Asilo v.

People 037
GR No. 159017-18, 09 March 2011, Perez, J.
Digested by Name Law 156 PubOff
Topic: Liabilities of Public Officers

Mayor et al. caused the demolition of a store leased to the spouses, to give way to the
construction of a new public market.

FACTS
PRESP Visitacions late mother and the Municipality of Nagcarlan, Laguna (represented by
then Mayor Manalang) entered into a lease contract
o For use and enjoyment of a lot and a store for 20 years from 1978 until 1998
o Visitacion took over the store when her mother died in 1984
1986, a fire razed the public market
o the store remained intact and stood strong
1993, Visitacion received letter from Mayor Comendador directing her to demolish her store
within 5 days. Attached were copies of SB Resolution 156 authorizing Mayor to demolish,
and to file unlawful detainer case if Conrados resist
o Visitacions reply: (1) the lease contract still existing; (3) if her proposals are not
acceptable to Mayor, for the latter to just file unlawful detainer case
SB issued Resolution 183 authorizing Mayor to demolish the store using legal means
Mayor, relying on the strength of SB Resos 183 and 156, authorized the demolition with
Asilo and Angeles supervising the work.
Visitacion and spouse (Sps) filed with RTC a Civil Case for damages with preliminary
injunction against the Municipality, Mayor, Asilo and Angeles
Sps also filed a criminal complaint] against Mayor, Asilo and Angeles for violation of Sec.
3(e) of RA 3019 before OMB. An Info was filed with SB
o SB ordered consolidation of civil and crim cases
Angeles died, so the crim and civ cases against him was dismissed
o It was not appealed so it became final
Mayor also died. His counsel informed SB of such death
SB decision: Mayor and Asilo guilty BRD of violation of Sec.3(e), RA 3019
Asilo filed MR alleging that there was only an error of judgment when he complied with and
implemented the order of his superior, Mayor; that there is no liability when a public officer
commits in good faith an error of judgment
o SB denied: GF cant be argued to support his cause; BF attended the commission of
the offense. The invocation of compliance with an order of a superior is of no
moment; demolition order was issued without the authority, therefore patently illegal
counsel for late Mayor also filed MR alleging that the death of Mayor had totally
extinguished both criminal and civil liability. SB granted the Motion insofar as the extinction
of criminal is concerned and denied extinction of the civil
PET Asilo argues: he and his co-accused acted in GF in the demolition of the market and,
thereby, no liability was incurred.
ISSUES & HOLDING
WON the public officers accused are liable for violation of Sec.3(e), RA 3019? YES.
Satisfied all the elements of the offense.

RATIO
Liable for violation of Sec.3(e), RA 3019.
Elements: (1) accused are public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them;
(2) said public officers commit the prohibited acts during the performance of their official
duties or in relation to their public positions; (3) they caused undue injury to any party,
whether the Government or a private party; (4) OR such injury is caused by giving
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to the other party; and (5) the public officers
have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence
Its undisputable that the first two requisites of the criminal offense were present at the time
of the commission of the complained acts
Causing undue injury could only mean actual injury or damage which must be established by
evidence.
o Undue -- more than necessary, not proper, or illegal
o injury -- any wrong or damage done to another, either in his person, rights, reputation
or property; invasion of any legally protected interest of another
o There was indeed damage caused to the Sps. SB found: demolition was carried out
without a court order, and notwithstanding a restraining order; it was done in the
exercise of official duties which was attended by evident bad faith, manifest partiality
or gross inexcusable negligence, as nothing in the 2 Resos which gave the accused
the authority to demolish
Evident bad faith connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent
and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse
motive or ill will
o no merit in the contention that the structure is a public nuisance. The abatement of a
nuisance without judicial proceedings is possible if it is nuisance per se. The market
stall cant be considered as a nuisance per se because the it had not been affected by
the fire.
o LGC does not expressly provide for the abatement of nuisance. Assuming that the
power to abate was provided for in LGC, a closer look at the Resos reveals that
Mayor was only authorized to file an unlawful detainer case in case of resistance to
obey the order or to demolish the building using legal means. The act of demolition
without legal order was not among those provided by the Resos
o The Municipality as represented by the Mayor, was placed in estoppel after it granted
yearly business permits in favor of Sps. The representation made by the municipality
that the Spshad the right to continuously operate its store binds the municipality. Its
utterly unjust for Municipality to receive the benefits of the store operation and later
on claim the illegality of the business.
Civil liability of Mayor survives his death as it was not
predicated on the crime.
Death of Mayor during pendency of case extinguished his crim. liability, but his civil liability
survived his death as it was predicated on a source of obligation other than a delict, i.e. the
law on human relations
o Art. 41, NCC: When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act
or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently
of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.
o Art. 32(6), NCC: Any public officer or employee, xxx who directly or indirectly
obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following
rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;
xxxx
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or
omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence
an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such
civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be
instituted), and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence.
Death of Angeles during pendency of case extinguished his crim. liability; his civil liability
could have also survived had it not been for the fact that the SB Reso that his death
extinguished the civil liability was not questioned and lapsed into finality
The Law on Human Relations apply.
The complaint for civil liability was filed way AHEAD of the information on the Anti-Graft
Law. And, the complaint for damages specifically invoked defendant Mayor Comendadors
violation of plaintiffs right to due process
there was a violation of the right to private property of the Sps. The accused public officials
should have accorded the Sps due process
The SB Resos will not justify demolition of the store without court order. This Court in a
number of decisions held that even if there is already a writ of execution, there must still be a
need for a special order for the purpose of demolition issued by the court before the officer in
charge can destroy, demolish or remove improvements over the contested property.

DISPOSITIVE
Guilty of violating Sec.3(e) of RA 3019