Scribd
Upload
572 views

Notes Re: Command Responsibility

The document discusses the principle of command responsibility in administrative law. It discusses several court cases where respondents were found either guilty or not guilty based on this principle. The principle holds superiors responsible for the actions of their subordinates. However, the courts found that for administrative liability to attach, there needs to be substantial evidence that the superior was grossly negligent, and the negligence of subordinates alone is not enough to infer negligence of the superior. In several cases discussed, liability did not attach to high-ranking officers as there was no evidence of their own direct negligence.

Uploaded by

anntomarong
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
572 views

Notes Re: Command Responsibility

The document discusses the principle of command responsibility in administrative law. It discusses several court cases where respondents were found either guilty or not guilty based on this principle. The principle holds superiors responsible for the actions of their subordinates. However, the courts found that for administrative liability to attach, there needs to be substantial evidence that the superior was grossly negligent, and the negligence of subordinates alone is not enough to infer negligence of the superior. In several cases discussed, liability did not attach to high-ranking officers as there was no evidence of their own direct negligence.

Uploaded by

anntomarong
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

RESPONDENT IS NOT GUILTY

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; PUBLIC OFFICERS; ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY;


NOT BASED ON PRINCIPLE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY ABSENT
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF GROSS NEGLECT; CASE AT BAR. — In the
absence of substantial evidence of gross neglect of petitioner,
administrative liability could not be based on the principle of command
responsibility. The negligence of petitioner's subordinates is not tantamount to
his own negligence. It was not within the mandated responsibilities of petitioner
to conduct actual monitoring of projects. The principles governing public officers
under the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 clearly provide that a head of a
department or a superior officer shall not be civilly liable for the wrongful acts,
omissions of duty, negligence, or misfeasance of his subordinates, unless he has
actually authorized by written order the specific act or misconduct complained
of.   (Principe v. Fact-Finding & Intelligence Bureau, G.R. No. 145973,
|||

[January 23, 2002], 425 PHIL 300-311)

RESPONDENT IS GUILTY
Under the principle of command responsibility, he was responsible for the
manner in which the committee performed its tasks for it was he who in fact
signed the deed of sale prepared by the committee. By signing the deed of
sale and certifications prepared for his signature by his committee, he in
effect, made their acts his own. He is, therefore, equally guilty with those
members of the committee (Fernando, Cruz and Jose) who accepted the fake
tax declarations and made false certifications regarding the use and value of
the Agleham property  (Arias v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 81563 & 82512,
|||

[December 19, 1989], 259 PHIL 794-820)

True, this Court has held in several cases that in the absence of substantial
evidence of gross negligence of the petitioner, administrative liability could not
be based on the principle of command responsibility  (Montallana v. Office of
|||

the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 179677, [August 15, 2012], 692 PHIL 617-632)

Neither will the allegation of the principle of command responsibility make the
respondents liable. In the absence of substantial evidence of gross negligence
of the respondents, administrative liability could not be based on the principle of
command responsibility. 37 Without proof that the head of office was negligent,
no administrative liability may attach. Indeed, the negligence of subordinates
cannot always be ascribed to their superior in the absence of evidence of the
latter's own negligence. While it may be true that certain PCAMRD employees
were sanctioned for negligence and some other administrative infractions, it
does not follow that those holding responsible positions, like the respondents in
this case, are likewise negligent, especially so when the contentions of
petitioner remain unsubstantiated.   (De Jesus v. Guerrero III, G.R. No.
|||

171491, [September 4, 2009], 614 PHIL 520-532)

Without proof that the head of office was negligent, no administrative liability
may attach. Indeed, the negligence of subordinates cannot always be
ascribed to their superior in the absence of evidence of the latter's own
negligence.  While Arriola might have been negligent in accepting the spurious
documents, such fact does not automatically imply that Nicolas was also. As a
matter of course, the latter relied on the former's recommendation. Petitioner is
not mandated or even expected to verify personally from the Bureau of
Customs — or from wherever else it originated — each receipt or document
that appears on its face to have been regularly issued or executed.  (Nicolas v.
|||

Desierto, G.R. No. 154668, [December 16, 2004], 488 PHIL 158-173)

From another perspective, the negligence of the subordinate cannot be


ascribed to his superior in the absence of evidence of the latter's own
negligence. Indeed, the negligence of the subordinate is not tantamount to
negligence of the superior official so the Court ruled in a case where the
mandated responsibilities of the superior do not include actual monitoring of
projects. In another case, this Court rejected the principle of command
responsibility although the case involved a provincial constabulary commander,
aptly noting that there was neither allegation nor proof that he had been in any
way guilty of fault or negligence in connection with the unlawful raid and arrest
effected by his subordinates  (Reyes v. Rural Bank of San Miguel, G.R. No.
|||

154499 (Resolution), [February 27, 2004], 468 PHIL 254-266)

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy