In the Philippines, public officials can be held liable for damages even if they claim they acted in good faith, especially when their actions violate due process. The Supreme Court, in this case, clarified that following orders from a superior does not excuse officials from liability if those orders are patently illegal and cause undue injury. This means officials must always ensure their actions are lawful, regardless of who instructs them, or face the consequences.

Demolishing Due Process: Can Public Officials Hide Behind ‘Good Faith’?

The case revolves around the demolition of a market stall owned by Visitacion Bombasi in Nagcarlan, Laguna. In 1978, Visitacion’s mother entered into a lease agreement with the municipality, granting her use of the property for twenty years, extendable for another twenty. After Visitacion took over the store in 1984, a fire razed the public market in 1986, but her store remained intact. However, in 1993, then Municipal Mayor Demetrio T. Comendador ordered the demolition of her store, relying on a Sangguniang Bayan resolution. Visitacion argued the demolition was illegal since her lease was still valid and no court order was issued. Despite her protests, the demolition proceeded, leading her and her husband to file civil and criminal complaints against Mayor Comendador, Municipal Administrator Paulino S. Asilo, Jr., and Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator Alberto S. Angeles.

The central legal question is whether these public officials could be held liable for damages and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, despite their claim that they acted in good faith and were merely following orders. The case reached the Sandiganbayan, which found Mayor Comendador and Asilo guilty of violating Sec. 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and ordered the municipality and the officials to pay damages to the Bombasi spouses. Angeles’ case was dismissed due to his death. Both Asilo and Comendador’s widow appealed the decision, arguing good faith and lack of evidence of bad faith.

The Supreme Court tackled the issue of liability under Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3(e), which penalizes public officers who cause undue injury to any party through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The elements of this offense are that the accused are public officers, that they committed the prohibited acts during their official duties, that they caused undue injury to a party, and that they acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The Court emphasized that “undue injury” means actual damage, which must be established by evidence.

In this case, the Court agreed with the Sandiganbayan that the demolition of the store without a court order caused undue injury to the Spouses Bombasi. The Court defined **”evident bad faith”** as not merely bad judgment but a palpably fraudulent and dishonest purpose, operating with furtive design, self-interest, ill will, or ulterior motives. The Court pointed out several factors indicating bad faith on the part of the public officials. First, the Court said that the structure was not a public nuisance since it wasn’t nuisance per se. A nuisance per se is that which is a nuisance at all times and under any circumstance, regardless of location and surroundings.

Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that the Sangguniang Bayan resolutions were insufficient to justify the demolition. The resolutions only authorized the Mayor to file an unlawful detainer case or to demolish the building using legal means. Therefore, the demolition without a court order was not authorized. The Court also noted that the Municipality of Nagcarlan was in **estoppel** because it had granted yearly business permits to the Spouses Bombasi. According to Art. 1431 of the New Civil Code, an admission or representation is conclusive upon the person making it and cannot be denied against the person relying thereon.

Addressing the effect of the death of Mayor Comendador, the Court cited People v. Bayotas, which provides guidelines on the survival of civil liability after the death of the accused. In that case, the Supreme Court held:

Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, “the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore.”

Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of (the) accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission:

The Court ruled that while Mayor Comendador’s death extinguished his criminal liability, his civil liability survived because it was based on the law on human relations, particularly Article 32(6) of the Civil Code, which provides for damages against public officers who violate a person’s right against deprivation of property without due process of law.

The Court emphasized that the civil action was filed ahead of the criminal information, specifically invoking the violation of the plaintiff’s right to due process. The accused public officials should have accorded the spouses the due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution and the Civil Code. Even if there is already a writ of execution, there must still be a need for a special order for the purpose of demolition issued by the court before the officer in charge can destroy, demolish or remove improvements over the contested property. The requirement of a special order of demolition is based on the rudiments of justice and fair play.

However, the Supreme Court corrected the amount of damages awarded to the Spouses Bombasi. The Court held that the itemized list of damages prepared by the engineer commissioned by the Spouses Bombasi was not sufficient evidence to prove the actual amount of loss. According to the Court, this was hearsay evidence. Thus, the Court awarded temperate damages of P200,000.00 in view of the loss suffered by the Spouses Bombasi, which are awarded when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proven with certainty.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether public officials could be held liable for damages and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for demolishing a market stall without a court order, even if they claimed they acted in good faith and were following orders.
What is “undue injury” under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act?	Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, undue injury refers to actual damage suffered by a party due to the actions of a public official, which must be established by evidence.
What is the significance of “evident bad faith” in this case?	“Evident bad faith” implies more than just poor judgment; it signifies a palpably fraudulent and dishonest intent, operating with self-interest, ill will, or ulterior motives.
What is a nuisance per se?	A nuisance per se is something that is considered a nuisance at all times and under any circumstances, regardless of its location or surroundings.
What is the principle of estoppel?	Estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a party from denying or disproving a representation they previously made, especially when another party has relied on that representation to their detriment.
What happens to civil liability when an accused public official dies during the case?	If the civil liability arises solely from the crime (ex delicto), it is extinguished upon the accused’s death. However, if the civil liability is based on other sources of obligation, such as the law on human relations, it survives the death of the accused.
What is the importance of a special order of demolition?	A special order of demolition is a court order required before improvements on a property can be demolished, ensuring due process and preventing arbitrary or oppressive actions.
Why were temperate damages awarded in this case instead of actual damages?	Temperate damages were awarded because the exact amount of pecuniary loss suffered by the Spouses Bombasi could not be proven with certainty due to insufficient evidence.
What is the effect of Sangguniang Bayan resolutions to the demolition?	The Court ruled that the Sangguniang Bayan resolutions did not authorize the Mayor to demolish the building. The resolutions only authorized the Mayor to file an unlawful detainer case or to demolish the building using legal means, such as with a court order.

This case underscores the importance of due process and the limits of authority, even for public officials acting under orders. It reinforces the principle that good faith is not a blanket defense against illegal actions that cause harm to others. Local government units should be circumspect of the processes and procedures in abating or preventing something from happening because it has legal implications.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PAULINO S. ASILO, JR. VS. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. Nos. 159017-18, March 09, 2011