GROUP 3 | ADMIN LAW

A. Doctrine of Necessary Implication

B. Ministerial and Discretionary Powers
C. Constitutional Duties
D. Prohibitions
 • The power or authority of public officers is conferred either by the Constitution or by
a statute.

• The power or authority of public officers is usually subject to strict construction or

interpretation. Thus, grant of power to public officers will be construed as conferring
those powers only which are expressly granted or imposed.

• Nonetheless, power or authority which has not been expressly conferred may still be
exercised under the Doctrine of Necessary Implication. Pursuant thereto, all powers
necessary to the exercise of the power expressly granted are deemed impliedly
granted as well.

DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY IMPLICATION

ANGARA VS. ELECTORAL COMMISSION (63 PHIL. 139)

FACTS:
• Jose Angara was proclaimed to be the member-elect of the National Assembly in the
then election. It was confirmed by the National Assembly on December 3, 1935. On
December 8, 1935, Pedro Ynsua filed an election protest before the Electoral
Commission. The Electoral Commission adopted a resolution fixing December 9, 1935
as the last day for the filing of protests against election, returns and qualifications of
members of the National Assembly. Jose Angara moved for the dismissal of the
protest but the motion was denied. Hence, an action for prohibition was filed to the
Supreme Court contending among others that the Electoral Commission has acted
without or excess of its jurisdiction in assuming to take cognizance of the protest filed
against the election of Jose Angara notwithstanding the previous confirmation of such
election by the National Assembly.

DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY IMPLICATION

ANGARA VS. ELECTORAL COMMISSION (63 PHIL. 139)

RULING:
• The Supreme Court held that the electoral commission has acted within its jurisdiction
when taking cognizance of the election protest. The creation of Electoral Commission
carried with it ex necissitate to the power regulative in character to limit the time
within which protests entrusted to its cognizance should be filed. It is settled rule of
construction that where a general power is conferred or duty enjoined, every
particular power necessary for the exercise of the one or the performance of the
other is also conferred. In the absence of any further constitutional provision relating
to the procedure to be followed in filing protests before the electoral commission,
therefore, the incidental power to promulgate such rules necessary for the proper
exercise of its exclusive power to judge all contests relating to the election, returns
and qualification of members of the National Assembly must be deemed by necessary
implication to have been lodged also in the Electoral Commission.
DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY IMPLICATION
A. Doctrine of Necessary Implication
B. Ministerial and Discretionary Powers
C. Constitutional Duties
D. Prohibitions
MINISTERIAL POWERS
• When the law exacting its discharge prescribes and defines the time, mode and
acquisition of its performance with such certainty that nothing is left for judgment or
discretion.

EXERCISE OF MINISTERIAL POWERS

• The ministerial duty must be performed in any case, and if it is not, may be
ordered to be performed by a court of justice.

• The exercise of a ministerial duty is subject to judicial review and reversal if it is

not exercised in accordance with the requirements of the law imposing it.

• Mandamus will lie but only upon a clear showing of a legal right.

MINISTERIAL AND DISCRETIONARY POWERS

DISCRETIONARY POWERS
• When a public officer ehas the right to decide how and when the duty shall be
performed.

EXERCISE OF DISCRETIONARY POWERS

• As a rule, discretionary powers may not be delegated.

• Mandamus will not lie for the performance of a discretionary duty.

XPNs:
1. When the discretion granted is only as to the manner of its exercise and not
the discretion to act or not to act, the court may require a general action.
2.When there is grave abuse of discretion.

MINISTERIAL AND DISCRETIONARY POWERS

MINISTERIAL AND DISCRETIONARY POWERS
A. Doctrine of Necessary Implication
B. Ministerial and Discretionary Powers
C. Constitutional Duties
D. Prohibitions
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES

• To be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity,

loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. (Sec. 1,
Art. XI, 1987 Constitution)

CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES
NORMS OF CONDUCT OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES

• Section 4 of R.A. No. 6713 known as "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees."
a) Commitment to Public Interest
b) Professionalism
c) Justness and Sincerity
d) Political Neutrality
e) Responsiveness to the Public
f) Nationalism and Patriotism
g) Commitment to Democracy
h) Simple Living

CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES
JUDGE FRANCISCO B. IBAY VS. VIRGINIA G. LIM

FACTS:
• Virginia G. Lim, a stenographic reporter in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, was
dismissed from service. Lim was accused by Judge Francisco B. Ibay of serious
neglect of duty, grave misconduct, and violation of administrative circulars. That Lim
displayed a lack of dedication and efficiency in her duties, which are essential for the
proper administration of justice; she also neglect her duties in transcribing
stenographic notes not only caused delays but also undermined public trust in the
judiciary; and disregarded the orders of her superior, Judge Ibay, and went on leave
without approval, showing a lack of respect and obedience to the court and its
officials.

CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES
JUDGE FRANCISCO B. IBAY VS. VIRGINIA G. LIM

ISSUE:
• Whether Lim's neglect of duty and misconduct warrant her dismissal from service?

RULING:
• Yes. The court found Lim guilty of gross neglect of duty, grave misconduct,
violation of administrative circulars of the Supreme Court, and conduct grossly
prejudicial to the best interest of the service. No less than the Constitution mandates
that all public officers and employees should serve with responsibility, integrity and
efficiency. Indeed, public office is a public trust. Thus, this Court has often stated that
the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the
dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, is circumscribed
with the heavy burden of responsibility.
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES
JUDGE FRANCISCO B. IBAY VS. VIRGINIA G. LIM

RULING:
• In the case, respondent Lim's performance as a court employee shows lack of
dedication and efficiency in her role. Her casual approach to her duties amounted to
gross misconduct, indicating incompetence and inefficiency. Additionally, her failure
to respect and obey orders from her superior, Judge Ibay, such as transcribing
stenographic notes and taking leave without approval, further demonstrated her
unsuitability for public service.

CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES

• To be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity,

loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. (Sec. 1,
Art. XI, 1987 Constitution)

• To submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth upon the
assumption of office, such declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner
provided by law. (Sec. 17, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution)

CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES
 • Duty to make statements of assets and liabilities. Statements of Assets and Liabilities
and Financial Disclosure. All public officials and employees, except those who serve in
an honorary capacity, laborers and casual or temporary workers, shall file under oath
their Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and a Disclosure of Business
Interests and Financial Connections and those of their spouses and unmarried
children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.

CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES
CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES

• To be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity,

loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. (Sec. 1,
Art. XI, 1987 Constitution)

• To submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth upon the
assumption of office, such declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner
provided by law. (Sec. 17, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution)

• To owe the State and the Constitution allegiance at all times. (Sec. 18, Art. XI, 1987
Constitution)

CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES
 • Allegiance has been defined as the obligation for fidelity and obedience which the
individual owes to his government or his sovereign in return for the protection which
he receives.

CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES
A. Doctrine of Necessary Implication
B. Ministerial and Discretionary Powers
C. Constitutional Duties
D. Prohibitions
DISQUALIFICATIONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION:
• No candidate who has lost in any election, shall within one year after such election, be
appointed to any office in the Government or any Government-owned or controlled
corporations or in any of their subsidiaries.
• No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to
any public office or position during his tenure unless they forfeit their seat.
• No appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the Government or
any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, GOCCs or their subsidiaries, unless
otherwise allowed by law or his position’s primary functions
• The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and the deputies or
assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in the Constitution, hold any other
office of employment during their tenure.

PROHIBITIONS
ANACTA, JR., PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (G.R. No. 219352, November 14,
2018)

FACTS:
• On 10 January 2005, petitioner, who was then the Municipal Mayor of Borongan,
Eastern Samar, appointed Atty. Reynaldo A. Alconaba (Alconaba) as a member of the
Board of Directors of the Borongan Water District. However, Local Water Utilities
Administration (LWUA) declared Alconaba's appointment as void and prohibited by
law since it was made within one year from the 2004 May elections in which Alconaba
had lost in his bid for the position of municipal councilor. The Saniganbayan found
Anacta guilty of one-year prohibition under Section 6, Article IX-B of the Constitution
and Section 94(b) of R.A. No. 7160.

PROHIBITIONS
ANACTA, JR., PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (G.R. No. 219352, November 14,
2018)

ISSUE:
• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that the petitioner is guilty as
charged?

RULING:
• Yes. It is undisputed that petitioner appointed Alconaba in January 2005 as director of
the Borongan Water District. At the time of his appointment, Alconaba, who ran and
lost in the May 2004 elections, was not eligible for appointment to any office in the
government or government-owned or controlled corporation by virtue of the one-year
prohibition under Section 6, Article IX-B of the Constitution and Section 94(b) of R.A.
No. 7160.
PROHIBITIONS
DISQUALIFICATIONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION:
• No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other office or
employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
thereof, including GOCCs or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting his
seat (Incompatible Office)
• Members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be
designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
XPNs:
⚬ Designation to the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, Senate Electoral Tribunal or
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal [Section 4(7), Article VII; Section
7, Article VI, 1987 Constitution];
• No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other
office or employment.

PROHIBITIONS
DANTE V. LIBAN, REYNALDO M. BERNARDO, AND SALVADOR M. VIARI, PETITIONERS,
VS. RICHARD J. GORDON, RESPONDENT.

FACTS:
• Petitioners are officers of the Board of Directors of the Quezon City Red Cross Chapter
while respondent is Chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) Board of
Governors. During respondent's incumbency as a member of the Senate of the
Philippines, he was elected Chairman of the PNRC. Petitioners allege that by accepting
the chairmanship of the PNRC Board of Governors, respondent has ceased to be a
member of the Senate as provided in Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution.

PROHIBITIONS
DANTE V. LIBAN, REYNALDO M. BERNARDO, AND SALVADOR M. VIARI, PETITIONERS,
VS. RICHARD J. GORDON, RESPONDENT.

ISSUE:
• Whether Section 13, Article VI of the Philippine Constitution applies to the case of
respondent who is Chairman of the PNRC and at the same time a Member of the
Senate

RULING:
• No. The office of the Chairman of the Philippine National Red Cross is not a
government office or an office in a government-owned or controlled corporation for
purposes of the prohibition in Section 13, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. the PNRC
is a privately owned, privately funded, and privately run charitable organization. Being
as such, Section 13, Article VI of the Constitution cannot be applied in this case.
PROHIBITIONS
DISQUALIFICATIONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION:
• Members of the Constitutional Commissions must not have been candidates for any
elective position in the elections immediately preceding their appointment
• Ombudsman and his Deputies shall not be qualified to run for any office in the election
immediately succeeding their cessation from office.
• The President’s spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil
degree shall not during his tenure be appointed as Members of the Constitutional
Commissions, Office of the Ombudsman, Secretaries, Undersecretaries, Chairmen or
Heads of Bureaus or Officers.

PROHIBITIONS
CONSTITUTIONAL DISABILITIES
• For President, Vice President, Members of Cabinet, and their Deputies and Assistants:
⚬ They shall not practice any other profession.
⚬ They shall not participate, directly or indirectly, in any business.
⚬ They shall not be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with,
or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the government or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including any GOCC or their
subsidiaries.
⚬ They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office. The
President is also prohibited during his tenure from appointing his spouse and
relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree [Section 13,
Article VII, 1987 Constitution].

PROHIBITIONS
CONSTITUTIONAL DISABILITIES
• For Members of Congress:
⚬ They may not personally appear as counsel before any court, election tribunal, or
quasi judicial body.
⚬ They shall not be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with,
or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the government or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including any GOCC or their
subsidiaries during his term of office.
⚬ They shall not intervene in any government office for his pecuniary benefit or
where he may be called upon to act on account of his office [Section 14, Article VI,
1987 Constitution].

PROHIBITIONS
CONSTITUTIONAL DISABILITIES
• For Members of Constitutional Commissions:
⚬ They shall not hold any other office or employment.
⚬ They shall not engage in the practice of any profession or in the active
management or control of any business that in any way may be affected by the
functions of his office.
⚬ They shall not be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with,
or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the government or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including any GOCC or their
subsidiaries.

PROHIBITIONS
OTHER PROHIBITIONS:
a. Prohibition against Engaging in Partisan Political Activities for Career Service
Employees
b. Prohibition against Acceptance of Any Present from Any Foreign State
c. Prohibition against Receiving Additional, Double, or Indirect Compensation
(Section 8, Article IX-B, 1987 Constitution)
d. Prohibition against Grant of Loan, Guaranty or Other Form of Financial
Accommodation (Section 16, Article XI, 1987 Constitution)
e. Prohibition on Holding Offices in Private Sector
f. Prohibitions regarding Practice of Profession and Engagement in Private Business
and Professions
g. Prohibition against Appointment of Members of the Armed Forces to Certain
Positions [Section 5(4), Article XVI, 1987 Constitution].

PROHIBITIONS
OTHER PROHIBITIONS:
• For Elective Officers under LGC
⚬ All governors, city, and municipality mayors prohibited from practicing their
professions or engaging in any occupation other than exercise of functions as
local chief executives. Sanggunian members may practice their professions or
engage in any occupation except during session hours.

PROHIBITIONS
OTHER PROHIBITIONS:
• For Appointive Officers under Civil Service Rules:
⚬ General Rule: No officer shall engage directly in any private business, vocation, or
profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural, or industrial
undertaking without a written permission from the head of the department.
⚬ Exception: If an employee is granted permission to engage, in outside activities,
the time so devoted outside of office hours should be fixed by the chief of the
agency to the end that it will not impair in any way the efficiency of the officer or
employee
⚬ Exception to Exception: No permission is necessary in the case of investments,
made by an officer or employee, which do not involve any real or apparent conflict
between his private interests and public duties.

PROHIBITIONS
GROUP 3 | ADMIN LAW
A. General Rule
B. Statutory Liability
C. Liability for Tort
GENERAL RULE FOR THE LIABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
• Generally, public officers are not liable for injuries sustained by another as
consequence of his official acts.
• For the improper discharge of their powers and duties, liability may attach to public
officers and employees in accordance with the law.

EXCEPTIONS
• Statutory liability under the Civil Code
• Criminal liability under the RPC
• When there is a clear showing of bad faith, malice, or negligence
• Liability on Contracts entered into without or in excess of authority
• Liability for tort

GENERAL RULE
PRESUMPTION OF GOOD FAITH
• Every public official is entitled to the presumption of good faith in the discharge of his
official duties.

GENERAL RULE
KINDS OF DUTIES OF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL
• Duty owing to the PUBLIC in general
⚬ It cannot give rise to liability in favor of particular individuals.

• Duty owing to the PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS

⚬ Where the duty is owing to a particular individual, its improper performance or
non-performance will give rise to a cause of action in his favor for any injury
sustained by him.

GENERAL RULE
LIABILITIES OF SPECIFIC PUBLIC OFFICERS
• THE PRESIDENT
⚬ The President may generally not be held liable for his acts because they are
mainly discretionary and owing to the public in general.
⚬ The President shall be immune from suit during his tenure. Thereafter, no suit
whatsoever shall lie for official acts done by him or by others pursuant to his
specific orders during his tenure. (Section 15, Article VII)
⚬ The rationale for the grant to the President of the privilege of immunity from suit is
to assure the exercise of Presidential duties and functions free from any
hindrance of distraction, considering that being the Chief Executive of the
Government is a job that, aside from requiring all of the office-holder's time,
also demands undivided attention. (Soliven vs. Makasiar)

GENERAL RULE
LIABILITIES OF SPECIFIC PUBLIC OFFICERS
• THE PRESIDENT
⚬ The rationale has been expanded in the case of David v. Macapagal-Arroyo:
“Settled is the doctrine that the President, during his tenure of office or actual
incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no need
to provide for it in the Constitution or law. It will degrade the dignity of the high
office of the President, the head of State, if he can be dragged into court
litigations while serving as such. Furthermore, it is important that he be freed from
any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully attend to
the performance of his official duties and functions.”

GENERAL RULE
ATTY. ROMEO M. ESMERO VS. HIS EXCELLENCY, HONORABLE PRESIDENT, RODRIGO
ROA DUTERTE (G.R. No. 256288, June 29, 2021)

FACTS:
• Atty. Romeo M. Esmero filed a Petition for Mandamus against President Rodrigo R.
Duterte to compel him to defend the national territory, including the West Philippine
Sea, against Chinese incursions. Esmero argues that it's the government's duty to
protect the people and national territory, suggesting that the President can call for
defensive war under certain circumstances. The petition emphasizes that the
President's actions regarding the West Philippine Sea are subject to constitutional
limits and judicial review and accused the President of neglecting his duty to defend
the national territory, which harms Filipino fishermen and their families.

GENERAL RULE
ATTY. ROMEO M. ESMERO VS. HIS EXCELLENCY, HONORABLE PRESIDENT,
RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE (G.R. No. 256288, June 29, 2021)

ISSUE:
• Whether or not the President is immune from suit?

RULING:
• Yes. The President is immune from suit during his incumbency, regardless of the
nature of the suit filed against him. Petitioner named President Duterte as the
sole respondent in this case. For this reason, this suit should be dismissed
outright.

GENERAL RULE
ATTY. ROMEO M. ESMERO VS. HIS EXCELLENCY, HONORABLE PRESIDENT, RODRIGO
ROA DUTERTE (G.R. No. 256288, June 29, 2021)

RULING:
• A writ of mandamus would still not lie in petitioner's favor. Section 3, Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court provides that a mandamus petition may be resorted to when any
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance
of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust,
or station.
• Mandamus is used merely to compel action and to coerce the performance of a
pre-existing duty; it does not lie to control discretion. For a petition for mandamus
to prosper, it must be shown that the subject of the petition is a ministerial act or
duty on the part of the board, officer or person, and that the petitioner has a well-
defined, clear and certain right to warrant the grant thereof.
GENERAL RULE
LIABILITIES OF SPECIFIC PUBLIC OFFICERS
• THE LEGISLATURE
⚬ Members of the Legislature, both national and local, act as a body and discharge
duties owing to the public in general.
⚬ As a rule, they cannot be held liable, individually or collectively, for the
performance or non-performance of their duties.
⚬ Members may be held liable if acted in bad faith in their personal capacity.

GENERAL RULE
LIABILITIES OF SPECIFIC PUBLIC OFFICERS
• JUDGES
⚬ The general rule, Judges shall not be liable for their acts excepts only when they
act without jurisdiction as the law will not protect them for exercising powers that
do not belong to them.
⚬ As a rule, the acts of a judge which pertain to his judicial functions are not subject
to disciplinary power unless they are committed with fraud, dishonesty,
corruption, or bad faith.
⚬ In the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial
capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are
erroneous provided he acts in good faith and without malice.

GENERAL RULE
LIABILITIES OF SPECIFIC PUBLIC OFFICERS
• QUASI-JUDICIAL OFFICERS
⚬ Decisions rendered by quasi-judicial officers may be reversed by the court of
justice upon showing that they were attended by a grave abuse of discretion.
However, these officers may not themselves be held liable for such decisions as
long as it is within the scope of their authority and without bad faith, malice, or
corruption.

GENERAL RULE
LIABILITIES OF SPECIFIC PUBLIC OFFICERS
• MINISTERIAL OFFICERS
⚬ Ministerial act is defined as “an act performed in a prescribed manner, in
obedience to the law or mandate of legal authority, without regard to, or exercise
of the judgement of the individual upon the propriety of the act being done.”
⚬ Where the act performed by the officer under these conditions, and with due care
and diligence, he incurs no liability to any person prejudiced by it.
⚬ The ministerial officer is thus liable for nonfeasance, misfeasance, or malfeasance.
⚬ The ministerial officer cannot interpose the defense of good faith or honest
mistake and must bear the consequences of his act or omission.

GENERAL RULE
A. General Rule
B. Statutory Liability
C. Liability for Tort
 • In Fajardo vs. The Office of the Ombudsman, the liabilities of Public Officers under the
law were described to be three-fold: criminal, civil, and administrative.

• Liabilities of Public Officers are provided by the following:

⚬ The Administrative Code of 1987;
⚬ Revised Penal Code and other special laws; and
⚬ Civil Code.

STATUTORY LIABILITY
FAJARDO vs. THE OMBUDSMAN(G.R. No. 173268, August 23, 2012)

FACTS:
• Ernesto A. Fajardo, a former employee of the Bureau of Customs, was accused of
failing to remit collections from the sale of accountable forms and stamps totaling
millions of pesos. The accusation stemmed from a post-audit conducted by the
Commission on Audit (COA) and an investigation initiated by the Customs
Commissioner. A criminal case was likewise filed against him in the RTC for violating
the Plunder Law, wherein bail hearings were conducted and whereupon it was found
that the “guilt of the accused is not strong.” In the administrative case, the
Ombudsman found him guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct and ordered his
dismissal from service. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman's decision,
finding substantial evidence to support Fajardo's guilt.

STATUTORY LIABILITY
FAJARDO vs. THE OMBUDSMAN(G.R. No. 173268, August 23, 2012)

ISSUE: Whether or not the finding of the RTC in the bail hearing of the criminal case
affects the outcome of the administrative case in the Ombudsman.

RULING: NO. Under the ''threefold liability rule," any act or omission of any public official
or employee can result in criminal, civil, or administrative liability, each of which is
independent of the other.

It is likewise significant to mention that the RTC Order merely resolved petitioner’s
entitlement to bail. More important, the Ombudsman and the CA are not bound by the
RTC’s finding because as a rule, administrative cases are independent from criminal
proceedings. In fact, the dismissal of one case does not necessarily merit the dismissal
of the other.
STATUTORY LIABILITY
THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987

SECTION 38. Liability of Superior Officers.—(1) A public officer shall not be civilly liable
for acts done in the performance of his official duties, unless there is a clear showing of
bad faith, malice or gross negligence.

(2) Any public officer who, without just cause, neglects to perform a duty within a period
fixed by law or regulation, or within a reasonable period if none is fixed, shall be liable for
damages to the private party concerned without prejudice to such other liability as may
be prescribed by law.

(3) A head of a department or a superior officer shall not be civilly liable for the wrongful
acts, omissions of duty, negligence, or misfeasance of his subordinates, unless he has
actually authorized by written order the specific act or misconduct complained of.
STATUTORY LIABILITY
THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987

SECTION 39. Liability of Subordinate Officers. —No subordinate officer or employee shall
be civilly liable for acts done by him in good faith in the performance of his duties.
However, he shall be liable for willful or negligent acts done by him which are contrary to
law, morals, public policy and good customs even if he acted under orders or instructions
of his superiors.

STATUTORY LIABILITY
LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF SUBORDINATES
• As a general rule, superior officers cannot be held liable for the acts of their
subordinates. Faults of the subordinates should be considered their own responsibility
alone and not be visited upon the innocent superior.
• XPNs:
⚬ Where, being charged with the duty of employing or retaining his subordinates, he
negligently or willfully employs or retains unfit or improper persons;
⚬ Where, being charged with the duty to see that they are appointed and qualified in
a proper manner, he negligently or willfully fails to require of them the due
conformity to the prescribed regulations;
⚬ Where he is carelessly or negligently oversees, conducts or carries on the
business of his office as to furnish the opportunity for the default; or
⚬ A fortiori where he has directed, authorized, or cooperated in the wrong.

STATUTORY LIABILITY
REVISED PENAL CODE AND OTHER SPECIAL LAWS

• Malfeasance and Misfeasance

• Fraud and illegal exactions to transactions
• Malversation of public funds and properties
• Infidelity of public officers
• Republic Act 3019, as amended

STATUTORY LIABILITY
CIVIL CODE

• GENERAL RULE: Public officers are not civilly liable for injuries incurred by another as
a result of official acts done within the scope of their authority

• XPNs:
⚬ Failure or neglect to perform official duty
⚬ Violation of rights and liberties of private individuals
⚬ Failure to render aid or protection
⚬ Unexplained wealth

STATUTORY LIABILITY
A. General Rule
B. Statutory Liability
C. Liability for Tort
TORT
• Originally a common law doctrine but codified in the New Civil Code
⚬ ART. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is so pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is
called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
⚬ Known as quasi-delict in the Philippines
• A public officer shall be personally liable if he goes beyond the scope of his authority.
(Carreon vs. Province of Pampanga)

LIABILITY FOR TORT

CARREON VS. THE PROVINCE OF PAMPANGA (G.R. No. L-8136 , August 30, 1956)

FACTS:
• The plaintiff filed a case against the Province of Pampanga and several individuals,
alleging that he had initiated the construction of a bridge with the municipality's
approval, and had made donations for its completion. However, the defendants,
including members of the Provincial Board, allegedly halted the construction without
valid reason and redirected funds to another project. The plaintiff sought damages
and requested the court to order the defendants to resume the bridge construction.
The defendants responded, admitting some claims and denying others, while also
presenting a counterclaim for damages. Ultimately, the Court of First Instance of
Pampanga granted a motion to dismiss the case.

LIABILITY FOR TORT

CARREON VS. THE PROVINCE OF PAMPANGA (G.R. No. L-8136 , August 30, 1956)

ISSUE:
• Whether or not the public officials here are liable for damages?

RULING:
• While the Supreme Court here remanded the case to the RTC for continuation of the
trial, it held that it is well settled that when a public officer goes outside the scope of
his duty, particularly when acting tortuously, he is not entitled to protection on
account of his office, but is liable for his acts like any private individual. The liability
becomes even clearer when the act performed involves the exercise of corporate of
proprietary functions, rather than of duties which are strictly governmental or political
in nature.

LIABILITY FOR TORT