By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III
With the clamor for further investigations on the construction of the Ungka Flyover (UFO) gaining traction, it brings to the fore the legal angles to be reckoned in said investigations.
When public officers perform their legally mandated functions, especially when public funds are dispensed, public interest is always involved.
So in the conduct of the investigations, the investigators would usually look into three (3) legal angles.
“Under the ‘threefold liability rule’, any act or omission of any public official or employee can result in criminal, civil, or administrative liability, each of which is independent of the other (Ernesto A. Fajardo v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 173268 August 23, 2012).
Stated differently, the threefold liability rule consists of civil, criminal and administrative accountabilities.
Civil liability. The civil liability of a public officer or employee could be predicated on Article 27 of the New Civil Code which states that: “Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken”.
Criminal and administrative liabilities. These responsibilities would usually be anchored on Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft Law. Here, bad faith must be shown.
Thus, “Jurisprudence instructs that bad faith referred to under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence but of having a palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do some moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive, or ill will. It connotes a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive or self-interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes. It is a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will and partakes of the nature of fraud” (Antonio M. Suba v. Sandiganbayan First Division and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 235418. March 3, 2021).
Too, it was restated in Alma Kamoro Pahkiat v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 223972, which came down on November 03, 2020 that: “x x x there are three kinds of remedies available against a public officer for impropriety in the performance of his powers and the discharge of his duties: (1) civil, (2) criminal, and (3) administrative.
It was underlined therein that “These remedies may be invoked separately, alternately, simultaneously or successively. Sometimes, the same offense may be the subject of all three kinds of remedies. The rule that the three kinds of remedies, which flow from the threefold liability of a public officer, may proceed independently, is hinged on the differences in the quantum of evidence required in each case. In criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed, whereas a mere preponderance of evidence will suffice in civil cases. In administrative cases, only substantial evidence is required. As such, defeat of any of the three remedies will not necessarily preclude resort to other remedies or affect decisions reached thereat”.
So, as clarified by jurisprudence, all three liabilities may be exacted from public officials involved all together. There is only a difference in terms of the degree of proof required for each case.
The UFO is not only a massive physical structure. It is also colossal in terms of its purpose which is to decongest traffic especially leading to and coming from the airport. In turn it is said that the airport is the “gateway” to the local government units (LGU). It serves to provide “the first impression” on the LGUs.
On such matters of grave proportions as affecting public interest, the voice of the citizens must be heard. After all, it was stated that “The most important position in a democratic society belonged not to any appointed or elected official but to the individual citizen”. (Dissents and the Supreme Court (It’s Role In the Court’s History and The Nation’s Constitutional Dialogue) by Melvin I. Urofsky, Pantheon Books New York, paraphrasing Justice Louis Brandeis).
(The author is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates- a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor and a book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).
