Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Hon. Edilberto G.

Sandoval, RTC of Manila, Branch 9, Caylao

et.alG. R. No. 84607, March 19, 2003
FACTS:
- The heirs of the deceased of the January 22, 1987 Mendiola massacre , together with those injured (Caylao
group), instituted the petition, seeking the reversal and setting aside of the orders of respondent Judge
Sandoval (May 31 and Aug 8, 1988) in "Erlinda Caylao, et al. vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al." which
dismissed the case against the Republic of the Philippines
May 31 order: Because the impleaded military officers are being charged in their personal and
official capacity, holding them liable, if at all, would not result in financial responsibility of the
government
Aug 8 order: denied the motions filed by both parties for reconsideration
- In January 1987, farmers and their sympathizers presented their demands for what they called "genuine
agrarian reform"
- The Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), led by Jaime Tadeo, presented their problems and demands
such as:
giving lands for free to farmers
zero retention of lands by landlords
stop amortizations of land payments
- Dialogue between the farmers and then Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) began on January 15, 1987
- On January 20, 1987, Tadeo met with MAR Minister Heherson Alvarez
- Alvarez was only able to promise to do his best to bring the matter to the attention of then President Cory
Aquino during the January 21 Cabinet meeting
- Tension mounted the next day
- The farmers, on their 7th day of encampment, barricaded the MAR premises and prevented the employees
from going inside their offices
- On January 22, 1987, following a heated discussion between Alvarez and Tadeo, Tadeo's group decided to
march to Malacanang to air their demands
- On their march to Malacanang, they were joined by Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU), Bagong Alyansang
Makabayan (BAYAN), League of Filipino Students (LFS), and Kongreso ng Pagkakaisa ng Maralitang
Lungsod (KPML)
- Government intelligent reports were also received that the KMP was heavily infliltrated by CPP/NPA
elements, and that an insurrection was impending
- Government anti-riot forces assembled at Mendiola
- The marchers numbered about 10,000 to 15,000 at around 4:30 pm
- From CM Recto, they proceeded toward the police lines. No dialogue took place; "pandemonium broke
loose"
- After the clash, 12 marchers were officially confirmed dead (13 according to Tadeo)
- 39 were wounded by gunshots and 12 sustained minor injuries, all belonging to the group of marchers
- Of the police and military, 3 sustained gunshot wounds and 20 suffered minor physical injuries
- The "Citizens' Mendiola Commission" submitted its report on the incident on February 27, 1987 as follows
The march did not have any permit
The police and military were armed with handguns prohibited by law
The security men assigned to protect the government units were in civilian attire (prohibited by
law)
There was unnecessary firing by the police and military
The weapons carried by the marchers are prohibited by law
It is not clear who started the firing
The water cannons and tear gas were not put into effective use to disperse the crowd; the water
cannons and fire trucks were not put into operation because:
there was no order to use them
they were incorrectly prepositioned
they were out of range of the marchers

The Commission recommended the criminal prosecution of four unidentified, uniformed individuals shown
either on tape or in pictures, firing at the direction of the marchers
- The Commission also recommended that all the commissioned officers of both the Western Police District
(WPD) and Integrated National Police (INP) who were armed be prosecuted for violation of par. 4(g) of the
Public Assembly Act of 1985
- Prosecution of the marchers was also recommended
- It was also recommended that Tadeo be prosecuted both for holding the rally without permit and for
inciting sedition
- Administrative sanctions were recommended for the following officers for their failure to make effective
use of their skill and experience in directing the dispersal operations in Mendiola:
Gen. Ramon E. Montao
Police Gen. Alfredo S. Lim
Police Gen. Edgar Dula Torres
Police Maj. Demetrio dela Cruz
Col. Cezar Nazareno
Maj. Filemon Gasmin
Last and most important recommendation: for the deceased and wounded victims to be compensated by
the government
It was this portion that petitioners (Caylao group) invoke in their claim for damages from the
government

No concrete form of compensation was received by the victims

- On January, 1988, petitioners instituted an action for damages against the Republic of the Philippines,
together with the military officers, and personnel involved in the Mendiola incident
- Solicitor general filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the State cannot be sued without its consent
- Petitioners said that the State has waived its immunity from suit
- Judge Sandoval dismissed the case on the ground that there was no such waiver
- Motion for Reconsideration was also denied
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the State has waived its immunity from suit (i.e. Whether or not this is a suit against the
State with its consent)
Petitioners argue that by the recommendation made by the Commission for the government to
indemnify the heirs and victims, and by public addresses made by President Aquino, the State has
consented to be sued
2. Whether or not the case qualifies as a suit against the State
HELD:
1. No. This is not a suit against the State with its consent.
- Art. XIV, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution: The State may not be sued without its consent
The recommendations by the Commission does not in any way mean that liability automatically
attaches to the State
The Commission was simply a fact-finding body; its findings shall serve only as cause of action
for litigation; it does not bind the State immediately
President Aquino's speeches are likewise not binding on the State; they are not tantamount to a
waiver by the State
2. No. Some instances when a suit against the State is proper:
1) When the Republic is sued by name;
2) When the suit is against an unincorporated government agency
3) When the suit is on its face against a government officer but the case is such that the ultimate
liability will belong not to the officer but to the government
Although the military officers and personnel were discharging their official functions during the
incident, their functions ceased to be official the moment they exceeded their authority
There was lack of justification by the government forces in the use of firearms.
Their main purpose in the rally was to ensure peace and order, but they fired at the crowd instead
No reversible error by the respondent Judge found. Petitions dismissed.