R EQUERIMIENTO DE INSUMOS , SERVICIOS Y PERSONAL INDIRECTO

so far opposed to the true interests of the corpo itself as to lead to the clear inference that no one thus acting could have been influenced by any honest desire to secure such interests, but that he must have acted with an intent to subserve some outside purpose, regardless of the consequences to the corpo, and in a manner inconsistent with its interests.

HERE There was no valid reason for forcibly evicting the plaintiff. He had operated the ferry for over a year with knowledge of the councilors. Thus, the argument that he had been operating a ferry other than the one leased to him is untenable.

In rescinding the contract, thereby making the municipality liable to an action for damages for no valid reason at all, the defendant councilors are not honestly acting for the interests of the municipality. They are liable solidarily for the damages sustained by the plaintiff.

Affirmed. DGNotes:

If a municipality acts in a governmental capacity, how can they be liable?

1. bad faith of public officer - officer is liable

2. law provides it can beliable – Sec 24 LGC; Art 2189 CC

San Fernando vs. Firme (1991) Facts:

Morning of December 1965, collision occurred involving:

 Passenger jeepney driven by Balagot and owned by Estate of Nieveras

 Gravel and sand truck driven by Marandang and owned by Velasquez

 Dump truck of Municipality

• Casualties: several passengers of the jeep including Laureano, Sr. died

• Dec 1966, private respondents instituted a compliant for damages against the Estate of Nieveras and Balagot, in the CFI of La Union, Br I. However, defendants filed Third Party Complaint against Municipality and the driver of dump truck (Bislig).

Issue: WON the municipality is liable for the torts committed by its

employee:

TEST: depends on whether or not the driver, acting in behalf of the municipality, is performing governmental or proprietary functions.

SC notes that in permitting such entities to be sued (through allowance in the municipal charter), the State merely gives the claimant the right to show that the defendant was not acting in its governmental capacity when the injury was committed or that the case comes under the exceptions recognized by law. Failing this, the claimant cannot recover. And in the CAB, the driver was indeed performing governmental functions!

 Bislig insists that "he was on his way to the Naguilian river to get a load of sand and gravel for the repair of San Fernando's municipal streets." SC ruled in Palafox, et. al. v. Province of Ilocos Norte, the District Engineer, and the Provincial Treasurer (102 Phil 1186) that "the construction or maintenance of roads in which the truck and the driver worked at the time of the accident are admittedly governmental activities".

• In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the regularity of the performance of official duty is presumed (RoC). Hence, the driver of the dump truck was performing duties or tasks pertaining to his office. Hence, no liability.

DGNotes:

• Is this no longer good law with passage of LGC? No. LGC should be read civil code provisions.

• Differentiated bet. Suability and liability. Determine first if suable. If yes, then determine if liable.

Sec 24- LGUs and its officials are not exempt from liability for death or injury.

All government units can be sued because of Sec 24. Won one can recover is another question.

A m u s i n

g l y

S C A r y

THE C2005 LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEWER

Fernando vs. CA (1992) Facts:

• A certain Bascon won the bid for the re-emptying of the septic tank in Agdao.

• losing bidder Bertulano with four other companions were found dead inside the septic tank.

• The City Engineer's office investigated, findings: the victims entered the tank without clearance from it nor with the knowledge and consent of the market master. The tank was found to be almost empty and the victims were presumed to be the ones who did the re-emptying.

• Autopsy reveals: cause of death of all five victims as `asphyxia' caused by the diminution of oxygen supply. The lungs of the five victims burst due to their intake of toxic gas, produced from the waste matter in the tank.

• Heirs of the deceased filed suit against City of Davao.

• Trial court dismissed, CA awarded damages. But upon MR, CA reversed its original ruling and dismissed the case.

Issue: WON Davao City guilty of negligence in the case at bar? Held: NO.

To be entitled to damages for an injury resulting from the negligence of another, a claimant must establish the relation between the omission and the damage. He must drove under Article 2179 of the New Civil Code that the defendant's negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury. Proximate cause has been defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred

1. Petitioners fault the city government of Davao for failing to clean

a septic tank for the period of 19 years resulting in an accumulation of hydrogen sulfide gas which killed the laborers. They contend that such failure was compounded by the fact that there was no warning sign of the existing danger and no efforts exerted by the public respondent to neutralize or render harmless the effects of the toxic gas. They submit that the public respondent's gross negligence was the proximate cause of the fatal incident.

SC: No. While it may be true that the public respondent has been

remiss in its duty to re-empty the septic tank annually, such negligence was not a continuing one. Upon learning from the report of the market master about the need to clean the septic tank of the public toilet in Agdao Public Market, the public respondent immediately responded by issuing invitations to bid for such service.

2. In view of this factual milieu, it would appear that an accident

such as toxic gas leakage from the septic tank is unlikely to happen unless one removes its covers. The accident in the case at bar occurred because the victims on their own and without authority from the public respondent opened the septic tank. Considering the nature of the task of emptying a septic tank especially one which has not been cleaned for years, an ordinarily prudent person should undoubtedly be aware of the attendant risks. The victims are no exception; more so with Mr. Bertulano, an

old hand in this kind of service, who is presumed to know the hazards of the job. His failure, therefore, and that of his men to take precautionary measures for their safety was the proximate cause of the accident.

3. Petitioners: insist on the applicability of Article 24 of the New

Civil Code:

"Art. 24. In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection."

SC: Untenable. We approve of the appellate court's ruling that

"(w)hile one of the victims was invited to bid for said project, he did not win the bid, therefore, there is a total absence of contractual

relations between the victims and the City Government of Davao

City that could give rise to any contractual obligation, much less, any liability on the part of Davao City."

Guillergan vs. Ganzon (1966) Facts:

Petitioners are laborers or employees in the unclassified service, assigned as market-sweepers of the City of Iloilo. They had been working for some time, ranging from 9-25 years.

Claiming that they had been illegally dismissed or separated, they filed suit against the Mayor, Treasurer et al of Iloilo City, to compel these officers to reinstate them to their former positions.

Mayor claimed that he had the right to remove or separate the petitioners from the service because they were not civil service eligibles and were paid on a daily basis.

Issue: WON the lower court erred in holding the City of Iloilo jointly

liable with the other respondents for the back salaries of petitioners

Held: Yes

1. The Charter of Iloilo City (Sec. 3 of Commonwealth Act No. 158), expressly provides that the City of Iloilo may "sue and be sued".

2. The operation of a market, in the cleaning of which petitioners herein are engaged, is not strictly a governmental function. 3. It has been settled that municipal corporations may be held liable for back pay or wages of employees or laborers illegally separated from the service, including those involving primarily governmental functions, such as those of policemen.

Decision affirmed.

Pilar vs. Sangguniang Bayan ng Dasol, Pangasinan (1984) Facts:

A m u s i n

g l y

S C A r y

THE C2005 LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVIEWER

SB of Dasol adopted Resolution No. 1 increasing the salaries of mayor and municipal treasurer but not that of the vice mayor. Pilar questioned it.

The provincial and national gov’t endorsed compliance with Circular 9-A of the Joint Commission on Local Government and Personal administration in giving the revised rate of salary to the vice mayor. The executive secretary of the Commission sent a letter to Mayor advising him to pay vice mayor salary equal to the treasurer.

SB enacted resolution appropriating the amount of P15,144 as unpaid salaries of Pilar from Jan 1, 1981- Dec. 31, 1982.

Mayor vetoed the resolution. Hence, Pilar filed for a writ of mandamus.

Issue: WON Pilar is entitled to damages Held: Yes

Pilar is entitled to damages and attorney's fees because the facts show that

1. he was forced to litigate in order to claim his lawful salary which was unduly denied him for 3 years and

2. the Mayor acted in gross and evident bad faith in refusing to satisfy petitioner's plainly valid, just and demandable claim.