Vital-Gozon v. CA

Vital-Gozon v. CA

G.R. No. 129132 July 8, 1998

Davide, Jr., J.

Issue:

               

whether or not the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter of damages in a special civil action of mandamus.

Held:

               

Yes. CA has jurisdiction to award damages in mandamus petitions. Sec. 3 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court explicitly authorized the rendition of judgment in a mandamus action “commanding the defendant, immediately or at some other specified time, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the defendant.”  The provision makes plain that the damages are an incident, or the result of, the defendant’s wrongful act in failing and refusing to do the act required to be done. It is noteworthy that the Rules of 1940 had an identical counterpart provision. The Solicitor General’s theory that the rule in question is a mere procedural one allowing joinder of an action of mandamus and another for damages, is untenable, for it implies that a claim for damages arising from the omission or failure to do an act subject of a mandamus suit may be litigated separately from the latter, the matter of damages not being inextricably linked to the cause of action for mandamus, which is certainly not the case.

Issue:

whether or not the SolGen is authorized to represent Vital-Gozon in this case

Held:

                Yes. The doctrine laid down in the Urbano and Co cases already adverted to, is quite clear to the effect that the Office of the Solicitor General is not authorized to represent a public official at any stage of a criminal case. This observation should apply as well to a public official who is haled to court on a civil suit for damages arising from a felony allegedly committed by him (Article 100, Revised Penal Code). Any pecuniary liability he may be held to account for on the occasion of such civil suit is for his own account. The State is not liable for the same. A fortiori, the Office of the Solicitor General likewise has no authority to represent him in such a civil suit for damages. Here, Dr. Vital-Gozon is not charged with a crime, or civilly prosecuted for damages arising from a crime, there is no legal obstacle to her being represented by the Office of the Solicitor General.