Topic: Article 19
Facts: The Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) was reorganized in 1981, causing resignation of hundreds
of its employees, including Mr. Curio, Mrs. Perez, Mr. Azucena and Mrs. Javier. To acquire their gratituity
benefits, they should apply and secure a clearance from PCA. Their clearance would be approved only if
they have no pending accountability. The officer from who they should get the first approval from is
Atty. Llorente or by Col. Duefias, and then by Atty. Rodriguez, the corporate auditor. Despite unsettled
obligations from different sources (which were deducted from their gratituity benefits), the clearances
of Mr. Perez, Mrs. Javier and Mr. Azucena were approved. Under Mrs. Javier’s pending accountabilities
was the amount of P92,000, which was handwritten. This was the disallowered portion of the cash
advances of Mr. Curio in connection with his duties as “super cargo” in the distribution of seed nuts
throughout the country. He received them through and in the name of Mrs. Javier, the latter being
primarily liable for the disallowances. Other documents were submitted during the deductions, with an
affidavit by Mr. Curio. However, Mr. Curio’s application for a clearance was not approved by Atty.
Llorente in his capacity as Deputy Administrator, due to the grounds of the affidavit that Mr. Curio
executed. He further justified his action as following the condition of the clearance (pending
accountabilities). This made Mr. Curio bring the matter to the legal affairs department, which was also
under Atty. Llorente as Deputy Administrator. But the same was not approved. In 1986 or 5 years later,
his pending request for clearance was approved. However, in the course of 5 years he was not able
acquire gainful employment because of his failure to present his clearance from PCA. Thus, he filed a
case against the petitioner for failure to act in his duty.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner exercised an abuse of right and he is liable for damages against Mr. Curio in accordance with Article 19 of the Civil Code
Ruling:
Yes. Although petitioner Llorente he did not act with evident bad faith as he was following the
procedures in securing a clearance as one of the public officer tasked for it, the fact that he was able to
approve clearances to other 3 employees despite their pending accountabilities somehow show that he
unjustly discriminated Mr. Curio. Thus, he is liable for damages under Article 19 of the Civil Code.
Comments
Post a Comment