G.R. No. L-69866 April 15, 1988
ROGELIO ABERCA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. MAJ. GEN. FABIAN VER, ET AL., and REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 95, QUEZON CITY, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners filed a civil action for damages against military officials and personnel, including Gen. Fabian Ver, alleging a series of constitutional violations during operations by Task Force Makabansa. They claimed illegal searches using defective warrants, warrantless arrests, denial of access to counsel and relatives, and the employment of torture and violence to extract confessions. The petitioners sought substantial compensatory, moral, and exemplary damages.
The respondents, through the Solicitor-General, moved to dismiss the complaint on three grounds: the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus barred judicial inquiry; the defendants enjoyed immunity for acts done in official duties; and the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The Regional Trial Court granted the motion to dismiss, adopting all the respondents’ arguments. The petitioners’ motions for reconsideration were subsequently denied, leading to this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus precludes a civil action for damages arising from constitutional violations; (2) whether state agents are immune from suit for such violations; and (3) whether the complaint adequately stated a cause of action against the named defendants, including superiors.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the lower court’s dismissal, and ordered the case to proceed. On the first issue, the Court held that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not suspend the right to due process or immunize the government from accountability for violations of constitutional rights. A civil action for damages remains a viable and separate remedy to redress such wrongs, serving as a crucial check on state power even during periods of emergency.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that the defense of state immunity is personal to the state and cannot be invoked by individual officers for illegal acts. Military personnel are not shielded from liability for unconstitutional or ultra vires actions. The Court emphasized that a government operating under the rule of law must scrupulously observe legal limits, as articulated in the Brandeis dissent cited in the opinion, to avoid breeding contempt for the law.
On the third issue, the Court found the complaint sufficient. It alleged a concerted plan to violate rights, known to and sanctioned by superiors, which could establish both direct liability for participants and command responsibility under Article 2176 in relation to Article 2180 of the Civil Code for superiors who, by their negligence, failed to prevent or rectify the wrongs. The case was remanded for trial on the merits to determine the factual basis of these allegations.