8/8/2019 Chato vs

1/2

Chato vs. Fortune Tobacco, GR 141309, June 19, 2007

The circular reclassified Fortune Tobaccos cigarettes, specifically Champion, Hope and More, as locally

manufactured cigarettes bearing foreign brand names, leading to an increase in its ad valorem tax from 20-45 % to

55 %. Fortune Tobacco challenged to validity of the order, which the Court of Tax Appeals declared invalid. With

this, the firm filed the civil case before the Marikina RTC against Chato seeking damages for what they said was the

violation of it constitutional rights.

In seeking the suits dismissal, Chato said she issued RMC 37-93 in the performance of her official duties as head of

the BIR. She added that there is no cause of action against her because Fortune Tobacco failed to show bad faith on

her part.

ISSUE: May a public officer be validly sued in his/her private capacity for acts done in connection with the

discharge of the functions of his/her office?

RULING:

Yes. The general rule is that a public officer is not liable for damages which a person may suffer arising from the

just performance of his official duties and within the scope of his assigned tasks. However, a public officer is by law

not immune from damages in his/her personal capacity for acts done in bad faith which, being outside the scope ofhis authority, are no longer protected by the mantle of immunity for official actions.

In addition, the Court held in Cojuangco, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, that a public officer who directly or indirectly

violates the constitutional rights of another, may be validly sued for damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code

even if his acts were not so tainted with malice or bad faith.

Thus, the rule in this jurisdiction is that a public officer may be validly sued in his/her private capacity for acts done

in the course of the performance of the functions of the office, where said public officer: (1) acted with malice, bad

faith, or negligence; or (2) where the public officer violated a constitutional right of the plaintiff.

Professional Video Inc. vs. TESDA , GR 155504, June 26, 2009

TESDA filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA to question the RTC orders, imputing grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the trial court for issuing a writ of preliminary attachment against

TESDAs public funds. The CA set aside the RTCs orders after finding that: (a) TESDAs funds are public in

nature and, therefore, exempt from garnishment; and (b) TESDAs purchase of the PVC cards was a necessary

incident of its governmental function; consequently, it ruled that there was no legal basis for the issuance of a writ ofpreliminary attachment/garnishment. The CA subsequently denied PROVIs motion for reconsideration; hence, thepresent petition.

ISSUE: Can TESDA be sued without consent?

RULING: TESDA, as an agency of the State, cannot be sued without its consent. The rule that a state may not be

sued without its consent is embodied in Section 3, Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution and has been an established

principle that antedates this Constitution. It is as well a universally recognized principle of international law that

exempts a state and its organs from the jurisdiction of another state. The principle is based on the very essence of

sovereignty, and on the practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the

law on which the right depends. It also rests on reasons of public policy that public service would be hindered,

and the public endangered, if the sovereign authority could be subjected to law suits at the instance of every

8/8/2019 Chato vs

2/2

citizen and, consequently, controlled in the uses and dispositions of the means required for the proper

administration of the government.

In the present case, the writ of attachment was issued against a government agency covered by its own charter.

TESDA performs governmental functions, and the issuance of certifications is a task within its function of

developing and establishing a system of skills standardization, testing, and certification in the country. From the

perspective of this function, the core reason for the existence of state immunity applies i.e.

, the public policyreason that the performance of governmental function cannot be hindered or delayed by suits, nor can these suits

control the use and disposition of the means for the performance of governmental functions.