Liwayway Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune Tibacco Co. (2008 MR) Nachura,J Facts: 1.

This is a reconsideration of the June 19, 2007 decision that directed the trial court to continue with the civil case filed against Comm. Chato in her personal capacity. 2. July 20, 2007 pet. moved for the reconsideration of the decision, MR Denied in April 14, 2008. 3. Undaunted April 29, 2008 Motion to Refer case to the Honorable Court En Banc1 4. June 25, 2008 Resolution- The Court Referred the case to the En Banc. Issue: w/n Petitioner may be held liable in her personal capacity for an act done in her duty as the Commission of Internal Revenue commissioner. Decision: No, civil case based on CC 32, the act/omission must be in the nature of a duty to the individual that violates a constitutional right and results in a particular wrong or injury. Here her duty was to the public in general, and the act did not result in a violation of Fortunes right to due process nor equal protection. 1. 2 Kinds of Duties exercised by the public officers: a. Of Duties to the Public a duty owing primarily to the public in general, not to any particular individual. Ex. Governor owes a duty to the public in general to see the laws are properly executed. Members of the legislature, to pass only wise and proper laws. b. Of Duties to Individuals While they owe to the public in general duty of a proper administration of their respective offices, yet by reason of their employment by a particular individual to do some act for him in an official capacity are under a special and particular obligation to him as an individual (in his personal capacity). Ex. Recorder of Deeds in recording the deed or mortgage of an individual. Clerk of Court in entering up a private judgment. Notary public in protesting a negotiable paper. 2. RULE: 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 former2. (This is consistent with the June 2007 decision as juxtaposed with CC32) 3. HERE: Commissioners duty is to the public in general. Her rule making powers is a duty to the public to promulgate rules which are compliant with the requirements of valid admin regulations. But it is a duty not to the respondent alone but to the entire body politic who would be affected. 4. HERE: No particular injury is alleged to have been sustained by the respondent. The phrase financial and business difficulties mentioned in the complaint is a vague notion. Facts of the case eloquently demonstrate that Fortune did not pay a single centavo on the tax assessment levied.

Isnt this not allowed? A second MR? Plus u cant appeal a division decision to the court en banc being the division decision is deemed an act of the court as a whole. :P Anyway, SC is supreme. Haha. 2 REQUISITES as I understood it. (1) Duty must be to the individual PLUS (2) act/omission caused a particular injury.

5. No particular injury --> no delict or wrongful act or omission --> hence complaint fails to state a cause of action.3 6. CC 32, as held in 2007 decision, the liability may still accrue even if she acted in good faith as long as there is a violation of constitutional rights citing Cojuanco v. CA4 7. Fortune has no Cause of Action. Two grounds as cause of action: (1) CIR v. CA5 and (2) the issuance was done without due process of law and in violation of the right of plaintiff to the equal protection of the laws. a. CIR v. CA6 as a cause of action would depend upon the constitutionality of her issuance. The court ruled that it had fallen short of a valid and effective administration of justice BUT this did not declare the issuance as unconstitutional. Neither did the case make an express finding. b. On violation of the right to due process and equal protection, CIR v. CA said Not insignificantly RMC 37-93 might have likewise infringed on uniformity of taxation however this is also not a positive indictment of the petitioner for violation of fortunes constitutional rights. 8. American Jurisprudence: A Bivens Claim. Webster Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.7 Bivens home was searched without a warrant and in the absence of probable cause. The US SC ruled that a federal agent acting under color of authority fives rise to a cause of action for damages consequent upon his constitutional conduct and Bivens was allowed to recover damages from the agents. a. BUT in Frank Vennes v. An Unknown Number of Unidentified Agents of the USA. A Bivens action was filed against agents of the Internal Revenue Service (IRA). The US SC dismissed the complaint based on overzealous tax administration since Congress has provided specific and meaningful remedies for taxpayers. They can challenge the assessment both admin and judicially and may sue the government for a tax refund and have authorized taxpayer actions against the US government to recover limited damages. WHEREFORE: MR by petitioner of 2007 decision GRANTED. MR by respondent on 2008 resolution to refer the case en banc DENIED. Civil case against petitioner is DISMISSED. Pet NOT LIABLE IN HER PERSONAL CAPACITY. -Czarina Dee

3 4 5 6 7

Result would be to dismiss case. G.R. No. 119398 July 2, 1999. G.R. No. 119761 August 29, 1996. Ibid. 403 US 388 (1971), 91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d. 619.