Q: What are the Liabilities of a Public Officer? A:
GR: A Public officer is not liable for injuries sustained by another due to official acts done within the scope of authority
XPNs:
1. Otherwise provided by law;
2. Statutory liability under the Civil Code (Articles 27, 32, & 34);
3. Presence of bad faith, malice, or negligence;
4. Liability on contracts entered into in excess or without authority;
5. Liability on tort if the public officer acted beyond the limits of authority and there is bad faith (United States of America v. Reyes, G.R. No. 79253, Mar. 1, 1993).
Note: Absent of any showing of bad faith or malice, every public official is entitled to the presumption of good faith as well as regularity in the performance or discharge of official duties. [Blaquera v. Alcala, G.R. No. 109406, Sept. 11, 1998
Q: State the three-fold responsibility/liability of public officers.
A:
1. Criminal liability 2. Civil liability
3. Administrative liability
Q: The RTC of Cadiz declared void a resolution that reorganized the city government and effectively purged the city government of Cadiz of all employees who opposed the mayor politically or disagreed with him in his policies. The RTC ordered the payment of moral damages to the workers, but it was not clear if the payment was to be made by the city government or by Mayor Valera, in his personal capacity. The Court held that Valera is personally liable to pay moral damages.
Is Valera personally liable to pay moral damages? A: Settled is the principle that a public official may be liable in his personal capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice and in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction. In the complaint, the employees stated that, “due to the illegal acts of the Defendant, Plaintiffs suffered mental torture and anguish, sleepless nights, wounded feelings, besmirched reputation and social humiliation.” The State can never be the author of illegal acts. The complaint merely identified Valera as the mayor of Cadiz City. It did not categorically state that Valera was being sued in his official capacity. The identification and mention of Valera as the mayor of Cadiz City did not automatically transform the action into one against Valera in his official capacity. The allegations in the complaint determine the nature of the cause of action. (Valera vs. Revalez, G.R. No. 171705, July 29, 2010)
Q: What are the liabilities of ministerial officers? A:
1. Non-feasance – Neglect to perform an act which is the officer's legal obligation to perform.
2. Misfeasance – The failure to observe the proper degree of care, skill, and diligence required in the performance of official duty; and
3. Malfeasance – Performance of an act which the officer had no legal right to perform.
Note: The plaintiff must show: that he has suffered an injury, and that it results from a breach of duty which the officer owed to him.
Q: What is the doctrine of Command Responsibility? A: This doctrine provides that a superior officer is liable for the acts of his subordinate in the following instances:
1. He negligently or willfully employs or retains unfit or incompetent subordinates;
2. He negligently or willfully fails to require his subordinates to conform to prescribed regulations;
3. He negligently or carelessly oversees the business of the office as to give his subordinates the opportunity for default;
4. He directed, cooperated, or authorized the wrongful act;
5. The law expressly makes him liable. (Sec.38-39, Chap. 9, Book I, E.O. No. 292, Administrative Code of 1987)
Q: What are the grounds for the discipline of public officers? A: 1. Dishonesty 2. Oppression 3. Neglect of duty 4. Misconduct
5. Disgraceful and immoral conduct
6. Discourtesy in the course of official duties 7. Inefficiency and incompetence in the
performance of official duties
8. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude 9. Being notoriously undesirable
10. Falsification of official documents 11. Habitual drunkenness
12. Gambling
13. Refusal to perform official duty or render overtime service
14. Physical or mental incapacity due to immoral or vicious habits
15. Willful refusal to pay just debts or willful failure to pay taxes
Q: What is the concept of security of tenure? A: It means that no officer or employee in the civil service shall be suspended or dismissed except for a cause provided by law and after due process or after he shall have been given the opportunity to defend himself.
Note: Once an appointment is issued and completed and the appointee assumes the position, he acquires a legal right, not merely an equitable right to the position.
(Lumigued v. Exevea, G.R. No. 117565, Nov. 18, 1997)
Regardless of the characterization of the position held by a government employee covered by civil service rules, be it career or non-career position, such employee may not be removed without just cause (Jocom v. Regalado, G.R. No.
77373,Aug. 22, 1991).
Q: Discuss the two legal ramifications of constitutional guaranty of security of tenure in the civil service.
A: The prohibition against suspension or dismissal of an officer or employee of the Civil Service “except for cause provided by law” is “a guaranty of both procedural and substantive due process.” “Not only must removal or suspension be in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, but also they can only be made on the basis of a valid cause provided by law.” (Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Rowena O. Paden, G.R. No. 157607, July 7, 2009)
Q: In what instance may a transfer be considered violative of employee’s security of tenure?
A: When the transfer is a preliminary step toward his removal, or a scheme to lure him away from his permanent position, or when it is designed to indirectly terminate his service, or force his resignation. Such a transfer would in effect circumvent the provision that safeguards the tenure of office of those who are in the Civil Service. (CSC v. PACHEO, G.R. No. 178021, Jan. 25, 2012)
Note: Acceptance of a temporary appointment or assignment without reservation or upon one’s own volition is deemed waiver of security of tenure (Palmera v. Civil
Service Commission, G.R. No. 110168, Aug.4, 1994).
Q: What is the nature of preventive suspension? A: Preventive suspension is not a penalty by itself; it is merely a measure of precaution so that the employee who is charged may be separated from the scene of his alleged misfeasance while the same is being investigated, to prevent him from using his position or office to influence prospective witnesses or tamper with the records which may be vital in the prosecution of the case against him. (Beja v. CA, G.R. No. 91749, Mar. 31, 1992)
It can be ordered even without a hearing because this is only preliminary step in an administrative investigation. (Alonzo v. Capulong, et al., G.R. No. 110590, May 10, 1995)
Note: When a public officer is charged with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act or R. A No. 3019, a pre- suspension hearing is required solely to determine the applicability of such law and for the accused be given a fair and adequate opportunity to challenge the validity of the criminal proceedings against him. This may be done through various pleadings. (Torres v. Garchitorena, G.R. No.
153666, Dec. 27, 2002)
Q: What are the periods for preventive suspension? Under what law are they imposable?
A:
1. For administrative cases: a. Civil Service Law – 90 days
b. Local Government Code (R.A. 7160) – i. Sec.85: 60 days for appointive officials
(suspension to be imposed by the local chief executive)
ii. Sec. 63: 60 or 90 days for elective officials c. Ombudsman Act – 6 months
2. For criminal cases: Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019) – 90 days by
161
U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A SFA C U L T Y O F CI V I L LA W
analogy.(Gonzaga vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 96131 September 6, 1991)
Note: Service of preventive suspension will not be credited to the penalty of suspension after having been found guilty because they are of different character. If however the preventive suspension is indefinite wherein his term is about to expire and suspension is not lifted such will be considered unconstitutional for being violated of due process of law. (Layno, Sr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-
65848, May 24, 1985)
Q: What are the distinctions between preventive suspension pending investigation and pending appeal?