FAROLAN v SOLMAC MARKETING CORPORATION G.R. No. 83589 March 13, 1991 RAMON FAROLAN as ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, and GUILLERMO PARAYNO, as CHIEF OF CUSTOM INTELLIGENCE and INVESTIGATION
DIVISION, petitioners, vs. SOLMAC MARKETING CORPORATION and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS:
Solmac Marketing Corporation was the assignee, transferee, and owner of an importation of Clojus Recycling Plastic Products of what is technically known as polypropylene film. Without defect, polypropylene film is sold at a much higher price as prime quality film. Once rejected as defective due to blemishes, discoloration, defective winding, holes, etc., polypropylene film is sold at a relatively cheap price without guarantee or return, and the buyer takes the risk as to whether he can recover an average 30% to 50% usable matter. This latter kind of polypropylene is known as OPP film waste/scrap and this is what respondent SOLMAC claimed the Clojus shipment to be.
The subject importation, consisting of seventeen (17) containers, arrived in December, 1981. Upon application for entry, the Bureau of Customs asked respondent SOLMAC for its authority from any government agency to import the goods described in the bill of lading upon examination of the shipment by the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST), it turned out that the fibers of the importation were oriented in such a way that the materials were stronger than OPP film scrap. In other words, the Clojus shipment was not OPP film scrap, as declared by the assignee respondent SOLMAC to the Bureau of Customs and BOI Governor Lilia R. Bautista, but oriented polypropylene the importation of which is restricted, if not prohibited.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
1. Commissioner of Customs: Considering that the shipment was different from what had been authorized by the BOI and by law, petitioners Parayno and Farolan withheld the release of the subject importation.
2.Board of Investments: subject imports may be released but that holes may be drilled on them by the Bureau of Customs prior to their release. Respondent Solmac filed the action for mandamus and injunction with the RTC as above mentioned.
3. RTC: P100,000.00 and P50,000.00 for exemplary damages and attorney's fees and litigation expenses
4. Court of Appeals: adjudged these public officers to pay solidarily and in their private personal capacities respondent Solmac Marketing Corporation temperate damages in the sum of P100,000.00, exemplary damages in the sum of P50,000.00, and P25,000.00, as attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.
ISSUE:
whether or not the petitioners acted in good faith in not immediately releasing the questioned importation, or, simply, can they be held liable, in their personal and private capacities, for damages to the private respondent.
RULING:
Yes. Thus, they cannot be held liable.
There is no clear and convincing proof showing the alleged bad faith of the petitioners. On the contrary, the record is replete with evidence bolstering the petitioners' claim of good faith.
When a public officer takes his oath of office, he binds himself to perform the duties of his office faithfully and to use reasonable skill and diligence, and to act primarily for the benefit of the public. Good faith: "refer[ring] to a state of the mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. It consists of the honest intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another. It is the opposite of fraud, and its absence should be established by convincing evidence."
It is the duty of the Court to see to it that public officers are not hampered in the performance of their duties or in making decisions for fear of personal liability for damages due to honest mistake. Whatever damage they may have caused as a result of such an erroneous interpretation, if any at all, is in the nature of a damnum absque injuria. Mistakes concededly committed by public officers are not actionable absent any clear showing that they were motivated by malice or gross negligence amounting to bad faith. After all, "even under the law of public officers, the acts of the petitioners are protected by the presumption of good faith. the presumption, disputable though it may be, that an official duty has been regularly performed applies in favor of the petitioners. Omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta. (All things are presumed to be correctly and solemnly done.) It was private respondent's burden to overcome this juris tantum (rebuttable) presumption.
FACTS:
Solmac Marketing Corporation was the assignee, transferee, and owner of an importation of Clojus Recycling Plastic Products of what is technically known as polypropylene film. Without defect, polypropylene film is sold at a much higher price as prime quality film. Once rejected as defective due to blemishes, discoloration, defective winding, holes, etc., polypropylene film is sold at a relatively cheap price without guarantee or return, and the buyer takes the risk as to whether he can recover an average 30% to 50% usable matter. This latter kind of polypropylene is known as OPP film waste/scrap and this is what respondent SOLMAC claimed the Clojus shipment to be.
The subject importation, consisting of seventeen (17) containers, arrived in December, 1981. Upon application for entry, the Bureau of Customs asked respondent SOLMAC for its authority from any government agency to import the goods described in the bill of lading upon examination of the shipment by the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST), it turned out that the fibers of the importation were oriented in such a way that the materials were stronger than OPP film scrap. In other words, the Clojus shipment was not OPP film scrap, as declared by the assignee respondent SOLMAC to the Bureau of Customs and BOI Governor Lilia R. Bautista, but oriented polypropylene the importation of which is restricted, if not prohibited.
DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
1. Commissioner of Customs: Considering that the shipment was different from what had been authorized by the BOI and by law, petitioners Parayno and Farolan withheld the release of the subject importation.
2.Board of Investments: subject imports may be released but that holes may be drilled on them by the Bureau of Customs prior to their release. Respondent Solmac filed the action for mandamus and injunction with the RTC as above mentioned.
3. RTC: P100,000.00 and P50,000.00 for exemplary damages and attorney's fees and litigation expenses
4. Court of Appeals: adjudged these public officers to pay solidarily and in their private personal capacities respondent Solmac Marketing Corporation temperate damages in the sum of P100,000.00, exemplary damages in the sum of P50,000.00, and P25,000.00, as attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.
ISSUE:
whether or not the petitioners acted in good faith in not immediately releasing the questioned importation, or, simply, can they be held liable, in their personal and private capacities, for damages to the private respondent.
RULING:
Yes. Thus, they cannot be held liable.
There is no clear and convincing proof showing the alleged bad faith of the petitioners. On the contrary, the record is replete with evidence bolstering the petitioners' claim of good faith.
-
on the strength of the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) finding that the petitioners withheld the release of
the subject importation for being contrary to law
-
Bureau of Customs sought the advice of the BOI on whether the subject importation might be released.
-
Parayno also testified during the trial that up to that time (of the trial) there was no clear-cut policy on the part of the BOI
regarding the entry into the Philippines of oriented polypropylene (OPP)
When a public officer takes his oath of office, he binds himself to perform the duties of his office faithfully and to use reasonable skill and diligence, and to act primarily for the benefit of the public. Good faith: "refer[ring] to a state of the mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. It consists of the honest intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another. It is the opposite of fraud, and its absence should be established by convincing evidence."
It is the duty of the Court to see to it that public officers are not hampered in the performance of their duties or in making decisions for fear of personal liability for damages due to honest mistake. Whatever damage they may have caused as a result of such an erroneous interpretation, if any at all, is in the nature of a damnum absque injuria. Mistakes concededly committed by public officers are not actionable absent any clear showing that they were motivated by malice or gross negligence amounting to bad faith. After all, "even under the law of public officers, the acts of the petitioners are protected by the presumption of good faith. the presumption, disputable though it may be, that an official duty has been regularly performed applies in favor of the petitioners. Omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta. (All things are presumed to be correctly and solemnly done.) It was private respondent's burden to overcome this juris tantum (rebuttable) presumption.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment