G.R. No. 127932, December 7, 2001
Virginia M. Andrade, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and Dominador S. Wingsing, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Virginia M. Andrade was a permanent public school teacher assigned to Araullo High School. For the school year 1985-1986, she was not given a teaching load. School Principal Dominador S. Wingsing, in an endorsement to a superior, cited three reasons: a drastic drop in enrollment, her status as an excess teacher, and her having the lowest performance rating. Andrade was offered a non-teaching assignment, which she declined. She subsequently requested and was approved for a transfer to another school but withdrew her request on the very day she reported. She later discovered her name had been removed from the regular monthly payroll.
Andrade filed a damages suit against Wingsing and others, alleging a conspiracy to deprive her of her teaching load and to humiliate her. The Regional Trial Court held Wingsing liable for actual damages and attorney’s fees, absolving the other defendants. The Court of Appeals reversed, dismissing the complaint. It found that Wingsing’s actions were justified by the necessity to declare excess teachers and were performed in the regular course of his duties.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Wingsing is liable for damages for his acts in declaring petitioner an excess teacher without a teaching load and removing her name from the regular payroll.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. Wingsing is not liable for damages. The legal logic is anchored on the absence of proof of bad faith, malice, or negligence amounting to a quasi-delict. For a public officer to be held personally liable for damages arising from official acts, the plaintiff must prove that the officer acted with malice, bad faith, or negligence. The Court found that Wingsing’s actions were based on legitimate administrative reasons: decreased enrollment and Andrade’s performance rating. The offer of a non-teaching position and the administrative processing of her payroll status, following her aborted transfer, were within his official functions. Andrade failed to substantiate her claim of conspiracy or ill motive. The performance rating, even if she disputed it, provided a basis for administrative action. The removal from the regular payroll was a procedural consequence of her being declared an excess teacher, not a malicious act. Without clear evidence of wrongful conduct in the exercise of official duty, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions stands. Consequently, no cause of action for damages against Wingsing in his personal capacity exists.