Photo from Pexels | Alexis Ricardo Alaurin
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Under the “threefold liability rule,” the wrongful acts or omissions of public officers may give rise to civil, criminal and administrative liabilities. Corollarily, public officers could still be held civilly liable to reimburse the injured party notwithstanding their acquittal. (Matobato, Sr. v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 229265, February 15, 2022)
Basic in the law of public officers is the three-fold liability rule, which states that the wrongful acts or omissions of a public officer may give rise to civil, criminal and administrative liability. An action for each can proceed independently of the others. (Domingo v. Rayala, G.R. No. 155831, February 18, 2008)
In the case of Ramiscal, Jr. v. Commission on Audit (G.R. No. 213716, October 10, 2017), the Supreme Court held that the “threefold liability rule” simply means that a public officer may be held civilly, criminally, and administratively liable for a wrongful doing. Thus, if such violation or wrongful act results in damages to an individual, the public officer may be held civilly liable to reimburse the injured party. If the law violated attaches a penal sanction, the erring officer may also be punished criminally. Finally, such violation may also lead to suspension, removal from office, or other administrative sanctions.
The action that may result for each liability under the “threefold liability rule” may proceed independently of one another, as in fact, the quantum of evidence required in each case is different. Thus, in Reyna v. Commission on Audit, the Supreme Court held that a criminal case filed before the Office of the Ombudsman is distinct and separate from the proceedings on the disallowance before the COA.
Furthermore, the right of the government to exercise administrative supervision over erring public officials is lost when they cease their functions in office. Consequently, the government must commence an administrative case while they are in office; otherwise, the disciplining body would no longer have any jurisdiction over them. The same is not true with civil and criminal cases. The Court has ruled in the past that even if an administrative case may no longer be filed against public officials who have already resigned or retired, criminal and civil cases may still be filed against them. The administrative case contemplated under the threefold liability rule is one that goes into the conduct of the public official and is intended to be disciplinary.
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.