Case Digest: TUZON v. COURT OF APPEALS

TUZON v. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS

The Sangguniang Bayan of Camalaniugan, Cagayan adopted Resolution No. 9. Said resolution authorized the municipal treasurer to enter into an agreement with all thresher operators who apply for a Permit to Thresh Palay to donate 1% of all the palay threshed by them. Thereafter, Jurado offered to pay the license fee for thresher operators. Municipal Treasurer Magapu refused to accept payment and required him to first secure a Mayor’s permit. Mayor Tuzon said that Jurado should first comply with Resolution No. 9 and sign the agreement before the permit could be issued. Jurado filed with the Court of First Instance of Cagayan for mandamus, and another with the same court for judgement against the said resolution. CFI upheld the Resolution, and dismissed the claim for damages. CA affirmed the validity of the Resolution and found Tuzon and Mapagu to have acted maliciously and in bad faith when they denied Jurado’s application.

ISSUE

Whether or not  petitioners are liable in damages for having withheld Mayor’s permit and license because of respondent’s refusal to comply with said Resolution.

HELD

NO. Article 27 presupposes that the refusal or omission of a public official to perform his official duty is attributable to malice or inexcusable negligence. There was no evidence offered to show that petitioners singled out respondent for persecution. Neither does it appear that the petitioners stood to gain personally from refusing to issue the mayor’s permit and license. Moreover, the resolution was uniformly applied to all the threshers in the municipality without preference. A public officer is not personally liable to one injured in consequence of an act performed within the scope of his official authority and in line of his official duty. In the absence of a judicial decision declaring said Resolution invalid, its legality would have to be presumed. As executive officials of the municipality, they had the duty to enforce it. An erroneous interpretation of an ordinance does not constitute nor amount to bad faith.

Share this:

Leave a Reply