G.R. No. L-60898. September 29, 1983.
Gaudencio R. Mabutol and Erlinda R. Mabutol, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Arturo B. Pascual, Manuel R. Maza, Teotimo Tangonan, Rodolfo Jardiel, Renato Colobong, Salvador Capistrano and Apolinaria Cueto, Defendants-Appellees.

FACTS

The spouses Mabutol filed a complaint for damages against several public officials, including the City Mayor, City Fiscal, City Engineer, and the Provincial Commander of Nueva Ecija. The defendants constituted an Ad Hoc Committee tasked with implementing Presidential Decree No. 296 and Letter of Instructions No. 19 in San Jose City, which involved clearing structures from creek beds. The committee passed a resolution ordering the demolition of the Mabutols’ three-door commercial apartment building, which was subsequently carried out on September 20, 1975. The plaintiffs alleged the demolition was illegal, executed in bad faith and with abuse of authority, and deprived them of judicial recourse, causing substantial financial loss.
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of cause of action. The trial court initially denied the motion, citing the allegations of bad faith. Upon reconsideration, however, the court dismissed the case. It found that the defendants, as public officials, were performing official duties under the relevant decrees. The court noted a history of administrative proceedings, including a revoked building permit, prior notices, and a failed court petition by the Mabutols to stop the demolition. The order emphasized documentary evidence, largely uncontroverted, demonstrating the committee’s basis for acting against a structure encroaching on a creek bed.

ISSUE

Did the trial court err in dismissing the complaint for damages against the public officials?

RULING

No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, applying the settled doctrine that a public official is not personally liable for damages arising from acts performed pursuant to a legal duty, provided there is an absence of bad faith. The Court highlighted that the appellants’ own complaint established the appellees were acting in their official capacities as members of an implementing committee created by presidential issuance. The pivotal question, therefore, was whether they acted in bad faith.
The Court upheld the trial court’s finding that bad faith was not present. The dismissal order meticulously cataloged objective bases for the officials’ actions: the revocation of the original building permit, consistent administrative notices, a favorable legal opinion from the City Fiscal, a certification from the City Engineer regarding the encroachment, and even prior unsuccessful judicial challenges by the Mabutols. This body of evidence demonstrated that the officials acted based on a perceived legal mandate and documented facts, not out of malice or capriciousness. Consequently, the allegations of bad faith in the complaint remained unsubstantiated, warranting dismissal for failure to state a valid cause of action for personal liability against the officials. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.