Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune Tobacco (2007) / Ynares-Santiago
CA dismissed the case as
Facts
Champion, Hope, and More were considered local brands subject to
ad valorem [accdg to value] tax [20-45%]. Two days prior (1 Jul ’93)
to RA 7654’s effectivity, VC [Comm., BIR] issued the RMC
reclassifying the brands as locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a
foreign brand subject to 55% AV tax (brands were subjected to RA
7654, Sec. 142 (c)(1) before it took effect). On 2 Jul, BIR Deputy
Comm sent a copy of RMC to Fortune via fax. It was only on 15 Jul
when Fortune received a certified photocopy of the RMC.
Fortune filed an MfR on 20 Jul, requesting the RMC’s recall but
it was denied on 30 Jul, and payment of the AV tax deficiency (9M~)
was demanded within 10 days. Fortune filed a petition for review
with the CTaxApp (CTA) which issued an injunction enjoining RMC’s
implementation (defective, invalid, unenforceable). This was
affirmed by the CA, and SC in Comm, BIR v. CA, since the RMC fell
short of the requirements for a valid admin issuance.
Fortune filed a complaint for damages against VC in her private
capacity in the RTC, saying that she should be held liable for
damages under NCC 32 (RMC issuance violated right against
property deprivation without due process + equal protection of the
laws). VC filed a motion to dismiss since she issued RMC in the
performance of her fxn, within authority, and said that being an
agent of RP, the latter is the one responsible for her acts, and that
the complaint did have a cause of axn because there was no
allegation of malice/bad faith.
RTC denied VC’s motion to dismiss.
well, saying that under NCC 32, liability may arise even if defendant
did not act with malice/bad faith. CA also said that Admin Code is
the general law on puboff’s civil liab while NCC 32 is the special law
governing this case, and that malice/bad faith need not be alleged in
the complaint for damages. VC filed this complaint, saying that what
shld be applied is the Admin Code [liab attaches only when there is
a clear showing of bad faith / malice / gross negligence] and said
that Admin Code is the special law, and that NCC is the general law.
Issues and Holding
WON a puboff be sued in his private capacity for acts done in
connection with the discharge of ofc fxns. YES, when [#3]
GEN RULE: PubOff not liab for damages which another suffers from
just performance of official duties, within scope of tasks + RP not
amenable to judgment for monetary claims without its consent
HOWEVER, puboff not immune from damages in personal capacity
for acts done in bad faith (not protected by mantle of immunity)
[See cited Admin Code provision + Sec 39 of the same]
Cojuangco, Jr. v. CA – puboff who in/directly violates another’s consti
rights may be sued for damages under NCC 32 even though there is
no malice / bad faith
SO: puboff may be sued […]
when there is malice, bad faith, negligence
when he violated a consti right of plaintiff
NCC 32 or Admin Code Sec. 38, Book I? NCC 32
LegMeth knowledge – gen, special law shld be harmonized if
possible; special law prevails; the circ that special law is passed
before or after gen law does not change principle
performance of duties, without specifying action/omission that may
give rise to civil suit)
IN CONTRAST TO NCC 32 which specifies clearly the acts that may
give rise to axn for damages (tort for impairment of rights, liberties)

Discussion of Code Comm (Dean Bocobo)
There was a proposal re NCC 32 that puboff be held liable for consti
right violation only if there is malice / bad faith but he said that
Code Comm opposes this
Nature of NCC 32 – wrong may be civil or criminal
WON VC may be held liable for damages. YES (no explicit / direct
answer on this though)
Complaint brought under NCC 32 which does not require bad faith
and malice, so the failure to allege it will not amount to failure to
state cause of action

To make such a requisite would defeat main purpose (effective

protection of individual rights)

Object is to put an end to abuse by plea of good faith; in US the

remedy is in the nature of tort

NCC 32 patterned after Am law tort – WRONG, TORTIOUS ACT

DEFINED AS THE COMMISSION/OMISSION OF ACT BY ONE,
WITHOUT RIGHT, WHEREBY ANOTHER RECEIVES SOME INJURY IN
PERSON, PROPERTY, OR REPUTATION

Liab in tort not precluded by the fact that defendant acted without
evil intent

Aberca v. Ver – With NCC 32, principle of puboff acctability under

Consti acquires added meaning, assumes larger dimension

Admin Code – bad faith, malice, negligence vital elements to make

puboff liable for damages; subject is general (“acts” done in