Festejo V

. Festejo v. Fernando No.
L-5156, 94 Phil 504 [Mar 11, 1954]
Facts. Defendant Fernando, as Director of the Bureau of Public Works, without obtaining authority first
from the court and without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff, and against her express
objection, unlawfully took possession of portions of 3 parcels of land belonging to her and caused
an irrigation canal to be constructed on the portion of the said parcels of land. Plaintiff filed a
complaint to which the trial court issued an order “to return or cause to be returned the possession of
the portions of land unlawfully occupied and appropriated and to return the land to its former
condition under the expenses of the defendant.” directed also Fernando to pay the plaintiff in
the event that said land cannot be returned. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the
ground that the suit was in effect against the Phil govt, which had not given its consent to be
sued.
The court 26 Some instances when a suit against the State is proper: (1) When the republic is sued
by name; (2) When the suit is against an unincorporated govt agency; and (3) When the suit is on its face
against a govt officer but the case is such that ultimate liability will belong not to the officer but to the
govt (Republic v. Sandoval, GR 84607)
Issue. Is the case a suit against the State without its consent?
Held. No. Concededly, Fernando committed acts outside the scope of his authority when he
trespassed the plaintiff’s land. When he went outside the boundaries of the right of way upon plaintiff’s
land and damaged it xxx he must be held to have designedly departed from the duties imposed on him
by law. Ordinarily, the officer or employee committing the tort is personally liable therefor, and may
be sued as any other citizen and held answerable for whatever injury or damage results from his
tortuous act. xxx If an officer, even while acting under the color of his office, exceeds the power
conferred on him by law, he cannot shelter himself under the plea that he is a public agent
i. When a public officer acts in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority, he can be held personally
liable for damages.
ii. BUT: If he acted pursuant to his official duties, without malice, negligence, or bad faith, they are not
personally liable, and the suit is really one against the State.
3) This rule applies not only in favor of the Philippines but also in favor of foreign states.
4) The rule likewise prohibits a person from filing for interpleader, with the State as one of the
defendants being compelled to interplead.
A tort is an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to a civil wrong for which courts
impose liability. In the context of torts, "injury" describes the invasion of any legal right, whereas "harm" describes a
loss or detriment in fact that an individual suffers.
Executive Order No. 292
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987
SECTION 38. Liability of Superior Officers.—(1) A public officer shall not be civilly liable for acts done in
the performance of his official duties, unless there is a clear showing of bad faith, malice or gross
negligence.
(2) Any public officer who, without just cause, neglects to perform a duty within a period fixed by law or
regulation, or within a reasonable period if none is fixed, shall be liable for damages to the private party
concerned without prejudice to such other liability as may be prescribed by law.
(3) A head of a department or a superior officer shall not be civilly liable for the wrongful acts, omissions
of duty, negligence, or misfeasance of his subordinates, unless he has actually authorized by written
order the specific act or misconduct complained of.
SECTION 39. Liability of Subordinate Officers. —No subordinate officer or employee shall be civilly liable
for acts done by him in good faith in the performance of his duties. However, he shall be liable for willful
or negligent acts done by him which are contrary to law, morals, public policy and good customs even if
he acted under orders or instructions of his superiors.
the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.
What are 4 types of jurisdiction?
There are four main types of jurisdiction (arranged from greatest Air Force authority to least): (1)
exclusive federal jurisdiction; (2) concurrent federal jurisdiction; (3) partial federal jurisdiction; and (4)
proprietary jurisdiction.
Good afternoon Sir and Good afternoon everyone

We are the group 6 and we are going to report the LO 6 of the syllabus which is the ACT OF STATE
So the first topic will be discussed by miss Lyn Agapito
What is the effect when a public officer acts without or in excess of his jurisdiction
It is his personal liability and it cannot be imputed to the state
. BUT: If he acted pursuant to his official duties, without malice, negligence, or bad faith, they are not
personally liable, and the suit is really one against the State
So In line with this
Executive Order No. 292 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987 section 38 paragraph 1 and 2 states that
SECTION 38. Liability of Superior Officers.—(1) A public officer shall not be civilly liable for acts done in
the performance of his official duties, unless there is a clear showing of bad faith, malice or gross
negligence.
(2) Any public officer who, without just cause, neglects to perform a duty within a period fixed by law or
regulation, or within a reasonable period if none is fixed, shall be liable for damages to the private party
concerned without prejudice to such other liability as may be prescribed by law.
so here we have the case of
FESTEJO v. FERNANDO
GR No. L-5156; March 11, 1954FACTS:
The defendant, as Director of the Bureau of Public Works, took possession of the three parcels of land
on February 1951 without obtaining first a right of way, without consent and knowledge of plaintiff, and
against her express objection. The petitioner demands that the lands be restored to its former condition
and the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P19, 343.20 for the unlawful taking possession of the
defendant.
ISSUE:
Is wether the defendant is liable for the unlawful possession of the lands?
HELD: yes,
The evidence and conceded facts permitted the jury in finding that in the trespass on plaintiff’s land, the
defendant committed acts outside the scope of his authority. There can be no claim that he thus
invaded plaintiff’s land southeasterly of the right of way innocently for the surveys clearly marked the
limits of the land appropriated for the right of way. It is a general rule that an officer-executive,
administrative, quasi-judicial, ministerial, or otherwise who acts outside the scope of his jurisdiction and
without authorization of law may thereby render himself amenable to personal liability in a civil suit. He
cannot shelter himself by the plea that he is a public agent acting under the color of his office and not
personally.

Festejo V

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

Festejo V

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

. Festejo v. Fernando No.

L-5156, 94 Phil 504 [Mar 11, 1954]

ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987

the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.

What are 4 types of jurisdiction?

Good afternoon Sir and Good afternoon everyone

So the first topic will be discussed by miss Lyn Agapito

It is his personal liability and it cannot be imputed to the state

So In line with this

so here we have the case of

GR No. L-5156; March 11, 1954FACTS:

You might also like