Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune Tobacco

Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune Tobacco (2007) / Ynares-Santiago

Facts

Champion, Hope, and More were considered local brands subject to ad valorem [accdg to value] tax [20-45%]. Two days prior (1 Jul '93) to RA 7654's effectivity, VC [Comm., BIR] issued the RMC reclassifying the brands as locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a foreign brand subject to 55% AV tax (brands were subjected to RA 7654, Sec. 142 (c)(1) before it took effect). On 2 Jul, BIR Deputy Comm sent a copy of RMC to Fortune via fax. It was only on 15 Jul when Fortune received a certified photocopy of the RMC. 

          Fortune filed an MfR on 20 Jul, requesting the RMC's recall but it was denied on 30 Jul, and payment of the AV tax deficiency (9M~) was demanded within 10 days. Fortune filed a petition for review with the CTaxApp (CTA) which issued an injunction enjoining RMC's implementation (defective, invalid, unenforceable). This was affirmed by the CA, and SC in Comm, BIR v. CA, since the RMC fell short of the requirements for a valid admin issuance.

          Fortune filed a complaint for damages against VC in her private capacity in the RTC, saying that she should be held liable for damages under NCC 32 (RMC issuance violated right against property deprivation without due process + equal protection of the laws). VC filed a motion to dismiss since she issued RMC in the performance of her fxn, within authority, and said that being an agent of RP, the latter is the one responsible for her acts, and that the complaint did have a cause of axn because there was no allegation of malice/bad faith. 

          RTC denied VC's motion to dismiss. CA dismissed the case as well, saying that under NCC 32, liability may arise even if defendant did not act with malice/bad faith. CA also said that Admin Code is the general law on puboff's civil liab while NCC 32 is the special law governing this case, and that malice/bad faith need not be alleged in the complaint for damages. VC filed this complaint, saying that what shld be applied is the Admin Code [liab attaches only when there is a clear showing of bad faith / malice / gross negligence] and said that Admin Code is the special law, and that NCC is the general law.

Issues and Holding

1. WON a puboff be sued in his private capacity for acts done in connection with the discharge of ofc fxns. YES, when [#3]
   1. GEN RULE: PubOff not liab for damages which another suffers from just performance of official duties, within scope of tasks  + RP not amenable to judgment for monetary claims without its consent
      1. HOWEVER, puboff not immune from damages in personal capacity for acts done in bad faith (not protected by mantle of immunity) [See cited Admin Code provision + Sec 39 of the same]
      2. Cojuangco, Jr. v. CA - puboff who in/directly violates another's consti rights may be sued for damages under NCC 32 even though there is no malice / bad faith
      3. SO: puboff may be sued [...]
         1. when there is malice, bad faith, negligence
         2. when he violated a consti right of plaintiff
2. NCC 32 or Admin Code Sec. 38, Book I? NCC 32
   1. LegMeth knowledge - gen, special law shld be harmonized if possible; special law prevails; the circ that special law is passed before or after gen law does not change principle
   2. Discussion of Code Comm (Dean Bocobo)
      1. There was a proposal re NCC 32 that puboff be held liable for consti right violation only if there is malice / bad faith but he said that Code Comm opposes this
         1. Nature of NCC 32 - wrong may be civil or criminal
         2. To make such a requisite would defeat main purpose (effective protection of individual rights)
         3. Object is to put an end to abuse by plea of good faith; in US the remedy is in the nature of tort
   3. NCC 32 patterned after Am law tort - WRONG, TORTIOUS ACT DEFINED AS THE COMMISSION/OMISSION OF ACT BY ONE, WITHOUT RIGHT, WHEREBY ANOTHER RECEIVES SOME INJURY IN PERSON, PROPERTY, OR REPUTATION
      1. Liab in tort not precluded by the fact that defendant acted without evil intent
   4. Aberca v. Ver - With NCC 32, principle of puboff acctability under Consti acquires added meaning, assumes larger dimension
   5. Admin Code - bad faith, malice, negligence vital elements to make puboff liable for damages; subject is general ("acts" done in performance of duties, without specifying action/omission that may give rise to civil suit)
      1. IN CONTRAST TO NCC 32 which specifies clearly the acts that may give rise to axn for damages (tort for impairment of rights, liberties)
3. WON VC may be held liable for damages. YES (no explicit / direct answer on this though)
   1. Complaint brought under NCC 32 which does not require bad faith and malice, so the failure to allege it will not amount to failure to state cause of action