Inocencio Rosete v. The Auditor General Feria, J. 31 August 1948 Doctrine
Summary
Facts
G.R. No. L-1120
A special agent is agent is one who receives a definite and fixed order or commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special official, so that in representation of the state and being bound to act as an agent thereof, he executes the trust confided to him. This concept does not apply to any executive agent who is an employee of the active administration and who on his own responsibility performs the functions which are inherent in and naturally pertain to his office and which are regulated by law and the regulations. 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 charged with some definite purpose which gives rise to the claim, and not where the claim is based on acts or omissions imputable to a public official charged with some administrative or technical office who can be held to the proper responsibility. Fire destroyed the house belonging belonging to the complainant, allegedly allegedly due to the neg negligence ligence of officials of a government agency, the ECA. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Auditor General, finding that the Government could not be held liable under Art. 1903 (now 2180) because the negligent officials did not fall under the term special agents . •
•
•
•
•
•
On 2 November 1945, a fire broke out at the warehouse of the Emergency Control Administration (ECA), a government agency or instrumentality. The fire spread to and destroyed the contiguous house of the claimant. Claimant alleged that the fire broke out due to the negligence of a certain Jose Frayno in igniting recklessly his cigarette-lighter near a five-gallon drum into which gasoline was being drained, and of the officers of ECA, in storing gasoline in their Manila warehouse, contrary to the provisions of Ordinances of the City of Manila. Additional facts from the dissenting opinion of Perfecto, J.: The storage of gasoline and other combustible and inflammable substances required licenses o and permits under various ordinances of Manila. The Mayor of Manila certified that the ECA was not granted any permit to store gasoline in its motor pool at Azcarraga where the fire took place. Rosete filed a complaint with the Auditor General by virtue of Act. 327, which authorized the filing of claims against the Government with the said Auditor. Auditor General: Denied the claim of the complainant against the Government in the amount of P35,376, for the damages caused to burned/destroyed buildings. Claimant Rosete appealed this decision, saying that the ECA or its officers were negligent in storing a highly combustible substance in its warehouse in violation of the city’s ordinances.
Issues/Ratio I.
W/N the government can be held liable for the negligence of the ECA officials (NO) 1
Claimant Rosete based his claim on Art. 1903 (now 2180 ) of the Civil Code, which states that: ART. 1903. The obligation imposed by the preceding article is enforceable not only for personal acts and omissions but also for those persons for whom another is responsible. xxx xxx xxx The state is liable in the scene when it acts through a special agent, but not when the damage should have been caused by the official to whom it properly pertained to do the act performed xxx xxx xxx 2
The Court cited the case of Meritt v. Government of the Philippine Islands : A special agent…is agent…is one who receives a definite and fixed order or commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special official, so that in representation of the state and being bound to act as an agent thereof, he executes the trust confided to him. [why the Gov. is not liable for the ECA officials] This This concept does not apply to any executive agent who is an employee of the active administration and who on his own responsibility performs the functions which are inherent in and naturally pertain to his office and which are regulated by law and the regulations. regulations. 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 charged with some definite purpose which gives rise to the claim, and not where the claim is based on acts or omissions imputable to a public official charged with some administrative administrative or technical office who can be held to the proper responsibility.
In this case, the ECA officers did not act as special agents of the government within the above defined meaning of that word in Art. 1903 (now 2180) in storing gasoline in warehouse of the ECA. The government is not responsible for the damages caused through such negligence. [this was probably because storing the gasoline was inherent in their responsibilities to the warehouse; It was warehouse for storing oils and gasoline] Holding
AFFIRMED . Decision appealed from AFFIRMED.
1
The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. xxx xxx xxx 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. 2
In this case, the plaintiff was riding on a motorcycle in Calle Padre Faura when a General Hospital ambulance struck the plaintiff causing him to be severely injured. The Court in that case ruled that the State was only liable for the acts of its agents, officers and employees when they act as special agents within the meaning of paragraph 5 of article 1903. The chauffeur of the ambulance of the General Hospital was not such an agent.
Separate Opinions
Perfecto, J (Dissenting)
1)
2) 3) 4)
5)
Art. 1903(5) (now 2180) distinguishes the special agent from the official with specific duty or duties to perform. Under the meaning of the paragraph, the word official comprises all officials and employees of the government who exercise duties of their respective public offices. In qualifying the special agent with the adjective "special", the Civil Code aimed at distinguishing it from the regular or ordinary agent of government, which refers to all officers and employees in the public service. There cannot be any dispute that all persons in the active service of the government, regardless of department or branch, are agents of the State or of the people. The ECA, however, was not a branch or office of the government, such as the legislative bodies, the executive offices, or the tribunals. It was an agency set up for specific purposes which were not attainable through the official functions entrusted by law to the government or its branches. From the foregoing, the decision of the Auditor General denying petitioner's claim should be set aside, not only because it is supported by law, but because it is premised on the totalitarian philosophy of the State's immunity for whatever wrong it may perpetrate.
