Article 27, Chapter 2: Human Relations

Main Topic: Chapter 2: Human Relations

Sub-topic: Administrative Actions Against Refusal or Neglect of Performance of Public Officials Duty

Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.

Discussion/Explanation:

1. Refusal and Neglect in the Performance of Official Duty 

a. The article refer to a public servant or employee. Taken from Art. 839 of the German Civil Code, the purpose of Art. 27 is to end the "pabagsak or bribery system. where the public official for some flimsy, delays or refuses the performance of his duty until he gets some kind of pabagsak."

In a sense, it maybe said that there are three kinds of bribes:

1. The pabagsak- the gift given so that an illegal thing may be done.

2. The pampadulas- the gift given to facilitate or expedite the doing of a legal thing.

3. The pampasalamat- the gift given in appreciation of a thing already done.

Note: An administrative case will generally be provisionally dismissed, where a criminal case involving the same parties and the same charges as those of the administrative case is sub-judice.

b. There must be refusal or neglect without just cause to perform (nonfeasance). (If duty is performed, Art. 27 does not apply.) In a case, where the city assessor allegedly was demanding a double payment of realty taxes. The taxpayer, however, did not state that he had already paid, and therefore the complaint should be dismissed since the official was merely performing his duty. The Court ruled that if a public official fails to do what is incumbent on him, the fact that he was about to retire when the incident occurred may be an explanation, but certainly, it is not a justification. For the ideal of a public office as a public trust implies that until the last day of one's tenure, strictest compliance with one's duties is necessary. The Supreme Court ruled that high officials is not liable for the mistakes of their assistants, as long as said officials were not motivated by malice.

c. A manager may be compelled by mandamus to perform the acts required of him by a resolution  of the Board, thus he can be ordered to execute deeds of sale if same is authorized by Board Resolution.

Examples

a. A goes to a government office where B an administrative clerk, instead of attending to A (upon A's request) just reads the newspaper. If A suffers material of moral loss, B will be liable. Also, if B refuses to perform his duty unless given a bribe, damages may be asked of him in addition to the proper criminal and administrative liabilities.

b. A Chief of Police who instead of giving legal assistance to the victim of an assault, intimidates and harasses said victim, his father, and his witnesses is liable for damages under Art. 27. This is so even if other remedies (such as an administrative charge against the Chief and the filing of a criminal complaint with the office of the city attorney for such assault) are also available to the victim.

c. Similarly, a town mayor (and other officials) who consistently absents himself from town council sessions, and refuses to act upon the minutes of sessions conducted by the present councilors, and to sign the payrolls for the councilors' per diems at such sessions, can be liable under this Article for refusal to do his duty.

A judge should be commended instead of being administratively charged for going out of his way to pacify protagonists in a quarrel and to prevent bloodshed.

Facts: A city treasurer collected taxes, conformably with a city sales tax ordinance. The collection was partially invalidated by the courts. Is the treasurer liable for damages?

Held: No, for this official honestly believed in the complete validity of the tax. And this is true even if he was only partially sustained by the courts.

Facts: In connection with the theft case, a CFI issued a search warrant for a jeep which was eventually seized. Later the complaint for theft was dismissed but the judge refused to order the return of the jeep to the persons from whom it had been seized-- in view of conflicting claims as to the owner of the jeep.  Is the judge liable?

Held: No, the judge is not liable-- for after all there were conflicting claims as to the ownership of the jeep. The question of the title can be determined not on criminal process but in a civil case. The judge cannot therefore be guilty of serious misconduct or inefficiency-- (Incidentally, in the same case, it was ruled that a judge who fails to execute a decision of an appellate tribunal is not necessarily guilty of misconduct in office where said decision is not known to him.)

Facts: In the course of an altercation between a court stenographer and a private person, the former uttered certain defamatory remarks against the latter. The evidence showed that the protagonists were not on good terms with each other. An administrative action was brought against the stenographer.

Held: The stenographer should be reprimanded with a warning for censurable conduct. As the Court stressed, those government service are bound by rules of proper and decorous behavior in the office premises and "high-strung and belligerent has no place in the government service, where the personnel and employees are enjoined to act with self- restraint and civility at all times, even when confronted with rudeness and insolence.:

Facts: During a town fiesta, a defectively constructed stage collapsed, causing a person’s death. The fiesta had been organized by the Municipal Council. Who is liable?

Held: The municipality alone is liable, not the municipal councillors for they did not participate in the defective construction nor did they personally allow people to go up the stage.

A public officer cannot be regarded as personally liable to those injured as a result of an act within the scope of his official duty. This is true whether the officer is judicial one, quasi-judicial or executive official.

The Director of Private Schools is not liable if he releases for publication his lists of disapproved educational courses as well as the schools which offer courses.

J. E.L. Paras:

 Death benefits given to an employee should not be liable for hospital and medical expenses of the employee. Said expenses should be borne by the employer.

J. H. Gutierrez:

A public officer, not having acted with circumspection and due regard to the rights of a student entitled to graduate with honor, is liable for damages under Art. 27 of the Civil Code, in his personal capacity.

3. Applicability of the Civil Service Law

The Civil Service Law applies to government owned or controlled corporations.