Governors duty to the public is to see to it that laws are properly executed

Governors duty to the public is to see to it that

This preview shows page 5 - 6 out of 51 pages.

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.
Image of page 5
Image of page 6

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 51 pages?

  • Fall '16
  • Law, Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, DEAN DEL CASTILLO

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture