UP LAW BGC EVE 2

Case name Jeffrey Liang (Hueffeng) petitioner, vs People of the Philippines, respondents

GR No|Date G.R. No. 125865 | January 28, 2000

Topic Sovereignty and State Immunity

Ponente Ynares-Santiago, J.

Doctrine A public official may be liable in his personal capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice or in bad faith
or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction.

Mentioned Laws Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government

Facts
● Liang, an employee of Asian Development Bank, was charged on two counts of grave oral defamation.
● However, DFA stated that Liang was covered by immunity from legal process under Section 45 of the Agreement
between ADB and the Philippine Government.
● Based on this claim, the MeTC judge, without notice to the prosecution, dismissed the two criminal cases against
Liang.

Ratio
Decidendi

Whether or not the Petitioner is covered by immunity from suits under the aforesaid Agreement?
No. It has been ruled that the mere invocation of the immunity clause does not by its face result to the dropping of the
charges. Thus, the DFA’s determination that the Petitioner is covered by immunity is only preliminary which has no
binding effect in courts. Furthermore, under Section 45 of the Agreement between ADB and the Philippine Government,
the immunity mentioned was not absolute, but subject to the exception that the act be done in “official capacity.” The
prosecution, therefore, should still have a right to due process to further examine the claim and to verify the actual
capacity of the Petitioner at the time the act was done. Based on the foregoing, it was held by the Court that commission
of a crime in the name of official duty could not possibly be covered by the immunity agreement because it is contrary to
our laws. Moreover, “it is a well-settled principle of law that a public official may be liable in his personal capacity for
whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice or in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority or
jurisdiction.” Hence, the commission of a crime of the Petitioner is not part of his official duty, and consequently, he is
not covered by the immunity clause, from the charges against him for grave oral defamation.

Ruling
Wherefore, the petition is denied. Petitioner is still liable and is charged with the corresponding crimes for grave oral
defamation.