Bad Faith 1

Bad Faith
The dissent asserts that bad faith is never presumed; it is a conclusion to be drawn from the
facts.[37] [36] Province of Zamboanga del Norte v. Court of Appeals, supra note 25.[37] Dissenting
Opinion, p. 4.However, intent, being a state of mind, is rarely susceptible of direct proof, but
must ordinarily be inferred from the facts.[38] 38] Feeder International Line, Pte., Ltd. v. Court
of Appeals, 274 Phil. 1143, 1152-1153 (1991).Consequently, when the facts – namely
the acts from which bad faith can be inferred – already appears on record and are
uncontroverted, the legal consequence of such acts becomes a question of law which falls
under the exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies as well. A
question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of
law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an
examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of
facts being admitted.[39] [39] Alfornon v. Delos Santos, G.R. No. 203657, July 11, 2016, 796 SCRA
194

Entrenched is the rule that bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it
imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a
breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of
fraud. In the case at bar, we find that there was no "dishonest purpose," or "some moral
obliquity," or "conscious doing of a wrong," or "breach of a known duty," or "some motive or
interest or ill will" that can be attributed to the private respondent. It appeared that efforts to
accommodate petitioner were made as she was offered to handle two (2) non-teaching jobs,
that is, to handle Developmental Reading lessons and be an assistant Librarian, pending her
re-assignment or transfer to another work station, but she refused. The same would not have
been proposed if the intention of private respondent were to cause undue hardship on the
petitioner. Good faith is always presumed unless convincing evidence to the contrary is
adduced. It is incumbent upon the party alleging bad faith to sufficiently prove such
allegation. Absent enough proof thereof, the presumption of good faith prevails. In the case at
bar, the burden of proving alleged bad faith therefore was with petitioner but she failed to
discharge such onus probandi. Without a clear and persuasive evidence of bad faith, the
presumption of good faith in favor of private respondent stands. [103] In Andrade v. Court of
Appeals:[102] [102] 423 Phil. 30 (2001) [Per J. De Leon, Jr. Second Division]. [103] Id. at 43.

n the challenged Decision, Respondent Court found evident bad faith on the part of the
petitioner, holding that, without any valid or justifiable reason, accused withheld the
payment of complainant’s salaries and other benefits for almost two (2) years,
demonstrating a clear manifestation of bad faith. [23] [22] Alejandro vs. People, supra at p.
405.[23] Rollo, p. 56.

“Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest
purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty
through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud. (Spiegel v. Beacon
Participations, 8 NE 2 Series, 895, 1007). It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively
nd

operating with furtive design or some motive of self interest or ill will for ulterior purposes
(Air France v. Carrascoso, 18 SCRA 155, 166-167). Evident bad faith connotes a manifest
deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or cause damage.” [29]
[29]
Marcelo vs. Sandiganbayan, 185 SCRA 346, 349, May 14, 1990.
 Bad Faith 2
Bad faith has been defined as a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or
with some motive of self-interest or ill will or for an ulterior purpose.[14] I [14] Romuladez-Yap
v. Civil Service Commission, G. R. No. 104226, 12 August 1993, 225 SCRA 285.t implies a
conscious and intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral
obliquity.[15] [15] Laureano Investment and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.
R. No. 100468, 06 May 1997, 272 SCRA 253.