Vinzons-Chato v Fortune Tobacco, 525 SCRA 11

GR No. 141309 June 19, 2007

Ynares-Santiago, J

SUMMARY:

CIR issued RMC 37-93 which effectively reclassified Fortune’s products from 20-45% ad valorem tax
to 55%. CTA declared the issuance defective. Fortune filed with the RTC complaint for damages
against Vinzons-Chato in her private capacity. Chato filed a motion to dismiss. On motion to dismiss,
RTC denied. CA affirmed, SC held that Vinzons Chato liable under Art 32 and no need to prove bad
faith to be liable. Petition denied

However, in the 2008 MR decision, the SC reversed their decision. SC held that petitioner should not
be held liable. For a public officer with a duty owing to the public, officer can only be liable IF
when the complaining individual suffers a particular or special injury on account of the public
officer’s improper performance or non-performance of his public duty. He must show a wrong
which he specially suffers, and damage alone does not constitute a wrong. Petition granted

DOCTRINE:

*see article 32 and sec 38 and 39 at the end part

Article 32 is that the wrong may be civil or criminal. It is not necessary therefore that there
should be malice or bad faith.

When what is involved is a duty owing to the public in general, an individual cannot have a cause
of action for damages against the public officer, even though he may have been injured by the
action or inaction of the officer. Exception to this rule occurs when the complaining individual
suffers a particular or special injury on account of the public officers improper performance or
non-performance of his public duty. He must show a wrong which he specially suffers, and
damage alone does not constitute a wrong