G.R. No. L-21879 September 29, 1967
SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs. FRANCISCO MAGNO, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

The Municipal Board of Butuan City enacted ordinances imposing taxes on the sale of beer and soft drinks. San Miguel Brewery, Inc., which maintained a warehouse in Butuan City, paid the taxes initially but later stopped, incurring back taxes. After demands for payment, the City Treasurer of Butuan, Francisco Magno, with the Mayor’s approval, issued a warrant of distraint and levy against the company’s properties for the delinquent taxes totaling P24,747.32. On January 9, 1961, two delivery trucks of the company were seized. On January 12, 1961, San Miguel Brewery filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Francisco Magno in his individual capacity, seeking the release of the trucks and damages for their seizure, which it alleged was made “without authority and for reasons unknown.” During the pendency of the case, the company paid the taxes under protest, and the trucks were released. The parties submitted a stipulation of facts. The trial court dismissed the complaint and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant P2,000 in damages, P1,000 as attorney’s fees, and costs. The plaintiff appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the seizure of the plaintiff’s trucks by the defendant was without authority of law.
2. Whether the defendant, sued in his individual capacity, is personally liable for damages arising from the seizure.
3. Whether the award of damages and attorney’s fees to the defendant by the trial court was proper.

RULING

1. The seizure was not without authority. The defendant, as City Treasurer, acted under the authority of Ordinance No. 26 of Butuan City, which empowered him to issue warrants of distraint and levy for tax collection. The plaintiff was informed of this authority through a letter dated September 29, 1960. The plaintiff’s claim of ignorance was unfounded. The validity of Ordinance No. 26 could not be collaterally attacked in this proceeding, as it was not raised at the earliest opportunity in the pleadings or trial, and the defendant was sued in his individual, not official, capacity.
2. The defendant is not personally liable for damages. He acted in his official capacity as City Treasurer in performing a duty authorized by law. The plaintiff’s action against him individually was improper. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim for damages for the seizure was correctly denied.
3. The award of P2,000 as damages to the defendant was set aside. Moral damages require pleading and proof of suffering, which were not presented. Exemplary damages were not justified merely because the complaint was unmeritorious. However, the award of attorney’s fees was proper and increased to P2,000, as the defendant, sued individually for official acts, was forced to hire private counsel. Nominal damages of P100 were also awarded. The decision was modified accordingly, with costs against the plaintiff-appellant.