This document summarizes a court case regarding whether two Naval officers were performing their official duties when their actions led to a lawsuit against them. The officers, Sanders and Moreau, were sued for damages by two former employees, Rossi and Wyer, after their employment status was changed and negative comments were made about them. The court found that the officers were acting in their official capacity in making employment decisions and communications about employees, even if mistakes were made, as long as their actions were not motivated by malice or gross negligence. Therefore, the doctrine of state immunity protected the officers from being sued in their personal capacity for actions carried out in their official duties.
This document summarizes a court case regarding whether two Naval officers were performing their official duties when their actions led to a lawsuit against them. The officers, Sanders and Moreau, were sued for damages by two former employees, Rossi and Wyer, after their employment status was changed and negative comments were made about them. The court found that the officers were acting in their official capacity in making employment decisions and communications about employees, even if mistakes were made, as long as their actions were not motivated by malice or gross negligence. Therefore, the doctrine of state immunity protected the officers from being sued in their personal capacity for actions carried out in their official duties.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
This document summarizes a court case regarding whether two Naval officers were performing their official duties when their actions led to a lawsuit against them. The officers, Sanders and Moreau, were sued for damages by two former employees, Rossi and Wyer, after their employment status was changed and negative comments were made about them. The court found that the officers were acting in their official capacity in making employment decisions and communications about employees, even if mistakes were made, as long as their actions were not motivated by malice or gross negligence. Therefore, the doctrine of state immunity protected the officers from being sued in their personal capacity for actions carried out in their official duties.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Whether petitioners were performing their official FACTS: duties when they did the acts for which they have been sued Petitioner Sanders is a special services director of the for damages. US Naval Station. Petitioner Moreau was the commanding officer of the Subic Naval Base, which includes the said HELD: station. Private respondent Rossi and Wyer are both The court held in the affirmative. Mere allegation that a American citizens with permanent residence in the government functionary is being sued in his personal Philippines. They were employed as gameroom attendants. capacity will not automatically remove him from the Respondents were advised that their employment protection of the law of public officers and doctrine of state had been converted from permanent full-time to permanent immunity. The acts for which the petitioners are being part-time. They protested the conversion and the hearing called to account were performed by them in the discharge officer recommended the reinstatement of respondents to of their official duties. full-time. The doctrine of State immunity is applicable not only to our Sanders disagreed with the recommendation. In a government but also to foreign states sought to be letter he stated “respondents tend to alienate co-workers subjected to the jurisdiction of our courts. and they were difficult employees to supervise; and even There are two exceptions in the rule: 1. He may be sued though the grievance was confidential they placed the when the purpose is to compel him to do an act required by records in public places” law. 2. Also when the government itself has violated its own Before the start of the grievance, a letter purportedly laws, the government may be impleaded. The case does not coming from Moreau (which did not carry his signature) but fall within the exceptions. was signed by W.B. Moore “by direction” from Moreau, Mistakes concededly committed by such public officers are explaining the change of employment status was sent to the not actionable as long as they were not motivated by malice Chief of Naval Personnel and to concur therewith. or gross negligence amounting to bad faith. Respondents filed a case for damages against petitioners alleging that the letter contained libelous imputations that had exposed them to ridicule, mental anguish etc. Private respondents made it clear that the petitioners were being sued in their private or personal capacity. Petitioner moved to dismiss stating that the acts performed by them I the discharge of their official duties and therefore court has no jurisdiction under the doctrine of state immunity. Their motion was denied.