CHAPTER VII: LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC OFFICERS Under prevailing jurisprudence, even mistakes concededly committed by

public officer in the discharge of his official duties are not actionable as long
A. In General as it is not shown that they were motivated by malice or gross negligence
amounting to bad faith.
Doctrine of official immunity from liabilities for public officers  determining whether a public officer may secure the services of a private
 Rationale: The promotion of fearless, vigorous, and effective administration counsel in an action filed against him in his office
of policies of government. The threat of suit could also deter competent  the nature of the action and the relief sought are to be considered.
people from accepting public office.  where damages are sought in action filed against a public officer
which, if granted, could result in his personal liability, he may be
properly represented by a private counsel.
Official immunity vs State immunity 2) Suit to compel performance of official duty or restrain performance of an act
Official Immunity State Immunity  The State (Government) may not be sued without its consent, and a suit
The immunity is a more limited principle It is principally rested upon the tenuous against an officer for his official acts is, in effect, a suit against the State
than State or governmental immunity, ground that the king could do no wrong. as its purpose is to hold it ultimately liable. That is not to say that in no
since its purpose is not directly to It served to protect the impersonal body case may a public officer be sued as such without the previous consent
protect the sovereign, but rather to do politic or government itself from tort of the State.
so only collaterally, by protecting the liability.  Exceptions:
public in the performance of his a. A public officer may be sued as such to compel him to do an act
government function. State immunity does not apply in required by law (e.g. register of deeds refuses to register a deed of
causes of action which do not seek to sale)
It serves as a protective aegis for public impose a charge or financial liability b. From enforcing a law claimed to be unconstitutional; and
officials from tort liability for damages against the government. AN officer who c. The government itself violated its own laws – the aggrieved party
arising from discretionary acts or exceeds the power conferred on him by may directly implead the government even without first filing his
functions in the performance of their law cannot hide behind the plea of claim with the Commission on Audit as normally required, as the
official duties. sovereign immunity and must bear the doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an instrument for
liability personally. It is a settled rule perpetrating an injustice.
that in the performance of
governmental function, the State is not Two Classes of public officers
bound by the mistake, neglect, or 1) Those whose duty is owing solely to the public; and
wrongdoing of its agents and officers. 2) Those whose duty is owing in some degree to the individuals.
- If the officer does not owe any duty to the individual complaining, then the
Official immunity not absolute. Hence, such immunity shall only apply to the individual has no right of action, even though he may have been injured by
following: the action or non-action of the officer. An individual has no cause of action
against a public officer for a breach of duty owing solely to the public. The
1) Suit to enforce liability for personal torts; breach is to be redressed by public prosecution.
 the mere allegation that a government functionary is being sued in his
personal capacity will not automatically remove him from the protection of Three-fold responsibility of public officers
the law of public officers, and, if appropriate, the doctrine of state immunity, a) civil - if individual is damaged by the violation of duty, the officers shall be
and neither does the mere invocation of official character suffice to insulate held liable civilly to reimburse the injured party;
him from suability and liability for damages for an act imputed to him as a b) criminal - if the law has attached a penal sanction, the officer may be
personal tort committed without or in excess of his authority. punished criminally;
 a public officer enjoys only qualified, not absolute immunity. The protection c) administrative - the violation of disciplinary power may lead to imposition of
afforded by the doctrine generally applies only to activities within the scope fine, reprimand, suspension, or removal from office, as the case maybe.
of office that are in good faith and are not reckless, malicious, or corrupt.  The same wrongful act or omission of a public officer may give rise or
But acts of a public officer are protected by the presumption of good faith. subject him to civil, criminal, and/or administrative liability.
  An action for each can proceed independently of the others. These Proceedings against public officers
remedies may be pursued simultaneously or successively. 1) Evidence and procedure
 The issue in administrative cases is NOT where the complainant has a  Substantial evidence rule – relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
cause of action against the respondent public officer/employee against accept as adequate to support a conclusion. This is the quantum of proof
whom the complaint is filed but whether the latter has breached the norms required in administrative cases.
and standards of public service. - the complainant has the burden of proving substantial evidence, by
allegations in his complaint.
Criminal and civil cases vs. Administrative matters - in the absence of the contrary, public officers and employees are presumed
Administrative Cases/Matters Criminal and Civil Cases to have performed their duties regularly and acted within the bounds of their
authority in good faith.
Purpose Protection of public service based Punishment of crimes - respondent has no obligation to prove his defense or non-liability.
on the principle that public office is - charges based on mere allegations, conjectures, or suppositions cannot be
a public trust given credence.
- technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied and
Constitution of Solely administrative May be administrative and administrative due process cannot be equated with due process on its strict
the act or criminal. A prosecution of sense.
omission one is not a bar to another. 2) Right to be informed of findings and recommendations of an investigating
committee
Case Does not bar from criminal Does not foreclose - respondent is not entitled to be informed of the findings and
administration penalty; administrative action, if recommendations of any investigating committee created to inquire into
due to insufficiency of charges filed against him. He is only entitled to the administrative decision
Does not bar from filing of criminal evidence; based on substantial evidence made of record, and a reasonable
information; opportunity to meet the charges and the evidence presented against him
during the hearings of the investigation committee.
The trial court’s finding of
- it is the administrative resolution and not the investigation report which
Double jeopardy does not apply civil liability against a should be the basis of any further remedies respondent might wish to
public officer will not pursue.
necessarily lead to a 3) Object of administrative proceedings
similar finding in the - when an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the
administrative function; punishment of such officer or employee but the improvement of the public
nor will a favorable service and preservation of public faith and confidence in the government;
hence, good faith is not a defense to hold the offender administratively
disposition in the civil liable.
action absolve him from 4) Right to counsel
administrative liability. - it is an absolute right and may be invoked or rejected with some reason in
administrative inquiry which is conducted merely to determine whether there
Will not necessarily result are facts that merit disciplinary measures against erring public officers and
to liability in the employees with the purpose of maintain the dignity of government service.
- there is no lar, jurisprudence or rule which mandates assistance of counsel
administrative case
in administrative cases.
Prejudicial not applicable applicable 5) Effect of death
Question  General rule: respondent’s death does not preclude a finding of
administrative liability.
Exceptions:
i. observance of respondent’s right to due process
 ii. the presence of exceptional circumstances in the case on the
grounds of equitable and humanitarian reasons.
Administrative liability incurred in a previous term by an elective official
1) Re-election operates as electorate condonation of a previous misconduct
- having been reelected, an elective official is no longer amenable to
administrative sanctions for infractions allegedly committed during the
preceding term.
- the condonation rule applies regardless of the date of filing of the
administrative complaint as long as the wrongdoing was committed prior to
the date of reelection.
- Reason for the rule: each term is separate from other terms and the
reelection to office operates as a condonation of the official’s previous
misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him.
2) Condonation does not extend to reappointed coterminous employees
- does not apply to appointive officials.
- there is neither subversion of the sovereign will nor the disenfranchisement
of the electorate to speak in the case of appointive officials.
3) Re-election does not extinguish criminal or civil liability
- The rule that when the people have elected a man to his office it must be
assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and character and that
they disregarded or forgave his faults or misconduct if he had been guilty of
any - refers only to an action for removal from office and does not apply to
criminal case.
- Reason: A crime is a public wrong more atrocious in character than mere
misfeasance or malfeasance committed by a public officer in the discharge
of his duties, and is injurious not only to a person or group of persons but to
the State as a whole.
- condonation of the offense only applies to an elective public official who was
reelected during the pendency of the administrative case against him.
B. Civil Liability
Requisites for recovery of damages arising from acts of public officers
The mere fact that the individual has sustained injury by reason of the act of the
public officer is not enough to create a right of action. Two things must concur:
a) damage to himself
b) wrong or violation of the right of a party committed by the other.
- without a wrong, it is damnum absque injuria
- the private individual must show that he, as distinguished from individuals
in general, has suffered some special and peculiar injury from the wrongful
act of which he complains.
- the liability of an the official, if any, is only in their official capacity, such that
no judgement can be rendered to make them personally liable in their
private capacity, unless there is an allegation in the complaint that such
officials have maliciously and in bad faith acted outside the scope of their
official authority or jurisdiction (quasi-delict).
- a public officer shall not be liable by way of moral, and exemplary damages
for acts done in the performance of official duties, unless there is clear
showing of bad faith, malice or gross negligence.
- absent of showing of bad faith or malice, every public official is entitled to
the presumption of good faith as well as regularity in the performance or
discharge of official duties.
Effect of contributory negligence of injured party
 General Rule: Public officers should be held to a faithful performance of their
official duties, and made to answer in damages to all persons who may have
been injured through their malfeasance, omission or negligence.
Exception:
i. If the result complained of would have followed, notwithstanding
their misconduct, or if the injured party himself contributed to the
result in any degree by his own fault or neglect, they cannot be held
responsible.
ii. If the position of the injured party would have been just the same
had not the alleged misconduct occurred, he has no legal ground of
complaint.
iii. If his conduct or the conduct of his lawyer contributed to the result,
he is in pari delicto, and the law leaves him where it finds him.
Liability of the President for Official Acts
1) Civil responsibility
- the execution of law is a matter fully as important as the creation or
determination of the law.
- the civil responsibility of the Chief Executive would produce in him an
inevitable tendency to protect himself by following lines of least resistance
and to temper the force of his executive arm in places and upon occasions
where there is strong opposition, either by powerful and influential persons
or by great vested interests.
2) Criminal Liability
- the Chief Executive is the first man of the State. An assault upon him is an
assault upon the people. An offense against him is an offense against the
State.
3) Liability for Damages
- to put him in trial, is to put on trial the government itself. As the State may
not be held, and by such process its sovereignty weakened, without express
provision of law, so the person most perfectly its incarnation should not be
subjected curtly to personal liability for damages resulting from the
performance of official acts except by law equally express.
Liability of other Executive Officials for Official Acts
1) Functions involve exercise of discretion
- they are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct
does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which
any reasonable person would have known.
 if the law at that time was not clearly established - an official could not have
reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments, nor
could he fairly be said to know that the law forbade conduct not previously
identified as unlawful.
 if the law was clearly established – the immunity defense ordinarily should
fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law
governing his conduct.
2) Reasons for immunity
- such immunity is necessary because the imposition of monetary costs for
mistakes which were not unreasonable in the light of all the circumstances
would undoubtedly deter the most conscientious governmental decision
maker from exercising his judgment independently, forcefully, and in a
manner best serving the long-term interest of the public.
- Officials with broad range of duties and authority must often act swiftly and
firmly at the risk that an action deferred will be futile or constitute virtual
abdication of office.
Liability of Legislative Officials for Official Acts
1) Privileges accorded members of congress
- they are not only exempt from general liability, but certain special privileges
are accorded them by the Constitution.
- Thus, the Constitution declares that a senator or Member of the House, in
all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be
privileged from arrest while Congress is in session.
- Furthermore, no Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other
place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.
- these privileges are designed not to protect the members against
prosecutions for their own benefit, but to support the rights of the people, by
enabling their representatives to execute the functions of their office without
fear of prosecutions, civil or criminal. It is also intended to secure the
legislative branch freedom from executive and judicial encroachment.
1. Reasons for immunity
- Members of public legislative bodies are chosen to enact such laws and
regulations or rules of conduct as in their judgment best suited to the welfare
and prosperity of the people within their jurisdiction. The performance of this
duty is owing to the public and not to individuals.
- also confined to members of local legislative bodies.
Liability of Members of the Judiciary for Official Acts
1. Reasons for immunity
- no civil/administrative sanction can be sustained against a judicial officer for
recovery of damages by one claiming to have been injured by the officer’s
judicial action within his jurisdiction.
- the officer is called upon by law to exercise his judgment in the matter, and
the law holds his duty to the individual to be performed when he has
exercised it, however erroneous or disastrous in its consequences it may
appear either to the party or to others.
a. The necessary result of the liability would be to occupy the judge’s
time and mind with the defense of his own interests, when he should
be giving them up wholly to his public duties, thereby defeating to
some extent the very purpose for which his office was created.
b. The effect of putting the judge on his defense as wrongdoer
necessarily is to lower the estimation in which his office is held by
the public, and any adjudication against him lessens the weight of
his subsequent decisions.
c. The civil responsibility of the judge would often be an incentive to
dishonest instead of honest judgments, and would invite him to
consult public opinion and public prejudices when he ought to be
wholly above and uninfluenced by them.
d. Such civil responsibility would constitute a serious obstruction to
justice, in that it would render essential a large increase in the
judicial force, not only as it would multiply litigation, but as it would
open each case to endless controversy. If one judge can be tried
for his judgment, the one who presides on the trial may also be tried
for his, and thus the process may go on until it becomes intolerable.
e. Where the judge is really deserving of condemnation, a prosecution
at the instance of the state is a much more effectual method of
bringing him to account than the private suit.
f. Judicial offices would never be accepted by any man of standing,
reputation or financial worth, if at the peril of his fortune, he must
justify his judgments to the satisfaction of another judge at the
instance of a dissatisfied litigant.
 General rule: A judge is not liable for acts done in the exercise of the judicial
function.
Exemption: acts which are purely ministerial.
- if the judge be in fact corrupt, the public has its remedy, but the defeated
suitor cannot be permitted to obtain redress against the judge by alleging
that the judgment against him was the result of corrupt or malicious motives.
2. Liability for rendering an unjust judgment
- in the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, the acts of a judge in his
judicial capacity do not always constitute misconduct and are not subject to
disciplinary action, even though such acts be erroneous. Good faith and bad
faith are a defense. Otherwise, it would be nothing short of harassment and
would make his position doubly unbearable. Judges cannot be made to be
absolute insurers of the correctness of their own rulings.
 - a judge may be held criminally for dereliction of duty for knowingly render
an unjust judgment or interlocutory order or for rendering a manifestly unjust
judgment or interlocutory order by reason of inexcusable negligence or
ignorance.
 to hold a judge liable for the rendition of a manifestly unjust judgment by
reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance
- it must be shown that although he has acted without malice, he failed to
observe in the performance of his duty that diligence, prudence and care
which the law requires.
- negligence and ignorance are inexcusable if they imply manifest injustice
which cannot be explained by a reasonable interpretation.
 to hold a judge liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment
- it must be shown that the judgment is unjust as it is contrary to law or is not
supported by the evidence, and the same was made with conscious and
deliberate intent to do an injustice.
- the test in determining if whether or not a judgment or order is unjust, may
be inferred from the circumstances that it is manifestly contrary to law or is
not supported by the weight of evidence.
3. Liability for gross ignorance of law and incompetence
- he may be suspended.
- the assailed or der or judgment must not only be contrary to law and
jurisprudence, but the error must be so gross and patent as to produce
an inference of bad faith or that the judge knowingly rendered an
unjust decision.
- judges must keep themselves posted in the latest law and jurisprudence.
- Canon 4 mandates that the judge should be studious of the principles of law
and that he should administer his office with a due regard to the integrity of
the system of the law itself.
4. Quantum of proof necessary to support administrative charges
- before: the Supreme Court rules that if what is imputed to a respondent
judge connotes a misconduct that, if proven, would result in the dismissal
from the bench, than the quantum of proof necessary to support the
administrative charges or to establish grounds for the removal of a judicial
officer should be more than substantial.
- applicable now: substantial evidence.
Liability of Quasi-judicial Officers for Official Acts
1. Nature of functions
- officials in the executive branch or members of bodies who do not belong
strictly to any of the traditional branches of government and are vested with
discretion and empowered to exercise their judgment in matters brought
before them.
2. Reasons for Immunity
- same reasons of private interest and public policy which operate to render
the judicial officer exempt from civil liability for his judicial acts within his
jurisdiction apply to quasi-judicial officer as well.
- they cannot be called upon to respond in damages to the private individual
for the honest exercise of his judgment within his jurisdiction however
erroneous or misguided his judgment may be.
3. Liability for ministerial acts
- depends on the character of the act.
 judicial/quasi-judicial in nature – the officer acts judicially and is exempt.
 ministerial – he is liable for carelessness or negligence like any other
ministerial officer.
Liability of Ministerial Officers for Official Acts
 General Rule: where the law imposes upon a public officer the performance
of ministerial duties in which a private individual has a special and direct
interest, the officer will be liable to such individual for any injury which he
may proximately sustain in consequence of the failure or neglect of the
officer to perform the duty at all, or to perform it properly. In such case, the
officer is liable as well as for nonfeasance, misfeasance or malfeasance.
 Purely Ministerial Act or Duty – an act which an officer or tribunal performs
in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the
mandate of the legal authority, without regard to the exercise of his own
judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. (sheriff
executing a writ of execution)
 Requisites for liability: the plaintiff must show that
i. he has sustained a special and peculiar injury
ii. it results from a breach of duty which the officer owed to him.
 Liability where officer also acts extra-judicially
- as to such acts, they are governed by the same rules which control
ministerial action in other cases.
Kinds of Liability of Ministerial Officer
1. Nonfeasance or the neglect or refusal, without sufficient excuse, to perform
an act which it was the officer’s legal duty to the individual to perform;
2. Misfeasance or the failure to use, in the performance of a duty owing to an
individual, that degree of care, skill and diligence which the circumstances
of the case reasonably demand; and
3. Malfeasance or the doing, either through ignorance, inattention or malice, of
that which the officer has no legal right to do at all, as where he acts without
any authority whatever, or exceeds, ignores or abuses his powers.
- good faith or honest mistake may, in some cases, be showing in mitigation
of damages.
Liability of Superior Officer for Acts of Subordinates
  General Rule: Public officers of the government, in the performance of their
public functions, are not civilly liable to third persons, either for the
misfeasance or positive wrongs, nonfeasance, negligence, or omissions of
duty of their official subordinates. Negligence of subordinates cannot always
be ascribed to their superior in the absence of the latter’s own negligence.
- Exceptions
a. Where, being charged with the duty of employing or retaining his
subordinates, he negligently or willfully employs or retains unfit or
improper persons; or
b. Where, being charge with the duty to see that they are appointed or
qualified in a proper name, he negligently or willfully fails to require
them the due conformity to the prescribe regulations; or
c. Where he so carelessly or negligently oversees, conducts or carries
on the business of his office as to furnish the opportunity for the
default; or
d. A fortiori, where he has directed, authorized or cooperated in the
wrong; or
e. Where liability is expressly provided in the statute.
- Other Exceptions (refer to page 272)
Liability of Subordinates
1. Same rules as those applicable to officers of higher rank
2. Where acts done pursuant to orders or instructions
- a subordinate official who acts in good faith under orders or instructions of
a superior officer acting in pursuance to law, is not personally liable in an
action for damages. This principle holds true even though the superior
officer acts under an unconstitutional law before the same is adjudged to be
void.
- an order of a superior is, in general, no justification for an unlawful act on
the part of a subordinate officer, although, in a proper case, the fact that the
defendant was acting under the orders of his superior may be shown in
mitigation of damages.
- while a subordinate officer or employee shall not be civilly liable for acts
done by him in good faith in the performance of his duties, he shall be liable
for willful or negligent act done by him which are contrary to law, morals,
public policy or good customs, even if he acted orders or instructions by his
superiors.
Liability for Tortious Acts
1. Acts done within scope of official authority
- public officer not liable
- Reason: where the public employee is performing the function within the
ambit of his authority and the risk of injury to the public is inherent in the
activity, the employee ought not to be required to bear the risk and,
therefore, his or her negligence, if any, will be regarded as decisional in
nature and hence, immune.
2. Acts done without or in excess of official authority
- public officer is liable even if the act done is in the course of their
employment.
- in the eye of law, his acts then are wholly without authority.
- this principle of personal liability has been applied to cases where a public
officer removes another officer or discharges an employee or refuses to
reinstate him wrongfully or illegally or in bad faith.
Liability under the Civil Code
1. For failure or neglect to perform official duty
- aggrieved party may file an action for damages and other relief against the
latter without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be
taken.
2. For violating rights and liberties of private individuals
a. Freedom of Religion;
b. Freedom of speech;
c. Freedom to write to the press or to maintain a periodical publication;
d. Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
e. Freedom of suffrage;
f. The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;
g. The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for
public use;
h. The right to the equal protection of laws;
i. The right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures;
j. The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
k. The privacy of communication and correspondence;
l. The right to become a member of association or societies for
purposes not contrary to law;
m. The right to take part in a peaceful assembly to petition the
government for redress of grievances;
n. The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form;
o. The right of the accused against excessive bail;
p. The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and
to have a speedy and public trial, to meet witnesses face to face,
and to have compulsory process, to secure the attendance of
witness in his behalf;
q. Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one’s self,
or from being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced by a
promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except
when the person confessing becomes a state witness;
 r. Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment,
unless the same is imposed or inflicted with the statute which has
not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and
s. Freedom of access to the courts
- 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 and may be proved by preponderance of evidence.
- indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be
adjudicated.
- the responsibility herein is not demandable from a judge unless his act or
omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.
3. For failure to render aid or protection to a person
- when a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render
aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property, such
peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or
municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. (independent civil
action; preponderance of evidence will suffice)
Liability on Contract Executed in behalf of the Government
The general rule is that a public officer within the scope of his authority and in his
official capacity is not personally liable on contracts executed in behalf of the
government
Liability for Unexplained Wealth
1. Republic Act No. 1379 (Forfeiture of Unexplained Wealth Act) declares the
forfeiture in favor of the state of any property found to have been unlawfully
acquired by any public official or employee
2. On the other hand, R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
penalizes certain acts (enumerated in Section 2 thereof) of public officers
and private persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt practices or which
may lead thereto.
Liability of Accountable Officers to the Government
1. Bond requirement
a. every officer of any government agency whose duties permit or require
the possession or custody of government funds or property shall be
accountable therefor and for the safekeeping thereof in conformity with
law.
b. every accountable officer shall be properly bonded in accordance with
law.
2. Primary and secondary responsibility
a. the head of any agency of the government is immediately and
primarily responsible for all government funds and property
pertaining to his agency
b. persons entrusted with the possession or custody of the funds or
property under the agency head shall be immediately responsible
to him, without prejudice to the liability of either party to the
government.
3. General liability for unlawful expenditures
- expenditures of government fund or uses of government property in violation
of law or regulations shall be a personal liability of the official or employee
found to be directly responsible therefor.
4. Measure of liability of accountable officers
a. every officer accountable for governmental property shall be liable for
its money value in case of improper or unauthorized use or
misapplication thereof, by himself or any person for whose acts he may
be responsible. He shall likewise be liable for all losses, damages, or
deterioration occasioned by negligence in the keeping or use of the
property whether or not it be at the time in his actual custody.
b. every officer accountable for government funds shall be liable for all
losses resulting from the unlawful deposit, use, or application thereof
and for all losses attributable to negligence in the keeping of the funds.
5. Liability for acts done by direction of superior officers
- no accountable officer shall be relieved from liability by reason of his having
acted under the direction of a superior officer in paying out, applying, or
disposing of the funds or property with which he is chargeable, unless prior
to the act, he notified the superior officer in writing of the illegality of the
payment, application, or disposition.
- the officer directing any illegal payment or disposition of the funds or
property shall be primarily liable for the loss, while the accountable officer
who fails to serve the required notice shall be secondarily liable.
C. Criminal Liability
 General rule: No public officer, however high his position, is above the law;
all may be punished for criminal acts. The mere fact that an officer is acting
in an official capacity will not relieve him from criminal liability.
- public officers may not be held criminally liable for failure to perform a duty
commanded by law when, for causes beyond their control, performance is
impossible. However, the absence of corrupt intent is no defense to an
action against an officer for a statutory penalty for misconduct such as taking
illegal fees, or for willful failure or refusal to perform a mandatory ministerial
duty.
Crimes Peculiar to Certain Public Officers
1. Revised Penal Code
a. Malfeasance and misfeasance in office;
b. Frauds and illegal exactions and transactions;
c. Malversation of public funds or property;
d. Infidelity of public officers; and
e. Other offenses and irregularities committed by public officers which
include disobedience, refusal of assistance, maltreatment of
prisoners, prolongation and abandonment of the duties and powers
of public office, usurpation of powers, and unlawful appointments.