Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor found a prima
City of Angeles vs. Court of Appeals
GR No. 97882, August 28 1996
FACTS:
In a Deed of Donation dated March 9, 1984, private respondent donated to the City of Angeles, 51 parcels of land situated in Barrio Pampang, City of Angeles, with an aggregate area of 50,676 square meters, more or less, part of a bigger area also belonging to private respondent.
It was subsequently superseded by a Deed of Donation dated September 27, 1984 and an Amended Deed of Donation dated November 26, 1984.
City of Angeles vs. Court of Appeals
On July 19, 1988, petitioners started the construction of a drug rehabilitation center on a portion of the donated land.
Upon learning thereof, private respondent protested such action for being violative of the terms and conditions of the amended deed and prejudicial to its interest and to those of its clients and residents.
Private respondent also offered another site for the rehabilitation center.
City of Angeles vs. Court of Appeals
However, petitioners ignored the protest, maintaining that the construction was not violative of the terms of the donation.
The alternative site was rejected because, according to petitioners, the site was too isolated and had no electric and water facilities.
Private respondent filed a complaint alleging a breach of the conditions imposed in the amended deed of donation and sought the revocation of the donation and damages, with preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order to halt the construction of the said center.
City of Angeles vs. Court of Appeals
But the construction was already completed by 40%.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is immune from suit.
HELD:
The Court ruled that public officials are not immune from damages in their personal capacities arising from acts done in bad faith.
City of Angeles vs. Court of Appeals
In theory, the cost of such demolition, and the reimbursement of the public funds expended in the construction thereof, should be borne by the officials of the City of Angeles who ordered and directed such construction.
Otherwise stated, a public official may be liable in his personal capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice and in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction.
In the instant case, the public officials concerned deliberately violated the law and persisted in their violations, going so far as attempting to deceive the courts by their pretended change of purpose and usage for the center, and “making a mockery of the judicial system.”
City of Angeles vs. Court of Appeals
Indisputably, said public officials acted beyond the scope of their authority and jurisdiction and with evident bad faith.
However, as noted by the trial court, the petitioners mayor and members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Angeles City were sued only in their official capacities, hence, they could not be held personally liable without first giving them their day in court.
City of Angeles vs. Court of Appeals
Prevailing jurisprudence holding that public officials are personally liable for damages arising from illegal acts done in bad faith are premised on said officials having been sued both in their official and personal capacities.