Municipal liability

GENERAL PRINCIPLES H Merritt v. Gov’t of the Philippine Islands – The responsibility of the
State is limited to that which it contracts through a special agent, duly
empowered by a definite order or commission to perform some act or
Sec. 24, R.A. 7160 - Local government units and their officials are not charged with some definite purpose which gives rise to the claim and
exempt from liability for death or injury to persons or damage to property. not where the act was based on acts or omissions imputable to a public
official charged with some administrative or technical office who can be
Suability1 Liability held to the proper responsibility in the manner laid down by law of civil
Depends on the consent of the Depends on the applicable law* responsibility. The respondent ambulance driver was not acting as
special agent of the state when he accidentally hit the petitioner.
State to be sued and established facts
3) For the Refusal or Failure to Render Service or Aid by
The circumstance that a state is
Policemen
suable does not necessarily
mean that it is liable
Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force
In suability, a state can never be Liability is not conceded by the
refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in
held liable if it does not first mere fact that the State has
case of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be
consent to be sued allowed itself to be sued. When the
primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall
State does waive its sovereign
be subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil action herein
immunity, it is only giving the
recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings,
plaintiff the chance to prove, if it
and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such
can, that the defendant is liable.
action.
*Liabilities under Specific Provisions of Law: L City/Municipality – subsidiarily liable
L Police Officer – primarily liable
1) As provided by Statutory Provisions
2) For Torts
3) For Violation of Law
RULES on tort liability
- As backed up by Supreme Court decisions
4) For Contracts
Quasi-delict – obligations, which do not arise from law, contracts, quasi-
RULES ON LIABILITY AS PROVIDED BY STATUTORY contracts or criminal offenses.
PROVISIONS
Requisites:
CIVIL CODE (1) An unlawful act or omission amounting to a fault or negligence,
imputable to the defendant;
1) For Defective Condition of Roads (2) Damage or injury to the plaintiff;
(3) Such damage or injury being the natural and probable, or
Art. 2189. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for direct and immediate consequence of the defendant’s wrongful
damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person act or omission; and
by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, (4) There being no pre-existing contractual relation between the
bridges, public buildings, and other public works under plaintiff and defendant.
their control or supervision. Article 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the character
stated in the preceding article, is patrimonial property
H City of Manila v. Teotico – The city of Manila was liable for damages
when a person fell into an open manhole in the streets of the city. Article 422. Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for
H Jimenez v. City of Manila – Despite a management and operating
public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property
contract with Asiatic Integrated Corporation over Sta. Ana Public of the State.
Market, the City of Manila (because of Mayor Bagatsing’s admission
that the City still has control and supervision) is solidarily liable for [a] If the LGU is engaged in in governmental functions, it is not
injuries sustained by an individual who stepped on a rusted nail while liable
the market was flooded.
H Palafox v. Province of Ilocos Norte – to attach liability to the state
H Guilatco v. City of Dagupan – Liability of the City for injuries due to for the negligence of respondent driver, a declaration must be made that
defective roads attaches even if the road does not belong to the LGU, he was a ‘special agent’ and not one upon whom properly devolved the
as long as the City exercises control or supervision over said road. duty of driving the truck on the occasion of the accident. Hence,
petitioner’s death, tragic and deplorable though it may be, imposes on
L SUPERVISION and CONTROL over street or road the province no duty to pay monetary compensation.

2) For Acts of Agent H Palma v. Garciano – Prosecution of crimes is a governmental

Art. 2180 par. 6 - The State is responsible in like manner when
it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage
has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly
pertains, in which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be
applicable.
function, and thus, LGU may not be held liable therefor.
H Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Judge Firme – The
municipality was not held liable for torts committed by a regular
employee, even if the dump truck used to belong to the municipality,
inasmuch as the employee was discharging governmental (public
works) functions.

L SPECIAL AGENT – one who receives a definite and fixed [b] If it is engaged in proprietary functions, it is liable
order or commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties of his
office if he is a special official. H Mendoza v. de Leon – It is regarded as a private person in cases
involving the administration of its patrimonial property, and for liability to
EXCEPTION Operation of a ferry service is a proprietary function. The municipality is
negligent and thus liable for having awarded the franchise to operate
ferry service to another notwithstanding the previous grant of the
franchise to the plaintiff.
1
Section 9, Article XVI of the Constitution, which states that the State may not be
sued without its consent
1
 Municipal liability

H Torio v. Fontanilla – Holding of a town fiesta is a proprietary H San Luis v. CA – Laguna Gov. San Luis was held personally liable
functions. The Municipality of Malasigue, Pangasinan, was held liable for moral damages for refusing to reinstate Berroya, quarry
for death of a member of zarzuela group when the stage collapsed, superintendent, despite the CSC ruling that was affirmed by the Office
under the principle of respondeat superior2. [Note: The Municipal of the President.
Council manages the town fiesta. While the municipality was held liable,
the councilors themselves are not liable for the negligence of their
employees or agents.] PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENTAL
PURPOSE to obtain special corporate interest of health, safety and for
H City of Manila v. IAC – The operation of a public cemetery is a
benefits or earn pecuniary profit the advancement of public
proprietary function of the City of Manila. The City is liable for the
good and welfare, affecting the
tortious acts of its employees, under respondeat superior.
public in general
LIABILITY FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL OF AN EMPLOYEE
EXAMPLES  Operation of a ferry  Acts of the agent of state
H Municipality of Jasaan, Misamis Oriental v. Gentallan – Inasmuch
service  Construction of roads
 Establishment of  Prosecution of crimes
as there is no finding that malice or bad faith attended the illegal
dismissal or refusal to reinstate the respondent by her superior officers,
waterworks for inhabitants  Regulations against
 Municipal diseases
the latter cannot be held personally accountable for her back salaries.
slaughterhouses, markets,  Maintenance of municipal
The municipal government, therefore, should disburse funds to answer
fisheries prisons
for her claims (back salaries and other monetary benefits from the time
 Holding of town fiestas  Establishment of public
of her illegal dismissal up to her reinstatement) resulting from the
dismissal. schools
 Establishment of post
H City of Cebu v. Judge Piccio, it was held that a municipal offices
corporation, whether or not included in the complaint for recovery of EFFECT Not immune from suit Immune from suit
back salaries due to wrongful removal from office, is liable.

H Enciso v. Remo – the Municipality is liable for the payment of

backwages of employees illegally separated from service.
LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OF LAW

H Laganapan v. Asedillo – the Municipality of Kalayaan, Laguna, was

H Abella v. Municipality of Naga – Where the Municipality closed part
liable, along with the Mayor, for the back salaries of the illegally
dismissed Chief of Police, because the Municipal Council abolished the of a municipal street without indemnifying the person prejudiced thereby,
appropriation item for salary of the Chief of Police after the petitioner the Municipality can be held for damages.
was dismissed from service.
H Racho v. Municipality of Ilagan, Isabela – Lack of funds does not
PERSONAL LIABILITY OF LOCAL OFFICIALS excuse the Municipality from paying the statutory minimum wage of
H City of Angeles v. CA – Where city officials ordered the construction ₱120.00/month to its employees. The payment of the minimum wage is a
of a drug rehabilitation center on the open space donated by the
mandatory statutory obligation of the Municipality.
subdivision owner in violation of PD 1216, the cost of demolition of the
drug rehabilitation center should be borne by the city officials who
ordered the construction because the act was beyond the scope of their H Moday v. CA – The municipality of Bunawan, Agusan del Sur, through
authority and with evident bad faith. However, since the mayor and the Mayor, was held in contempt and fined ₱1,000.00, with a warning,
sanggunian members are sued in their official capacity, they cannot be because f the refusal of the Mayor to abide by a TRO issued by the
held personally liable without giving them their day in court. Court.
H Rama v. CA – the Provincial Governor and the members of the
Provincial Board were held liable for damages in their personal capacity
LIABILITY FOR CONTRACTS
arising from the illegal act of dismissing employees in bad faith.
5 RULE: A municipal corporation, like an ordinary person, is liable on a
“Where they act maliciously and wantonly and injure individuals rather contract it enters into, provided the contract is intra vires.
than discharge a public duty, they are personally liable.”
H City of Manila v. IAC – the City was liable in damages for breach of
H Correa v. CFI Bulacan – the Mayor who, without just cause, illegally contract, even if the contract does not contain a penalty clause.
dismissed an employee, acted with grave abuse of authority, and he,
not the Municipality of Norzagaray, Bulacan, is personally liable. This If the contract is in ultra vires, the municipal corporation is not liable.
liability attaches even if, at the time of execution, he is no longer the
Mayor. 5 A private individual who deals with a municipal corporation is imputed
constructive knowledge of the extent of the power or authority of the
H Salcedo v. CA – the Mayor, for his persistent defiance to the CSC
Order to reinstate employee, was held personally liable for the payment
municipal corporation to enter into contracts.
of back salaries.
Ultra Vires Contract - an unenforceable contract entered into by the
H Pilar v. Sangguniang bayan of Dasol, Pangasinan – the Mayor municipality if the latter has no such power, or if it is beyond the scope of
was held liable for exemplary and corrective damages for vetoing, its powers, or is actually prohibited by the charter
without just case, the resolution of the Sanggunaing Bayan
appropriating the salary of petitioner.
VOID ULTRA VIRES ULTRA VIRES SUBJECT TO
H Nemenzo v. Sabillano – Mayor Sabillano was adjudged personally RATIFICATION AND/OR
liable for the payment of back salaries of a policeman who was illegally VALIDATION
dismissed. As to nature
“The mayor cannot hide behind the mantle of his official capacity and
An act utterly beyond the An act attended only by an
pass the liability to the Municipality of which he is a Mayor.” jurisdiction of a municipal irregularity but remains within the
corporation municipality’s power
As to enforceability
Void Does not preclude
ratification/application of the
2
Respondeat superior - let the superior respond (Art. 2180, NCC) doctrine of estoppel in the interest
Article 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for of equity and essential justice
one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is As to kinds of municipal contracts
responsible.
1. Entered into beyond the 1. Entered into by the improper

2
 Municipal liability

express, implied or inherent department, board, officer or H Ramos v. CA – Only the Provincial Fiscal, Provincial Attorney or the
powers of the LGU; agent; Municipal Attorney could validly represent the municipality. The legality
of the representation of an unauthorized counsel may be raised at any
2. Do not comply with the 2. Do not comply with the formal
stage of the proceedings. However, the Municipal Attorney may validly
substantive requirements of requirements of a written adopt the work already performed in good faith by the private lawyer,
law (i.e. when expenditure of contract (i.e. Statute of provided:
public funds is to be made, Frauds) (1) no injustice is committed against the adverse party; and that
there must be an actual (2) no compensation has been paid to the counsel.
appropriation and certificate
of availability of funds)  If the suit is filed against a local official which could result in
personal liability of the said public official, the latter may
engage the services of private counsel. (Mancenido v. CA,
Gontang v. Alayan)
5 DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED MUNICIPAL LIABILITY
A municipality may become obligated upon a n implied contract
to pay the reasonable value of the benefits accepted or HYPO 2018
appropriated by it as to which it has the general power to
contract.
 This doctrine applies to all cases where money or D
other property of a party is received under such
circumstances that the general law, independent of
an express contract, implies an obligation to do
justice with respect to the same

H Province of Cebu v. IAC – the Province of Cebu cannot set up the

plea that the contract was ultra vires and still retain benefits thereunder
x x x Having regarded the contract as valid for purposes of reaping
benefits, the Province of Cebu is estopped to question its validity for the
purpose of denying answerability.
MAN
Q: Does Province of Cebu v. IAC reverse De Guia v. Auditor HOLE
General, where the SC held that engagement of the services of Atty. De
Guia by the Municipal Council of Mondragon, N. Samar, was ultra vires
A
because a municipality can engage the services of a private lawyer only
if the Provincial Fiscal is disqualified from appearing as counsel for the B
municipality?
A: NO, because in Province of Cebu, the Province could not possibly
engage the legal services of the Provincial, the latter having taken a
position adverse to the interest of the Province for having priorly
rendered an opinion that the donation was valid.

5 The DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL does not lie against a municipal C

corporation.

H San Diego v. Municipality of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro – Authority

for the rule in estoppel cannot be applied against a municipal
corporation in order to validate a contract which the municipal
corporation has no power to make or which is authorized to make only
under prescribed limitations or in the prescribed mode of manner—even
if the municipal corporation has accepted benefits thereof. SC rejected
the doctrine of estoppel, because to apply the principle would enable
the municipality to do indirectly what It cannot do directly.
5 MUNICIPALITY CANNOT BE REPRESENTED BY A PRIVATE
ATTORNEY.
H Municipality of Pililia, Rizal v. CA – Only the Provincial Fiscal or the
Municipal Attorney can represent a province or municipality in lawsuits3.
This is mandatory. The municipality’s authority to employ a private
lawyer is limited to situation where the Fiscal is disqualified to represent
it, and the fact of disqualification must be on record.
The Fiscal’s refusal to represent the municipality is not a legal
justification for employing the services of private counsel; the
municipality should request the SOJ to appoint an Acting Provincial
Fiscal in place of the one who declined to handle the case in court.
3
Reasons: (1) local government shall not be burdened with expenses of hiring a private lawyer;
(2) the interests of the municipal corporation would be best protected if a gov’t lawyer handles the
case; (3) municipal attorney and fiscal would be faithful and dedicated to the corporation’s
interest; and (4) as a civil service employee, they could be held accountable for any misconduct
or dereliction of duty. (Province of Cebu v. IAC);
Exceptions: (1) Public prosecutor is disqualified; (2) when the jurisdiction of the case lies within
the SC; (3) when the municipality is a party adverse to the provincial government or to some other
municipality, or (4) when the case involves the municipality, the prosecutor, his spouse, his child
is involved as creditor , heir, legatee. (Mancenido v. CA)
Thief Y
SITUATION:
 The truck is on its way to deliver materials for Municipality A’s
festival
 The Ambulance of a government hospital from Municipality C
was on its way to get a patient from an accident
 The Police car from Municipality D is on its way to an official
duty
 A manhole is under the custody of B
Q’s & A’s:
With regard to the truck
1. What if the truck, which is on its way to Municipality A to deliver
materials for its town fiesta bumped into’ X’s car, is Municipality
A liable?
Answer: Yes, A is liable. In the case of Torio v. Fontanilla, the
municipality was held liable for the incident met by an individual due to
the collapse of the fiesta stage. The fiesta was considered to be a
proprietary function that caused the attachment of liability to the
municipality. The situation shows that the truck was on its way to deliver
materials for the fiesta, which is a proprietary function. The purpose of
the delivery being a proprietary function, liability should attach to
Municipality A. Therefore, Municipality A may be held liable.
3
 Municipal liability

Alternative Answer: No, A is not liable. In the case of Palafox v.
Province of Ilocos Norte, it was held that to attach liability to the state
for the negligence of respondent driver, a declaration must be made that
he was a special agent and not one upon whom was properly devolved
with the duty of driving the truck on the occasion of the accident. In the
situation, the truck was not declared to be a special agent of Municipality
A. So when the truck bumped X, it cannot be held that liability attached to
A. Therefore, A is not liable.
Answer: The policemen are primarily liable for refusing to help X whose
life is in danger. Under Art. 34 of NCC, when a member of a city or
municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any
person in case of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be
primarily liable for damages. Clearly, the policemen refused to aid X
despite the latter’s call for help. Therefore they are liable.
2. Is Municipality D liable in this case?

2. What if what will be delivered is for the municipality project Answer: Municipality D is subsidiarily liable. Under Art. 34 of NCC, the
which involves the construction of a bridge, can A be held city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible for the police force’s
liable? refusal or failure to render aid or protection to any person in case of
danger to life or property. The policemen clearly refused to aid X whose
Answer: NO, A cannot be held liable. In Municipality of San Fernando life is in danger to the manhole, therefore D is subsidiarily liable.
v. Firme, it was held that generally, the state cannot be held liable for
torts committed by them in the discharge of governmental functions and
can be held answerable only if it can be shown that they were acting in
proprietary capacity. In the situation, the delivery was undertaken in lieu
of governmental function because it was for the construction of a bridge.
Therefore, liability cannot attach to Municipality A.

3. Why is the liability different if the function is governmental or

proprietary?

Answer: The government or state cannot be sued when it comes to

activities that involve a governmental function because of state immunity.
They are immune from suit with regard to its governmental functions,
because the immunity’s purpose is to protect the government when it
undertakes an activity that is mandated to be their duty to the people. If
the government is susceptible to suit, then there will be a hesitation to
undertake their official duties. On the other hand, the state can be held
liable it is a proprietary function, because it is like entering into a contract,
and an implied consent is carried with it.

With regard to the manhole

1. What if X met an accident because of the manhole under the
custody of Municipality B, is B liable?

Answer: Yes, B is liable. In the case of Guilatico v. City of Dagupan, it

was held that liability of the City for injuries due to detective roads
attaches even if the road does not belong to the local government unit,
as long as the City exercises control supervision over said road. Applying
said doctrine to this situation, B exercises control over the said manhole
despite it not being situated in the territory of B. The manhole caused
injury to X, therefore B should be held liable.

2. What if the cover of the manhole was stolen by Y, is B liable?

Answer: No, B should not be liable. In the case of Jimenez v. City of

Manila, a city must exercise reasonable care and diligence in supervising
facilities or infrastructures under its control. If they are found to be
negligent, they shall be liable to the person injured. In this case, it was
not due to the negligence of Municipality B that X met an accident.
Rather it was due to the criminal act of Y that X met an accident.
Therefore, B is not liable.

With regard to the ambulance

1. What if the ambulance bumped into X causeing the latter’s
death, is C liable?

Answer: No, C cannot be held liable. In the case of Merritt v. Govt of

PH Islands, it was ruled that the government cannot be held liable for the
negligence of the chauffeur, because such was undertaking a
governmental function. Applying the doctrine to this case with the similar
factual milieu, C cannot be held liable.

With regard to the police car

1. What if the policemen from Municipality D saw that X was in
danger, because of the manhole, X called for the policemen’s
help, but they refused to do so, what is the policemen’s
liability?
4