GR 102667; (February, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 102667 February 23, 2000
AMADO J. LANSANG, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BLIND, INC., and JOSE IGLESIAS, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent General Assembly of the Blind, Inc. (GABI), through its president Jose Iglesias, occupied office and kiosk spaces in Rizal Park under a verbal accommodation from the previous administration of the National Parks Development Committee (NPDC). Following the EDSA Revolution, petitioner Amado J. Lansang, as the new NPDC Chairman, sought to clean up the park. He sent notices terminating the arrangement and demanding GABI’s vacation of the premises. Iglesias signed one notice but later claimed he was deceived into doing so. GABI was evicted and subsequently filed an action for damages and injunction against petitioner and others. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, ruling it was a suit against the State and that GABI, as a mere concessionaire, failed to prove damages.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether petitioner Lansang, as NPDC Chairman, can be held personally liable for damages arising from the eviction of GABI from Rizal Park.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal. The Court held that the complaint was effectively a suit against the State. Petitioner Lansang, in ordering the eviction, was acting within his official capacity and authority as NPDC Chairman to manage and maintain Rizal Park, a public property beyond the commerce of man. The act of discontinuing a mere permissive occupancy, which created no vested rights for GABI, was a legitimate official function. The allegation of bad faith or abuse of authority was insufficient to constitute a personal action against him, absent clear evidence that he acted with malice or beyond the scope of his duty. The Court further found no evidentiary basis for the awards of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. There was no proof of moral injury suffered by Iglesias, and exemplary damages cannot stand absent an award of other damages. Attorney’s fees were unjustified as none of the statutory exceptions for their award were present.