Chapter V –Public Officer
Title Facts
Pp v. Garcia Carlos Garcia, Patricio Botero, and Luisa Miraples
were accused of illegal recruitment. It was alleged
that they represented themselves as the
incorporators and officers of Ricorn Philippine
International Shipping Lines, Inc.; that Ricorn is a
recruitment agency for seamen; that Garcia is the
president, Botero is the vice-president, and
Miraples (now at large) is the treasurer. It was
later discovered that Ricorn was never registered
with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) and that it was never authorized to recruit
by the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency
(POEA). Botero and Garcia were convicted.
Botero appealed.
In his defense, Botero averred that he was not an
incorporator; that he was merely an employee of
Ricorn in charge of following up on their
documents.
Lamb Vs Lamb was the superintendent of the Iwahig Penal
Phipps Colony until he resigned on Dec. 31, 1911 due to
ill health. Before that he was assigned as
provincial treasurer for Marinduque, Mindoro and
Laguna. He requested the Auditor General,
Phipps, for his clearance certificate (showing that
Lamb has accounted for all property and funds
under his custody) in order that Lamb may be
allowed to leave the Philippines without incurring
criminal liability.
· Phipps, although the records of the
Auditor General show that Lamb indeed has
settled his accounts, refuses to issue the
certificate because a certain Fernandez may bring
a civil suit against the government. However the
records also show that Fernandez signed the
receipt acknowledging payment from the
government.
· The petition for mandamus, asking the
SC to compel Phipps to issue the certificate was
demmurred to by the auditor because it is a suit
against the government and the petition states no
cause of action.
· The SC initially asked Lamb to amend
his petition but the latter did not do so hence the
SC decided the case upon the facts Lamb
intended to make.
Miquibas vs. Miquiabas is a Filipino citizen and civilian
Commanding employee of the US army in the Philippines who
General had been charged of disposing in the Port of
Manila Area of things belonging to the US army in
violation of the 94th article of War of the US. He
was arrested and a General Court-Martial was
appointed. He was found guilty. As a rule, the
Philippines being a sovereign nation has
jurisdiction over all offenses committed within its
territory but it may, by treaty or by agreement,
consent that the US shall exercise jurisdiction
over certain offenses committed within said
portions of territory.
Issues Ruling
WON Botero No. It was proven by evidence that he was introduced
is a mere to the applicants as the vice president of Ricorn. When
employee of he was receiving applicants, he was receiving them
Ricorn behind a desk which has a nameplate representing his
name and his position as VP of Ricorn.
But Ricorn was never incorporated? How will this affect
his liability in the crime illegal recruitment?
Under the law, if the offender is a corporation,
partnership, association or entity, the penalty shall be
imposed upon the officer or officers of the corporation,
partnership, association or entity responsible for
violation. In this case, even if Ricorn was not
incorporated, Botero and his cohorts are estopped from
denying liability as corporate officers of Ricorn. Section
25 of the Corporation Code provides that “All persons
who assume to act as a corporation knowing it to be
without authority to do so shall be liable as general
partners for all the debts, liabilities and damages
incurred or arising as a result thereof: Provided,
however, That when any such ostensible corporation is
sued on any transaction entered by it as a corporation
or on any tort committed by it as such, it shall not be
allowed to use as a defense its lack of corporate
personality.”
W/N NO. the Auditor is not obliged under the law to accept
Mandamus a mere paper accounting as final and conclusive as to
may issue to the real responsibility of Government employees and to
compel the issue a clearance upon that alone. He may, it is true, if
auditor he is satisfied; but certainly, he may, if he so desires and
general to if he has any doubt about the correctness of such
issue the accounts, make an actual examination of the funds and
certificate of property represented by such paper accounts or
clearance of balances.
Lamb. · Whenever a duty is imposed upon a public official and
an unnecessary and unreasonable delay in the exercise
of such duty occurs, if it is clear duty imposed by law,
the courts will intervene by the extraordinary legal
remedy of mandamus to compel action. If the duty is
ministerial, the courts will require specific action. If the
duty is purely discretionary, the courts by mandamus
will require action only. In the present case, however,
the mandamus is not for the purpose of the compelling
action only. It is presented for the purpose of
requiring particular action on the part of the Auditor.
There is a very wide distinction between the use of
the writ of mandamus to compel action and its use
to compel particular action on the part of a public
official, board, or officer upon whom particular
duties are imposed by law.The SC held that since the
nature of the Auditor’s job requires him to exercise
discretion, he may not compelled by mandamus to issue
the certificate to Lamb.
WON the No. Under the MBA, a civilian employee is not
offender is a considered as a member of the US armed forces. Even
member of under the articles of war, the mere fact that a civilian
the US armed employee is in the service of the US Army does not
forces make him a member of the armed forces.