Short answer. Yes, but only in that order. Article 34 makes the negligent officer primarily liable for refusing aid, with the city or municipality subsidiarily responsible. You generally pursue the officer first and establish the judgment against them; the local government only has to pay if the officer cannot fully satisfy what the court awards.
What the law says
such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor.
Civil Code, Article 34 — Liability of Police for Refusing Aid. Read the full provision →
What 'primary' and 'subsidiary' mean here
Primary liability means the officer is the one directly answerable for refusing or failing to render aid — the judgment for damages is entered against them first. Subsidiary liability means the city or municipality only steps in as a backstop, and only once it is shown that the officer's own assets are insufficient to cover what is owed. It is not an either-or choice between the two. This two-tier structure differs from solidary liability, where a claimant can pursue either party for the whole amount right away. Here the sequence matters: the subsidiary obligation only ripens once primary liability is established and shown to be unsatisfied, not merely alleged.
The practical sequence for a claimant
In practice, this usually means naming both the officer and the local government in the same civil action so the subsidiary claim is already before the court, rather than filing a fresh case later. The plaintiff still has to prove the officer's liability first — that aid was actually refused or withheld despite danger to life or property — before the subsidiary obligation against the city or municipality can be enforced. Evidence of the officer's actual assets, or the sheriff's return showing the judgment could not be executed against them, typically has to be presented before a court will order the local government to pay, since the subsidiary character of the obligation is not a formality that can simply be assumed.
Why the law structures it this way
Making the officer primarily liable keeps individual accountability intact — a peace officer cannot hide behind the badge when they personally fail a citizen in danger. Making the local government only subsidiarily liable protects the public treasury from being the first and easiest target, while still guaranteeing that a citizen with a valid claim is not left empty-handed simply because the individual officer has no money. It also spreads the incentive correctly: an officer who knows they personally answer first for refusing aid has a direct reason to act, while the local government's backstop role encourages it to train and supervise its officers rather than treat citizen complaints as someone else's problem.
What this article does not cover
Article 34 is about a specific failure — refusing or failing to render aid or protection in the face of danger. It does not, by itself, make the city liable for every act of police misconduct, and it does not excuse the claimant from proving the danger was real and that the officer had the opportunity to help but chose not to.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Avelino Casupanan and Roberto Capitulo vs. Mario Llavore Laroya, G.R. No. 145391, August 26, 2002 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of Eduardo Simon vs. Elvin Chan and the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157547, February 23, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- San Ildefonso Lines, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 119771, April 24, 1998 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Supreme Transportation Liner, Inc. and Felix Q. Ruz vs. Antonio San Andres, G.R. No. 200444, August 15, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 34 — Liability of Police for Refusing Aid
- Civil Code, Article 33 — Independent Civil Action (Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries)