This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners vehemently argue that the COA acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in sustaining the Notice of Disallowance against them. Petitioners further claim that the COA Decision, affirming the said Notice of Disallowance, was rendered by it on the basis of Opinion No. 97-015 of the COA General Counsel, which Opinion was not approved by the COA as a collegial body. Citing Orocio v. Commission on Audit,[8] petitioners maintain that the COA General Counsel can only offer legal advice or render an opinion to aid the COA in the resolution of a case or a legal question, but it is bereft of any power to act for or on behalf of the COA. | |||||
|
2007-06-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| (4) May petitioner be held liable for damages? On the first issue, the general rule is that a public officer is not liable for damages which a person may suffer arising from the just performance of his official duties and within the scope of his assigned tasks.[15] An officer who acts within his authority to administer the affairs of the office which he/she heads is not liable for damages that may have been caused to another, as it would virtually be a charge against the Republic, which is not amenable to judgment for monetary claims without its consent.[16] However, a public officer is by law not immune from damages in his/her personal capacity for acts done in bad faith which, being outside the scope of his authority, are no longer protected by the mantle of immunity for official actions.[17] | |||||