AMADO J. LANSANG, p petitioner, etitioner,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GENERAL ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLY OF THE BLIND, INC., and JOSE IGLESIAS, respondents. QUISUMBING, J.:
Before us is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. CV No. 27244, which set aside the ruling of the Regional rial Court, !anila, Branch ", in Civil Case No. ""#4$""7, and ordered petitioner A%ado &. 'ansang to pa( private respondent &ose )glesias *+,. in %oral da%ages, *-,. in ee%plar( da%ages and *+,. in attorne(/s fees. 'i0e pu1lic streets, pu1lic par0s are 1e(ond the co%%erce of %an. owever, private respondents were allegedl( awarded a 3ver1al contract of lease3 in -7 1( the National *ar0s 5evelop%ent Co%%ittee 6N*5C, a govern%ent initiated civic 1od( engaged in the develop%ent of national par0s, including Ri8al *ar0,- 1ut actuall( ad%inistered 1( high profile civic leaders and 9ournalists. :hoever in N*5C gave such 3ver1al3 acco%%odation to private respondents was unclear, for indeed no docu%ent or instru%ent appears on record to show the grantor of the ver1al license to private respondents to occup( a portion of the govern%ent par0 dedicated to the national hero/s %e%or(. *rivate respondents were allegedl( given office and li1rar( space as well as 0ios0s area selling food and drin0s. ;ne such 0ios0 was loca ted along .!. .!.
5=A Revolution, Revolution, the new Chair%an of the N*5C, herein petitioner, sought to clean up Ri8al *ar0. )n a written notice dated ? e1ruar( 2$, -"" and received 1( private respondents on ?e1ruar( 2, -"", petitioner ter%inated the so#called ver1al agree%ent with GAB) and de%anded that the latter vacate the pre%ises and the 0ios0s it ran privatel( within the pu1lic par0.$ )n another notice dated !arch +, -"", respondents were given until !arch ", -"" to vacate.4 he latter notice was signed 1 ( private respondent )glesias, GAB) president, allegedl( to indicate his confor%it( to its contents. owever, )glesias, who is totall( 1lind, clai%s that he was deceived into signing the notice. e was allege dl( told 1( Ricardo Villanueva, then chief warden of Ri8al *ar0, that he was %erel( ac0nowledging receipt of the notice. Although 1lind, )glesias as president was 0nowledgea1le enough to run GAB) as well as its 1usiness. ;n the da( of the supposed eviction, GAB) filed an action for da%ages and in9unction in the Regional rial Court against petitioner, Villanueva, Villanueva, and 3all persons acting on their 1ehalf3. + he trial court issued a te%porar( restraining order on the sa%e da(.@ he R; epired on !arch 2", -"". he following da(, GAB) was finall( evicted 1( N*5C.
GAB)/s action for da%ages and in9unction was su1seuentl( dis%issed 1( the RC, ruling that the co%plaint was actuall( directed against the =tate which could not 1e sued without its consent. !oreover, the trial court ruled that GAB) could not clai% da%ages under the alleged oral lease agree%ent since GAB) was a %ere acco%%odation concessionaire. As such, it could onl( recover da%ages upon proof of the profits it could reali8e fro% the conclusion. he trial court noted that no such proof was presented. 1âwphi1.nêt
;n appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court. he Court of Appeals ruled that the %ere allegation that a govern%ent official is 1eing sued in his official capacit( is not enough to protect such official fro% lia1ilit( for acts done without or in ecess of his authorit(.7 Granting that petitioner had the authorit( to evict GAB) fro% Ri8al *ar0, 3the a1usive and capricious %anner in which that authorit( was eercised a%ounted to a legal wrong for which he %ust now 1e held lia1le for da%ages3 " according to the Court of Appeals. he Court of Appeals noted that, as the trial court o1served, the eviction of GAB) ca%e at the heels of two significant incidents. ?irst, after private respondent )glesias etended %onetar( support to stri0ing wor0ers of the N*5C, and second, after )glesias sent the anod1a(an, a letter on Nove%1er 2@, -"7, denouncing alleged graft and corruption in the N*5C. hese, according to the Court of Appeals, should not have 1een ta0en against GAB), which had 1een occup(ing Ri8al *ar0 for nearl( 2 (ears. GAB) was evicted purportedl( for violating its ver1al agree%ent with N*5C. - owever, the Court of Appeals pointed out that N*5C failed to present proof of such violation. -he Court of Appeals found petitioner lia1le for da%ages under Articles -, 2-, and 24 of the Civil Code.-2 he Court of Appeals a1solved fro% lia1ilit( all other persons i%pleaded in GAB)/s co%plaint since it appeared that the( were %erel( acting under the orders of petitioner. he new officers of N*5C, additionall( i%pleaded 1( GAB), were li0ewise a1solved fro% lia1ilit(, a1sent an( showing that the( participated in the acts co%plained of. *etitioner was ordered to pa( private respondent )glesias %oral and ee%plar( da%ages and attorne(/s fees. ence, this petition, in which petitioner raises the following issues ). :>>R ;R N; R>=*;N5>N C;R >RR>5 )N N; ;'5)NG A *R)VA> R>=*;N5>N=/ C;!*'A)N AGA)N= *>));N>R, A= CA)R!AN ;? N*5C, AN5 )= C;#5>?>N5AN= )N C)V)' CA=> N;. ""#4$""7, )= )N >??>C A =) AGA)N= > =A> :)C CANN; B> =>5 :); )= C;N=>N. )). :>>R ;R N; R>=*;N5>N C;R >RR>5 )N N; ;'5)NG A *>));N>R/= AC ;? >R!)NA)NG R>=*;N5>N GAB)/= C;NC>==);N )= VA')5 AN5 5;N> )N > 'A:?' *>R?;R!ANC> ;? ;??)C)A' 5D.-$ *etitioner insists that the co%plaint filed against hi% is in realit( a co%plaint against the =tate, which could not prosper without the latter/s consent. e anchors his argu%ent on the fact that N*5C is a govern%ent agenc(, and that when he ordered the eviction of GAB), he was acting in his capacit( as
chair%an of N*5C. *etitioner avers that the %ere allegation that he was 1eing sued in his personal capacit( did not re%ove the case fro% the coverage of the law of pu1lic officers and the doctrine of state i%%unit(. *etitioner points out that )glesias signed the notice of eviction to indicate his confor%it( thereto. e contends that as evidence of private respondents/ 1ad faith, the( sued petitioner instead of co%pl(ing with their underta0ing to vacate their li1rar ( and 0ios0 at Ri8al *ar0. *etitioner adds that during the actual eviction, no untoward incident occurred. GAB)/s properties were properl( inventoried and stored. According to petitioner, the Court of Appeals/ o1servation that the eviction was pro%pted 1( )glesias/ support for stri0ing N*5C wor0ers and the letter#co%plaint sent to the anod1a(an is %erel( con9ectural. ?inall(, petitioner avers that the %ove to evict GAB) and award the spaces it occupied to another group was an eecutive polic( decision within the discretion of N*5C. GAB)/s possession of the 0ios0s as concessionaire was 1( %ere tolerance of N*5C and, thus, such possession %a( 1e withdrawn at an( ti%e, with or without cause. ;n the other hand, private respondents aver that petitioner acted 1e(ond the scope of his authorit( when he showed %alice and 1ad faith in ordering GAB)/s e9ect%ent fro% Ri8al *ar0. Euoting fro% the decision of the Court of Appeals, private respondents argue that petitioner is lia1le for da%ages for perfor%ing acts 3to in9ure an individual rather than to discharge a pu1lic dut(.3 -4 :hile private respondents recogni8e the authorit( of petitioner to ter%inate the agree%ent with GAB) 3if Fthe contract is pre9udicial to the interest of the N*5C,3 -+ the( %aintain that petitioner/s personal interest, and not that of the N*5C, was the root cause of GAB)/s e9ec%ent. he doctrine of state i%%unit( fro% suit applies to co%plaints filed against pu1lic officials for acts done in the perfor%ance of their d uties. he rule is that the suit %ust 1e regarded as one against the state where satisfaction of the 9udg%ent against the pu1lic official concerned will reuire the state itself to perfor% a positive act, such as appropriation of the a%ount necessar( to pa( the da%ages awarded to the plaintiff. -@ he rule does not appl( where the pu1lic official is charged in his official capacit( for acts that are unlawful and in9urious to the rights of others. -7 *u1lic officials are not ee%pt, in their personal capacit(, fro% lia1ilit( arising fro% acts co%%itted in 1ad faith. -" Neither does it appl( where the pu1lic official is clearl( 1eing sued not in his official capacit( 1ut in his personal capacit(, although the acts co%plained of %a( have 1een co%%itted while he occupied a pu1lic position. :e are convinced that petitioner is 1eing sued not in his capacit( as N*5C chair%an 1ut in his personal capacit(. he co%plaint filed 1( private respondents in the RC %erel( identified petitioner as chair%an of the N*5C, 1ut did not categoricall( state that he is 1eing sued in that capacit(. - Also,
it is evident fro% paragraph 4 of said co%plaint that petitioner was sued allegedl( for having personal %otives in ordering the e9ect%ent of GAB) fro% Ri8al *ar0. 4. 5efendant A!A5; &. 'AN=ANG, &R., the Chair%an of the National *ar0s 5evelop%ent Co%%ittee, acting under the spirit of revenge, ill-will , evil motive and personal resentment against plaintiff &;=> )G'>=)A=, served on the plaintiff corporation a letter, dated ?e1ruar( 2$, -"" ter%inating plaintiffs lease agree%ent with a de%and for the plaintiff corporation to vacate its office pre%ises. . . 2 6>%phasis supplied. he parties do not dispute that it was petitioner who ordered the e9ect%ent of GAB) fro% their office and 0ios0 at Ri8al *ar0. here is a lso no dispute that petitioner, as chair%an of the N*5C which was the agenc( tas0ed to ad%inister Ri8al *ar0, had the authorit( to ter%inate the agree%ent with GAB)2- and order the organi8ation/s e9ect%ent. he uestion now is whether or not petitioner a1used his authorit( in ordering the e9ect%ent of private respondents. :e find, however, no evidence of such a1use of authorit( on record. As earlier stated, Ri8al *ar0 is 1e(ond the co%%erce of %an and, thus, could not 1e the su19ect of a lease contract. Ad%ittedl(, there was no written contract. hat private respondents were allowed to occup( office and 0ios0 spaces in the par0 was onl( a %atter of acco%%odation 1( the previous ad%inistrator. his 1eing so, also ad%ittedl(, petitioner %a( validl( discontinue the acco%%odation etended to private respondents, who %a( 1e e9ected fro% the par0 when necessar(. *rivate respondents cannot and does not clai% a vested right to continue to occup( Ri8al *ar0. he Court of Appeals awarded private respondent )glesias %oral and ee%plar( da%ages and attorne(/s fees. owever, we find no evidence on record to support )glesias/ clai% that h e suffered %oral in9ur( as a result of GAB)/s e9ect%ent fro% Ri8al *ar0. A1sent an( satisfactor( proof upon which the Court %a( 1ase the a%ount of da%ages suffered, the award of %oral da%ages cannot 1e sustained.22 Neither can we sustain the award of ee%plar( da%ages, which %a( onl( 1e awarded in addition to %oral, te%perate, liuidated, or co%pensator( da%ages. 2$ :e also disallow the award for attorne(/s fees, which can onl( 1e recovered per stipulation of the parties, which is a1sent in this case. here is no showing that an( of the eceptions 9ustif(ing the award of attorne(/s fees a1sent a stipulation is present in this case. 24 :>R>?;R>, the instant petition is GRAN>5. he decision of the Court of Appeals in CA#G.R. CV No. 27244 is here1( => A=)5>, and the 5)=!)==A' of the co%plaint for da%ages 1( the trial court for want of %erit is A??)R!>5. No costs. =; ;R5>R>5.
1âwphi1.nêt
