SUELO

Liability of the City for injuries due to defective roads attaches even if the road does not belong to the local government unit, as long as the City exercises control or supervision over said road.

2.

Article 2180 (6th _{par.) Civil Code:}

The State is responsible when it acts through a special agent.

3.

Article 34, Civil Code: The local

government unit is subsidiarily liable for damages suffered by a person by reason of the failure or refusal of a member of the police

force to render aid and protection in case of danger to life and property.

B. Liability for Tort

Despite the clear language of Section 24, RA 7160, that local government units and their officials are not exempt form liability for death or injury to persons or damage to property, it is still unclear whether liability will accrue when the local government unit is engaged in governmental functions. Supreme Court decisions, interpreting legal provisions existing prior to the effectivity of the Local Government Code, have come up with the following rules on municipal liability for tort: 1. If the LGU is engaged in governmental

functions, it is not liable;

2. If engaged in proprietary functions; LGU is liable.

1. If the LGU is engaged in governmental functions, it is not liable.

i.

The prosecution of crimes is a governmental function, and thus, the local government unit may not be held liable therefor. (Palafox v. Province of Ilocos Norte, 102 Phil 1186)

ii.

In Municipality of San Fernando v. Firme,

195 SCRA 692, the municipality was not

held liable for torts committed by a regular employee, even if the dump truck used belong to the municipality, inasmuch as the employee was discharging governmental (public works) functions.

iii.

Delivery of sand and gravel for the construction of municipal bridge in the exercise of the governmental capacity of local governments. The municipality is not liable for injuries that arise in the performance of governmental functions.

(La Union v. Firme,195 SCRA 692) Note: For liability to arise under Article 2189 of the

Civil Code, ownership of the roads, streets, bridges, public buildings and other public works is not a controlling factor, it being sufficient that a province, city or municipality has control or supervision thereof. On the other hand, a municipality’s liability under Section 149 of the 1983 Local Government Code for injuries caused by its failure to regulate the drilling and excavation of the ground for the laying of gas, water, sewer, and other pipes, attaches regardless of whether the drilling or excavation is made on a national or municipal road, for as long as the same is within its territorial jurisdiction. (Municipality of San Juan v.

CA, GR 121920, 08.09.2005)

2. If engaged in proprietary functions, LGU is liable

i.

Operation of a ferry service is a proprietary function. The municipality is negligent and thus liable for having awarded the franchise to operate ferry service to another notwithstanding the previous grant of the franchise to the plaintiff. (Mendoza v. De Leon, 33 Phil 508)

ii.

Holding of town fiesta is a proprietary function. The Municipality of Malasigue, Pangasinan was held liable for the death of a member of the zarzuela group when the stage collapsed, under the principle of

respondeat superior. [Note: The Municipal

Council managed the town fiesta. While the municipality was held liable, the councilors themselves are not liable for the negligence of their employees or agents.] (Torio v. Fontanilla, 85 SCRA 599)

iii.

The operation of a public cemetery is a proprietary function of the City of Manila. The City is liable for the tortuous acts of its employees, under the principle of

respondeat superior.

iv.

Maintenance of cemeteries is in the exercise of the proprietary nature of local governments. The City is liable for breach of agreement. (City of Manila v. IAC, 179

SCRA 428)

v.

Liability for illegal dismissal of an employee. It was held that inasmuch as

there is no finding that malice or bad faith attended the illegal dismissal and refusal to reinstate respondent Gentallan by her superior officers, the latter cannot be held personally accountable for her back salaries. The municipal government therefore, should disburse funds to answer for her claims (back salaries and other monetary benefits form the time of her illegal dismissal up to her reinstatement) resulting from dismissal.

In City of Cebu v. Judge Piccio, 110 Phil 558, it was held that a municipal corporation, whether or not included in the complaint for recovery of back salaries due to wrongful removal from office, is liable.

vi.

Local officials may also be held personally liable.

City of Angeles v. CA, 261 SCRA 90, where the city officials ordered the construction of a drug rehabilitation center on the open space donate by the subdivision owner in violation of PD 1216, the cost of the demolition of the drug rehabilitation center should be borne by the cit officials who ordered the construction because

they acted beyond the scope of their authority and with evident bad faith.

sanggunian members were sued in their official capacity, they cannot be held personally liable without giving them their day in court.)

Rama v. CA, 148 SCRA 496, the Provincial governor and the members of the Provincial Board where held liable in damages in their personal capacity arising form the illegal act of dismissing employees in bad faith. Where

they act maliciously and wantonly and injure individuals rather than discharge a public duty, they are personally liable.

Correa v. CFI Bulacan, 92 SCRA 312, the

In document INDICE 1. ANTECEDENTES DE LA GESTIÓN DEL MONTE NORMATIVA APLICABLE EVOLUCIÓN DEL ESTADO LEGAL ORDENACIÓN Y EVOLUCIÓN DE (página 57-61)