LIABILITIES

Republic Act No. 6713

AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT
AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC
OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, TO UPHOLD
THE TIME-HONORED PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC
OFFICE BEING A PUBLIC TRUST, GRANTING
INCENTIVES AND REWARDS FOR
EXEMPLARY SERVICE, ENUMERATING
PROHIBITED ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS AND
PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS
THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

 Commitment to public interest all

government resources and powers of their
respective offices must be employed and used
efficiently, effectively, honestly, and economically
particularly to avoid wastage in public funds.
Professionalism Perform and discharge their
duties with the highest degree of excellence,
professionalism, intelligence and skill. They shall
enter public service with utmost devotion and
dedication to duty.
Justness and sincerity Must remain true to the
people at all time and respect the rights of others.
Political Neutrality Shall provide service to
everyone without unfair discrimination and
regardless of party affiliation.

 Responsiveness to the public Shall

extend prompt, courteous and adequate
services to the public.
Nationalism and Patriotism Must be
loyal to the Republic and to the Filipino
people, promote the use of locally produced
goods, resources and technology and
encourage pride for the country.
Commitment to democracy Commit
themselves to the democratic way of life.
Simple Living They shall lead modest
lives appropriate to their positions and
income.

Under RA 6713, public officials and

employees, except who serve in
an honorary capacity, laborers and
casual or temporary workers, shall
file under oath their:

Statements of Assets, Liabilities

and Net Worth; and
Disclosure of their spouses and
unmarried children under 18
living in their households.

General Rule on Liability

A public officer is not liable for injuries sustained
by another as a consequence of official acts done
within the scope of his official authority, except
as otherwise provided by law.
Not civilly liable for acts done in official capacity
UNLESS bad faith, malice, negligence
Liable for willful or negligent acts done by him
which are contrary to morals, law, public policy,
and good customs EVEN if he acted under
instructions of his superiors.
Local governments are not exempt from liabilities
for DEATH or INJURY to persons or DAMAGE to
property.

Statutory Liability
Article 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.

Article 32. Any public officer or employee, or

any private individual, who directly or
indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any
manner impedes or impairs any of the
following rights and liberties of another person
shall be liable to the latter for damages:
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain
a periodical publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
(6) The right against deprivation of property
without due process of law;

(7) The right to a just compensation when private

property is taken for public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
(12) The right to become a member of associations or
societies for purposes not contrary to law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to
petition the Government for redress of grievances;
(14) The right to be a free from involuntary servitude in
any form;
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;

(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself

and counsel, to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him, to have a
speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face
to face, and to have compulsory process to secure
the attendance of witness in his behalf;
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness
against one's self, or from being forced to confess
guilt, or from being induced by a promise of
immunity or reward to make such confession,
except when the person confessing becomes a
State witness;
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and
unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed
or inflicted in accordance with a statute which has
not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and

In any of the cases referred to in this article,

whether or not the defendant's act or omission
constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved
party has a right to commence an entirely
separate and distinct civil action for damages,
and for other relief.
Such civil action shall proceed independently of
any criminal prosecution (if the latter be
instituted), and may be proved by a
preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages.
Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not
demandable from a judge unless his act or
omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code
or other penal statute.

Article 34. When a member of a city

or municipal police force refuses or
fails to render aid or protection to
any person in case of danger to life
or property, such peace officer shall
be primarily liable for damages, and
the city or municipality shall be
subsidiarily responsible therefor.
The civil action herein recognized
shall be independent of any criminal
proceedings, and a preponderance
of evidence shall suffice to support

 Liability on Contracts Personally - entered without

or exceeded his authority.
Liability for Tort
Personally - beyond the scope
of his authority or exceeds
power conferred upon him;
ultra vires or where there is
bad faith.

Civil Liability of Public Officers

A public officer shall not be liable by way of moral and
exemplary damages for acts done in the
performance of official duties, unless there is a clear
showing of bad faith, malice or gross negligence.
Absent any showing of bad faith or malice, every
public official is entitled to the presumption of good
faith as well as regularity in the performance or
discharge of official duties.
*Head of a department or a superior officer shall not be civilly
liable for the wrongful acts, omission of duty, negligence or
misfeasance of his subordinates, UNLESS he has actually
authorized by written order the specific act or misconduct.
The negligence of the subordinate cannot be ascribed to his
superior in the absence of the latters own negligence.

Liability of Ministerial Officers

Nonfeasance neglect or refusal to
perform an act which is the officers
legal obligation
Misfeasance failure to exercise that
degree of care, skill and diligence in
the performance of official duty
Malfeasance doing, through
ignorance, inattention or malice of an
act which he had no legal right to
perform.

Presidential Immunity
from Suit
During tenure of the President
After his tenure, he cannot
invoke immunity from suit for
civil damages arising out of acts
done by him, while he was
president which were not
performed in the exercise of his
official duties.

Threefold Liability Rule

A fundamental principle in the law on public
officers (administrative liability is separate
from and independent of civil and criminal
liability).
Wrongs acts or omissions of a public officer
may give rise to civil, criminal and
administrative liability.
Action for each can proceed independently
Dismissal of one does not foreclose action
for others (difference in quantum of
evidence).

Dr. Fernando A. Melendres

M.D., Executive Director of the
Lung Center of the Philippines
[LCP] vs. President Anti-Graft
Commission, et al.,
G.R. No. 163859, August 15,
2012

We have ruled that dismissal of a criminal action does

not foreclose institution of an administrative
proceeding against the same respondent, nor carry
with it the relief from administrative liability. It is a
basic rule in administrative law that public officials
are under a three-fold responsibility for a violation of
their duty or for a wrongful act or omission, such that
they may be held civilly, criminally and
administratively liable for the same act.
Administrative liability is thus separate and distinct
from penal and civil liability.
Moreover, the fact that the administrative case and the
case filed before the Ombudsman are based on the
same subject matter is of no moment. It is a
fundamental principle of administrative law that the
administrative case may generally proceed against a
respondent independently of a criminal action for the

EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO
JR.,petitionervs. COURT OF
APPEALS, THE PHILIPPINE
CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES
OFFICE and FERNANDO O.
CARRASCOSO
JR.,respondents.
G.R. No. 119398.July 2, 1999

Nevertheless, this Court agrees with the petitioner and the trial court that
Respondent Carrascoso may still be held liable under Article 32 of the Civil
Code. Under the aforecited article, it is not necessary that the public officer
acted with malice or bad faith. To be liable, it is enough that there was a
violation of the constitutional rights of petitioner, even on the pretext of
justifiable motives or good faith in the performance of ones duties. We hold
that petitioners right to the use of his property was unduly impeded. While
Respondent Carrascoso may have relied upon the PCGGs instructions, he
could have further sought the specific legal basis therefor. A little exercise of
prudence would have disclosed that there was no writ issued specifically for
the sequestration of the racehorse winnings of petitioner. There was
apparently no record of any such writ covering his racehorses either. The
issuance of a sequestration order requires the showing of aprima faciecase
and due regard for the requirements of due process. The withholding of the
prize winnings of petitioner without a properly issued sequestration order
clearly spoke of a violation of his property rights without due process of law.
Article 2221 of the Civil Code authorizes the award of nominal damages to a
plaintiff whose right has been violated or invaded by the defendant, for the
purpose of vindicating or recognizing that right, not for indemnifying the
plaintiff for any loss suffered. The court may also award nominal damages in
every case where a property right has been invaded. The amount of such
damages is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, with the relevant
circumstances taken into account.

DEMETRIO R.
TECSON,petitioner,
vs.SANDIGANBAYAN AND
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,respondents.
G.R. No. 123045,
November 16, 1999

res judicata
First, it must be pointed out that res judicatais a doctrine of civil law.It thus
has no bearing in the criminal proceedings before the
Sandiganbayan.Second, it is a basic principle of the law on public officers
that a public official or employee is under a three-fold responsibility for
violation of duty or for a wrongful act or omission.This simply means that a
public officer may be held civilly, criminally, and administratively liable for a
wrongful doing.Thus, if such violation or wrongful act results in damages to
an individual, the public officer may be held civillyliable to reimburse the
injured party.If the law violated attaches a penal sanction, the erring officer
may be punishedcriminally.Finally, such violation may also lead to
suspension, removal from office, or other administrativesanctions.This
administrative liability is separate and distinct from the penal and civil
liabilities.Thus, the dismissal of an administrative case does not necessarily
bar the filing of a criminal prosecution for the same or similar acts, which
were the subject of the administrative complaint.
*We conclude, therefore, that the decision of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Agusan del Sur exonerating
petitioner in Administrative Case No. SP 90-01 is no bar to the criminal prosecution before the
Sandiganbayan.

double jeopardy
Double jeopardy attaches only:(1) upon a valid
indictment; (2) before a competent court; (3)
after arraignment; (4) when a valid plea has
been entered; and (5) when the defendant was
acquitted or convicted or the case was
dismissed or otherwise terminated without the
express consent of the accused.
None of the foregoing applies to the hearings
conducted by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Agusan del Sur in Adm. Case No. SP 90-01.It
must be stressed that the said proceedings
were not criminal, but administrative in
nature.Hence, double jeopardy will not lie.

JESUS C. OCAMPO,petitioner,
vs.OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN and MAXIMO
ECLIPSE,respondents.
G.R. No.114683, January 18,
2000

The dismissal of the criminal case will not foreclose

administrative action filed against petitioner or give
him a clean bill of health in all respects. The
Regional Trial Court, in dismissing the criminal
complaint, was simply saying that the prosecution
was unable to prove the guilt of petitioner beyond
reasonable doubt, a condition sine qua nonfor
conviction. The lack or absence of proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean an absence of any
evidence whatsoever for there is another class of
evidence which, though insufficient to establish guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, is adequate in civil cases;
this is preponderance of evidence. Then too, there is
the "substantial evidence" rule in administrative
proceedings which merely requires such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.Thus, considering
the difference in the quantum of evidence, as well as

CONRADO B. RODRIGO, JR.,

ALEJANDRO A. FACUNDO and
REYNALDO G.
MEJICA,petitioners, vs.THE
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN
(First Division), OMBUDSMAN and
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,respondents.
G.R. No. 125498,February 18,

The Provincial Auditor need not

resolve the opposition to the notice of
disallowance and the motion for reinspection pending in his office before
he institutes such complaint so long
as there are sufficient grounds to
support the same.The right to due
process of the respondents to the
complaint, insofar as the criminal
aspect of the case is concerned, is
not impaired by such institution.

It bears stressing that the exoneration of

petitioners in the audit investigation does not
mean the automatic dismissal of the complaint
against them. The preliminary investigation, after
all, is independent from the investigation
conducted by the COA, their purposes distinct from
each other. The first involves the determination of
the fact of the commission of a crime; the second
relates to the administrative aspect of the
expenditure of public funds. Accordingly, we hold
that the Ombudsman did not err in entertaining
the complaint filed by the Provincial Auditor
against petitioners, nor the Sandiganbayan in
allowing trial to proceed, despite the pendency of
petitioners' motions before the auditor.

PANFILO M. LACSON,petitionervs. THE

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE
SANDIGANBAYAN, OFFICE OF THE
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MYRNA
ABALORA, NENITA ALAP-AP, IMELDA
PANCHO MONTERO, and THE PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,respondents.
ROMEO M. ACOP and FRANCISCO G.
ZUBIA, JR.,petitioners-intervenors.
G.R. No. 128096,January 20, 1999

In People vs. Montejo, it was held that an

offense is said to have been committed
in relation to the office if it is
intimately connected with the office of
the offender and perpetrated while he
was in the performance of his official
functions. Such intimate relation must be
alleged in the information which is essential
in determining the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
Whatscontrollingis thespecific factual
allegationsin the information that would
indicate the close intimacy between the
discharge of the accuseds official duties

The stringent requirement that the charge

set forth with such particularity as will
reasonably indicate the exact offense which
the accused is alleged to have committed
in relation to his office was not established.
Consequently, for failure to show in the
amended informations that the charge of
murder was intimately connected with the
discharge of official functions of the
accused PNP officers, the offense charged
in the subject criminal cases is plain
murder and, therefore, within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Court and not the Sandiganbayan.