A. Doctrine of Official Immunity from Liabilities - Public officers and employees are immune from liabilities arising from actions done in performance of their official duties. This is to protect an official in performance of his government function.

B. Three-Fold Liability - A single act or omission may give rise to civil, criminal and/or administrative liability.

• These can proceed independently of the others
• May be availed of successively or simultaneously.

1 Administrative - The administrative agency penalizes the officer/employee for breaching the norms and standards of public service.

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

1. GR - A public officer shall not be liable for moral/exemplary damages for acts done in the performance of official duties
2. XCPN - Bad faith, malice or gross negligence.

3 Criminal - If there are penal laws involved in the breach.

Effect on Other Proceedings

1. Administrative - Does not affect either civil/criminal proceedings.
2. Civil/Criminal - Prejudicial questions may be raised in civil/criminal proceedings.

• If two of the same type either res judicata or double jeopardy.

Objective -

1. Administrative - To protect public service; Treatment of office as public trust.
2. Civil - To compensate for damages; Indemnity;Return of Property; Forfeiture
3. Criminal - Punishment of the Crime

Degree of Evidence -

1. Administrative - Substantial evidence.

• Such relevant evidence as a reaosnable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

2. Civil - Preponderance of Evidence
3. Criminal - Beyond reasonable doubt

C. Power of the Ombudsman to Remove Public Officers

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:

1. Office of the President
2. Ombudsman

2 Congress Over its Members (CONST. VI, Sec. 16(3) -

1. 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.
2. 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.

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.

H. Remedies

1 Grounds for Disciplinary Action under Civil Service Law

2 Admin Investigation of Elective Local Officials - Concurrent Authority

1. Ombudsman - Formerly Minister of Local Government
2. DILG

3 Discipline

2. RA 7160 - 60-68

4 Procedure - Due process in administrative proceedings requires compliance with the following cardinal principles:

• (1) Hearing - The respondents' right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one's case and submit supporting evidence, must be observed
• (2) Consideration - The tribunal must consider the evidence presented
• (3) Basis - The decision must have some basis to support itself
• (5) Disclosed Basis - The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected
• (4) Substantial Evidence - There must be substantial evidence
• (6) Independent Consideration - In arriving at a decision, the tribunal must have acted on its own consideration of the law and the facts of the controversy and must not have simply accepted the views of a subordinate
• (7) Clear - The decision must be rendered in such manner that respondents would know the reasons for it and the various issues involved
  

5 Preventives Suspension - suspension, which is imposed during the period of an administrative investigation, is not a penalty in itself. measure of protection so that the officer or employee who is charged may be separated, for obvious reasons, from the scene of his alleged misfeasance while the same is being investigated, to insure proper and impartial conduct of an investigation.

Pending Investigation/Pending Appeal -

Suspension of Presidential Appointees - Preventive suspension in the case of presidential appointees may raise a due process question if continued for an unreasonable period of time [DE LEON]

• rationale - Suspension of presidential appointees can be for any period under EO 43

6 Decision - a decision imposing administrative sanctions must show the bases for its conclusions. While the investigation of a case may be delegated to and conducted by another body or group of officials, the disciplining authority must nevertheless weigh the evidence gathered and indicate the applicable law.

• In this manner, the respondents would be informed of the bases for the sanctions and thus be able to prepare their appeal intelligently. Such procedure is part of the sporting idea of fair play in a democracy.
• Q. May memorandum resolutions/minute resolutions equivalent ba for admin decisions

7 Appeal by Party Adversely Affected (CSC v. Dacoycoy) - Civil Service law “does not contemplate a review of decisions exonerating officers or employees from administrative charges. Instead, party adversely affected is now the CSC.

• An aggrieved party is either the one who initiated the complaint before the Commission or the respondent, the person subject of the complaint.
• Prior Ruling was that Civil Service Law "does not contemplate a review of decisions exonerating officers or employees from administrative charges (So non-reviewable na if exonerated)

8 Imposition and Determination of Penalties (CSC v. Cortez)

Rationale - Public policy considerations.

1. Promotion of fearless, vigorous, and effective administration of policies of government.
2. The threat of suit could also deter competent people from accepting public office.
3. Loss of valuable time caused by such actions,
4. The unfairness of subjecting officials to personal liability for the acts of their subordinates, and
5. A feeling that the ballot and removal procedures are more appropriate methods of dealing with the misconduct in public office.

Scope - Tort liability for damages arising from discretionary acts or functions in the performance of their official duties. (Chavez v. Sandiganbayan)

• If criminal act, not in the performance of their official duties na.

Distinguished from State Immunity from Suit -

• State immunity - Protects the government itself. Government is not bound by the negligence of its agents or officers.

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.

• 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

a) New Civil Code, Arts. 27, 32, 34

1. 27 - Neglecting without cause to perform official duties
2. 32 - Violation of Constitutional Rights
3. 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

a) RPC Book II, Title VII, Ch. 1-6 - May be classified into several subcategories

1. malfeasance and misfeasance in office (e.g., malicious delay in the administration of justice, bribery);
2. frauds and illegal exactions and transactions;
3. malversation of public funds or property;
4. infidelity of public officers; and
5. 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
  

Appellate Jurisdiction - CSC has appellate jurisdiction over all administrative disciplinary cases which impose a penalty of:

1. Suspension - beyond 30 days
2. Fine - Amount exceeding (30) days salary
3. Demotion - In rank or salary
4. Transfer, Removal or Dismissal

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.

Liability of the President for Official Acts - No liability under presidential immunity from suit.

Other Executive Officials with Discretionary Functions -

1. GR - No liability for civil damages.
2. XCPN - Violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights which any reasonable person would have known.

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."

Officials with Ministerial Functions - Liability arises from defaults in the performance of ministerial duties.

1. Nonfeasance - Neglect/refusal to perform official duty.
2. Misfeasance - Negligence in the performance.
3. Malfeasance - Acting without authority or abusing powers.

Liability of Ministerial Officers - Here, no discretion or exercise of own judgment upon the mandated act.

1. GR - No liability.
2. 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.

- 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.

1. Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions
2. Section 8. Statements and Disclosure
3. 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.

• e) Pres. Decree No. 46 (1972) or Making it Punishable for Public Officials and Employees to Receive, and for Private Persons to Give, Gifts on any Occasion, Including Christmas - punishable for any public official or employee, whether of the national or local governments,

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.

Essential Characteristics -

1. Political Independence
2. Accessibility and expedition
3. Investigatory Power
4. Absence of revisory jurisdiction

Political Independence -

1. 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.

2. 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.
3. Fiscal Autonomy

Investigatory Power (BIR v. Ombudsman) - Ombudsman has:

1. power to investigate on its own or by complaint
2. 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.

Absence of Revisory jurisdiction (MWSS v. Vasquez) - Ombudsman has no appellate functions. It may not revise decisions of administrative agencies performing:

1. Quasi-Judicial Functions
2. Rule Making Functions
3. General discretionary functions

Discretionary Nature of Investigation - Ombudsman has has the discretion not to investigate if he is of the opinion that:

1. an adequate remedy is available to the complainant in another judicial or quasi-judicial body;
2. the subject matter of the complaint is outside of his jurisdiction;
3. the complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith;
4. the complainant has no sufficient personal interest in the subject matter of the grievance; or
5. the complaint was filed a year after the occurrence of the act or omission complained of.
   

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.

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

Definition of Undue Injury (Llorente v. SB) - This cannot be presumed from proof of violation of a right, always proven.

1. Undue - more than necessary, not proper, [or] illegal;"
2. Injury - "any wrong or damage done to another, either in his person, rights, reputation or property[; that is, the] invasion of any legally protected interest of another
   

Preventive Suspension of Appointees (Baculi v. Office of the President) -

1. Presidential Appointees - Reasonable time.
2. Non-Presidential - Maximum preventive period is 90 days. After which, automatically reinstated.

1. 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.

2. XCPN - Actually authorized by written order, the specific act or misconduct.

2 XCPN -

1. 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
2. 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
3. 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
4. Participation - Where he has directed, authorized or cooperated in the wrong
5. Express Law - Where liability is expressly provided in the statute
6. Private Hires - If employed by him voluntarily or privately AND paid by or, responsible to him
7. Admin Code - if actually authorized, by written order the specific act or omission complained of.

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) -

1. GR - Actions in rem, civil in nature and do not require full blown trial.
2. XCPN - But, forfeiture of illegally acquired property is a penalty, therefore within the jurisdiction of the SB.

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

1. Corruption
2. Clear intent to violate law
3. Flagrant disregard of an established rule

Relation Requirement - To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer

Nepotism (Laurel v. CSC) - violation of the prohibition on nepotism in PD807, Sec. 49 s a ground for disciplinary action of a public official.

• In this case, Governor appointed brother as executive assistant but designated him as provincial administrator.
• Appointment was nullified.

Ombudsman; General Investigatory Power (CONST XI 13)

Concurrent Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman -

1. Administrative Cases - involving concurrent jurisdiction of two or more disciplining authorities, the body where the complaint is filed first and which opts to take cognizance of the case acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of other tribunals (Office of the Ombudsman v. Rodriguez)
2. Order of FIling - If the case was filed first in the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman opted to assume jurisdiction over the complaint, the Ombudsman’s exercise of jurisdiction is to the exclusion of the Sanggunian Bayan exercising concurrent jurisdiction (Alejandro v. Office of the Ombudsman Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau)

Powers and Authorities of Ombudsman (6770, Sec. 15) - Investigate and prosecute on its own or on 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.t has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of such cases;

SG 27 Officials -

1. Municipalities - Municipal mayor
2. Cities - City Mayor; Vice-Mayor; and Sanggunian Panglungsod members (for highly-urbanized cities)
3. Province - Governor; Vice-Governor; and Sanggunian Panlalawigan members. [Secs 443- 486, LGC]

1. PD 807 - Sec. 36-38 -

• 36 - Grounds for Disciplinary Action - https://lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1975/pd_807_1975.html
• 37 Disciplinary Jurisdiction - See:
  

Definition of Nepotism -

1. GR - (a) All appointments made in favor of a relative of:

• the appointing or recommending authority,
• or of the chief of the bureau or office,
• or of the persons exercising immediate supervision over him

2. XCPN - (b) in each particular instance full report of such appointment shall be made to the Commission
   
   • (1) persons employed in a confidential capacity,
   • (2) teachers,
   • (3) physicians, and
   • (4) members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines:

• Subsequent Marriage - The restriction mentioned in subsection (a) shall not be applicable to the case of a member of any family who, after his or her appointment to any position in an office or bureau, contracts marriage with someone in the same office or bureau, in which event the employment or retention therein of both husband and wife may be allowed.

Conduct Unbecoming of a Police Officer - Grounds for dismissal under RA 6975 "unbecoming" conduct as "improper" performance. Such term

• "applies to a broader range of transgressions of rules not only of social behavior but of ethical practice or logical procedure or prescribed method."
• A police officer guilty of laxity and inefficiency in the performance of his duties, is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a police officer

Designation - Prohibition includes designation. (Laurel v. CSC) - Covers all kinds of appointments, thus not limited to appointments issued at the time of initial entry into government services.

Grounds for Disciplinary Action under Code of Ethical Standards (RA 6713)

By Whom Imposed (EO 292 Sec. 51, Title I) - By the proper disciplining authority.

Pending Investigation - The proper disciplining authority may preventively suspend any subordinate officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation if the charge against such officer or employee involves:

1. Dishonesty
2. Oppression or grave misconduct,
3. Neglect in the performance of duty, and
4. If there are reasons to believe that the respondent is guilty of charges which would warrant his removal from the service.

Pending Appeal - Employees are entitled to compensation for the period of their suspension pending appeal if they are found innocent.

• Punitive In Nature - is, in effect, subsequently considered illegal if respondent is exonerated and the administrative decision finding him guilty is reversed.
• This is why payment is given for the period after the 90 day period of initial preventive suspension.

SECTION 64, RA7160 Salary of Respondent Pending Suspension. – The respondent official preventively suspended from office shall receive no salary or compensation during such suspension; but upon subsequent exoneration and reinstatement, he shall be paid full salary or compensation including such emoluments accruing during such suspension.

to imposing disciplinary sanctions, the disciplining authority must make an independent assessment of the facts and the law. On its face,

Concept of Forfeiture - 'the incurring of a liability to pay a definite sum of money as the consequence of violating the provisions of some statute or refusal to comply with some requirement of law

Reinstatement (Campol v. Balao-As) - if regular government employee was illegally suspended or dismissed, he is entitled to reinstatement even if someone else has been appointed to the same position.

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.

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
  

• 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.

Q. Can an administrative body release a 1 page decision? -

• YES, but the facts must be attached in another document
• There must also be no disputed facts
• Also no affected doctrine.

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.

Solid Homes v. Laserna (HLURB complaint)

1. Facts - Housing dispute where the HLURB ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering Solid Homes to deliver deed upon full payment. Office of the President adopted the decision via memorandum.
2. Memorandum Decision - decision that adopts by reference findings of fact and conclusions of law of the inferior court. Valid so long as the decision adopted is easily and immediately available in memorandum by being attached in a statement to the decision i.e., in the annex.