GR 74135; (May, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 74135 May 28, 1992
M. H. WYLIE and CAPT. JAMES WILLIAMS, petitioners, vs. AURORA I. RARANG and THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, respondents.
FACTS
In February 1978, petitioner M.H. Wylie was the assistant administrative officer and petitioner Capt. James Williams was the commanding officer of the U.S. Naval Base in Subic Bay. Private respondent Aurora I. Rarang was an employee assigned as a merchandise control guard. Wylie supervised the publication of the daily “Plan of the Day” (POD). The February 3, 1978, POD featured an “action line inquiry” that asked a question referring to “Auring” as “a disgrace to her division and to the Office of the Provost Marshal,” implying she consumed confiscated items. Rarang was the only “Auring” in that office. Wylie later wrote her a letter of apology for the “inadvertent” publication. Rarang filed a complaint for damages against Wylie, Williams, and the U.S. Naval Base, alleging the article was defamatory. The defendants moved to dismiss, claiming immunity from suit as U.S. officers and that the Naval Base, as a U.S. instrumentality, could not be sued without consent. The trial court dismissed the suit against the U.S. Naval Base but held Wylie and Williams jointly and severally liable for damages, ruling their acts were personal and tortious, not official. The Intermediate Appellate Court modified the damages awarded. Petitioners persisted that they acted in their official capacities and were immune from suit.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners M.H. Wylie and Capt. James Williams are immune from suit for the allegedly defamatory publication in the Plan of the Day, on the ground that they acted in the performance of their official functions as officers of the United States Navy.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court. The Court held that the petitioners’ act of publishing the defamatory article was not an official function. The Office of the Provost Marshal had explicitly recommended the deletion of the name “Auring” if the article were published, but the petitioners negligently issued the publication without deleting it. Such an act or omission was ultra vires and could not be part of official duty; it was a tortious act. The petitioners, in their personal capacities, are liable for the damages caused to the private respondent. The doctrine of state immunity from suit does not apply when the officials have acted beyond the scope of their authority.