CASE DIGEST BY: KAHLIL FLORENZ TED E.

BITANG EH 306

G.R. No. L-52179 April 8, 1991

Municipality of San Fernando, La Union, petitioner
vs.
Hon. Judge Romeo Firme, Juana Rimando-Banina, Laureano Banina Jr.,
Marieta Banina, Montano Banina, Orja Banina, and Lydia Banina,
respondents

MEDIALDEA, J.:
Facts of the case:
In the morning of the 16th of December 1965, a collision occurred
involving a passenger jeepney, a gravel and sand truck and a dump truck
driven by Bernardo Balagot, Jose Manandeg and Alfredo Bislig, respectively
and owned by the Estate of Macario Nieveras, Tanquilino Velasquez and
the Municipality of San Fernando, respectively.
Due to the impact, several passengers of the jeepney including
Laureano Banina Sr. died and four (4) others were gravely injured.
The heirs of the deceased, Banina Sr., respondents herein, instituted
a complaint for damages against the Municipality of San Fernando and
Alfredo Bislig, petitioners. The Municipality of San Fernando contends that
they cannot be impleaded in the case and raise the Doctrine of Non-
Suability of a State as defense.
Trial court ruled in favor of the private respondents. The court
ordered the Municipality of San Fernando, La Union and Alfredo Bislig to
pay jointly and severally, the plaintiffs a total of 58,744.24 pesos for funeral
expenses, loss of expected earnings, moral damages and attorney’s fees.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and was denied by the judge
for having been filed out of time. The respondent judge issued another
order that such case should be elevated to a higher court if petitioners
further wish to pursue the matter. Hence, a petition for certiorari.

Issue
(1) Whether or not the respondent court committed grave abuse of
discretion when it deferred and failed to resolve the defense of Non-
Suability of the State amounting to lack of jurisdiction in a motion to
dismiss
(2) Whether or not petitioner Municipality of San Juan is liable for the torts
committed by its employee
Held
(1) The respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion when in
the exercise of its judgement. It arbitrarily failed to resolve the vital issue of
non-suability of the State in the guise of the Municipality. However, the
judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction when in his decision, he held the
municipality liable for the quasi-delict committed by its regular employee.
Article XVI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution expressly provide that “the
State may not be sued without its consent”
Municipal Corporations like provinces and cities, are agencies of the State
when they are engaged in governmental functions and thereof should
enjoy the sovereign immunity from suits. Nevertheless, they are subject to
suit even in the performance of such functions because their charter
provides that they can sue and be sued.

(2) The issue whether or not a municipality is liable for the torts committed
by its employee depends on whether or not the employee, the driver in this
case, acting in behalf of the municipality is performing governmental or
propriety functions.
Governmental vs. Proprietary functions
Municipal Corporations exist in dual capacity and so are their
functions. (1) They exercise the right springing from sovereignty and while
in performance of the duties, their acts are political and governmental. The
officers and agents are public functionaries performing public service (2) In
the other capacity, the municipalities exercise a private, proprietary or
corporate right arising from their legal persons and not as public agencies.
The officers and agents in the performance of such functions act in behalf
of the municipalities in their corporate or individual capacity and not
sovereign power.

In the case at bar, the driver of the dump truck insists that “he was
on his way to the Naguilian River to get a load of sand and gravel for the
repair of the streets” In the absence of evidence to the contray, the
Supreme Court rules that the driver was perfroming duties pertaining to his
office as it was ruled in Palafox, et vs. Province of Ilocos that construction of
of roads are admittedly governmental activities.
The court grants the petition and absolves the municipality of any
liability in favor of the private respondents