Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Article 13-16 - Digests and Bar Qs PDF
Article 13-16 - Digests and Bar Qs PDF
Ruling: This Court, pursuant to Supreme Court The law is invalid considering that
Administrative Matter No. 02-11-10 has Article XVI, section 1 of the 1987 Constitution,
modified the Molina guidelines, particularly the flag of the Philippines shall be red, white,
Section 2(d) thereof, stating that the certification and blue with a sun and three stars, as
of the Solicitor General required in the Molina consecrated and honored by the people and
case is dispensed with to avoid delay. Still, recognized by law. Since the Constitution itself
Article 48 of the Family Code mandates that the prescribes the design, it can also be changed
appearance of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal by constitutional amendment.
assigned on behalf of the State to take steps to
prevent collusion between the parties and to take Alternative Answer:
The law is valid, provided that the new reclassifying Champion, Hope, and more this contract agreement, PROVI was to provide
design does not change the elements and color as locally manufactured cigarettes bearing a TESDA with the system and equipment
scheme of the flag as stated in the foreign brand subject to the 55% ad valorem tax. compliant with the specifications defined in the
constitution, and the flag is consecrated and RMC 37.93 in effect subjected hope, more, and Technical Proposal. In return, TESDA would
honored by the people. Since the constitution champion cigarettes to the provisions of RA pay PROVI the amount of P39,475,000.00
itself states that the flag must be recognized by 7654 on locally manufacture cigarettes which within 15days after TESDAs acceptance of the
are currently classified and taxed at 55% and contracted goods and services. PPOVI alleged
law, it implies that certain aspects of the flag
which imposes an ad valorem tax of 55% that TESDA has still an outstanding balance and
are subject through legislative action.
provided that the minimum tax shall not be less still remains unpaid.
than 5 pesos per pack.
Section 2. State Symbols: ISSUE: Can TESDA be sued without its
ISSUE: May a public officer be validly sued in consent?
2009 BAR: A law making Bayan Ko the his/her private capacity for acts done in
connection with the discharge of the functions of RULING: TESDA is an unincorporated
new national anthem of the Philippines, in
his/her duties? instrumentality of the government, directly
lieu of Lupang Hinirang, is constitutional.
attached to the DOLE through the participation
RULING: On the first issue, the general rule is of the secretary of labor as its Chairman, for the
ANSWER:
that a public officer is not liable for damages performance of governmental functions as an
TRUE. Art XVI Sec 2 of the 1987 Constitution which a person may suffer arising from the just unincorporated instrumentality operating under a
provides that the Congress may do so as long performance of his official duties and within the specific charter, it is equipped with both express
as the other conditions are met. The new scope of his assigned tasks. An officer who acts and implied power and all state immunities fully
national anthem shall be "truly reflective and within his authority to administer the affairs of apply to it. In the present case, the unit of
symbolic of the ideals, history, and the office which he/she heads is not liable for attachment was issued against a government
traditions of the people" and "shall take effect damages that may have been caused to another, agency carried by its own charter.
only upon its ratification by the people in as it would virtually be a charge against the
a national referendum" Republic, which is not amenable to judgment for Shell Philippines vs. Jalos, G.R. No.
monetary claims without its consent. However, a 179918, Sept. 8, 2010
public officer may be validly sued in his/her
private capacity for acts done in the cause of the FACTS: This case is about a question of
Section 3. Sovereign Immunity: performance of the functions of the office, jurisdiction over an action against a petroleum
where said public officer acted with malice, bad contractor (Shell Philippines), whose pipeline
Chato v. Fortune Tobacco, GR 141309, faith, or negligence or which the public officer operation has allegedly driven the fish away
June 19, 2007 violated a constitutional right of the plaintiff. from coastal areas, inflicting loss of earnings
among fishermen. On May 19, 2003,
FACTS: On June 10, 1993, the legislature Professional Video Inc. v. TESDA, GR respondents Efren Jalos, Joven Campang,
enacted RA 7654, which took effect on July 3, Arnaldo Mijares, and 75 other individuals (Jalos,
155504, June 26, 2009
1993. Prior to its effectivity, cigarette brands et al) filed a complaint for damages against Shell
champion, Hope, and More were FACTS: December 29, 1999, TESDA and before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
considered local brands subjected to an ad PRDVI signed and executed the Contract 41, Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro. Jalos, et al
valorem tax at the rate of 20.45%. However, on Agreement Project PVC ID Card issuance for claimed that they were all subsistence fishermen
July 1, 1993, or two days before RA 7654 took the provision of goods and services in the from the coastal barangay of Bansud, Oriental
effect, petitioner issued RMC 37-93 printing and encoding of the PVC cards under Mindoro whose livelihood was adversely
affected by the construction and operation of government agency tasked to adjudicate perpetrating an injustice to a citizen. To our
Shells natural gas pipeline. Jalos, et al claimed pollution-related cases. Shell is not an agent of mind, it would be the apex of injustice and
that their fish catch became few after the the State and may thus be sued before that body highly inequitable to defeat respondent's right to
construction of the pipeline. They said that the for any damages caused by its operations. The
be duly compensated for actual work performed
pipeline greatly affected the coral reefs and led parties may appeal the PABs decision to the
to the stress of the marine life in the Mindoro CA. But pending prior determination by the and services rendered, where both the
Sea. Shell said that under Service Contract 38, PAB, courts cannot take cognizance of the government and the public have for years
it served merely as an agent of the Philippine complaint. received and accepted benefits from the project
government in the development of the and reaped the fruits of respondent's honest toil
Malampaya gas reserves. Moreover, said Shell, Vigilar vs. Aquino, G.R. 180388, January and labor.
the complaint failed to state a cause of action 18, 2011
since it did not specify any actionable wrong or
particular act or omission on Shells part that 1997 BAR:
FACTS: On June 19, 1992, petitioner sent an
could have caused the alleged injury to Jalos, et invitation to bid to respondent. The bidding was
al. It is said that waiver of immunity by
for the construction of a dike by bulldozing a
the State does not mean a concession of
part of the Porac River in Pampanga.
ISSUE: Can shell invoke State immunity, as its liability. What are the implications of
Subsequently, on 7 July 1992, the project was
agent of the Republic of the Philippines? awarded to respondent, and a "Contract of this phrase?
Agreement" was thereafter executed between
RULING: No. To begin with, Shell is not an SUGGESTED ANSWER:
him and concerned petitioners for the amount of
agent of the Republic of the Philippines. It is PhP1,873,790.69, to cover the project cost. By 9
but a service contractor for the exploration and The phrase that waiver of immunity
July 1992, the project was duly completed by
development of one of the countrys natural gas by the State does not mean a concession of
respondent, who was then issued a Certificate of
reserves. While the Republic appointed Shell as liability means that by consenting to be
Project Completion dated 16 July 1992.
the exclusive party to conduct petroleum Respondent Aquino, however, claimed that sued, the State does not necessarily admit
operations in the Camago-Malampayo area PhP1,262,696.20 was still due him, but it is liable. As stated in (Philippine Rock
under the States full control and supervision, it petitioners refused to pay the amount. He thus Industries, Inc. vs. Board of Liquidators, 180
does not follow that Shell has become the filed a Complaint for the collection of sum of SCRA 171), in such a case the State is merely
States agent within the meaning of the law. money. giving the plaintiff a chance to prove that
An agent is a person who binds himself to render the State is liable but the State retains the
some service or to do something in ISSUE: Was the doctrine of sovereign immunity right to raise all lawful defenses.
representation or on behalf of another, with the
properly invoked?
consent or authority of the latter. The essence of
an agency is the agents ability to represent his RULING: Neither can petitioners escape the
2009 BAR:
principal and bring about business relations
obligation to compensate respondent for services The Municipality of Pinatukdao is sued for
between the latter and third persons. An agents
ultimate undertaking is to execute juridical acts rendered and work done by invoking the state's damages arising from injuries sustained by
that would create, modify or extinguish relations immunity from suit. This Court has long a pedestrian who was hit by a glass pane that
between his principal and third persons. established in Ministerio v. CFI of Cebu, and fell from a dilapidated window frame of
In sum, while the complaint in this case recently reiterated in Heirs of Pidacan v. ATO, the municipal hall. The municipality files a
sufficiently alleges a cause of action, the same that the doctrine of governmental immunity motion to dismiss the complaint, invoking
must be filed with the PAB, which is the
from suit cannot serve as an instrument for
state immunity from suit. Resolve the motion the City of Cebu. Lauro was on his way to get a irregularities in the performance of duties and to
with reasons. load of sand for the repair of the suffer the penalty of three (3) months suspension
road along Fuente Street, Cebu City. As a from the police service without pay. Petitioner
ANSWER: result of the collision, 3 passengers of elevated the case to the NAPOLCOM National
the jeepney died. Their families filed a Appellate Board. His appeal, however, was
Motion to dismiss invoking state complaint for damages against Joseph
dismissed. Aggrieved, petitioner brought his
immunity fruit suit is hereby denied. Local who in turn filed a third party complaint
case to the Department of Interior and Local
government unit and their officials are not against the City of Cebu and Lauro. Is
the City of Cebu liable for the tort committed Government (DILG) where the SILG denied his
exempt from liability for death or injury to by its employee? (The answer is A.) appeal and affirmed his suspension for three
persons or damage to property (Sec. 24, RA months. Petitioner then appealed to the CSC.
7160) hence, liability of the municipality for A. The City of Cebu is not liable because its On April 3, 2002, the CSC issued Resolution
injuries due to dilapidated window frame of employee was engaged in the No. 020487 dismissing petitioners appeal,
the municipal hall attaches as the latter discharge of a governmental function. affirming the SILGs Order but modifying his
exercises control over said building. B. The City of Cebu is liable for the tort penalty of three months suspension to dismissal.
committed by its employee while in the Petitioner thus filed with the CA a Petition for
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: discharge of a non-governmental function. Review with an Urgent Motion for Issuance of
C. The City of Cebu is liable in accord with the Temporary Restraining Order and/or
The motion to dismiss should be precept of respondeat superior. Preliminary Injunction. The CA issued a TRO
D. The City of Cebu is not liable as a
granted...The Civil Code provision and Sec. 24 on September 4, 2002 and a writ of preliminary
consequence of its non-suitability. injunction on January 14, 2003. The CA,
of the LGC above-mentioned refers to the
liability of the State. It must be remembered however, dissolved the writ in its Decision
that liability is not the same as suability in the
dated April 27, 2007 affirming CSC Resolution
context that when the state gives its consent to
Section 6. One Police Force: No. 020487.
be sued, it does not mean that it admits Issue: Being civilian in character, is the
Gannapao vs. Civil Service Commission,
liability. Conversely, when the State can be Philippine National Police covered by the Civil
et al., G.R. No. 180141, May 31, 2011
held liable, it does not mean that it gives Service?
consent to be sued. The more pertinent Facts: On December 22, 1995, stockholders
provision in the LGC would be Sec. 22 which and board members of United Workers Ruling: Yes. Section 6, Article XVI of the
states: Transport Corp. (UWTC), filed a verified Philippine Constitution provides that the State
complaint before the PNP Inspectorate Division shall establish and maintain one police force
"SEC. 22. Corporate Powers. - (a) at Camp Crame, charging petitioner SPO1 which shall be civilian in character.
Every local government unit, as a corporation, Rimando A. Gannapao with Grave Misconduct Consequently, the PNP falls under the Civil
shall have the following powers:xxx(2) To sue and Moonlighting, for allegedly employed as Service Pursuant to Section 2(1), Article IX-B,
and be sued;" personal bodyguard of Atty. Roy G. Gironella, also of the Constitution. Section 91 of the DILG
the general manager appointed by the Board of Act of 1990 expressly declared that the Civil
Directors of UWTC, with compensation coming Service Law and its implementing rules and
2011 BAR: from UWTC. regulations shall apply to all personnel of the
Department. Pursuant to Section 6
A collision occurred involving a of Memorandum Circular No. 93-024, the
passenger jeepney driven by Leonardo, a On November 26, 1997, PNP Chief
Sarmiento rendered Decision finding respondent penalty of dismissal, which results in the
cargo truck driven by Joseph, and a dump
SPO1 Gannapao guilty of the charge of serious separation of the respondent from the service,
truck driven by Lauro but owned by
shall carry with it the cancellation of eligibility,
forfeiture of leave credits and retirement
benefits, and the disqualification from
reemployment in the police service. The CSC
thus correctly imposed on him the maximum
penalty of dismissal.
2011 BAR:
Mass media in the Philippines may be owned
and managed by: (answer is A)
Article XVIII. Transitory
A. corporations wholly owned and managed
by Filipinos. Provisions:
B. corporations 60% owned by Filipinos.
C. corporations wholly owned by Filipinos.
Section 2. Synchronization of
Election: