Practice question
An ADB screening committee makes confidential assessments of a job applicant as part of its assigned selection duties. The record establishes that the comments are objective evaluations without malice; minor inaccuracies do not show willful wrongdoing. The applicant argues that merely describing the comments as defamatory automatically defeats functional immunity. Which conclusion best follows Westfall v. Locsin (16 April 2024)?
- The label alone removes immunity without factual inquiry.
- Official evaluations of this character may remain protected; courts assess the factual basis and an allegation alone does not establish the ultra vires exception.
- Every statement by every ADB employee is always immune.
- Any inaccuracy conclusively establishes malicious defamation.
- An applicant's embarrassment automatically supplies publication and malice.
Legal references
- Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (1946), Articles I, II and V, sections 1–3, 18–21, https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/36/12697
- Westfall v. Locsin, G.R. No. 250763, 16 April 2024, main decision, https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/69605
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.