This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-09-16 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Tortious acts or crimes committed while discharging official functions are also not covered by sovereign immunity. Quoting the ruling in Chavez v. Sandiganbayan,[185] this court held American naval officers personally liable for damages in Wylie v. Rarang,[186] to wit: . . . The petitioners, however, were negligent because under their direction they issued the publication without deleting the name "Auring." Such act or omission is ultra vires and cannot be part of official duty. It was a tortious act which ridiculed the private respondent.[187] | |||||
|
2012-09-18 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Indeed, a public officer is presumed to have acted in good faith in the performance of his duties.[36] However, public officials can be held personally accountable for acts claimed to have been performed in connection with official duties where they have acted beyond their scope of authority or where there is a showing of bad faith.[37] Thus, in the case of Casal v. Commission on Audit,[38] the Court held liable the approving officers who authorized the grant of productivity award in complete disregard of the prohibition declared by a presidential issuance, ratiocinating that: The failure of petitioners-approving officers to observe all these issuances cannot be deemed a mere lapse consistent with the presumption of good faith. Rather, even if the grant of the incentive award were not for a dishonest purpose as they claimed, the patent disregard of the issuances of the President and the directives of the COA amounts to gross negligence, making them liable for the refund thereof. | |||||