Governors duty to the public is to see to it that

Governor’s duty to the public is to see to it that laws are properly executed, that
competent officials are appointed by him, etc. Legislators owe a duty to the public to
pass wise and proper laws. For this kind of duty, no one individual could single
himself out and assert that the duties are owed to him alone. The second kind covers
those who perform duties to an individual by reason of their employment by a
particular person to do some act for him in an official capacity. They usually receive
their compensation from that particular individual. Ex. A sheriff in serving civil process
for a private suitor, a recorder of deeds in recording a deed or mortgage in favor of a
private individual, a notary public in protesting a negotiable paper, etc.
When what is involved is a duty owing to the public in general, an individual can have
no cause of action for damages against the public officer. The exception to this is if
the individual suffers a particular or special injury on account of the public officer’s
improper or non-performance. The principle may now translate into the rule that an
individual can hold a public officer personally liable for damages on account of an act
or omission that violates a constitutional right only if it results in a particular wrong or
injury to the former.
A public officer like Chato, vested with quasi-legislative or rule-making power, owes a
duty to the public to promulgate rules which are compliant with the requirements of
valid admin regulations. It’s a duty owed not to the respondent alone, but to the entire
public who would be affected by such rule.
Note that in CIR v. CA, the RMC was not declared unconstitutional for violating the
due process requirement or the equal protection clause. Court only said that the RMC
did not meet the requirements for a valid admin issuance. Fortune relies heavily on
that case as its cause of action. It shows therefore that it really has no cause of action
for failing to show its allegation that Chato violated Art. 32. Fortune failed to show that
it incurred some particular wrong or injury.
Finally, Sec. 227 of the Tax Reform Act of 1997 provides: “ Satisfaction of Judgment
Recovered Against any Internal Revenue Officer. – When an action is brought against
any Internal Revenue officer to recover damages by reason of any act done in the
performance of official duty…any judgment, damages or costs recovered in such
action shall be satisfied by the Commissioner…. No such judgment, damages or
costs shall be paid or reimbursed in behalf of a person who has acted negligently or
in bad faith, or with willful oppression.” Because the respondent’s complaint does not
impute negligence or bad faith to the petitioner, any money judgment by the trial court
against her will have to be assumed by the Republic of the Philippines. As such, the
complaint is in the nature of a suit against the State.