Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

PubOff - V Liability of Public Officers - Coggle Diagram

- - - - 2 Civil - There must be a right of action, which requires (a) Damage; (b) wrong or violation of the right of a party committed by the other
        
        GR - A public officer shall not be liable for moral/exemplary damages for acts done in the performance of official duties
        
        XCPN - Bad faith, malice or gross negligence.
        
        3 Criminal - If there are penal laws involved in the breach.
        
        Differences between the Three
        
        Effect on Other Proceedings
        
        Administrative - Does not affect either civil/criminal proceedings.
        
        Civil/Criminal - Prejudicial questions may be raised in civil/criminal proceedings.
        
        If two of the same type either res judicata or double jeopardy.
        
        Objective -
        
        Administrative - To protect public service; Treatment of office as public trust.
        
        Civil - To compensate for damages; Indemnity;Return of Property; Forfeiture
        
        Criminal - Punishment of the Crime
        
        Degree of Evidence -
        
        Administrative - Substantial evidence.
        
        Such relevant evidence as a reaosnable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
        
        Civil - Preponderance of Evidence
        
        Criminal - Beyond reasonable doubt
        
        2 more items...
        
        Prejudicial Question in Administrative Proceedings (Larin v. Exec Sec) - If basis of the administartive proceeding is the cirminal conviciton such as violation of RA 3019 3e, acquittal carries dismissal of the administrative charge.
        
        a) RPC Book II, Title VII, Ch. 1-6 - May be classified into several subcategories
        
        malfeasance and misfeasance in office (e.g., malicious delay in the administration of justice, bribery);
        
        frauds and illegal exactions and transactions;
        
        malversation of public funds or property;
        
        infidelity of public officers; and
        
        other offenses and irregularities committed by public officers which include disobedience, refusal of assistance, maltreatment of prisoners, anticipation, prolongation abandonment of the duties and powers of public office, usurpation of powers, and unlawful appointments.
        
        b) Rep. Act No. 3019 (1960) or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
        
        - c) Rep. Act No. 6713 (1989) or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees - Violations of Sec. 7, 8 and 9 punishable with imprisonment not exceeding (5) years or a fine not exceeding P5k or both + Disqualification to hold public office.
        
        Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions
        
        Section 8. Statements and Disclosure
        
        Section 9. Divestment
        
        d) Rep. Act No. 7080 (1991) or An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder - a person may become a public officer by virtue of a contract executed between him and the government.
        
        2 more items...
        
        Divestment (6713) -
        
        GR - WWhen a conflict of interest arises,
        
        RESIGN - he shall resign from his position in any private business enterprise within thirty (30) days from his assumption of office and/or
        
        DIVEST - himself of his shareholdings or interest within sixty (60) days from such assumption.
        
        The same rule shall apply where the public official or employee is a partner in a partnership.
        
        XCPN - The requirement of divestment shall not apply to those who serve the Government in an honorary capacity nor to laborers and casual or temporary workers
        
        Elements of Corrupt Pratices of Public officers (RA 3019 3e; Llorente v. SB) -
        
        (1) that the accused is a public officer or a private person charged in conspiracy with the former;
        
        (2) that said public officer commits the prohibited acts during the performance of his or her official duties or in relation to his or her public positions;
        
        (3) that he or she causes undue injury to any party, whether the government or a private party; and
        
        (4) that the public officer has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
        
        Definition of Bad Faith (Llorente v. SB) - 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. It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or some motive of self interest or ill will for ulterior purposes
        
        2 more items...
        
        a) New Civil Code, Arts. 27, 32, 34
        
        27 - Neglecting without cause to perform official duties
        
        32 - Violation of Constitutional Rights
        
        34 - Police officer refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property.
        
        Municipality/City Subsidiarily liable.
        
        b) EO 292, Sec. 38-39 - Liability for superior/Subordinate
        
        c) RA 1379;Unexplained Wealth - Whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired.
        
        Liability for Tortious Acts - Public officials are personally liable for damages arising from illegal acts done in bad faith. Here, they are sued both in official and personal capacities.
        
        State is not liable.
        
        If within the scope of authority and official capacity, officer is NOT personally liable on contracts executed in behalf of the government
        
        Contributory negligence - If the injured party is guilty of own fault or neglect, the public officer cannot be held responsible. (Mechem)
        
        Q. Hindi ba proximate cause applies, contributory negligence only diminishes liability?
        
        Q. Purpose of Civil Liability?
      - a) Revised Rules for Administrative Cases in the Civil Service -
        
        b) Exec. Order No. 292 (1987) or the Administrative Code of 1987), Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 7, Sec. 46
        
        Disciplinary Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission - CSC has jurisdiction over ALL employees of GOCCs, including those with original charters.
        
        Also the Ombudsman + Office of the President (if presidential appointee) + Appointing Authority
        
        Administrative Liability incurred in a Previous Term by an Elective Official (Condonation Rule) - Originally provided that an ELECTIVE OFFICIAL is no longer administratively liable for infractions committed during the preceding term if they are re-elected into position.
        
        Abandoned in the case of Carpio-Morales v. CA - 2016
        
        Scope of Condonation Doctrine (Salumbides) - Does not cover appointed officials, only elected officials.
        
        Appellate Jurisdiction - CSC has appellate jurisdiction over all administrative disciplinary cases which impose a penalty of:
        
        Suspension - beyond 30 days
        
        Fine - Amount exceeding (30) days salary
        
        Demotion - In rank or salary
        
        Transfer, Removal or Dismissal
        
        Appeal from the CSC - Rule 43.5 of the RoC provides that final orders or resolutions of the CSC are appealable to the CA via a petition for review.
        
        No CSC Jurisdiction - impeachable officers, congress, and judiciary
        
        Concurrence of Jurisdiction - First to file ini concurring jurisdiction in admin proceedings. First place where case was filed assumes jurisdiction.
    - - D. Disciplinary Authority of Certain Classes of Public Officials
        
        1 President over Presidential Appointees in the Exec Branch (EO 292, Book V, Sec. 47-52) - Concurrent jurisdiction held by:
        
        Office of the President
        
        Ombudsman
        
        2 Congress Over its Members (CONST. VI, Sec. 16(3) -
        
        Authority - Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member.
        
        Penalty - A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.
        
        SC over Members & Judiciary Personnel (CONST. VIII, sec. 6) - SC has administrative supervision over all courts and personnel thereof.
        
        Disbarment of Sitting SC Justice (In re: Raul Gonzales) - an SC justice may NOT be disbarred during his/her term of office.
        
        A public officer required by the Constitution to be a Member of the Philippine Bar as a qualification for the office held by him/her and who may be removed from office only by impeachment, cannot be charged with disbarment during his/her incumbency
        
        Authority of the Sangidanbayan (Santiago v. Sandiganbayan) - An order of suspension may be issued by the Sandiganbayan pursuant to RA 3019. This is concurrent with power of the Congress. RA3019 does not not exclude from its coverage the members of Congress and that, therefore, the Sandiganbayan did not err in thus decreeing the assailed preventive suspension order.
        
        Covers dismissal powers as well
        
        Preventive Suspension of Appointees (Baculi v. Office of the President) -
        
        Presidential Appointees - Reasonable time.
        
        Non-Presidential - Maximum preventive period is 90 days. After which, automatically reinstated.
        
        Rationale for Distinction - presidential appointees come under the direct disciplining authority of the President because in the absence of a contrary law, the power to remove or to discipline is lodged in the same authority in whom the power to appoint is vested.
        
        Having the power to remove or to discipline presidential appointees, therefore, the President has the corollary authority to investigate them and look into their conduct in office
        
        Power of Cabinet Secretaries (EO 292 Book IV, Ch. 2, Sec. 6-7) - May impose preventive suspensions and conduct investigations, impose disciplinary penalties with the prior approval or conformity of the office of the president.
        
        Sec. 7 expressly grants disciplinary powers over officers and employees under the Secretary
        
        Sec. 6 provides that the Secretary has supervision and control over the department.
        
        Since Majarias was a presidential appointee, she was under the jurisdiction of the President
        “The power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint.”
        
        E. Liability for Acts of Subordinates
        
        F. Liability for Unexplained Wealth (RA 1379) - If
        
        public officer or employee has
        
        acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is
        
        manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property,
        
        said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired.
        
        How Presumption Established - Solicitor General, upon complaint by any taxpayer to the city or provincial shall conduct a previous inquiry similar to preliminary investigations in criminal cases and shall certify to the Solicitor General that there has been committed a violation of the Act and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, file a petition for a writ commanding said officer or employee to show cause why the property aforesaid, or any part thereof, should not be declared property of the State.
        
        Rebuttal of Presumption - May be rebutted by the public officer or employee by showing to the satisfaction of the court that his acquisition of the property was lawful (e.g., through a donation and loans). Failing in this, the court shall declare the questioned property forfeited in favor of the state.
        
        Evidence Cognizable - courts are not bound by the statements of assets and liabilities filed by the public officer or employee
        
        But, SALN relevant under RA 3019 which requires faithful disclosure.
        
        Nature of Forfeiture Proceedings (Garcia v. Sandiganbayan) -
        
        GR - Actions in rem, civil in nature and do not require full blown trial.
        
        XCPN - But, forfeiture of illegally acquired property is a penalty, therefore within the jurisdiction of the SB.
        
        3 more items...
        
        G. Personal Liability - NCC 32 an officer who acts outside the scope of his jurisdiction and without authorization of law may thereby render himself amenable to personal liability in a civil suit.
        
        If he exceeds the power conferred on him by law, he cannot shelter himself by the plea that he is a public agent acting under color of his office, and not personally. In the eye of the law, his acts then are wholly without authority
        
        H. Remedies
        
        1 Grounds for Disciplinary Action under Civil Service Law
        
        2 Admin Investigation of Elective Local Officials - Concurrent Authority
        
        Ombudsman - Formerly Minister of Local Government
        
        DILG
        
        3 Discipline
        
        3 more items...
        
        Ombudsman; General Investigatory Power (CONST XI 13)
        
        1 more item...
        
        Step 1 Form and filing of Administrative Complaints - Varies, depending if filed against elective official of provinces, barangays, or municipalities.
        
        Form - Verified complaint
        
        Where Filed -
        
        Provincial Officials - A complaint against any elective ofﬁcial of a province, a highly urbanized city, an independent component city or component city shall be ﬁled before the Ofﬁce of the President;
        
        Municipal Officials - A complaint against any elective ofﬁcial of a municipality shall be ﬁled before the sangguniang panlalawigan whose decision may be appealed to the Ofﬁce of the President; and
        
        Barangay Officials - A complaint against any elective barangay ofﬁcial shall be ﬁled before the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan concerned whose decision shall be ﬁnal and executory.
        
        Dishonesty (Remolona v. CSC) - Dishonesty need not be committed in the course of the performance of duty by the person charged in order to warrant dismissal.
        
        Rationale - when an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of such officer or employee but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government.
        
        Misconduct - means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior.
        
        Grave Misconduct - Following elements must be manifest
        
        Corruption
        
        Clear intent to violate law
        
        Flagrant disregard of an established rule
        
        3 more items...
        
        Filing by Private Citizen
        Laurel v. CSC
        
        PD 807, Sec. 37 expressly allows a private citizen to directly file with the CSC a complaint against a government official or employee, in which case it may hear and decide the case or may deputize any department or agency or official or group of officials to conduct an investigation
        
        This provision gives teeth to the Constitutional provision that a public office is a public trust and public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people
        
        GR - Public officers in the performance of their public functions, NOT civilly liable to third persons,
        
        either for the misfeasance or positive wrongs, or for the nonfeasance, negligence, or omissions of duty of their official subordinates
        
        Rationale - Public policy, the necessities of the public service and the perplexities and embarrassments of a contrary doctrine.
        
        XCPN - Actually authorized by written order, the specific act or misconduct.
        
        2 XCPN -
        
        Retention of Unfit - Where, being charged with the duty of employing or retaining his subordinates, he negligently or willfully employs or retains unfit or improper persons; or
        
        Negligent;Regulations - Where, being charged 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 prescribed regulations; or
        
        Negligent Oversight of Conduct - 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
        
        Participation - Where he has directed, authorized or cooperated in the wrong
        
        Express Law - Where liability is expressly provided in the statute
        
        Private Hires - If employed by him voluntarily or privately AND paid by or, responsible to him
        
        Admin Code - if actually authorized, by written order the specific act or omission complained of.
        
        Active Participation Requirement (Albert v. Gangan) - Every person who signs or initials documents in the course of transit through standard operating procedures does not automatically become a conspirator in a crime which transpired at a stage where he had no participation.
        
        Knowledge of the conspiracy and his active and knowing participation therein must be proved by positive evidence.
        
        Rationale - All heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on the good faith of their subordinates + Presumption of regularity
        
        Admin Code
        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.
        
        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.
      - Nature of the Ombudsman/Tanodbyan - responsible for investigating and prosecuting Philippine government officials accused of crimes, especially graft and corruption.
        
        intended to provide protection to the people's rights against all forms of bureaucratic abuse and irregularity.
        
        Can act on his own initiative without waiting for a complaint from an aggrieved party.
        
        Specific Duty - To "determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in the government and make recommendations for their elimination and the observance of high standards of ethics and efficiency.
        
        Essential Characteristics -
        
        Political Independence
        
        Accessibility and expedition
        
        Investigatory Power
        
        Absence of revisory jurisdiction
        
        Political Independence -
        
        Constitutionally Created - The Constitution itself has created the independent Office of the Ombudsman.
        
        Under the law, there are a number of provisions which are designed to ensure political independence of the Ombudsman.
        
        Removal from Office - Ombudsman is one of the few constitutionally favored officials who can be removed from office only on impeachment for and conviction of culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.
        
        Fiscal Autonomy
        
        JBC Requirement - Art. XI, Sec. 9. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least six nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council, and from a list of three nominees for every vacancy thereafter. Such appointments shall require no confirmation. All vacancies shall be filled within three months after they occur.
        
        Accessibility and Expedition -
        
        Accessibility - Must accessible to the common citizen.
        
        The Ombudsman is authorized to transfer their stations within their respective geographical regions, if public interest so requires.
        
        Expedition - Refers to the capacity to act of the ombudsman over complaints from any source in whatever form
        
        Investigatory Power (BIR v. Ombudsman) - Ombudsman has:
        
        power to investigate on its own or by complaint
        
        power to prosecute on his own initiative or upon complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office, or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.
        
        Discretionary Nature of Investigation - Ombudsman has has the discretion not to investigate if he is of the opinion that:
        
        an adequate remedy is available to the complainant in another judicial or quasi-judicial body;
        
        the subject matter of the complaint is outside of his jurisdiction;
        
        the complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith;
        
        the complainant has no sufficient personal interest in the subject matter of the grievance; or
        
        the complaint was filed a year after the occurrence of the act or omission complained of.
        
        Rationale of Investigatory Power - To initiate the prosecutory power i.e., hold officials accountable.
        
        Jurisdiction over Impeachable Officers (Fuentes v. Ombudsman) - OMB does not have the power to investigate/prosecute members of the judiciary, Congress and other impeachable officers; SC has exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel, including judicial acts/orders and other official functions.
        
        Section 21. Officials Subject To Disciplinary Authority, Exceptions.- The Office of the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including members of the Cabinet, local government, government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries,
        
        except over officials who may be removed only by impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the Judiciary
        
        2 more items...
        
        Disciplinary Authority - Meting out penalties
        
        Investigatory Power - Fact finding for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment, if warranted.
        
        In all cases of conspiracy between an officer or employee of the government and a private person, the Ombudsman and his Deputies shall have jurisdiction to include such private person in the investigation and proceed against such private person as the evidence may warrant. The officer or employee and the private person shall be tried jointly and shall be subject to the same penalties and liabilities.
        
        1 more item...
        
        Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman - SG 27,
        
        Filing - If not SG 27 just regular courts bust Ombudsman still has jurisdiction
        
        Deputization (Lastimosa v. Vasquez) - Section 31. — The Ombudsman may utilize the personnel of his office and/or designate or deputize any fiscal, state prosecutor or lawyer in the government service to act as special investigator or prosecutor to assist in the investigation and prosecution of certain cases. Those designated or deputized to assist him herein provided shall be under his supervision and control.
        
        Even if the preliminary investigation had been given over to the Provincial Prosecutor to conduct, his determination of the nature of the offense to be charged would still be subject to the approval of the Office of the Ombudsman.
        
        This is due to the “supervision and control” of the Ombudsman as provided under Section 31.
        
        This means that once deputized, the Prosecutor is subject to the power of the Ombudsman to direct, review, approve, reverse or modify his (prosecutor's) decision.
        
        Hence, Lastimosa cannot legally act on her own and refuse to prepare and file the information as directed by the Ombudsman.
        
        Almonte v. Vasquez - The Court already clarified the terms “in an appropriate case” and “subject to such limitations as provide by law” as used in the Constitution.
        
        The phrase "in an appropriate case" in Art. XI, §12 means any case concerning official act or omission which is alleged to be "illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient,"
        
        The phrase "subject to such limitations as may be provided by law" refers to such limitations as may be provided by Congress or, in the absence thereof, to such limitations as may be imposed by courts.
        
        Absence of Revisory jurisdiction (MWSS v. Vasquez) - Ombudsman has no appellate functions. It may not revise decisions of administrative agencies performing:
        
        Quasi-Judicial Functions
        
        Rule Making Functions
        
        General discretionary functions
        
        Q. Para saan yung Ombudsman Act -
    - - Other Executive Officials with Discretionary Functions -
        
        GR - No liability for civil damages.
        
        XCPN - Violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights which any reasonable person would have known.
        
        Where Law Unsettled - An official could not 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.
        
        Operative Fact doctrine?
        
        Officials with Ministerial Functions - Liability arises from defaults in the performance of ministerial duties.
        
        Nonfeasance - Neglect/refusal to perform official duty.
        
        Misfeasance - Negligence in the performance.
        
        Malfeasance - Acting without authority or abusing powers.
        
        Liability of Ministerial Officers - Here, no discretion or exercise of own judgment upon the mandated act.
        
        GR - No liability.
        
        XPCN - Liable an individual who has a special and direct interest for any injury which he may proximately sustain in consequence of the failure or neglect of the officer to perform the duty.
        
        Requisites for Liability -
        
        Injury - The individual suing must show that he has sustained a special and peculiar injury
        
        Q. What is special and peculiar
        
        Right to duty - That it results from a breach of duty which the officer owed to him.
      - Liability of Legislative Officials - Not liable for legislative action.
        
        Privileged Speech - 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."
        
        Legislative Immunity in General - A Senator or Member of the House shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while Congress is in session."
        
        Liability of Judicial Officials -
        
        GR - if no bad faith, malice or corrupt motive then no liability.
        
        XCPN - Ministerial functions, no immunity.
  - - - Nature of the Immunity - Qualified immunity. This applies to activities within the scope of office that are in good faith and are not reckless, malicious or corrupt.
        
        Protected so long as in good faith and no element of malice or gross negligence amounting to bad faith.
        
        Erroneous Interpretation of Law (Tuzon v. CA) - an erroneous interpretation of an ordinance does not constitute nor does it amount to bad faith that would entitle an aggrieved party to an award for damages.
        
        Illegal Acts (Wylie v. Rarang) - Immunity from suit cannot institutionalize irresponsibility and non-accountability nor grant a privileged status not claimed by any other official of the Republic.
        
        This covers liber and slander which cannot be deemed acts done int he official performance of duty.
        
        Where the petitioner exceeds his authority as Solicitor General, acts in bad faith there can be no question that a complaint for damages does not confer a license to persecute or recklessly injure another. The actions governed by Articles 19, 20, 21, and 32 of the Civil Code on Human Relations may be taken against public officers or private citizens alike
    - - Suit to Compel or Restrain an Official Act -
        
        GR - Not allowed. This is considered a suit against the state directly, as the officer acts as an agent of the state.
        
        XCPN -
        
        Compel - an act required by law i.e., ministerial duty.
        
        Restrain - Unconstitutional Acts
        
        Government itself violates its own laws (Sanders v. Veridiano)