JURISPRUDENCE. –
1. Good faith is always presumed under the Rules
of Evidence, especially in respect of the actions of public officials, who are entitled to the PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE
OF PUBLIC DUTY.
2. In
the case of Heirs of Severa Gregorio vs.
Court of Appeals, et al, G. R. No. 117609, December 19, 1998, the Supreme
Court held that “it is
axiomatic that good faith is always presumed unless convincing evidence to the
contrary is adduced”; that “it is
incumbent upon the party alleging bad faith to sufficiently prove such
allegation”; that “absent enough
proof thereof, the presumption of good faith prevails”; that “without a clear and persuasive substantiation
of bad faith, the presumption of good faith in favor of respondents stands”.
3. In the case of FRANCISCO M. LECAROZ, et. al. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, et. al., G.R. No.
130872, March 25, 1999, it was held that “the rule is that any
mistake on a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good
faith”; that “an erroneous interpretation of the meaning of the
provisions of an ordinance (or a law or an administrative procedure) does not
amount to bad faith”; that “public officials may not be liable for
damages in the discharge of their official functions absent any bad faith”; and that “under the law on public officers, acts
done in the performance of official duty are protected by the presumption of
good faith.”
4.
In the case of ALBERT S. DELA PEÑA vs. ILUMINADO R. HUELMA, A.M. No. P-06-2218, Aug.
15, 2006, it was held that “in administrative proceedings, the burden of
proof that the respondent committed the act complained of rests on the
complainant”; that “the complainant must be able to show this by substantial
evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion, otherwise, the complaint must be dismissed”; that
the complainant “in his complaint
relied on too many assumptions unsupported by evidence”.
5. In
the case of People vs. De Guzman, GR 106025, Feb. 9, 1994, it was held that “the presumption is that an official act or duty has been regularly performed”; that
the reasons behind such a presumption are as follows:
1.
Innocence, and not wrong-doing, is
presumed.
2.
Good faith is presumed.;
3.
Presumption
that an official oath will not be violated;
4.
The
republican system of government cannot survive unless a certain trust and
confidence is reposed in each government department or agent.
The
aforecited case further held that the presumption
of regularity “may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity
or failure to perform duty”; that the
“presumption prevails until it is overcome by clear and convincing evidence to
the contrary”; that “if not rebutted, it is conclusive”; and that “in case of
doubt, statutory construction is in favor of the lawfulness of the act of a
public official”.
ATTY. MANUEL J. LASERNA JR.
Partner
LASERNA CUEVA-MERCADER LAW OFFICES
