-o0oDIGEST

Liwayway Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune Tibacco Co. (2008 MR) Nachura,JFacts: 1.This is a reconsideration of the June 19, 2007 decision that directed the trialcourt to continue with the civil case filed against Comm. Chato in her personalcapacity.2.July 20, 2007 pet. moved for the reconsideration of the decision, MR Deniedin April 14, 2008.3.Undaunted April 29, 2008 Motion to Refer case to the Honorable Court EnBanc 1 4.June 25, 2008 Resolution- The Court Referred the case to the En Banc. Issue: w/n Petitioner may be held liable in her personal capacity for an act done inher duty as the Commission of Internal Revenue commissioner. Decision: No, civil case based on CC 32, the act/omission must be in thenature of a duty to the individual that violates a constitutional right andresults in a particular wrong or injury. Here her duty was to the public ingeneral, and the act did not result in a violation of Fortunes right to dueprocess nor equal protection. 1.2 Kinds of Duties exercised by the public officers:a.Of Duties to the Public a duty owing primarily to the public in general,not to any particular individual. Ex. Governor owes a duty to the publicin general to see the laws are properly executed. Members of thelegislature, to pass only wise and proper laws.b.Of Duties to Individuals While they owe to the public in general dutyof a proper administration of their respective offices, yet by reason of their employment by a particular individual to do some act for him inan official capacity are under a special and particular obligation to himas an individual (in his personal capacity). Ex. Recorder of Deeds inrecording the deed or mortgage of an individual. Clerk of Court inentering up a private judgment. Notary public in protesting anegotiable paper.2. RULE: An individual can hold a public officer personally liable fordamages on account of an act or omission that violates a constitutionalright only if it results in a particular wrong or injury to the former 2 . (Thisis consistent with the June 2007 decision as juxtaposed with CC32)3 . H E R E : Commissioners duty is to the public in general. Her rule makingpowers is a duty to the public to promulgate rules which are compliant with therequirements of valid admin regulations. But it is a duty not to the respondentalone but to the entire body politic who would be affected.4 . H E R E : No particular injury is alleged to have been sustained by therespondent. The phrase financial and business difficulties mentioned in thecomplaint is a vague notion. Facts of the case eloquently demonstrate thatFortune did not pay a single centavo on the tax assessment levied.

5.No particular injury --> no delict or wrongful act or omission --> hencecomplaint fails to state a cause of action. 3 6.CC 32, as held in 2007 decision, the liability may still accrue even if she actedin good faith as long as there is a violation of constitutional rights citingCojuanco v. CA 4 7. Fortune has no Cause of Action. Two grounds as cause of action: (1) CIRv. CA 5 and (2) the issuance was done without due process of law and in violationof the right of plaintiff to the equal protection of the laws.a . C I R v . C A 6 as a cause of action would depend upon the constitutionalityof her issuance. The court ruled that it had fallen short of a valid andeffective administration of justice BUT this did not declare theissuance as unconstitutional. Neither did the case make an expressfinding.b.On violation of the right to due process and equal protection, CIR v. CAsaid Not insignificantly RMC 37-93 might have likewise infringed onuniformity of taxation however this is also not a positive indictment of the petitioner for violation of fortunes constitutional rights.8. American Jurisprudence: A Bivens Claim . Webster Bivens v. Six UnknownNamed Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 7 Bivens home wassearched without a warrant and in the absence of probable cause. The US SCruled that a federal agent acting under color of authority fives rise to a cause of action for damages consequent upon his constitutional conduct and Bivens wasallowed to recover damages from the agents.a. BUT in Frank Vennes v. An Unknown Number of Unidentified Agents of the USA. A Bivens action was filed against agents of the InternalRevenue Service (IRA). The US SC dismissed the complaint based onoverzealous tax administration since Congress has provided specificand meaningful remedies for taxpayers. They can challenge theassessment both admin and judicially and may sue the government fora tax refund and have authorized taxpayer actions against the USgovernment to recover limited damages.WHEREFORE: MR by petitioner of 2007 decision GRANTED.MR by respondent on 2008 resolution to refer the case en bancDENIED.Civil case against petitioner is DISMISSED. Pet NOT LIABLE IN HERPERSONAL CAPACITY .-Czarina Dee