G.R. No. L-5156. March 11, 1954
CARMEN FESTEJO, DEMANDANTE Y APELANTE, CONTRA ISAIS FERNANDO, DIRECTOR DE OBRAS PUBLICAS, DEMANDADO Y APELADO.
DIOKNO, M.:
unas 9 hectareas y media de superfice, demando a “Isaias Fernando
Director, Bureau of Public Works, que como tal Director de Obras
Publicas tiene a su cargo los sistemas y proyectos de irrigation
y es el funcionario responsable de la construccion de los sistemas de
irrigacwn en el pais,” alegando que—
“The defendant, as Director of the Bureau of Public Works, without
authority obtained first from the Court of First Instance of Ilocos
Sur, without obtaining first a right of way,, and without the consent
and knowledge of the plaintiff, and against her express objection,
unlawfully took possession of portions of the three parcels of land
described above, and caused an irrigation canal to be constructed on the
portion of the three parcels of land on or about the month of February
1951 the aggregate area being 24,179 square meters to the damage and
prejudice of the plaintiff.”— R. on A. p. s.
causando a ella variados dafios y perjuicios. Pidio, en su
consecuencia. sentencia condenando el demandado:
“* * * to return or cause to be returned the possession of the
portions of land unlawfully occupied and appropriated in the aggregate
area of 24,179 square meters and to return the land to its former
condition under the expenses of the defendant.” * * *“In the remote event that the portions of land unlawfully occupied
and appropriated can not be returned to the plaintiff, then to order
the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P19.343.20 as value of
the portions totalling an area of 24,179 square meters;”— R. on A., p.
5.
y ademas a pagar P9,756.19 de daños y P5,000 de honorarios de
abogado, con las costas R. on A., pp. 5-6.
El demandado, por medio del Procurador General, presento mocion de
sobreseimiento de la demanda por el fundamento de que el Juzgado no
tiene jurisdiccion para dictar sentencia valida contra el, toda vez que
judicialmente la reclamation es contra la Republica de Filipinas, y esta
no ha presentado su consentimiento a la demanda. El Juzgado inferior
estimo la mocion y sobreseyo la demanda sin perjuicio y sin costas.
En apelacion, la demandante sostiene que fue un error considerar la
demanda como una contra la Republica y sobreseer en su virtud la
demanda.
La mocion contra “Isaias Fernando, Director de Obras Publicas,
encargado y responsable de la construction de los sistemas de irrigation
en Filipinas” es una dirigida personalmente contra el, por
actos que asumio ejecutar en su concepto oficial. La ley no le exime de
responsabilidad por las extralimitaciones que cometa o haga cometer en
el desempeno de sus f unciones oficiales.
Un caso semej ante es el de Nelson vs. Bobcock (1933) 18
minn. 584, 24 NW 49, 90 ALR 1472. Alii el Comisionado de Carreteras, al
mejorar un trozo de la carretera ocupo o se apropio de terrenos
contiguos al derecho de paso. El Tribunal Supremo del Estado declaro que
ea personalmente responsable al dueno de los danos causados. Declaro
ademas que la ratification de lo que hicieron sus subordinados era
equivalente a una orden a los mismos. He aqui lo dijo el Tribunal.
“We think the evidence and conceded facts permitted the jury in
finding that in the trespass on plaintiff’s land defendant committed
acts outside the scope of his authority. When he went outside the
boundaries of the right of way upon plaintiff’s land and damaged it or
destroyed its former condition and usefulness, he must be held to have
designedly departed from the duties imposed on him by law. There can be
no claim that he thus invaded plaintiff’s land southeasterly of the
right of way innocently. Surveys clearly marked the limits of the land
appropriated for the right of way of this trunk highway before
construction began. * * *.“‘Ratification may be equivalent to command, and cooperation may
be inferred from acquiescence where there is power to restrain.’ It is
unnecessary to consider other cases cited, * * *, for as before
suggested, the jury could find or infer that, in so far as there was
actual trespass by appropriation of plaintiff’s land as a dumping place
for the rock to be removed from the additional appropriated right of
way, defendant planned, approved, and ratified what was done by his
subordinates.”—Nelson vs. Bobcock, 90 A. L. R., 1472, 1476,
1477.
La doctrina sobre la responsabilidad civil de los funcionarios en
casos parecidos se resume como sigue:
“Ordinarily the officer or employee committing the tort is
personally liable therefor, and may be sued as any other citizen and
held answerable for whatever injury or damage results from his tortious
act.”—49 Am. Jur. 289.* * * If an officer, even while acting under color of his office,
exceeds the power conferred on him by law, he cannot shelter himself
under the plea that he is a public agent.”—43 Am. Jur. 86.“It is a general rule that an officer executive, administrative
quasi-judicial, ministerial, or otherwise who acts outside the scope of
his jurisdiction and without authorization of law may thereby render
himself amenable to personal liability in a civil suit. If he exceeds
the power conferred on him by law, he cannot shelter himself by the plea
that he is a public agent acting under color of his office, and not
personally. In the eye of the law, his acts then are wholly without
authority.” Am. Jur. 89-90.
El articulo 32 del Codigo Civil dice, a su vez:
“ART. 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:
* * * * * * *
“(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process
of law;
* * * * * * *
“In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not
the defendant’s acts 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 action
shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter
be instituted), and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence.
Se revoca la orden apelada y se ordena la continuacion de la
tramitacion de la demanda conforme proveen los reglamentos. Sin especial
pronunciamiento en cuanto a las costas. Asi se ordena.
Padilla, Reyes, Jngo, Bautista Angelo y Labrador, MM., estan
conformes.
DISSENTING
CONCEPCION, J.,:
To my mind, the allegations of the complaint lead to no other
conclusion than that appellee Isaias Fernando is a party in this case,
not in his personal capacity, but as an officer of the Government.
According to said pleading the defendant is “Isaias Fernando, Director,
Bureau of Public Works.” Moreover, in paragraphs ‘4 and 5 of the
complaint, it is alleged:
“4. That the defendant as Director of the Bureau of
Public Works is in charge of irrigation projects and systems, and
the official responsible for the construction of irrigation system in
the Philippines;5. That the defendant, as Director of the Bureau of
Public Works, without authority obtained first from the Court of
First Instance of Ilocos Sur, without obtaining first a right of way,
and without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff, and against her
express objection, unlawfully took possession of portions of the three
parcels of land described above, and caused an irrigation canal to be
constructed on the portion of the three parcels, of land on or about the
month of February 1951 the aggregate area being 24,179 square meters to
the damage and prejudice of the plaintiff.” (Italics supplied.)
The emphasis thus placed upon the allegation that the acts
complained of were performed by said defendant “as Director of the
Bureau of Public Works,” clearly shows that the designation of his
office was included in the title of the case to indicate that he was
being sued in his official capacity. This conclusion is bolstered up by
the fact that, among other things, plaintiff prays; in the complaint,
for a judgment
“Ordering the defendant to return or caused to be returned the
possession of the portions of land unlawfully occupied and appropriated
in the aggregate area of 24,179 square meters and to return the land to
its former condition under the expense of the defendant.” (Paragraph a,
of the complaint).
We take judicial notice of the fact that the irrigation projects and
system referred to in the complaint—of which the defendant, Isaias
Fernando, according to the same pleading, is “in charge” and for which
he is “responsible” as Director of the Bureau of Public Works—are
established and operated with public funds, which pursuant to the
Constitution, must be appropriated by law. Irrespective of the manner in
which the construction may have been undertaken by the Bureau of Public
Works, the system or canal is, therefore, a property of the Government.
Consequently, in praying that possession of the portions of land
occupied by the irrigation canal involved in the present case be
returned to plaintiff herein, and that said land be restored to its
former condition, plaintiff seeks to divest the Government of its
possession of said irrigation canal, and, what is worse, to cause said
property of the Government to be removed or destroyed. As held in Syquia
vs. Lopez[*] (47 Off.
Gaz., 665), the Government is, accordingly, “the real party in interest
as defendant” in the case at bar. In other words, the same partakes of
the nature of a suit against the state and may not be maintained without
its consent.
Hence I am constrained to dissent.
CONCURS
BENGZON, J.,:
Se revoca la orden opelada y se ordena la continuation de la
tramitacion de la demanda conforme proveen los reglamentos.
[*] 84 Phil., 312.