Law 156 - ELECTORAL PROCESS AND PUBLIC OFFICE | B2015

CASE DIGESTS

"#"$
!"# %&'(( )*'+,-*'. '/ 0*1*+
2"&1*3" 4,5 '. -6" 7&'6*8*-*'.
9:,*.(- ;<,+ =>?+'@>".- ,.A
;'<8+" 0'>?".(,-*'.
!"# %&#'()
*&+, -. /011
2&'3(

2BCC9!D# Escala applieu foi anu got accepteu to the position of
Chief }uuicial Staff 0fficei, Secuiity Bivision of the 0ffice of
Auministiative Seivices while he hau an existing employment with
PNP. Be accepteu benefits anu salaiies fiom both of the offices. Be
was chaigeu with gioss violation of the Civil Seivice Law on the
piohibition against uual employment anu uouble compensation in the
goveinment seivice. SC founu him guilty of such anu uismisseu him
fiom office.

;E0F!GH=#
The piohibition against goveinment officials anu employees,
whethei electeu oi appointeu, fiom concuiiently holuing any othei
office oi position in the goveinment is containeu in the following:
Section 7, Aiticle IX-B of the 1987 Constitution:
o "x x x 0nless otheiwise alloweu by law oi by the
piimaiy functions of his position, no appointive
official shall holu any othei office oi employment in
the uoveinment, oi any subuivision, agency oi
instiumentality theieof, incluuing goveinment-
owneu oi contiolleu coipoiations oi theii
subsiuiaiies."
Sections 1 anu 2, Rule XvIII of the 0mnibus Rules
Implementing Book v of E.0. No. 292:
o Sec. 1. No appointive official shall holu any othei
office oi employment in the uoveinment oi any
subuivision, agency oi instiumentality theieof,
incluuing goveinment-owneu oi contiolleu
coipoiations with oiiginal chaiteis oi theii
subsiuiaiies, unless otheiwise alloweu by law oi by
the piimaiy functions of his position.
o Sec. 2. No elective oi appointive public officei oi
employee shall ieceive auuitional, uouble, oi inuiiect
compensation, unless specifically authoiizeu by law,
xxxxx.
Section S, Canon III of the Coue of Conuuct foi Couit
Peisonnel
o 4"56 - 78" 9&++:;')" <=3';'=> '> ;8" *&?'5'(#, =9 "@"#,
5=&#; <"#3=>>"+ 38(++ A" ;8" <"#3=>>"+B3 <#')(#,
")<+=,)">;6 C=# <&#<=3"3 =9 ;8'3 %=?". D<#')(#,
")<+=,)">;E )"(>3 ;8" <=3';'=> ;8(; 5=>3&)"3 ;8"
">;'#" >=#)(+ F=#G'>H 8=&#3 =9 ;8" 5=&#; <"#3=>>"+
(>? #"I&'#"3 ;8" <"#3=>>"+B3 "J5+&3'@" (;;">;'=> '>
<"#9=#)'>H =99'5'(+ ?&;'"36
K&;3'?" ")<+=,)">; )(, A" (++=F"? A, ;8" 8"(? =9
=99'5" <#=@'?"? '; 5=)<+'"3 F';8 (++ =9 ;8" 9=++=F'>H
#"I&'#")">;3L
M(N 78" =&;3'?" ")<+=,)">; '3 >=; F';8 (
<"#3=> =# ">;';, ;8(; <#(5;'5"3 +(F A"9=#" ;8" 5=&#;3 =#
5=>?&5;3 A&3'>"33 F';8 ;8" *&?'5'(#,O
MAN 78" =&;3'?" ")<+=,)">; 5(> A" <"#9=#)"?
=&;3'?" =9 >=#)(+ F=#G'>H 8=&#3 (>? '3 >=;
'>5=)<(;'A+" F';8 ;8" <"#9=#)(>5" =9 ;8" 5=&#;
<"#3=>>"+B3 ?&;'"3 (>? #"3<=>3'A'+';'"3O
M5N 78" =&;3'?" ")<+=,)">; ?="3 >=; #"I&'#"
;8" <#(5;'5" =9 +(FO !#=@'?"?. 8=F"@"#. ;8(; 5=&#;
<"#3=>>"+ )(, #">?"# 3"#@'5"3 (3 <#=9"33=#. +"5;&#"#.
=# #"3=&#5" <"#3=> '> +(F 358==+3. #"@'"F =#
5=>;'>&'>H "?&5(;'=> 5">;"#3 =# 3')'+(# '>3;';&;'=>3O
M?N 78" =&;3'?" ")<+=,)">; ?="3 >=; #"I&'#"
=# '>?&5" ;8" 5=&#; <"#3=>>"+ ;= ?'35+=3" 5=>9'?">;'(+
'>9=#)(;'=> (5I&'#"? F8'+" <"#9=#)'>H ?&;'"3O (>?
M"N 78" =&;3'?" ")<+=,)">; 38(++ >=; A" F';8
;8" +"H'3+(;'@" =# "J"5&;'@" A#(>58 =9 H=@"#>)">;.
&>+"33 3<"5'9'5(++, (&;8=#'P"? A, ;8" 4&<#")" %=&#;6
Q8"#" ( 5=>9+'5; =9 '>;"#"3; "J'3;3. )(, #"(3=>(A+,
(<<"(# ;= "J'3;. =# F8"#" ;8" =&;3'?" ")<+=,)">;
Law 156 - ELECTORAL PROCESS AND PUBLIC OFFICE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

%#"$
#"9+"5;3 (?@"#3"+, => ;8" '>;"H#';, =9 ;8" *&?'5'(#,. ;8"
5=&#; <"#3=>>"+ 38(++ >=; (55"<; ;8" =&;3'?"
")<+=,)">;6


I90F2#
0n }anuaiy 2uu8, Euuaiuo v. Escala applieu foi optional
ietiiement as a membei of PNP. At that time, he was infoimeu that his
application woulu be effection six months aftei his uate of submission
(}uly 2uu8).
Penuing appioval of the saiu optional ietiiement, Escala
applieu with the Supieme Couit foi the position of Chief }uuicial Staff
0fficei, Secuiity Bivision, 0ffice of Auministiative Seivices (0AS). In
the couise of his inteiview, he ueclaieu that PNP hau yet to foimally
appiove his application foi optional ietiiement.
Bue to the uigent neeu to fill-in the vacant SC position, he was
hiieu as an employee on }uly 2uu8. But then his application foi optional
ietiiement was not immeuiately acteu upon within the oiiginal peiiou
set by PNP. Be was officially optionally ietiieu only on Septembei Su,
2uu9.
Buiing the peiiou wheie his SC employment oveilappeu with
PNP, he was ieceiving salaiies anu othei benefits both fiom SC anu
fiom PNP.
Buiing the couise of his employment, an anonymous
lettei ieacheu the 0AS iepoiting the Escala's gioss violation of the Civil
Seivice Law on the piohibition against uual employment anu uouble
compensation in the goveinment seivice.
0AS' inquiiies confiimeu that he was cuiiently an active membei of the
PNP assigneu with the Aviation Secuiity uioup - 2
nu
Police Centei foi
Aviation Secuiity at the Nanila Bomestic Aiipoit in Pasay City, with a
peimanent status anu iank of Police Chief Inspectoi. They founu out
that While employeu in the Couit anu ieceiving his iegulai
compensation, he continueu to be a bonafiue membei of the PNP
assigneu with the Aviation Secuiity uioup with the same status anu
iank of Police Chief Inspectoi until the uate when he optionally ietiieu
on Septembei Su, 2uu9. Also, they weie infoimeu that the Inteinal
Affaiis 0ffice (IA0) of the PNP is likewise caiiying out a sepaiate piobe
anu investigation on iesponuent foi the same allegeu gioss violation of
the Civil Seivice Law.
Escala was pieventively suspenueu by the Couit penuing the
iesults of the IA0's investigations anu the sepaiate auministiative
investigation of the 0AS. Be was also askeu to explain why he shoulu
not be auministiatively chaigeu with gioss uishonesty anu conuuct
piejuuicial to the best inteiest of the seivice foi violation of the Civil
Seivice Law on the piohibition against uual employment anu uouble
compensation in the goveinment seivice.
In his lettei comment, he aumitteu that the facts weie tiue but
ieasoneu that he only accepteu the salaiies anu benefits fiom the
offices foi economic ieasons that he appealeu to 0AS' magnanimity not
to chaige him with any violation.
E92 iecommenueu that Escala is guilty of gioss uishonesty anu
conuuct piejuuicial to the best inteiest of the seivice anu that he be
uismisseu fiom seivice with foifeituie of all benefits anu with
piohibition fiom ieemployment in any bianch, agency oi
instiumentality of the goveinment incluuing u0CCs (the 0AS
iecommenuation was fully auopteu by the SC in full so I will just use
that as my iatio.)
G22B=# JEH =(3,+, *( :<*+-@ K D=2
!9FGE#
Escala's claim that he applieu foi optional ietiiement as eaily
as }anuaiy 2uu8 is meiely an afteithought. The PNP seivice iecoiu that
he himself submitteu was uateu only August 26, 2uu7. Likewise, his
ceitificates of cleaiance aie uateu August anu 0ctobei 2uu8. These
show that Escala only staiteu piocessing the optional ietiiement
iequiiements when he was alieauy connecteu with SC.
Escala's inuiiect claim of goou faith is unavailing. Bis iegulai
ieceipt of his salaiies fiom the PNP uespite piesumably exclusively
woiking with the Couit implies a uelibeiate intent to give unwaiianteu
benefit to himself anu unuue piejuuice to the goveinment especially so
by his iegulai submission of monthlyuaily time iecoiu as a manuatoiy
iequiiement foi inclusion in the payioll. Also, Escala's actuation even
amounts to gioss uishonesty. Bis ieceipt of salaiies fiom the PNP
uespite not ienueiing any seivice theieto is a foim of ueceit.
That Escala actually ienueieu seivices to the PNP, if any,
uespite employment in the Couit, is inconsequential.
The piohibition against goveinment officials anu employees,
whethei electeu oi appointeu, fiom concuiiently holuing any othei
office oi position in the goveinment is containeu in the following:
Law 156 - ELECTORAL PROCESS AND PUBLIC OFFICE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

&#"$
Section 7, Aiticle IX-B of the 1987 Constitution:
o "x x x 0nless otheiwise alloweu by law oi by the
piimaiy functions of his position, no appointive official
shall holu any othei office oi employment in the
uoveinment, oi any subuivision, agency oi
instiumentality theieof, incluuing goveinment-owneu
oi contiolleu coipoiations oi theii subsiuiaiies."
Sections 1 anu 2, Rule XvIII of the 0mnibus Rules
Implementing Book v of E.0. No. 292:
o Sec. 1. No appointive official shall holu any othei
office oi employment in the uoveinment oi any
subuivision, agency oi instiumentality theieof,
incluuing goveinment-owneu oi contiolleu
coipoiations with oiiginal chaiteis oi theii
subsiuiaiies, unless otheiwise alloweu by law oi by
the piimaiy functions of his position.
o Sec. 2. No elective oi appointive public officei oi
employee shall ieceive auuitional, uouble, oi inuiiect
compensation, unless specifically authoiizeu by law,
xxxxx.
Section S, Canon III of the Coue of Conuuct foi Couit Peisonnel
o 4"56 - 78" 9&++:;')" <=3';'=> '> ;8" *&?'5'(#, =9 "@"#,
5=&#; <"#3=>>"+ 38(++ A" ;8" <"#3=>>"+B3 <#')(#,
")<+=,)">;6 C=# <&#<=3"3 =9 ;8'3 %=?". D<#')(#,
")<+=,)">;E )"(>3 ;8" <=3';'=> ;8(; 5=>3&)"3 ;8"
">;'#" >=#)(+ F=#G'>H 8=&#3 =9 ;8" 5=&#; <"#3=>>"+ (>?
#"I&'#"3 ;8" <"#3=>>"+B3 "J5+&3'@" (;;">;'=> '>
<"#9=#)'>H =99'5'(+ ?&;'"36
K&;3'?" ")<+=,)">; )(, A" (++=F"? A, ;8" 8"(? =9
=99'5" <#=@'?"? '; 5=)<+'"3 F';8 (++ =9 ;8" 9=++=F'>H
#"I&'#")">;3L
M(N 78" =&;3'?" ")<+=,)">; '3 >=; F';8 ( <"#3=>
=# ">;';, ;8(; <#(5;'5"3 +(F A"9=#" ;8" 5=&#;3 =#
5=>?&5;3 A&3'>"33 F';8 ;8" *&?'5'(#,O
MAN 78" =&;3'?" ")<+=,)">; 5(> A" <"#9=#)"?
=&;3'?" =9 >=#)(+ F=#G'>H 8=&#3 (>? '3 >=;
'>5=)<(;'A+" F';8 ;8" <"#9=#)(>5" =9 ;8" 5=&#;
<"#3=>>"+B3 ?&;'"3 (>? #"3<=>3'A'+';'"3O
M5N 78" =&;3'?" ")<+=,)">; ?="3 >=; #"I&'#"
;8" <#(5;'5" =9 +(FO !#=@'?"?. 8=F"@"#. ;8(; 5=&#;
<"#3=>>"+ )(, #">?"# 3"#@'5"3 (3 <#=9"33=#. +"5;&#"#. =#
#"3=&#5" <"#3=> '> +(F 358==+3. #"@'"F =# 5=>;'>&'>H
"?&5(;'=> 5">;"#3 =# 3')'+(# '>3;';&;'=>3O
M?N 78" =&;3'?" ")<+=,)">; ?="3 >=; #"I&'#" =#
'>?&5" ;8" 5=&#; <"#3=>>"+ ;= ?'35+=3" 5=>9'?">;'(+
'>9=#)(;'=> (5I&'#"? F8'+" <"#9=#)'>H ?&;'"3O (>?
M"N 78" =&;3'?" ")<+=,)">; 38(++ >=; A" F';8
;8" +"H'3+(;'@" =# "J"5&;'@" A#(>58 =9 H=@"#>)">;.
&>+"33 3<"5'9'5(++, (&;8=#'P"? A, ;8" 4&<#")" %=&#;6
Q8"#" ( 5=>9+'5; =9 '>;"#"3; "J'3;3. )(, #"(3=>(A+,
(<<"(# ;= "J'3;. =# F8"#" ;8" =&;3'?" ")<+=,)">;
#"9+"5;3 (?@"#3"+, => ;8" '>;"H#';, =9 ;8" *&?'5'(#,. ;8"
5=&#; <"#3=>>"+ 38(++ >=; (55"<; ;8" =&;3'?"
")<+=,)">;6
In the case at bai, theie is sufficient eviuence to suppoit a
finuing that Escala is liable foi gioss uishonesty anu conuuct piejuuicial
to the best inteiest of the seivice. Bis non-uisclosuie of the mateiial
fact that he was still employeu as an active membei of the PNP anu
ieceiving his monthly salaiies theiein uuiing the peiiou that he is
alieauy a Couit employee is consiueieu substantial pioof that he tiieu
to cheatuefiauu both the PNP anu the Couit. This is an affiont to the
uignity of the Couit. Inueeu, Escala has tiansgiesseu the Constitution
anu the Civil Seivice law on the piohibition on uual employment anu
uouble compensation in the goveinment seivice.
All couit peisonnel ought to live up to the stiictest stanuaius of
honesty anu integiity, consiueiing that theii positions piimaiily involve
seivice to the public. Foi knowingly anu willfully tiansgiessing the
piohibition on uual employment anu uouble compensation, as well as
the Couit's iules foi its peisonnel on conflict of inteiest, Escala violateu
the tiust anu confiuence ieposeu on him by the Couit.
L=4;# guilty of gioss uishonesty anu conuuct piejuuicial to the
best inteiest of the seivice; uismissal fiom the seivice anu foifeituie of
all benefits with piejuuice to ie-employment in any goveinment
agency, incluuing goveinment-owneu anu contiolleu coipoiations.


Law 156 - ELECTORAL PROCESS AND PUBLIC OFFICE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

'#"$
4+'&".-" 1M 2,.A*:,.8,@,.
Naich 11, 1998
Panganiban
Alycat

2BCC9!D# Nayoi Lloiente of Sinuangan, Zamboanga uel Noite, was
chaigeu with violation of Sec. S(e), RA Su19 foi allegeuly causing unuue
injuiy to Assistant Nunicipal Tieasuiei Fueites foi not appioving hei
salaiies anu othei emoluments foi an extenueu peiiou of time. 0ne of
Lloiente's uefenses is that Fueites nevei suffeieu any "unuue injuiy,"
which is an element of Sec. S(e), RA Su19. The Sanuiganbayan iuleu
that Fueites uiu suffei unuue injuiy. The SC ieveiseu anu acquitteu
Lloiente.

;E0F!GH=# 0nuue injuiy (in Sec. S(e), RA Su19) iequiies pioof of
actual injuiy oi uamage. It cannot be piesumeu. It is iequiieu that the
unuue injuiy be specifieu, quantifieu anu pioven to the point of moial
ceitainty, as in the concept of actual uamage in civil law.

I90F2# (Accoiuing to the piosecution)
x Nayoi Ciesente Y. Lloiente (accuseu) was the Nunicipal Nayoi
of Sinuagan, Zamboanga uel Noite.
x Leticia Fueites (piivate complainant) was the Assistant
Nunicipal Tieasuiei.
x Fueites was uetaileu to uiffeient offices in uiffeient
municipalities, but was eventually ietuineu to hei post in
Sinuagan. But when this happeneu, she uiu not ieceive hei
salaiy.
x Fueites fileu a petition foi manuamus against Lloiente anu the
Nunicipality of Sinuagan befoie the RTC foi the iefusal of
Lloiente to appiove hei payiolls anu voucheis iepiesenting
hei salaiies anu othei emoluments.
x Lloiente uiu not file an answei. Insteau, he negotiateu foi an
amicable settlement of the case. A compiomise agieement was
submitteu to the Couit, wheieby Lloiente agieeu to appiove
some of the payiolls anu voucheis.
x Lloiente faileu to comply with the teims of the compiomise
agieement. (0nly eight months' salaiies weie paiu, anu none of
the othei emoluments weie paiu.) So Fueites fileu a Notion foi
Execution. RTC gianteu.
x Fueites ieceiveu complete payment of all hei claims only a
couple of yeais latei.

44E!=HF=N2 ;=I=H2=# Lloiente aumits some uelays in the payment of
Fueites's claims, but these weie in goou faith. The withholuing of
payment was uue to Fueites's failuie to submit the iequiieu cleaiances
anu to the Sanggunian's uelayeu enactment of a supplemental buuget to
covei the claims. In any case, Fueites uiu not suffei any "unuue injuiy."

29H;G%9HO9D9H# The uelay oi withholuing of Fueites's salaiies anu
emoluments was unieasonable anu causeu hei unuue injuiy. Fueites
was the bieauwinnei of hei family, anu hei family expeiienceu
financial uistiess as a iesult of the uelay oi withholuing of Fueites's
salaiies. In paiticulai, Fueites hau foui chiluien whom she hau to senu
to school.

G22B=2 P !9FGE#

16N RSTU T44VWL QKU C&"#;"3 "J<"#'">5"? &>?&" '>X&#, Y UK

To holu a peison liable unuei this Sec. S(e), RA Su19, the
concuiience of the following elements must be establisheu beyonu
ieasonable uoubt:
(1) that the accuseu is a public officei oi a piivate peison
chaigeu in conspiiacy with the foimei;
(2) that saiu public officei commits the piohibiteu acts uuiing
the peifoimance of his oi hei official uuties oi in ielation to
his oi hei public positions;
(S) that he oi she causes &>?&" '>X&#, to any paity, whethei
the goveinment oi a piivate paity; ! Soluen: 0nuue injuiy
iequiies pioof of actual injuiy oi uamage
(4) that the public officei has acteu with manifest paitiality,
eviuent bau faith oi gioss inexcusable negligence.

Inasmuch as Fueites was actually paiu all hei claims, theie was no
"unuue injuiy" establisheu.

Law 156 - ELECTORAL PROCESS AND PUBLIC OFFICE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

(#"$
0nlike in actions foi toits, unuue injuiy in Sec. S(e) cannot be
piesumeu even aftei a wiong has been establisheu. Its existence must
be pioven as one of the elements of the ciime. In fact, the causing of
unuue injuiy constitutes the veiy act punisheu. Thus, it is iequiieu that
the unuue injuiy be specifieu, quantifieu anu pioven to the point of
moial ceitainty.

In juiispiuuence, "unuue injuiy" is consistently inteipieteu as
"actual uamage." V>?&" has been uefineu as "moie than necessaiy, not
piopei, illegal;" anu '>X&#, as "any wiong oi uamage uone to anothei,
eithei in his peison, iights, ieputation oi piopeity." Actual uamage, in
the context of these uefinitions, is akin to that in civil law.

In the case at bai, the Sanuiganbayan founu that all of Fueites's
monetaiy claims weie satisfieu. Aftei she fully ieceiveu hei monetaiy
claims, theie is no longei any basis foi compensatoiy uamages oi
unuue injuiy, theie being nothing moie to compensate.

Fueites's testimony iegaiuing hei family's financial stiess was
inauequate anu laigely speculative. Without giving specific uetails, she
maue only vague iefeiences to the fact that hei foui chiluien weie all
going to school anu that she was the bieauwinnei in the family. She,
howevei, uiu not say that she was unable to pay theii tuition fees anu
the specific uamage biought by such non-payment. The fact that the
"injuiy" to hei family was unspecifieu oi unquantifieu uoes not satisfy
the element of unuue injuiy, as akin to actual uamages. As in civil cases,
actual uamages, if not suppoiteu by eviuence on iecoiu, cannot be
consiueieu.

0thei than the amount of the withhelu salaiies anu allowances
which weie eventually ieceiveu, the piosecution faileu to specify anu to
piove any othei loss oi uamage sustaineu by Fueites. The
Sanuiganbayan insists that Fueites suffeieu by ieason of the "long
peiiou of time" that hei emoluments weie withhelu. This
inconvenience, howevei, is not constitutive of unuue injuiy. In the
}acinto case, the Couit helu that the injuiy suffeieu by the complainant
whose salaiy was eventually ieleaseu was negligible, as unuue injuiy
entails uamages that aie moie than necessaiy oi aie excessive,
impiopei oi illegal.

/6N QKU 2+=#">;" (5;"? '> "@'?">; A(? 9(';8 Y UK
It was Fueites who faileu to submit the iequiieu cleaiance. This
iequiiement was even piinteu at the back of the voucheis sought to be
appioveu. As assistant municipal tieasuiei, she ought to know that this
is a conuition foi the payment of hei claims. This cleaiance is iequiieu
by Ait. 44S of the LuC IRR.

Also, given the lack of coiiesponuing appiopiiation oiuinance anu
ceitification of availability of funus foi such puipose, Lloiente hau the
uuty not to sign the voucheis. Also, the Appiopiiation 0iuinance

auuing
a supplemental buuget foi the calenuai yeai 199u was appioveu
almost a yeai befoie Fueites was tiansfeiieu back to Sinuangan. Bence,
she coulu not have been incluueu theiein. The Resolution which fixeu
the municipal buuget foi calenuai yeai 1991, was passeu almost
anothei yeai aftei the tiansfei took effect.

Naicelo v. Sanuiganbayan: Bau faith uoes not simply connote bau
juugment oi negligence; it imputes a uishonest puipose oi some moial
obliquity anu conscious uoing of a wiong; a bieach of swoin uuty
thiough some motive oi intent oi ill will; it paitakes of the natuie of
fiauu.

Z6N Q8(; '3 ;8" )"(>'>H =9 D5(&3'>HE '> 4"56 ZM"N. [S Z01\
1
]

%(&3'>H means "to be the cause oi occasion of, to effect as an
agent, to biing into existence, to make oi to inuuce, to compel."
%(&3'>H is, theiefoie, not limiteu to positive acts only, as Lloiente
suggests. Even passive acts oi inaction may cause unuue injuiy. What
is essential is that unuue injuiy, which is quantifiable anu
uemonstiable, iesults fiom the questioneu official act oi inaction.

1
"SEC. S. %=##&<; <#(5;'5"3 =9 <&A+'5 =99'5"#36^In auuition to acts oi omissions of public
officeis alieauy penalizeu by existing law, the following shall constitute coiiupt piactices
of any public officei anu aie heieby ueclaieu to be unlawful:
(e) Causing any unuue injuiy to any paity, incluuing the uoveinment, oi giving any
piivate paity any unwaiianteu benefits, auvantage oi piefeience in the uischaige of his
official, auministiative oi juuicial functions thiough manifest paitiality, eviuent bau faith
oi gioss inexcusable negligence. This piovision shall apply to officeis anu employees of
offices oi goveinment coipoiations chaigeu with the giant of licenses oi peimits oi othei
concessions."
Law 156 - ELECTORAL PROCESS AND PUBLIC OFFICE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

)#"$

As alieauy explaineu, Lloiente's acts uiu not, legally iesult in
"unuue injuiy" oi in "giving any unwaiianteu benefits, auvantage oi
piefeience in the uischaige of his official, oi auministiative
functions." Thus, the acts aie not punishable unuei Sec. S(e).

It woulu appeai that Lloiente's failuie oi iefusal to act on
Fueites's voucheis, oi the uelay in his acting on them moie piopeily
falls unuei Sec. S(f)
2
. Bowevei, Lloiente is not chaigeu with a violation
of Sec. S(f). Bence, fuithei uiscussion is not piopei. Neithei may the
Couit convict Lloiente unuei Sec. S(f) without violating his
constitutional iight to uue piocess.

;G27E2GFG)=# Lloiente acquitteu.

;<-"&-" !" 2,.A*:,.8,@,.
S<#'+ /_. 1\\`
a(<&>(>. *6
K3F(+? !6 T)A(;

2BCC9!D# Buteite, as Nayoi of Bavao, anu ue uuzman, as City
Auministiatoi, who paiticipateu in the execution of a contiact
between Bavao City anu Systems Plus, Inc. anu uolustai foi the
computeiization of the city goveinment, which contiact was latei
iescinueu, weie chaigeu with violation of, among otheis, [S Z01\
befoie the 0mbuusman. The investigating piosecutoi iequiieu them
to file a 5=))">;, but uiu not fuinish them with a copy of the
affiuavits of the Special Auuit Team, whose iepoit on the tiansaction,
was the basis of the complaint. Buteite anu ue uuzman fileu theii
comment. Aftei 4 yeais, they ieceiveu a memoianuum fiom the
0mbuusman iecommenuing the filing of an infoimation against them
foi violation of 4"5;'=> ZMHN. [S Z01\. Theii NR befoie the

2
"(f) Neglecting oi iefusing, aftei uue uemanu oi iequest, without sufficient
justification, to act within a ieasonable time on any mattei penuing befoie him foi the
puipose of obtaining, uiiectly oi inuiiectly, fiom any peison inteiesteu in the mattei
some pecuniaiy oi mateiial benefit oi auvantage, oi foi puipose of favoiing his own
inteiest oi giving unuue auvantage in favoi of oi uisciiminating against any othei
inteiesteu paity."
0mbuusman was uenieu, as well as theii NTQ befoie the
4(>?'H(>A(,(>. The Supieme Couit, howevei, oiueieu the uismissal
of the case because (1) the pieliminaiy investigation was impiopeily
conuucteu, (2) theie was inoiuinate uelay, anu (S) theie was no
contiact to speak of because it was iescinueu.

;E0F!GH=# To establish piobable cause against the offenuei foi
violation of 4"5;'=> ZMHN. [S Z01\, the following elements must be
piesent: (1) the offenuei is a public officei; (2) he enteieu into a
contiact oi tiansaction in behalf of the goveinment; (S) the contiact
oi tiansaction is giossly anu manifestly uisauvantageous to the
goveinment.

I90F2#
1. In 199u, the Bavao City uoveinment launcheu its Local Automation
Pioject.
a. A Computeiization Piogiam Committee (Committee) was thus
foimeu with Benjamin ue uuzman, City Auministiatoi, as
Chaiiman, anu Naiiano Kintanai, C0A Resiuent Auuitoi, anu
}oige Silvosa, Acting City Tieasuiei, as among the membeis.
b. The Committee was taskeu to conuuct a thoiough stuuy of
computeis in the maiket foi the puiposes of the pioject.
c. The Committee iecommenueu acquisition of computeis
manufactuieu by uolustai Infoimation anu Communications,
Ltu., South Koiea, anu exclusively uistiibuteu in the Philippines
by Systems Plus, Inc. (SPI) foi a total contiact cost of P11.6N.
2. 0n Novembei S, 199u, the Bavao City 4(>HH&>'(>H !(>+&>H3=?
unanimously passeu ["3=+&;'=> 1b0/ anu K#?'>(>5" 1_Z appioving
the contiact with SPI. It also authoiizeu Nayoi Rouiigo Buteite to
sign the contiact in behalf of the City.
a. The 4(>HH&>'(> also allocateu PSN foi the pioject in the c">"#(+
4&<<+")">;(+ d&?H"; U=6 0_ 9=# %e 1\\0.
b. The contiact was thus signeu. Be uuzman ieleaseu to SPI a check
foi P1.7N as uownpayment.
S. In Febiuaiy 1991, a complaint was fileu befoie the RTC of Bavao
City to ueclaie as nullity the contiact as well as the iesolutions,
oiuinances ielateu theieto.
4. 0n Febiuaiy 22, 1991, uolustai pioposeu to Buteite the cancellation
of the contiact.
Law 156 - ELECTORAL PROCESS AND PUBLIC OFFICE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

*#"$
a. The 4(>HH&>'(> issueu a iesolution anu an oiuinance accepting
the offei to cancel the contiact, pioviueu that the uownpayment
is ietuineu within a month.
b. 0n Nay 6, 1991, Buteite, in behalf of Bavao City, anu SPI
iescinueu the contiact anu the uownpayment was iefunueu.
S. In the meantime, a Special Auuit Team of the C0A was taskeu to
conuuct an auuit of the pioject.
a. 0n Nay S1, 1991, the team, in its Special Auuit Repoit (SAR),
iecommenueu iescission of the subject contiact. The SAR was
sent to Buteite.
b. The team founu that:
i. The awaiu of the contiact was uone thiough negotiateu
contiact, iathei than a competitive public biuuing in violation
of 4"5;'=>3 / anu `. !f -/g.
ii. Theie was no sufficient appiopiiation foi the contiact in
violation of 4"5;'=> `-. !f 1bb-.
iii. The auvance payment of P1.7N coveieu 1S% of the contiact
cost, in violation of 4"5;'=> b-. !f b__ anu 4"5;'=> ``. !f 1bb-.
iv. The cost of computeis uiffeieu fiom the team's canvass by as
much as 12uu% oi a total of P1.8N.
v. The City hau no Infoimation System Plan piioi to the awaiu,
in uiiect violation of R(+(5(h(>H R")=6 K#?"# /`_ anu U%%
R")=6 %'#5&+(# `\:1, iesulting in unuue uisauvantage to the
City uoveinment.
6. Bavao City, to puisue its computeiization plan, sought the assistance
of the National Computei Centei (NCC), which iecommenueu the
acquisition of Philips computeis foi P1S.8N.
7. 0n August 1, 1991, the Anti-uiaft League - Bavao City Chaptei fileu
a complaint with the 0mbuusman - Ninuanao, against Buteite, Be
uuzman, Kintanai, Silvosa, Bavao City, anu SPI (Buteite, et al.) foi
violation of [S Z01\. !f 1bb-. %KS 5'#5&+(#3. [!%. (>? =;8"# +(F36
a. uiaft Investigation 0fficei Pepito Naniiquez sent a lettei to C0A
Chaiiman Eufemio Bomingo iequesting the Special Auuit Team
to submit theii joint affiuavit to substantiate the complaint.
b. |0n 0ctobei 14, 1991, the civil case foi nullification befoie the
RTC of Bavao City was uismisseu foi being moot.j
c. Naniiquez also oiueieu Buteite, et al., to submit theii comment
on the allegations of the complaint in the civil case befoie the
RTC of Bavao City |which was alieauy uismisseuj anu the SAR.
u. 0n Becembei 4, 1991, the 0mbuusman ieceiveu a copy of the
affiuavits of the Special Auuit Team, but faileu to fuinish Buteite,
et al., copies theieof.
e. 0n Febiuaiy 18, 1992, Buteite anu ue uuzman auopteu the
comments of Silvosa anu Kintanai.
f. Foui yeais latei, Buteite, et al., ieceiveu a copy of a
Nemoianuum auuiesseu to 0mbuusman Aniano Besieito
iecommenuing the filing of chaiges foi violation of 4"5;'=> ZMHN.
[S Z01\, "foi having enteieu into a contiact manifestly anu
giossly uisauvantageous to the goveinment |the contiact being
oveipiiceu by 12uu%j, the elements of piofit, unwaiianteu
benefits oi loss to the goveinment being immateiial."
g. The infoimation was thus fileu befoie the 4(>?'H(>A(,(>.
8. Buteite anu ue uuzman fileu an NR aiguing that (1) they weie
uepiiveu of theii iight to pieliminaiy investigation (PI), (2) Buteite
acteu in goou faith anu was clotheu with authoiity, anu (S) the
contiact was iescinueu.
a. The 0mbuusman uenieu theii NR.
b. They fileu a NTQ befoie the 4(>?'H(>A(,(>, which was uenieu,
on the giounu that "whatevei the accuseu hau to say in theii
behalf" weie alieauy stateu in theii NR befoie the 0mbuusman.
c. The 4(>?'H(>A(,(> also uenieu theii NR.

G22B=Q!B4GH%#
Shoulu the ciiminal case be uismisseu. e"36

!9FGE#
1. The PI was not conuucteu in the mannei laiu uown in S?)'>'3;#(;'@"
K#?"# 0_ MSK 0_ =# ;8" [&+"3 =9 !#=5"?&#" =9 ;8" K99'5" =9 ;8"
K)A&?3)(>N.
a. The oiuei of Naniiquez uiiecting Buteite, et al., to submit theii
comment on the allegations of the civil case foi the nullification
of the contiact, which has been uismisseu, was not accompanieu
by a single affiuavit of the peisons chaiging them.
b. Theie was, in fact, no inuication in the oiuei that a PI was being
conuucteu.
c. If Naniiquez intenueu meiely to auopt the allegations in the civil
case oi the SAR as his basis foi piosecution, then the pioceuuie
was anomalous anu highly iiiegulai, in violation of uue piocess.
Law 156 - ELECTORAL PROCESS AND PUBLIC OFFICE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

+#"$
2. 4"5;'=>3 M/N anu MbN, [&+" TT. SK 0_ aie ielevant.
S

S. Theie is a uiffeience between 4"5;'=> /MAN anu 4"5;'=> bMAN.
a. 4"5;'=> /MAN is not a pait of a PI. 0nuei saiu piovision, the filing of
comment is fileu because the investigatoi neeus moie facts anu
infoimation foi the evaluation of the meiits of the complaint,
aftei which he may iecommenu any action unuei 4"5;'=> /,
incluuing PI.
b. 4"5;'=> b, which iefeis to PI, takes on an auveisaiial quality. Its
puipose is to secuie the innocent against hasty, malicious anu
oppiessive piosecution, anu to piotect him fiom an open anu
public accusation of a ciime, fiom the tiouble, expenses anu
anxiety of public tiial. While it is a statutoiy iight, PI is a
substantive iight, uenial of which uepiives a peison of the full
measuie of uue piocess iights.
c. It must be noteu also that what is iequiieu to be fileu in a PI is a
countei-affiuavit, not a comment. It is only when theie is failuie
to file such countei-affiuavit that the comment is consiueieu as
the answei M4"5;'=> bM5NN.
4. In this case, all that Buteite, et al., weie iequiieu to uo was to file a
comment. Naniiquez, the investigating officei, consiueieu such
filing as substantial compliance with the iequiiements of PI.
S. Also, he iequesteu the Special Auuit Team to file theii affiuavits,
then iequiieu Buteite, et al., to file a comment befoie such affiuavits
weie submitteu. Even aftei the affiuavits weie submitteu, howevei,

S
4"5;'=> /6 W@(+&(;'=>. - 0pon evaluating the complaint, the investigating officei shall
iecommenu whethei oi not it may be: (a) uismisseu outiight foi want of palpable meiit;
(b) #"9"##"? ;= #"3<=>?">; 9=# 5=))">;O (c) enuoiseu to the piopei goveinment office oi
agency which has juiisuiction ovei the case; (u) foiwaiueu to the appiopiiate office oi
official foi fact-finuing investigation; (e) iefeiieu foi auministiative aujuuication; oi (f)
subjecteu to a PI. xxx
4"5;'=> b6 !#=5"?&#"6 - The PI of cases xxx shall be conuucteu in the mannei piesciibeu
in 4"5;'=> Z. [&+" 11/ of the [&+"3 =9 %=&#;, subject to the following piovisions: (a) If the
complaint is not unuei oath oi is baseu only on official iepoits, the investigating officei
shall iequiie the complainant oi suppoiting witnesses to execute affiuavits to
substantiate the complaints. (b) S9;"# 3&58 (99'?(@';3 8(@" A""> 3"5&#"?. ;8" '>@"3;'H(;'>H
=99'5"# 38(++ '33&" (> =#?"#. (;;(58'>H ;8"#";= ( 5=<, =9 ;8" (99'?(@';3 (>? =;8"# 3&<<=#;'>H
?=5&)">;3. ?'#"5;'>H ;8" #"3<=>?">; ;= 3&A)';. F';8'> ;"> M10N ?(,3 9#=) #"5"'<; ;8"#"=9. 8'3
5=&>;"#:(99'?(@';3 (>? 5=>;#=@"#;'>H "@'?">5" F';8 <#==9 =9 3"#@'5" ;8"#"=9 => ;8"
5=)<+('>(>;6 78" 5=)<+('>(>; )(, 9'+" #"<+, (99'?(@';3 F';8'> ;"> M10N ?(,3 (9;"# 3"#@'5" =9
;8" 5=&>;"#:(99'?(@';36 (c) If the iesponuent uoes not file a countei-affiuavit, the
investigating officei may consiuei the comment fileu by him, if any, as his answei to the
complaint. In any event, the iesponuent shall have access to the eviuence on iecoiu. xxx
Buteite, et al., weie not fuinisheu with the copies of the affiuavits of
the Special Auuit Team.
a. The aigument of the 0mbuusman, that this failuie is immateiial
since Buteite, et al., weie well awaie of the existence of the civil
case anu the SAR, is flaweu.
b. The civil case anu the SAR aie not equivalent to the complaint-
affiuavits. The civil case was alieauy ienueieu moot anu
acauemic. The SAR meiely iecommenueu iescission of the
contiact, which was uone even befoie the ielease of the SAR.
6. In K+'@(3 @6 K)A&?3)(>, it was helu that it is manuatoiy foi the
complainant to submit his affiuavit anu those of his witnesses befoie
the iesponuent can be compelleu to submit his countei-affiuavits
anu othei suppoiting uocuments.
7. Theie was also unuue anu unieasonable uelay. This inoiuinate uelay
(4 yeais) in the conuuct of the supposeu PI infiingeu upon theii
constitutionally guaianteeu iight to a speeuy uisposition of theii
case.
a. In 7(;(? @36 4(>?'H(>A(,(>, an unuue uelay of close to S yeais in
the teimination of the PI of failuie to file SAL, biibeiy, anu giving
of unwaiianteu benefits to ielatives waiianteu the uismissal of
the case, so much so that unuue uelay cannot be coiiecteu,
compaieu to absence of PI.
b. In S>H58(>H5=. *#6 @36 K)A&?3)(>, the uelay of moie than 6 yeais
was consiueieu a tiansgiession of uue piocess anu the iight to
speeuy uisposition of cases.
c. The 0mbuusman aigument that 7(;(? uoes not apply since this
case is not politically motivateu. Also, S>H58(>H5= uoes not apply
because, unlike in that case, Buteite, et al., uiu not file motions
foi eaily iesolution.
u. Bowevei, the constitutional iight to speeuy uisposition of cases
uoes not come into play only when political consiueiations aie
involveu. Also, Buteite, et al., coulu not have uigeu the speeuy
iesolution of theii case because they weie completely unawaie
that the investigation against them was still on-going.
e. In fact, they weie meiely askeu to comment, anu not file countei-
affiuavits as in a PI.
8. The 0mbuusman faileu to piesent any plausible, special oi even
novel ieason which coulu justify the 4-yeai uelay.
Law 156 - ELECTORAL PROCESS AND PUBLIC OFFICE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

$#"$
a. 0n the contiaiy, the case uoes not involve complicateu factual
anu legal issues.
b. The uelay cannot be imputeu to the S-month extension gianteu
to Buteite, et al., to file a comment, since they weie not unuei
obligation to make any move as theie was no PI yet.
9. In any case, theie is no legal oi factual basis to chaige Buteite anu
ue uuzman foi violation of 4"5;'=> ZMHN. [S Z01\, which has the
following elements: (a) the offenuei is a public officei; (b) he
enteieu into a contiact oi tiansaction in behalf of the goveinment;
(c) the contiact oi tiansaction is giossly anu manifestly
uisauvantageous to the goveinment. The seconu element is absent,
since the contiact was iescinueu.

;G27E2GFG)=#
Ciiminal case was oiueieu uismisseu.



92G4E 1( 7=E74=
R(#58 \. /011
*&3;'5" !"#"P
R'58

2BCC9!D# visitacion's stoie was uemolisheu outiight by Asilo anu
Angeles puisuant to the mayoi's oiuei baseu on the 2 iesolutions of
the Sangguniang Bayan. Bowevei, the fiist iesolution only authoiizeu
the mayoi to file an ejectment case with uamages if the uemolition
was iefuseu. The seconu iesolution authoiizeu the mayoi to uemolish
the stoie thiough legal means. A ciiminal complaint was fileu by the
SPs. Bombasi (visitacion anu hei husbanu) against the mayoi, Anegels
anu Asilo. The Couit founu them guilty of violation of RA Su19. The
maiket stall cannot be consiueieu as a nuisance pei se because as
founu out by the Couit, the builuings hau not been affecteu by the
1986 fiie. The 2 iesolutions uiu not authoiize the mayoi to oiuei the
uemolition of the stoie. They weie also helu civilly liable unuei Ait S2
of the Civil Coue foi not accoiuing uue piocess to the Sps, Bombasi
befoie the uemolition.
;E0F!GH=#
The elements of the offense unuei Sec S(e) of RA Su19aie as follows:
(1) that the accuseu aie public officeis oi piivate peisons chaigeu in
conspiiacy with them; (2) that saiu public officeis commit the
piohibiteu acts uuiing the peifoimance of theii official uuties oi in
ielation to theii public positions; (S) that they causeu unuue injuiy to
any paity, whethei the uoveinment oi a piivate paity; (4) 0R that
such injuiy is causeu by giving unwaiianteu benefits, auvantage oi
piefeience to the othei paity; anu (S) that the public officeis have
acteu with manifest paitiality, eviuent bau faith oi gioss inexcusable
negligence.
The civil action baseu theiein is an inuepenuent one, thus, will stanu
uespite the ueath of the accuseu uuiing the penuency of the case. The
civil liability aiises out of law (piovisions on Buman Relations), not
out of uelict.
Ait. S2(6) states:Any public officei oi employee, oi any piivate
inuiviuual, who uiiectly oi inuiiectly obstiucts, uefeats, violates oi in
any mannei impeues oi impaiis any of the following iights anu
libeities of anothei peison shall be liable to the lattei foi uamages:
(6) The iight against uepiivation of piopeity without uue piocess of
law;


I90F2#
1. Responuent visitacion's late mothei (vua. Be Coionauo) anu the
Nunicipality of Nagcailan, Laguna enteieu into a lease contiact
wheieby visitacion's late mothei was alloweu the use of the lot anu
a stoie foi a peiiou of 2u yeais(1978-1998) . The contiact pioviueu
vua. Be Coionauo can builu a fiiewall as high as the stoie anu that,
in case if mouification of the public maiket, she oi hei heiis will be
given piefeiential iights.
2. When hei mothei uieu, visitacion took ovei the stoie. She secuieu
yeaily Nayoi's peimits fiom then until piesent.
S. A fiie iazeu the public maiket of Nagcailan in 1986. 0pon
visitacion's iequest foi inspection, City Engineei uoiospe founu
that the stoie was still intact. Bowevei, this finuing was contesteu
by the Nunicipality.
Law 156 - ELECTORAL PROCESS AND PUBLIC OFFICE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

",#"$
4. visitacion's stoie continueu to opeiate until 199S when she
ieceiveu a lettei fiom Nayoi Comenuauoi uiiecting hei to
uemolish hei stoie. Attacheu to the lettei weie copies of
Sangguniang Bayan Resolution anu a Nemoianuum issueu by
the Asst. Piovincial Piosecutoi. The Resolution authoiizeu the
mayoi to file an ejectment case with uamages if the occupant
iefuseu to vacate the piemises. (This was foi the puipose of
constiucting a new municipal maikei builuing.)
S. Subsequently, the Asst. Piovincial Piosecutoi sent a lettei to
visitacion oiueiing hei to vacate the poition of the public maiket
she was occupying within 1S uays fiom hei ieceipt of the lettei;
else, a couit action will be fileu against hei.
6. A month aftei, the Sangguniang Bayan of Nagcailan, Laguna issueu a
Resolution authoiizing Nayoi Comenuauoi to uemolish the stoie
being occupieu by visitacion using legal means.
7. Nunicipal Auministiatoi Paulino S. Asilo, }i. (Asilo) also sent a lettei
to visitacion infoiming hei of the impenuing uemolition of hei stoie
the next uay.
8. The next uay, Nayoi Comenuauoi ielying on the stiength of the
Sangguniang Bayan Resolutions authoiizeu the uemolition of the
stoie by Asilo anu Angeles. The stoie was uemolisheu.
9. visitacion anu hei husbanu (Sps. Bombasi) fileu with the RTC an
action foi uamages with pieliminaiy injunction against the
Nunicipality of Nagcailan, Laguna, Nayoi Bemetiio T. Comenuauoi,
Paulino S. Asilo, }i., anu Albeito S. Angeles. The complaint was
amenueu to incluue the Spouses Benita anu Isagani Coionauo anu
Spouses Aliua anu Teuuy Coioza as foimal uefenuants because they
weie then the occupants of the contesteu aiea
1u. The Sps. Bombasi also fileu a ciiminal complaint against Nayoi
C0menuauoi, Asilo anu Angeles foi violation of Sec of Sec. S(e) of
Republic Act No. Su19 otheiwise known as the "Anti-uiaft anu
Coiiupt Piactices Act" befoie the 0ffice of the 0mbuusman.
11. The Sanuiganbayan consoliuateu the 2 cases puisuant to PB 16u6.
Buiing the penuency of the case, Angeles uies so the case against
him was uismisseu. Nayoi Comenuauoi also uieu afteiwaius.
12. The Sanuiganbayan founu Comenuauoi anu Asilo guilty of violation
of RA Su19. In the civil case, the uefenuants Nunicipality,
Comenuauoi anu Asilo weie oiueieu to pay actual anu moial
uamages.

G22B=2#
RM W0N theie was a violation of Sec S(e) of RA Su19.-YES
SM W0N the ueath of the accuseu also extinguisheu theii ciiminal
liabilities.-YES but civil liability iemains
TM W0N the awaiu foi actual uamages shoulu be affiimeu.-N0

0EHF=HFGEH2 EI 92G4E#
1. To sustain conviction unuei Sec. S(e) of Republic Act No. Su19, the
public officei must have acteu with manifest paitiality, eviuent bau
faith oi gioss negligence.
2. Be also contenueu that he anu his co-accuseu acteu in goou faith in
the uemolition of the maiket anu, theieby, no liability was incuiieu.

0EHF=HFGEH2 EI )G0FE!G9#
RM The ueath of Nayoi Comenuauoi piioi to the piomulgation of the
uecision extinguisheu N0T 0NLY Nayoi Comenuauoi's ciiminal
liability but also his civil liability.
2. She also asseiteu goou faith on the pait of the accuseu public officials
when they peifoimeu the uemolition of the maiket stall.
S. Assuming aiguenuo that theie was inueeu liability on the pait of the
accuseu public officials, the actual amount of uamages being claimeu by
the Spouses Bombasi has no basis anu was not uuly substantiateuM

!9FGE#
G22B= R#
RM The Sangguniang Bayan iesolutions aie not enough to justify
uemolition. It only authoiizeu Nayoi Comenuauoi to file an unlawful
uetainei case in case of iesistance to obey the oiuei oi to uemolish the
builuing using legal means. The piesent Local uoveinment Coue uoes
not expiessly pioviue foi the abatement of nuisance.
2. The elements of the offense aie as follows: (1) that the accuseu aie
public officeis oi piivate peisons chaigeu in conspiiacy with them; (2)
that saiu public officeis commit the piohibiteu acts uuiing the
peifoimance of theii official uuties oi in ielation to theii public
positions; (S) that they causeu unuue injuiy to any paity, whethei the
uoveinment oi a piivate paity; (4) 0R that such injuiy is causeu by
giving unwaiianteu benefits, auvantage oi piefeience to the othei
Law 156 - ELECTORAL PROCESS AND PUBLIC OFFICE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

""#"$
paity; anu (S) that the public officeis have acteu with manifest
paitiality, eviuent bau faith oi gioss inexcusable negligence.
S. The issue hingeu on the existence of elements S anu S. As to Element
S, in juiispiuuence, "unuue injuiy" is consistently inteipieteu as
"actual." 0nuue has been uefineu as "moie than necessaiy, not piopei,
oi illegal;" anu injuiy as "any wiong oi uamage uone to anothei, eithei
in his peison, iights, ieputation oi piopeity, that is, the invasion of any
legally piotecteu inteiest of anothei.
4. In the case at bai, uemolition of the stoie was caiiieu out without a
couit oiuei, anu notwithstanuing a iestiaining oiuei which the plaintiff
was able to obtain. The uemolition was uone in the exeicise of official
uuties which appaiently was attenueu by eviuent bau faith, manifest
paitiality oi gioss inexcusable negligence as theie is nothing in the 2
iesolutions which gave the accuseu the authoiity to uemolish plaintiff's
stoie.
S. Foi Element S, the accuseu public officials committeu bau faith in
peifoiming the uemolition.
a. Fiist, theie can be no meiit in the contention that the stiuctuie is a
public nuisance. The abatement of a nuisance without juuicial
pioceeuings is possible if it is nuisance pei se. Nuisance pei se is that
which is nuisance at all times anu unuei any ciicumstance, iegaiuless
of location anu suiiounuings. In this case, the maiket stall cannot be
consiueieu as a nuisance pei se because as founu out by the Couit, the
builuings hau not been affecteu by the 1986 fiie. This finuing was
ceitifieu to by Supeivising Civil Engineei of the Laguna Bistiict
Engineei 0ffice.
b. Seconu, the Sangguniang Bayan iesolutions aie not enough to justify
uemolition. 0nlike BP SS7, the piesent Local uoveinment Coue uoes
not expiessly pioviue foi the abatement of nuisance. Anu even
assuming that the powei to abate nuisance is pioviueu foi by the
piesent coue, the accuseu public officials weie still uevoiu of any powei
to uemolish the stoie. The iesolution only authoiizeu Nayoi
Comenuauoi to file an unlawful uetainei case in case of iesistance to
obey the oiuei oi to uemolish the builuing using legal means.
c. Nunicipality of Nagcailan, Laguna was placeu in estoppel aftei it
gianteu yeaily business peimits to visitacion.
G22B= S: W0N the ueath of the accuseu also extinguisheu theii ciiminal
liabilities.-YES but civil liability iemains
1. The civil liability of Nayoi Comenuauoi suiviveu his ueath. Angeles'
liability woulu have suiviveu if the iesolution of the Sanuiganbayan
that his ueath extinguisheu the civil liability was questioneu anu not
alloweu to lapse into finality.
2. The civil action baseu theiein is an inuepenuent one, thus, will stanu
uespite the ueath of the accuseu uuiing the penuency of the case. The
civil liability aiises out of law (piovisions on Buman Relations), not out
of uelict.
Ait. S2(6) states:
Any public officei oi employee, oi any piivate inuiviuual, who
uiiectly oi inuiiectly obstiucts, uefeats, violates oi in any
mannei impeues oi impaiis any of the following iights anu
libeities of anothei peison shall be liable to the lattei foi
uamages:
(6) The iight against uepiivation of piopeity without uue
piocess of law;
S. The accuseu public officials shoulu have accoiueu the spouses the
uue piocess of law guaianteeu by the Constitution anu New Civil Coue.
The Sangguniang Bayan Resolutions uoes not justify uemolition of the
stoie without couit oiuei.
4. Even if theie is alieauy a wiit of execution, theie must still be a neeu
foi a special oiuei foi the puipose of uemolition issueu by the couit
befoie the officei in chaige can uestioy, uemolish oi iemove
impiovements ovei the contesteu piopeity. Befoie the iemoval of an
impiovement must take place, theie must be a special oiuei, heaiing
anu ieasonable notice to iemove.

Section 1u(u), Rule S9 of the Rules of Couit pioviues:
(u) Removal of impiovements on piopeity subject of
execution. - When the piopeity subject of execution contains
impiovements constiucteu oi planteu by the juugment obligoi
oi his agent, the officei shall not uestioy, uemolish oi iemove
saiu impiovements except upon special oiuei of the couit,
issueu upon motion of the juugment obligee aftei uue heaiing
anu aftei the foimei has faileu to iemove the same within a
ieasonable time fixeu by the couit.

G22B= T: W0N the awaiu foi actual uamages shoulu be affiimeu.-N0
Law 156 - ELECTORAL PROCESS AND PUBLIC OFFICE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

"%#"$
- To seek iecoveiy of actual uamages, it is necessaiy to piove the actual
amount of loss with a ieasonable uegiee of ceitainty, piemiseu upon
competent pioof anu on the best eviuence obtainable. In this case, the
Couit finus that the only eviuence piesenteu to piove the actual
uamages incuiieu was the itemizeu list of uamageu anu lost itemsS6
piepaieu by an engineei commissioneu by the Spouses Bombasi to
estimate the costs. Insteau, the Couit awaiueu tempeiate uamages.
;G27E2GFG)=# Appeal is uenieu. Paulino S. Asilo, }i. anu Bemetiio T.
Comenuauoi aie guilty of violating Section S(e) of RASu19. In view of
the ueath of Bemetiio T. Comenuauoi penuing tiial, his ciiminal
liability is extinguisheu; but his civil liability suivives. The Nunicipality
of Nagcailan, Paulino Asilo anu Bemetiio T. Comenuauoi, as
substituteu by victoiia Bueta vua. Be Comenuauoi, aie heieby ueclaieu
soliuaiily liable to the Spouses Bombasi foi tempeiate uamages anu
moial uamages.


U9)=449H9 1(M ;G4%
S&H&3; 10. 1\\/
c#'h=:SI&'>=. *6
C#=) 2=5c=@ f'H"3; A, K3F(+? !6 T)A(; MR'5(N


2BCC9!D# An auministiative case was fileu against }avellana, Bago
City Sanggunian membei, foi iepiesenting }avieio anu Catapang in an
illegal uismissal case against City Engineei Bivinagiacia, baseu on
ciiculais of the BLu iequiiing piioi authoiization foi piivate
employment oi piactice of piofession anu piohibiting piactice of law
auveise to the inteiest of the Lu0. }avellana moveu to uismiss on the
giounus that the ciiculais aie unconstitutional foi (1) impaiiing the
authoiity of the Supieme Couit to iegulate the piactice of law anu (2)
being an invaliu class legislation against officials who aie lawyeis anu
uoctois. The BLu uismisseu. The Supieme Couit affiimeu the
uismissal, iuling that the ciiculais, along with Section 9u, LuC (1)
valiuly iegulate the piactice of piofession alloweu by law to avoiu
conflict of inteiest, anu (2) pioviues paiticulai limitations to the
piactice of law since it is likely to affect public seivice.

;E0F!GH=# Section 9u, LuC. Piactice of Piofession. (a) All
goveinois, city anu municipal mayois aie piohibiteu fiom piacticing
theii piofession oi engaging in any occupation othei than the exeicise
of theii functions as local chief executives.
(b) Sanggunian membeis may piactice theii piofessions, engage in
any occupation, oi teach in schools except uuiing session houis:
Pioviueu, That sanggunian membeis who aie membeis of the Bai
shall not:
(1) Appeai as counsel befoie any couit in any civil case wheiein a
local goveinment unit oi any office, agency, oi instiumentality of the
goveinment is the auveise paity;
(2) Appeai as counsel in any ciiminal case wheiein an officei oi
employee of the national oi local goveinment is accuseu of an offense
committeu in ielation to his office;
(S) Collect any fee foi theii appeaiance in auministiative pioceeuings
involving the local goveinment unit of which he is an official; anu
(4) 0se piopeity anu peisonnel of the uoveinment except when the
sanggunian membei conceineu is uefenuing the inteiest of the
uoveinment.
(c) Boctois of meuicine may piactice theii piofession even uuiing
official houis of woik only on occasions of emeigency: Pioviueu, That
the officials conceineu uo not ueiive monetaiy compensation
theiefiom.
|The piovision uoes not conflict with the authoiity of the Supieme
Couit to iegulate the piactice of law.j

I90F2#
0n 0ctobei S, 1989, City Engineei Einesto Bivinagiacia fileu an
auministiative case, befoie the Bepaitment of Local uoveinment (BLu),
against Atty. Eiwin }avellana, city counciloi, Bago City, Negios
0cciuental, alleging that }avellana, while an incumbent counciloi, has
continuously engageu in the piactice of law without secuiing authoiity
fiom the Regional Biiectoi, BLu, theieby violating by BLu Nemo. Ciics.
8u-S8 anu 74-S8, anu Section 7(b)(2), RA 761S (Coue of Conuuct anu
Ethical Stanuaius foi Public 0fficials anu Employees). Specifically,
}avellana was counsel foi Antonio }avieio anu Rolanuo Catapang, who
fileu a case against Bivinagiacia foi illegal uismissal, putting him in
public iiuicule. }avellana also appeaieu in othei civil anu ciiminal cases
in the city without authoiization.
Law 156 - ELECTORAL PROCESS AND PUBLIC OFFICE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

"&#"$
BLu Nemo. Ciic. 8u-S8 pioviues that, since Sanggunian membeis
(piovincial, city, oi municipal) aie not iequiieu to iepoit uaily as othei
employees, they may "be alloweu to piactice theii piofessions pioviueu
that in so uoing an authoiity xxx fiist be secuieu fiom the Regional
Biiectois puisuant to Nemo. Ciic. 74-S8." The piactice shoulu also be
favoiably iecommenueu by the Sanggunian conceineu anu the
goveinoi oi mayoi.
Penuing iesolution of the case, }avellana iequesteu the BLu foi a peimit
to continue his piactice of law. Secietaiy Luis Santos ieplieu that the
BLu has no objection theieto, pioviueu that it will not conflict with his
official functions.
Then on Septembei 21, 1991, Secietaiy Santos issueu Nemo. Ciic. 9u-
81, also setting foith guiuelines foi piactice of piofession of local
elective officials, which, intei alia, pioviues that officials whose uuties
iequiie theii entiie time aie absolutely piohibiteu fiom engaging in
piivate employment oi piactice of piofession, anu, if otheiwise
alloweu, authoiity shoulu be gianteu by the Secietaiy of Local
uoveinment. Also, the employment oi piactice shoulu not impaii the
efficiency of the official, shoulu not involve goveinment funus oi
piopeity, anu shoulu give iise to a conflict of inteiest between the office
anu the employment oi piactice.
}avellana fileu a motion to uismiss on the giounu that BLu Nemo. Ciics.
8u-S8 anu 9u-81 aie unconstitutional, because the Supieme Couit has
the sole anu exclusive authoiity to iegulate the piactice of law. This, as
well as his NR, weie uenieu.
Then the LuC was signeu into law. Section 9u pioviues, among otheis,
that, while Sanggunian membeis may piactice theii piofessions except
uuiing session houis, membeis of the bai shall not (1) appeai as
counsel wheie the Lu0 oi any goveinment agency is the auveise paity,
anu (2) collect any appeaiance fee in auministiative pioceeuings
involving the Lu0.
When the auministiative case was set again foi heaiing, }avellana fileu
a petition foi ceitioiaii befoie the Supieme Couit to nullify the
ciiculais anu Section 9u, LuC, on the giounus that (1) they impaii the
powei of the Supieme Couit to iegulate the piactice of law, anu (2)
they constitute class legislation, being uisciiminatoiy against
Sanggunian membeis who aie lawyeis anu uoctois, but not against
othei piofessions.
G22B=Q!B4GH%#
Shoulu the ciiculais anu Section 9u be nullifieu. No. They valiuly
iegulate the piactice of piofession of public officials.
!9FGE#
As a mattei of policy, gieat iespect is accoiueu to the uecisions of
auministiative authoiities foi theii expeitise anu by viitue of the
uoctiine of sepaiation of poweis. In this case, theie is no giave abuse of
uiscietion in the uenying the motion to uismiss the auministiative case:
(1) The complaint foi illegal uismissal, wheie }avellana is the counsel, is
in effect a complaint against Bago City, the ieal employei, anu wheie
}avellana is a Sanggunian membei. Thus, juugment against Bivinagiacia
is a juugment against Bago City. It cleaily violates the ciiculais,
piohibiting piactice auveise to the inteiest of the goveinment.
(2) The aigument that the ciiculais anu Section 9u, LuC tienches upon
the authoiity of the Supieme Couit unuei Section S, Aiticle vIII,
Constitution (to piesciibe iules on the piactice of law) is completely off
tangent. They simply piesciibe iules to avoiu conflict of inteiest.
(S) Section 9u uoes not uisciiminate against lawyeis anu uoctois. It
applies to all officials engageu in any occupation. If theie aie
piohibitions which paiticulaily apply to lawyeis, it is because theii
piofessions is moie likely to affect public seivice.
;G27E2GFG)=# Ciiculais anu Section 9u valiu.

F<V'. 1M 09
/1 S&H&3; 1\\/
*&3;'5" %#&P
2'>?('>

2BCC9!D# The Nunicipal Tieasuiei anu the Nayoi of Camalaniugan, Cagayan
aie questioning the uecision of the CA holuing them liable in uamages to }uiauo
foi iefusing to issue him a mayoi's peimit anu license to opeiate his palay-
thieshing business. To help finance the completion of the constiuction of the
spoits anu nutiition centei builuing, the Sangguniang Bayan auopteu
Resolution No. 9. Saiu Resolution solicits a uonation equivalent to 1% of all the
palay thiesheu, fiom the thieshei opeiatois. }uiauo fileu an application foi his
palay thieshing business by paying the license fee to the municipal tieasuiei's
office. The saiu office iequiieu }uiauo to secuie the mayoi's peimit fiist. Foi
failing to comply with Resolution No. 9, a mayoi's peimit was not issueu. }uiauo
fileu a petition foi manuamus to compel the issuance of the mayoi's peimit.
Latei on, he fileu a petition foi ueclaiatoiy ielief to ueteimine the valiuity of the
Law 156 - ELECTORAL PROCESS AND PUBLIC OFFICE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

"'#"$
saiu Resolution. The tiial couit anu CA uphelu the valiuity of the Resolution.
Bowevei, in the CA, the municipal tieasuiei anu the mayoi weie helu liable to
}uiauo foi acting with bau faith anu malice in iefusing to issue the mayoi's
peimit. The SC helu that the saiu public officeis weie N0T liable. The SC saiu
that the public officeis acteu within the scope of theii authoiity anu in
consonance with theii honest inteipietation of the Resolution in question. As
executive officials of the municipality, they hau the uuty to enfoice it as long as
it hau not been iepealeu by the Sangguniang Bayan oi annulleu by the couits.

;E0F!GH=# As a iule, a public officei, whethei juuicial, quasi-juuicial oi
executive, is not peisonally liable to one injuieu in consequence of an act
peifoimeu within the scope of his official authoiity, anu in line of his official
uuty. An eiioneous inteipietation of an oiuinance uoes not constitute noi uoes
it amount to bau faith, that woulu entitle an aggiieveu paity to an awaiu foi
uamages. (!8'+6 R(;58 %=6 @6 %';, =9 %"A&)


I90F2#

To help finance the continuation of the constiuction of the Spoits anu
Nutiition Centei Builuing, the Sangguniang Bayan of Camalaniugan, Cagayan
auopteu a iesolution (Resolution No. 9). Saiu iesolution seeks to solicit 1%
uonation (equivalent to 1% of all the palay thiesheu) fiom the thieshei
opeiatois who will apply foi a peimit to thiesh.
To implement the saiu Resolution, Lope Napagu, the municipal
tieasuiei, piepaieu a uocument
4
foi signatuie of all thieshei ownei,
opeiatois applying foi mayoi's peimit.

4
AuREENENT

That I, _____________ thieshei-ownei-opeiatoi heieby voluntaiily agiee to uonate to the
municipality of Camalaniugan, Cagayan, one peicent (1%) of all palay thiesheu by me
within the juiisuiction of Camalaniugan, Cagayan, to help finance the completion of the
constiuction of the spoits anu nutiition centei builuing of Camalaniugan pei Resolution
No. 9 uateu Naich 14, 1977 of the Sanggunian Bayan;

That I also agiee to iepoit weekly the total numbei of palay thiesheu by me to the
municipal tieasuiei anu tuin ovei the coiiesponuing 1% shaie of the municipality foi the
saiu pioject mentioneu above.

Signeu this uay of __________, 1977.
The piivate iesponuent in this case, Satuinino }uiauo (a thieshei
opeiatoi) paiu to the tieasuiei's office the license fee of P 28S foi thieshei
opeiatois. The municipal tieasuiei iefuseu to accept the payment anu iequiieu
him to fiist secuie a mayoi's peimit. Befoie a mayoi's peimit can be issueu,
}uiauo was infoimeu that he must fiist comply with the Resolution anu sign the
agieement. Foi iefusing the sign the agieement, no mayoi's peimit was issueu.
}uiauo fileu a manuamus petition with actual anu moial uamages to
compel the issuance of the mayoi's peimit anu license. Subsequently, he fileu a
petition foi ueclaiatoiy juugment against the Resolution (anu the implementing
agieement) foi being illegal eithei as a uonation oi as a tax measuie. The
uefenuants weie the municipal tieasuiei, the mayoi, anu the membeis of the
Sangguniang Bayan.
Tiial couit - Resolution was valiu. No uamages.
Couit of Appeals - Resolution was valiu. The municipal tieasuiei anu
mayoi acteu maliciously anu in bau faith when they uenieu }uiauo's
application. These public officeis weie liable foi P 2u uuu as actual uamages, P
S uuu as moial uamages, anu P S uuu as attoiney's fees.

G22B=#
1. Aie the municipal tieasuiei anu the mayoi guilty of bau faith anu malice
when they uenieu }uiauo's application foi the mayoi's peimit anu license. N0.

2. Is the Resolution valiu. Not iaiseu in the petition befoie the Supieme Couit.
(But SC still uiscusseu this!)


!9FGE#

$%%&' (

}uiauo anchois his claim foi uamages on Aiticle 27
S
of the Civil Coue.
0ne of the puiposes of this aiticle is to enu the "biibeiy system, wheie public
officials uelay oi iefuse the peifoimance of theii uuties until they get some kinu
of a <(A(H3(G." Accoiuing to !8'+6 R(;58 %=6 2;?6 i6 %';, =9 %"A&, Aiticle 27
piesupposes that the iefusal oi omission of a public official to peifoim his
official uuty is attiibutable to malice oi inexcusable negligence. The public
officei is punishable unuei Aiticle 27 foi whatevei loss oi uamage the
complainant has sustaineu.

S
Ait. 27. Any peison suffeiing mateiial oi moial loss because a public seivant oi
employee iefuses oi neglects, without just cause, to peifoim his official uuty may file an
action foi uamages anu othei ielief against the lattei, without piejuuice to any
uisciplinaiy auministiative action that may be taken.
Law 156 - ELECTORAL PROCESS AND PUBLIC OFFICE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

"(#"$

In the case at bai, it was not allegeu that Nayoi Tuzon's iefusal to act
on }uiauo's application was an attempt to compel him to iesoit to biibeiy to
obtain the mayoi's peimit. It cannot be saiu that the mayoi anu the municipal
tieasuiei weie motivateu by peisonal spite oi weie giossly negligent in
iefusing to issue the peimit anu license.

Asiue fiom the absence of allegations of bau faith oi gioss negligence,
no eviuence was pioffeieu to show that the saiu public officeis singleu out
}uiauo foi peisecution. Neithei uoes it appeai the saiu public officeis gaineu
peisonally fiom iefusing to issue the peimit. 0n the contiaiy, the iesolution
was unifoimly applieu to all the thiesheis in the municipality.

The public officeis acteu within the scope of theii authoiity anu in
consonance with theii honest inteipietation of the Resolution. They piesumeu
the valiuity of the Resolution, in the absence of a juuicial uecision invaliuating
it. As executive official, they hau the uuty to enfoice it as long as it hau not been
iepealeu by the Sangguniang Bayan oi annulleu by the couits. As a iule, a
public officeis, whethei juuicial, quasi-juuicial oi executive, is not peisonally
liable to one injuieu in consequence of an act peifoimeu within the scope of his
official authoiity, anu in line of his official uuty. An eiioneous inteipietation of
an oiuinance uoes not constitute noi uoes it amount to bau faith that woulu
entitle an aggiieveu paity to an awaiu foi uamages. (Phil. Natch Co. v. City of
Cebu)

What }uiauo coulu have uone was to sign the agieement unuei
piotest anu latei challengeu it in couit to ielieve him of the obligation to
"uonate".

$%%&' )

The CA uiu not explain why the challengeu Resolution is valiu. It uiu
not uiscuss the natuie of the Resolution. While it appeais fiom the woiuing of
the Resolution that the municipal goveinment meiely intenus to "solicit" the
1% contiibution fiom the thiesheis, the implementing agieement seems to
make the uonation obligatoiy anu a conuition pieceuent to the issuance of
mayoi's peimit. This goes against the concept of uonation, which is an act of
libeiality.
If the Resolution is to be consiueieu a tax oiuinance, it must be shown
that it was enacteu in accoiuance with the iequiiements of the Local Tax Coue.
Theie must be a public shaiing on the measuie anu its subsequent appioval by
the Secietaiy of Finance, in auuition to the publication of the oiuinance.

!B4GH%# ACC0RBINuLY, the appealeu uecision is ieveiseu insofai as it holus
the petitioneis liable in uamages anu attoiney's fees to the piivate ["3<=>?">;.
No costs.

J@+*" 1M !,&,.:
R(, /`. 1\\/
c&;'"##"P. *#., }.
*(?? D!'>(G(:3;"(?3 3( T>;"#:% /01bE f"(+'>=
I have no iuea what topic this case falls unuei.

2BCC9!D# Wylie is the Assistant Auministiative 0fficei of the 0S
Naval Base in Subic. 0ne installment of a featuie in the publication he
supeivises containeu a statement to the effect that an "Auiing" was a
uisgiace to hei uivision anu the 0ffice of the Piovost Naishal anu
woulu publicly consume items confiscateu fiom base peisonnel.
Auioia Raiang was the only one known as "Auiing" in the 0ffice of the
Piovost Naishal. She sueu Wylie anu Williams ("the officeis"), who
was the captain anu commanuing officei of the base, foi uamages, at
the Zambales CFI. The officeis moveu to uismiss, on thiee giounus:
(1) lack of juiisuiction ovei the paities anu subject-mattei since (2)
they weie acting in the peifoimance of theii official functions as 0S
Navy 0fficeis, anu (S) the 0S base was an instiumentality of the 0S
goveinment which cannot be sueu without its consent. The NB was
uenieu. The CFI eventually founu foi Raiang, oiueiing the officeis to
pay uamages. 0n appeal, the CA incieaseu the uamages awaiueu. The
SC uphelu the CA, holuing that Ameiican naval officeis committing
ciimes oi toituous acts while uischaiging theii official functions aie
not coveieu by the piinciple of state immunity fiom suit.

;E0F!GH=#

If the juugment against officials iequiies the state itself to peifoim an
affiimative act to satisfy the juugment (e.g., make an appiopiiation to
pay uamages), the suit is iegaiueu as one against a state itself even
though not foimally impleaueu. (Citing c(#5'( @6 %8'"9 =9 4;(99)

0fficials may be peisonally liable when theii acts aie ultia viies oi
theie is bau faith. (Citing Chavez v. SB, 1991)
Law 156 - ELECTORAL PROCESS AND PUBLIC OFFICE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

")#"$

Foieign militaiies assigneu anu stationeu in Philippine teiiitoiy enjoy
State Immunity.

Philippine law uoes not allow the commission of ciimes (anu toits) in
the name of official uuty. So ciimes oi toits committeu in the name of
official uuty aie &+;#( @'#"3.

I90F2#
Paities:
o Petitioneis:
" N.B. Wylie:
is the Assistant Auministiative officei of the 0S
Naval Base in Subic.
supeivises the !+(> =9 ;8" f(,, ("P0B") a uaily 0S
Naval Base publication featuiing announcements,
piecautions, anu geneial matteis of inteiest to
militaiy peisonnel.
o 0ne iegulai featuie is an S5;'=> 2'>" T>I&'#,
wheie peisonnel can access the Commanuing
0fficei ("C0") foi matteis foi coiiection oi
investigation.
" Captain }ames Williams:
is the C0 of the base.
as C0, uiiects anu authoiizes the
publication of the P0B
o Responuent:
" Auioia Raiang:
is a Neichanuise Contiol uuaiu unuei the 0ffice of
the Piovost Naishal.
is the only one known as "Auiing" in hei office.
woulu ieceive commenuations foi hei seivice
piioi to the inciuent.
Febiuaiy S, 1978: The S5;'=> 2'>" T>I&'#, containeu a
statement asking if the heau of the Neichanuise Contiol
uivision was awaie of Neichanuise Contiol uuaius' public
consumption of confiscateu items, especially on the pait of
"Auiing" who was a uisgiace to hei uivision anu to the 0ffice of
the Piovost Naishal.
Raiang was investigateu by hei supeiiois.
Febiuaiy 7, 1978: Wylie wiote a lettei of apology to Raiang,
foi the "inauveitent" publication.
Raiang sueu Wylie anu Williams ("the officeis") foi uamages,
in the Zambales CFI, alleging uefamation anu libel.
o The officeis Noveu to Bismiss:
(1) They weie immune fiom suit uue to acting in the
peifoimance of theii official functions as 0S Navy
officeis.
(2) The 0S Naval base's chaiactei as an instiumentality of
the 0S gov't, which cannot be sueu wo its consent.
(S) A lack of juiisuiction ovei the subject mattei anu
paities.
The NB was uenieu. The CFI eventually founu foi Raiang anu
oiueieu the officeis to pay moial uamages, exemplaiy
uamages, attoiney's fees, litigation expenses, anu costs of the
suit, while uismissing the suit against the 0S Naval Base.
0n appeal, the officeis ieiteiateu the lack of juiisuiction anu
saiu that the publication was not intentional anu maliciously-
causeu. Raiang appealeu foi an inciease in the awaiu of
uamages.
The CA founu foi Raiang, incieasing the amount of uamages
awaiueu.

G22B=2# Whethei the Assistant Auministiative 0fficei (Wylie) anu the
Commanuing 0fficei (Williams) aie immune fiom a suit foi uamages
uespite theii paiticipation in the publication of a uefamatoiy featuie
item.

!B4GH%# No. The Ameiican officeis' peifoimance of toituous acts while
uischaiging official functions is not coveieu by the Boctiine of State
Immunity.

!9FGE#

No, the Ameiican officeis' peifoimance of toituous acts while
uischaiging official functions is not coveieu by the Boctiine of State
Immunity, as oui laws uo not allow the commission of ciimes in the
name of official uuty. (0S laws aie piesumeu to be the same on that
Law 156 - ELECTORAL PROCESS AND PUBLIC OFFICE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

"*#"$
point.) Such acts aie &+;#( @'#"3 anu cannot be pait of official uuty. The
officeis aie being sueu in theii peisonal capacities.

1) The SC heavily quoteu the case of V4S @6 c&'>;= (199u).
2) The concept of State Immunity (fiom suit) was uiscusseu.
A) Two bases: Constitutional anu Inteinational Law.
i) Constitutional: Sec. S, Ait. 16: The State may not be
sueu without its consent.
ii) ueneially-accepteu inteinational law piinciple,
auopteu unuei the Boctiine of Incoipoiation in Sec. 2, Ait.
2, Const.
a) A state that is a membei of the society of nations is
automatically obligateu to comply with ceitain
piinciples.
B) Two levels of application: Local anu Foieign.
i) Local (against the state wheie the suit is biought.):
a) Rationale: "|Tjheie can be no legal iight against
the authoiity which makes the law on which the
iight uepenus." (citing Bolmes in a(F(>(G=( @6
!=+,A(>G)
ii) Foieign (against anothei state):
a) Rationale: !(# '> <(#"). >=> 8(A"; ')<"#'&) (All
states aie soveieign equals anu cannot asseit
juiisuiction ovei one anothei.) 0theiwise,
ielations between nations woulu be vexeu. (Citing
f( j(A"# @6 k&""> =9 !=#;&H(+).
C) Two Entities coveieu by State Immunity:
i) States (uuh.)
ii) 0fficials uischaiging theii uuties.
a) Test to ueteimine whethei a suit is iegaiueu as
being against a state: If the juugment against
officials iequiies the state itself to peifoim an
affiimative act to satisfy the juugment (e.g., make
an appiopiiation to pay uamages), the suit is
iegaiueu as one against a state itself even though
not foimally impleaueu. (Citing c(#5'( @6 %8'"9 =9
4;(99)
b) States' iemeuy: Nove to uismiss on giounu that
suit was fileu wo its consent.
c) Invocation of State Immunity by 0fficials:
1) Neie invocation uoes not by itself iesult in
uismissal.
2) The question of whethei an officei is acting in
the uischaige of theii official functions
iequiies the piesentation of eviuence.
u) 0fficials may be peisonally liable (citing %8(@"P @6
4d, 1991):
1) Two instances:
(1) V+;#( @'#"3 acts; anu
(2) Wheie theie is bau faith.
2) Rationale: This immunity is like that of juuges
anu the PCuu officials (citing !%cc @6 !"h().
S) Remeuies: Buman Relations Toits suits (CC
19-21, S2)
e) Theie is a nuance to 0fficials: Foieign militaiies
assigneu anu stationeu in Philippine teiiitoiy:
1) State Immunity was iestateu with specificity
in the [!:V4 d(3"3 7#"(;,:

It is mutually agieeu that the 0niteu
States shall have the iights, powei
anu authoiity within the bases which
aie necessaiy foi the establishment,
use, opeiation anu uefense theieof oi
appiopiiate foi the contiol theieof
anu all the iights, powei anu
authoiity within the limits of the
teiiitoiial wateis anu aii space
aujacent to, oi in the vicinity of, the
bases which aie necessaiy to pioviue
access to them oi appiopiiate foi
theii contiol.
2) In juiispiuuence:
A) uoveinments exempt foieign aimies
peimitteu to maich thiough oi be
stationeu in a fiienuly countiy, fiom civil
anu ciiminal juiisuiction. (Citing [(I&'P(
Law 156 - ELECTORAL PROCESS AND PUBLIC OFFICE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

"+#"$
@6 d#(?9=#?, which citeu %=+")(> @6
7">>"33"")
B) Ciiticism against State Immunity: Beiisively calleu "The
Royal Pieiogative of Bishonesty" as any legitimate claim
can be uefeateu by invocation of State Immunity.
i) Response to ciiticism: Not absolute. An exception is
when the state itself consents.
E) State Consent to Suit:
i) Two Foims: Expiess anu Implieu
a) Expiess: Stateu in geneial law oi special law.
1) Requisite: Legislative will thiough statutoiy
enactment. (Citing ["<&A+'5 @6 !&#'3')()
b) Implieu: Two Foims (Contiact-Commencement)
1) State itself enteis into contiact. This has
qualifications uepenuing on the act (citing
V4S @6 [&'P):
A) Nay be sueu -
PiopiietaiyPiivateCommeicialBusine
ss acts (*&#" H"3;'=>'3)
i) This is teimeu the Restiictive
Application of State Immunity, which is
the iule in the West (0S, 0K, West. Eui.)
ii) Rationale: A state is saiu to uescenu
to an inuiviuual's level anu tacitly gives its
consent to be sueu in business contiacts.
B) Nay not be sueu -
Soveieignuoveinmental actsfunctions
(*&#" ')<"#'')
i) Example: Piojects that aie integial
paits of naval bases foi uefense.
2) State itself commences litigation.
S) In this case: The officeis weie peifoiming theii official
functions.
A) The publication (P0B) was publisheu unuei the uiiection
anu authoiity of the C0 (Williams).
i) The Auministiative Assistant 0fficei (Wylie) piepaies
anu uistiibutes the publication.
B) The featuie (Action Line Inquiiy) is a iegulai one. Its
puipose is allowing peisonnel access to the C0 foi matteis
the peisonnel feel shoulu be biought to the C0's attention
foi coiiectioninvestigation.
C) The question naming Auiing was foiwaiueu S wks piioi to
publication.
B) The question was foiwaiueu to Auiing's office (Piovost
Naishal) foi comment.
i) PN's Response: Remove the name in case of
publication.
E) The PN's iesponse was foiwaiueu to the executive anu C0
foi appioval.
F) The C0's appioval was foiwaiueu to the 0ffice of the
Auministiative Assistant
i) A cleik typist (Bologmouin) piepaieu the smooth
copy.
ii) Wylie signeu the smooth copy but faileu to notice the
iefeience to "Auiing."
4) Bowevei, the officeis aie being sueu foi toituous acts in theii
peisonal capacities, so they must be peisonally liable. Ciiminal
anu toituous acts aie not alloweu in the commission of official
uuty.
A) Philippine law uoes not allow the commission of ciimes in
the name of official uuty. 0S laws aie piesumeu to be the
same.
B) Analysis of the liability baseu on the fiamewoik of CC 2176
Befining Quasi-Belicts:
i) Act: Publication of an aiticle stating that Auiing was a
uisgiace to hei office anu uivision, anu that she woulu
consume confiscateu items.
ii) Bamage: Befamation against Raiang's chaiactei anu
ieputation.
iii) Fault oi negligence:
a) Publication uespite PN's explicit iecommenuation
to iemove the iefeience to "Auiing.":
1) Wylie supeiviseu the publication.
2) Williams appioveu the publication.
C) This specific act of publication is &+;#( @'#"3 anu not pait of
official uuty.

;G27E2GFG)=# Petition BISNISSEB. IACCA uecision AFFIRNEB.
Law 156 - ELECTORAL PROCESS AND PUBLIC OFFICE | B2015
CASE DIGESTS

"$#"$

;G22=HFGH% E7GHGEH: NA

0EH0B!!GH% E7GHGEH: NA