Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
DISCIPLINARY
ACTIONS;
MINIMUM
PERIOD FOR REPLY TO SHOW-CAUSE
NOTICE
By: Atty.Fred | March 4, 2015 in HR and Labor
2 Replies | Related posts at the bottom of article
as
1.
X x x.
X x x.
X x x.
X x x.
(7) In actions for the recovery of wages of
household helpers, laborers and skilled workers;
(8) In actions for indemnity under workmen's
compensation and employer's liability laws;
X x x.
(11) In any other case where the court deems it
just and equitable that attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation should be recovered.
7.
X x x.
Article 19, known to contain what is commonly
referred to as the principle of abuse of rights,
[59]
is not a panacea for all human hurts and
social grievances. Article 19 states:
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of
his rights and in the performance of his duties,
act with justice, give everyone his due, and
observe honesty and good faith.
Elsewhere, we explained that when a right is
exercised in a manner which does not conform
with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and
results in damage to another, a legal wrong is
thereby committed for which the wrongdoer
must be responsible.[60] The object of this
article, therefore, is to set certain standards
which must be observed not only in the exercise
of ones rights but also in the performance of 8.
ones duties.[61] These standards are the
following: act with justice, give everyone his due
and observe honesty and good faith. [62] Its
antithesis, necessarily, is any act evincing bad
faith or intent to injure. Its elements are the
following: (1) There is a legal right or duty; (2)
which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole
intent of prejudicing or injuring another. [63]
When Article 19 is violated, an action for
damages is proper under Articles 20 or 21 of the
Civil Code. Article 20 pertains to damages
arising from a violation of law [64] which does not
obtain herein as Ms. Lim was perfectly within her
right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave. Article 21, on
the other hand, states:
Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or
injury to another in a manner that is contrary to
morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage.
X x x.
Notes (laws and cases cited above):
[47]
13. The case of LLORENTE vs. SANDIGANBAYAN,14. Further on the issue of personal liability of
ET AL., EN BANC, [G.R. No. 85464. October
officers, by analogy, the case of The City of
3, 1991] is applicable by analogy as to the
Angeles, Hon. Antonio Abad Santos vs. CA,
issue of the personal liability of private and
et al., G.R. No. 97882, Aug. 26, l996, citing
public officers for acts done in bad faith, with
Rama vs. CA, 148 SCRA 498; San Luis vs.
abuse of right, with graver abuse of discretion,
CA, 174 SCRA 258, is applicable. In that case,
and the like.
a donation of a parcel of land to the City of
Syllabus.
Angeles, Pampanga was made for the sole
purpose of using it as the site of the Angeles
X x x.
City Sports Center except cockfighting. Instead,
a Drug Rehabilitation Center was constructed
CIVIL LAW; INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTIONS;
upon approval and orders of the mayor and the
DAMAGES FOR ACTS DONE IN BAD FAITH; CASE
members of the sangguniang panglunsod. In
AT BAR. The acts of the petitioner were
ordering the demolition of the Center and the
legal (that is, pursuant to procedures), as
reimbursement of the public funds spent for the
he insists in this petition, yet it does not
construction of the Center, the Court held
follow, as we said, that his acts were done
that it must be borne by the officials of
in good faith. For emphasis, he had no valid
Angeles City who ordered and directed the
reason to "go legal" all of a sudden with respect
construction. It held that public officials are
to Mr. Curio, since he had cleared three
not immune from damages in their
employees who, as the Sandiganbayan found,
personal capacities arising from acts done
"were all similarly circumstanced in that they all
in bad faith. They are liable in their
had pending obligations when, their clearances
personal
capacities
for
whatever
were filed for consideration, warranting similar
damages they may cause by their acts
official action. The Court is convinced that the
done with malice and in bad faith or
petitioner had unjustly discriminated against
beyond the scope of their authority or
Mr. Curio. It is no defense that the petitioner
jurisdiction.[citing Vidad vs. RTC Negros
was motivated by no ill-will (a grudge,
Oriental, Branch 42, 227 SCRA 271, M.H. Wylie
according to the Sandiganbayan), since the
vs. Rarang, 209 SCEA 357; Orocio vs. COA, 213
facts speak for themselves. It is no
SCRA 109]. But such officials must be sued in
defense either that he was, after all,
their personal capacity. In this case the public
complying merely with legal procedures
officials deliberately violated the law, and
since, as we indicated, he was not as strict
persisted in their violation, attempted to
with respect to the three retiring other
deceive the courts by their pretended change
employees. There can be no other logical
in the use of the Center and making it a
conclusion that he was acting unfairly, no more,
mockery of justice. The Court held that public
no less, to Mr. Curio. It is the essence of Article
officials were held
liable
personally
for
19 of the Civil Code, under which the
damages arising from their illegal acts done in
petitioner was made to pay damages, together
bad faith if said officials were sued both in
with Article 27, that the performance of
their official and personal capacities.
duty be done with justice and good
faith. We believe that the petitioner is
Thus held the Court, inter alia:
liable under Article 19. The Court finds the
award of P90,000.00 to be justified by Article
X x x.
2202 of the Civil Code, which holds the
defendant
liable for
all
"natural
and
This Court has time and again ruled that public
probable" damages. Hermenegildo Curio
officials are not immune from damages in their
presented evidence that as a consequence of
personal capacities arising from acts done in
the petitioner's refusal to clear him, he
bad faith. Otherwise stated, a public official
RELIEF