G.R. No. L-14986; July 31, 1962
CORNELIO AMARO and JOSE AMARO, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. AMBROSIO SUMANGUIT, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Plaintiffs-appellants Cornelio and Jose Amaro filed a complaint for damages against Ambrosio Sumanguit, the Chief of Police of Silay City. The action was predicated on Articles 21 and/or 27 of the Civil Code. The complaint alleged that Jose Amaro was assaulted and shot on October 5, 1958. The following day, he and his father went to the defendant’s office to seek assistance in filing a complaint. Instead of receiving help, they were allegedly “harassed and terrorized,” leading them to renounce their interest in prosecuting the crime.
Subsequently, upon the City Mayor’s advice, an investigation was conducted, resulting in the city attorney filing an information for illegal discharge of a firearm against the assailant. The complaint further alleged that after this investigation, the defendant chief of police began harassing the plaintiffs in their daily work, ordering them through his subordinates to appear at his office even during his absence, and was about to order their arrest to compel them to sign prepared affidavits exculpating the police from any dereliction of duty. The trial court dismissed the complaint upon the defendant’s motion, holding it failed to state a cause of action.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal and remanded the case. The Court held that the facts alleged, though imperfectly drafted, sufficiently constituted an actionable dereliction under Article 27 of the Civil Code. This article allows an action for damages against a public servant who refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform an official duty. The core allegation was the defendant’s refusal to provide assistance to the victims of a crime, which is a fundamental duty of a chief of police. The accompanying allegations of subsequent harassment to obtain exculpatory affidavits reinforced the claim of an unjust refusal to perform his duty.
The Court clarified that while the complaint was vague and generalized, these defects are not grounds for dismissal under Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. Instead, the proper remedy for the defendant was to file a motion for a bill of particulars under Rule 16 to seek clarification. The Rules require only a statement of ultimate facts showing a right of the plaintiff violated by the defendant. The existence of alternative recourses, such as filing a complaint directly with the city attorney or initiating administrative charges, does not preclude a civil action for damages under Article 27. Therefore, the complaint should not have been dismissed at that stage.