Amaro v Sumanguit (G.R. No. L-14986)

DOCTRINE:  The refusal of the Chief of Police to give assistance, which it was his duty to do, constitutes an actionable dereliction in light of Article 27 of the Civil Code.

Facts:

Jose Amaro was assaulted and shot at neat the city government building of Silay. The next day, he went with Cornelio Amaro (his father) to the office of the Ambrosio Sumanguit (defendant). Instead of obtaining assistance to their complaint, they were harassed and terrorized. They gave up and renounced their right and interest in the prosecution of the crime.

Having finished the investigation of the crime complained of, Sumanguit is now harassing the plaintiffs in their daily work by ordering them to appear in his office when he is absent and taking the plaintiiff’s signatures in prepared affidavits exempting the police from any dereliction of duty in their case.

The plaintiffs filed suit for damages against Sumanguit (chief of police of Silay City).The complaint was dismissed on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

Issue:

                Whether or not there was an actionable dereliction on the part of the defendant.

Held:

Yes. The plaintiff’s claim for relief is not based on the fact of harassment but on the appellee’s refusal to give them assistance, which it was his duty to do as an officer of the law.

In the case, the complaint was imperfectly drafted. But the Rules of Court require that there be a showing , by a statement of ultimate facts, that the plaintiff has a right and that this right was violated by the defendant. The compliant should not be dismissed upon mere ambiguity. The remedy is to file a complaint directly with the city attorney by lodging an administrative charge against Sumanguit.

This suggested remedy does not preclude the action for damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code and hence does not justify the dismissal of the complaint.