[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
64 views1 page

Sanders Vs Veridiano, 162 SCRA 716

1) Two private respondents had their employment status changed from permanent full-time to permanent part-time and filed a grievance proceeding resulting in their reinstatement and back wages. 2) The issue is whether the petitioners were performing their official duties in good faith when taking actions that resulted in them being sued for damages. 3) The court found that the petitioners were being sued as officers of the United States government and that, even under the law of public officers, the acts of the petitioners are protected by the presumption of good faith, which was not overturned by the private respondents.

Uploaded by

geni_pearlc
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
64 views1 page

Sanders Vs Veridiano, 162 SCRA 716

1) Two private respondents had their employment status changed from permanent full-time to permanent part-time and filed a grievance proceeding resulting in their reinstatement and back wages. 2) The issue is whether the petitioners were performing their official duties in good faith when taking actions that resulted in them being sued for damages. 3) The court found that the petitioners were being sued as officers of the United States government and that, even under the law of public officers, the acts of the petitioners are protected by the presumption of good faith, which was not overturned by the private respondents.

Uploaded by

geni_pearlc
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/ 1

Alonzo, Patricia Marie C.

2018-0050

SANDERS VS VERIDIANO

FACTS: Private respondents were advised that their employment had been converted from
permanent full-time to permanent part-time. In response, they instituted grievance proceedings
conformably to the pertinent rules and regulations of the U.S. Department of Defense. This
resulted for their reinstatement to permanent full-time status plus back wages. Sanders
disagreed with the hearing officer's report and asked for the rejection of the recommendation.
Before the grievance hearings started, a letter from Moreau was sent to the Chief of Naval
Personnel explaining the change of the private respondent’s employment status.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioners were performing their official duties in good faith when they did
the acts where they are sued for damages.

RULING: Given the official character of the letters, we have to conclude that the petitioners were
being sued as officers of the United States government.

The Court finds that, even under the law of public officers, the acts of the petitioners are
protected by the presumption of good faith, which has not been overturned by the private
respondents. Even mistakes concededly committed by such public officers are not actionable if it
is not shown that they were motivated by malice or gross negligence amounting to bad faith.
This, to, is well settled/ Furthermore, applying now our own penal laws, the letters come under
the concept of privileged communications and are not punishable, let alone the fact that the
resented remarks are not defamatory by our standards. It seems the private respondents have
overstated their case.

You might also like