Vidad v. RTC Negros Oriental Branch 42, 1993 PDF

Nemesio Vidad et al. v.
RTC of Negros Oriental Branch 42

G.R. No. 98084 October 18, 1993
FACTS:
● A group of public school teachers in Negros Oriental held a strike from 19 September 1990 to 21
September 1990 from their school classes to demand the release of their salaries by the Department of
Budget. The teachers also assailed alleged corruption in the Department of Education, Culture and
Sports (DECS).
● A return-to-work order was promptly issued by DECS Regional Director Teofilo Gomez with a warning
that if the "striking" school teachers were not to resume their classes within 24 hours, administrative
charges would be filed. Administrative complaints against the teachers concerned were filed for not
heeding the order. The teachers were each given 5 days from receipt of said complaints to submit their
respective answers and supporting documents. Constituted to look into the cases was an investigation
panel composed of three DECS lawyers, namely, Marcelo Baclaso, Nieva Montes and Generoso
Capuyan.
● On 13 November 1990, the teachers who administratively charged filed a complaint for injunction,
prohibition and damages, with a prayer for preliminary injunction, against the aforenamed DECS
officials. A temporary restraining order, prohibiting the defendants from continuing with the
administrative investigation, was granted.
● The defendants filed their answer followed by a motion to dismiss. The school teachers moved to strike
out the appearance of the Office of the Solicitor General and to accordingly declare the defendants in
default. Both motions of the plaintiffs and the defendants were denied by the court.
● From this denial, both parties filed with this Court their respective petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus.
● Four other cases, raising like issues, were later also filed with the court below by other public school
teachers concerned. The DECS officials, again represented by the Solicitor General, filed motions to
dismiss, which the court similarly denied. A joint petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus was
thence filed with this Court,
ISSUE:
1. WON the Office of the Solicitor General may properly represent the defendants in the Regional Trial
Court cases;
2. WON the Regional Trial Court should have dismissed outright the said cases.
RULING:
1. The Court ruled that the Solicitor General did not act improperly in deciding to represent the DECS
officials in the above cases. The root of the cases filed below deals, in fact, on the performance of
official functions by the DECS officials. The various complaints filed by the public school teachers
allege bad faith on the part of the DECS officials. On the assumption that the plaintiffs are able to
establish their allegations of bad faith, a judgment for damages can be warranted. Public officials are
certainly not immune from damages in their personal capacities arising from the acts done in bad faith;
in these and similar cases, the public officials may not be said to have acted within the scope of their
official authority, and no longer are they protected by the mantle of immunity for official actions.
2. While no prejudicial question strictly arises where one is a civil case and the other is an administrative
proceeding, in the interest of good order, it behooves the court to suspend its action on the cases
before it pending the final outcome of the administrative proceedings.
NOTES:
Presidential Decree 478, in part, provides:
1) The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and
instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the
services of a lawyer. When authorized by the President or head of office concerned, it shall also represent
government-owned or controlled corporations. The Office of the Solicitor General shall constitute the law office
of the Government, and as such, shall discharge duties requiring the services of a lawyer. It shall have the
following specific powers and functions:
a) Represent the government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings
represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or
tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official
capacity is a party (stress supplied).

Vidad v. RTC Negros Oriental Branch 42, 1993 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vidad v. RTC Negros Oriental Branch 42, 1993 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nemesio Vidad et al. v.

RTC of Negros Oriental Branch 42

Presidential Decree 478, in part, provides:

You might also like