the activities of their
subalterns.
c. Petitioners in this case owing to their high ranks cannot be expected to
acquaint themselves with such minutiae as the flow of files and
documents which leave their desks. Myriad details such as those are, by
office practice, left to subalterns and minor employees.
d. Negligence of the subordinate cannot be ascribed to the superior in the
absence o evidence of the superior’s own negligence.
e. Negligence of the subordinate is not tantamount to negligence of the
superior official.
f. Immunity of public officers from liability for non-feasance, negligence,
or omission of duty of their official subordiantes and even for the latters
misfeasanceor positive wrongs rests upon obvious considerations of
public policy, the necessities of
g. Head of a department of a superior officer shall not eb civilly liable for
the wrongful acts, omissions of duty, negligence, or misfeasance of his
subordinates, unless eh has actually authorized by written order the
specific act or misconduct complained of.