Practice question
A claimant proves only dislike of an otherwise lawful official decision and no violation of a duty owed to the claimant or cognizable injury. The claimant invokes Article 27 merely because the defendant holds office. What is correct?
- Public office alone does not supply the missing refusal-or-neglect and injury requirements.
- Every official decision creates automatic moral damages.
- Every public duty is a private damages guarantee to every observer.
- The claimant need prove no loss of any kind.
- The officer must pay whatever amount is requested.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html — Civil Code, articles 27 and32.
- https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/48330 — Vinzons-Chato v Fortune Tobacco, GR 141309, December 23 2008, main resolution: particular legal injury and public duty.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/jun2024/gr_234680_2024.html — Supreme Court GR 234680, June 2024, main opinion: Administrative Code Book I section 38.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.