Practice question
A claimant establishes an Article 32 violation by the officer who ordered an unlawful seizure. The officer invokes only the general official-duty threshold from Section 38(1) without addressing the specific rights-based cause. What must be avoided?
- Treating a general official-duty rule as automatically eliminating the specific Article 32 analysis
- Applying any specific statute
- Examining the right actually impaired
- Distinguishing the sources of liability
- Considering Lim’s holding
Legal references
- Civil Code, Articles 6, 19-21, 27, 32, 430, 1144-1155, 1757-1758 and 2034: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html
- Lim v. Ponce de Leon, G.R. No. L-22554, August 29, 1975, MAIN decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1975/aug1975/gr_22554_1975.html
- City of Muntinlupa v. N.C. Tavu and Associates Corp., G.R. No. 234680, June 10, 2024, MAIN decision, Administrative Code Sections 38-39 quoted: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/jun2024/gr_234680_2024.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.