REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
MANILA
G.R. No. L-10659
Jan. 31, 1958
LEONARDO PALAFOX, et. al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
versus
PROVINCE OF ILOCOS NORTE, THE DISTRICT ENGINEER AND THE PROVINCIAL
TREASURER, Defendants and Appellees.
The Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte dismissed plaintiffs'
claim against the above appellees for damages arising from the death
of their father Proceto Palafox, who had been run over by a freight
truck driven by Sabas Torralba on September 30, 1948. The latter was
a chauffeur of the Provincial Government of Ilocos Norte detailed to
the office of the District Engineer; and on the said date he drove
the motor vehicle along the National Highway in compliance with his
duties as such. Prosecuted for homicide through reckless imprudence,
Sabas Torralba pleaded guilty and was accordingly sentenced.
Having reserved their right to file civil action, the heirs
subsequently began these proceedings against the employer the
province, the District Engineer, the Provincial Treasurer and Sabas
Torralba.
Upon a motion to dismiss, the Hon. Fidel Villaneuva, Judge, quashed
the case against the defendants, except Sabas Torralba. Hence, this
appeal.
There being no allegation, His Honor explained, that said province
and officers had been engaged in some kind of industry as provided
in Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code, no cause of action exists
against them. For purposes of clarification said article is quoted
herewith.
ART. 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. - The
subsidiary liability established in the next preceding article
shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and
corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies
committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or
employees in the discharge of their duties.
Appellants insist that the basis of their demand for indemnity is not
the above Art. 103, but Art. 1903 of the Civil Code providing as
follows:

ART. 1903. The obligation imposed by the next preceding articles

is enforceable not only for personal acts and omissions, but also
for those of persons for whom another is responsible. x x x.
The State is liable in this sense when it acts through a special
agent, but not when the damage has been caused by the official
upon whom properly devolved the duty of doing the act performed,
in which case the provisions of the preceding article shall be
applicable. x x x.
It will be observed that to attach liability to the State for the
negligence of Sabas Torralba a declaration must be made that he was a
special agent, - and not one upon whom properly devolved the duty
of driving the truck on that occasion. Such ruling may not be made,
because in Merrit v. Government of the Philippines, 34 Phil. 311,
this Court absolved the Government from liability for damages caused
through the negligence of the driver of a Philippine General
Hospital's ambulance that collided with and injured a motorcycle
rider (Merrit) holding (contrary to claimants claimant's contention)
that the driver was not a special agent of the Government within the
scope of Art. 1903 of the Civil Code.
And let it not be argued that the principle applies only to the
Insular, as distinguished from the provincial or municipal
governments; because this Court has interpreted the State to mean
Government of the Philippines, and these words include both central
and the local governments. (Sec. 2 Revised Administrative Code.)
As an alternative, the appellants invoke the doctrine of respondeat
superior as illustrated in the case of Mendoza v. De Leon, 33 Phil.
508, concerning liability of municipal corporations for negligent
acts of their employees. Two quotations from said decision will offer
sufficient guidance for adjudication.
The municipality is not liable for the acts of its officers or
agents in the performance of its governmental functions.
Governmental affairs do not lose their governmental character by
being delegated to the municipal governments. Nor does the fact
that such duties are performed by officers of the municipality
which, for convenience, the state allows the municipality to
select, change their character. To preserve the peace, protect
the morals and health of the community and so on to administer
government, whether it be done by the central government itself
or is shifted to a local organization. And the state being
immune for injuries suffered by private individuals in the
administration of strictly governmental functions, like immunity
is enjoyed by the municipality in the performance of the same
duties, unless it is expressly made liable by statute. (Mendoza
vs. De Leon, 33 Phil. 508; 511)

A municipality is not exempt from liability for the negligent

performance of its corporate or proprietary or business
functions. In the administration of its patrimonial property, it
is to be regarded as a private corporation or individual so far
as its liability to third persons on contract or in tort is
concerned. Its contracts, validly entered into, may be enforced
and damages may be collected from it for the torts of its
officers or agents within the scope of their employment in
precisely the same manner and to the same extent as those of
private corporations or individuals. As to such matters the
principles of respondeat superior applies. It is for these
purposes that the municipality is made liable to suits in the
courts. (Mendoza v. De Leon, 33 Phil. 508; 513-514)
Here we see that if the negligent employee was engaged in the
performance of governmental duties, as distinguished from corporate
or proprietary or business functions the government is not liable.
The construction or maintenance of roads in which the truck and the
driver worked at the time of the accident are admittedly governmental
activities. Wherefore, the death of Palafox - tragic and deplorable
though as it may be imposed on the province no duty to pay monetary
compensation. The reason for the exemption according to Mr. Justice
Story is that the Government does not undertake to guarantee to any
person the fidelity of the officers or agents whom it employs, since
that would involve in all its operations in endless embarrassments,
difficulties and loses which would be subversive of the public
interest. (U.S. v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat., 720; 6 L. ed., 199; Beers
v. Arkansas, 20 How., 527; 15 L. ed., 991.)
The judgment will be affirmed with costs against appellants.
(SGD.) CESAR BENGZON
WE CONCUR:
(SGD.) RICARDO PARAS
(SGD.) MARCELIANO R. MONTEMAYOR
(SGD.) FELIX BAUTISTA ANGELO
(SGD.) JOSE B.L. REYES
(SGD.) SABINO PADILLA
(SGD.) ALEX. REYES
(SGD.) ALEJO LABRADOR
(SGD.) PASTOR M. ENDENCIA
(SGD.) ALFONSO FELIX
I reserve my vote (SGD.) ROBERTO CONCEPCION