Professional Documents
Culture Documents
State Immunity Case Digest
State Immunity Case Digest
Lasco vs UN ● The petitioners were dismissed from their employment with The Office of the Solicitor General is of the view that
Revolving private respondent the United Nations Revolving Fund for private respondent is covered by the mantle of
Natural Resources Exploration which is a special fund and diplomatic immunity.
subsidiary organ of the United Nations.
● The UNRFNRE is involved in a joint project of the Philippine Private respondent is a specialized agency of the United
Government and the United Nations for exploration work in Nations. Under Article 105 of the Charter of the United
Dinagat Island. Petitioners complained for illegal dismissal Nations:
and damages.
● In its Motion to Dismiss, private respondent alleged that 1. The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of its
respondent Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over its Members such privileges and immunities as are
personality since it enjoyed diplomatic immunity pursuant to necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes.
the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the 2. Representatives of the Members of the United
United Nations. Nations and officials of the Organization shall
● In support private respondent attached a letter from the similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are
Department of Foreign Affairs dated August 26, 1991, which necessary for the independent exercise of their
acknowledged its immunity from suit. functions in connection with the organization.
● The letter confirmed that private respondent, being a special
fund administered by the United Nations, was covered by the The diplomatic immunity of private respondent was
1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the sufficiently established by the letter of the Department
United Nations of which the Philippine Government was an of Foreign Affairs, recognizing and confirming the
original signatory. immunity of UNRFNRE in accordance with the 1946
● On November 25, 1991 respondent Labor Arbiter issued Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the
order dismissing the complaints on the ground that private United Nations where the Philippine Government was a
respondent was protected by diplomatic immunity. The party. The issue whether an international organization is
dismissal was based on the letter of the Foreign Office dated entitled to diplomatic immunity is a "political question"
September 10, 1991. and such determination by the executive branch is
● Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. Thus, an conclusive on the courts and quasi-judicial agencies.
appeal was filed with the NLRC, which affirmed the dismissal
of the complaints. Our courts can only assume jurisdiction over private
Hence, Petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari. respondent if it expressly waived its immunity, which
is not so in the case at bench (Convention on the
Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies
of the United Nations, Art. III, Sec. 4).
Private respondent is not engaged in a commercial
venture in the Philippines. Its presence here is by
virtue of a joint project entered into by the
Philippine Government and the United Nations for
mineral exploration in Dinagat Island. Its mission is
not to exploit our natural resources and gain pecuniarily
thereby but to help improve the quality of life of the
people, including that of petitioners.
Arigo v Swift ● Tubbataha was declared a National Marine Park by virtue of RULING
Proclamation No. 306 issued by President Corazon C.
Aquino on 11 August 1988. 1. None. The US respondents were sued in their
● In 1993, Tubbataha was inscribed by the United Nations official capacity as commanding officers of the
Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization US Navy who had control and supervision over
(UNESCO) as a World Heritage Site. It was recognized as the USS Guardian and its crew. The alleged act
one of the Philippines’ oldest ecosystems. or omission resulting in the unfortunate
● On 6 April 2010, Congress passed R.A. No. 10067 (RA grounding of the USS Guardian on the TRNP
10067), otherwise known as the “Tubbataha Reefs Natural was committed while they were performing
Park (TRNP) Act of 2009”, to ensure protection and official military duties. Considering that the
conservation of the Tubbataha Reefs into perpetuity for the satisfaction of a judgment against said officials
enjoyment of present and future generations. will require remedial actions and appropriation
● Under the “no take” policy, entry into the waters of the of funds by the US government, the suit is
TRNP is strictly regulated and many human activities are deemed to be one against the US itself. The
prohibited, penalized or fined, including fishing, gathering, principle of State immunity therefore bars the
destroying and disturbing the resources within the TRNP. exercise of jurisdiction by the Court over the
● In December 2012, the US Embassy in the Philippines persons of respondents Swift, Rice and Robling.
requested diplomatic clearance for the USS Guardian (the
ship) “to enter and exit the territorial waters of the It is worthy to note that during the deliberations, Justice
Philippines and to arrive at the port of Subic Bay for the Antonio Carpio took the position that the conduct of the
purpose of routine ship replenishment, maintenance, and US in this case, when its warship entered a restricted
crew liberty.” area in violation of RA 10067 and caused damage to the
● On 6 January 2013, the ship left Sasebo, Japan for Subic TRNP reef system, brings the matter within the ambit of
Bay, arriving on 13 January 2013. Two days later, it Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Law
departed Subic Bay for its next port of call in Makassar, of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Indonesia.
● On 17 January 2013, while transiting the Sulu Sea, the ship While historically, warships enjoy sovereign immunity
ran aground on the northwest side of South Shoal of the from suit as extensions of their flag State, Art. 31 of
Tubbataha Reefs. No one was injured in the incident and UNCLOS creates an exception to this rule in cases
there have been no reports of leaking fuel or oil. where they fail to comply with the rules and regulations
● On 20 January 2013, US 7th Fleet Commander, Vice of the coastal State regarding passage through the
Admiral Scott Swift expressed regret for the incident in a latter’s internal waters and the territorial sea.
press statement.
● On 4 February 2013, US Ambassador to the Philippine Although the US to date has not ratified the UNCLOS,
Harry Thomas, Jr. met with Department of Foreign Affairs as a matter of long-standing policy, the US considers
Secretary Albert del Rosario regarding the compensation for itself bound by customary international rules on the
damage to the reef caused by the ship. “traditional uses of the oceans” as codified in UNCLOS.
● By 30 March 2013, the US Navy-led salvage team had
finished removing the last piece of the grounded ship from The Court concurs with Justice Carpio’s view that non-
the coral reef. membership in the UNCLOS does not mean that the US
● On 17 April 2013, petitioners Arigo, et.al. on their behalf will disregard the rights of the Philippines as a Coastal
and in representation of their respective sector/organization State over its internal waters and territorial sea. The
and others, including minors or generations yet unborn filed Court thus expects the US to bear “international
a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan with prayer responsibility under Art. 31 of UNCLOS in connection
for the issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection with the USS Guardian grounding which adversely
Order (TEPO) under the Rules of Procedure for affected the Tubbataha reefs.
Environmental Cases. Their contentions are:
- The grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging 2. No. The waiver of State immunity under the
operations of the ship cause and continue to cause VFA pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and
environmental damage of such magnitude as to not to special civil actions such as the present
affect the provinces of Palawan, Antiques, Aklan, petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan.
Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Negros
Oriental, Zamboaga del Norte, Basilan, Sulu and In fact, it can be inferred from Section 17, Rule 7 of the
Taw-Tawi which events violate their constitutional Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases that a
rights to a balanced and healthful ecology criminal case against a person charged with a violation
- There should be a directive from the Supreme Court of an environmental law is to be filed separately:
for the institution of civil, administrative and
criminal suits for acts committed in violation of “SEC. 17. Institution of separate actions. – The filing of
environmental laws and regulations in connection a petition for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan shall
with the grounding incident not preclude the filing of separate civil, criminal or
- US respondents committed the following violations administrative actions.”
under RA 10067: unauthorized entry; non-payment
of conservation fees; obstruction of law enforcement A ruling on the application or non-application of
criminal jurisdiction provisions of the VFA to US
officer; damages to the reef; and destroying and personnel who may be found responsible for the
disturbing resources grounding of the USS Guardian, would be premature
- The VFA provides for a waiver of immunity from and beyond the province of a petition for a writ of
suit Kalikasan. The Court found it unnecessary to determine
● The respondents consist of the following: Scott Swift in his whether such waiver of State immunity is indeed
capacity as Commander of the US 7th Fleet; Mark Rice as absolute.
the Commanding Officer of the ship; President Benigno
Aquino III as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces In the same vein, the Court cannot grant damages which
of the Philippines; Hon. Albert del Rosario as the DFA have resulted from the violation of environmental laws.
Secretary; Hon. Paquito Ochoa as the Executive Secretary; Section 15, Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure for
Hon. Ramon Paje as the DENR Secretary; Vice Admiral Environmental Cases enumerates the reliefs which may
Jose Luis Alano as the Philippine Navy Flag Officer in be granted in a petition for issuance of a writ of
Command; Admiral Rodolfo Isorena as Commandant of the Kalikasan, to wit:
Philippine Coast Guard, Commodore Enrico Efren
Evangelista as the Philippine Coast Guard Palawan, Major Section 15. Judgment. - Within sixty (60) days from the
Gen. Virgilio Domingo as Commandant of the AFP and Lt. time the petition is submitted for decision, the court
Gen. Terry Robling as Co-Director of the US Marine Corps. shall render judgment granting or denying the privilege
Forces. The Philippine respondents contend that: of the writ of kalikasan.
- The grounds relied upon by petitioners for the
issuance of TEPO or writ of Kalikasan have become The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are the
fait accompli as the salvage operations on the ship following:
were already completed
- The petition is defective in form and in substance (a) Directing respondent to permanently cease and desist
- The petition improperly raises issues involving VFA from committing acts or neglecting the performance of a
between Philippines and USA duty in violation of environmental laws resulting in
- The determination of the extent of responsibility of environmental destruction or damage;
the US Government regarding the damage to the
Tubbataha Reefs rests exclusively with the (b) Directing the respondent public official, government
executive branch agency, private person or entity to protect, preserve,
rehabilitate or restore the environment;
ISSUES
(c) Directing the respondent public official, government
1. WON the Court has jurisdiction over the US respondents agency, private person or entity to monitor strict
2. WON the waiver of immunity provisions of the VFA applies compliance with the decision and orders of the court;
3. WON the petition has become moot
4. WON the Court can determine the extent of responsibility of (d) Directing the respondent public official, government
the US Government agency, or private person or entity to make periodic
reports on the execution of the final judgment; and
HUDCC vs ● Gonzalo Roque et. al. owned several parcels of land located in We rule that the Republic is not immune from suit in the
Roque Quezon city. present case.
● In 1978, the Republic (DPWH) asked the respondent to sell a
portion of the land at a lower price than the market value. The The Constitution provides that "the State may not be
Republic was for the President Marcos' National sued without its consent." One instance when a suit is
Government Center (NGC) Project to bring the various against the State is when the Republic is sued by name,
national government offices in one venue for greater efficiency. as in this case.
● The respondents alleged that several public hearings place and
during the meetings, the Republic made the following A suit against the State is allowed when the State
representations: gives its consent, either expressly or impliedly.
First, the Republic guaranteed construction of the NGC Project
that will enhance the surrounding portions of the land. Express consent is given through a statute while
Second, the Republic assured the respondents that, if it abandons implied consent is given when the State enters into a
the project, they will have the right to buy back the land. contract or commences litigation. Athough not all
● The respondents alleged that they were reluctant to sell the land contracts entered into by the government operates as a
but felt compelled to do so because martial law was in force. waiver of its non-suability.
Thus, the respondents signed the deeds of absolute sale.
● The Register of Deeds cancelled the three certificates of title In the present case, the Republic entered into deeds of
(TCT) and issued six new titles. sale with the respondents to construct the NGC
● The Republic did not immediately take possession of the land Project on the lots sold. To facilitate the sale, the
it. Thus, the respondents continued to occupy portions of the Republic created a negotiating team to discuss the terms
sold properties. of the sale with the respondents. The latter agreed to the
● After several years, informal settlers began to occupy parts of negotiated sale on these alleged conditions: (a) that
the land. Hence, Gonzalo sent letters twice to then DPWH they will have the right to repurchase the properties
Secretary Vicente R. Jayme (Jayme) offering to buy back the if the NGC Project does not push through; and (b)
properties. However, no response. that the NGC Project will increase the market value
● The respondents' suspicion was confirmed in December 2003. of their remaining properties.
De Castro (De Castro), undersecretary of the Housing and
Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC), requested Following Santiago and Republic, the State's failure to
the Roque etc. to vacate all portions of sold land that they were abide by these conditions constitutes the State's
still occupying, because the government would use the implied waiver of its immunity. We reiterate that the
properties for socialized housing pursuant to Republic Act No. doctrine of state immunity from suit cannot serve to
9207. perpetrate an injustice on a citizen. If we rule otherwise,
● Gonzalo wrote another letter to then HUDCC offering to buy we will be tolerating unfair dealing in contract
back the properties. Secretary Defensor allegedly found the negotiation.
respondents' position requested feedback on the possibility of a
repurchase. However, the secretary was transferred to another
department and was unable to further address the situation.
● Realizing that the Republic had completely abandoned its initial
plan to use the land for the NGC Project the respondents filed
a complaint for the annulment of the sale of the properties on the
grounds of fraud, force, intimidation, or undue influence.
● They also asserted their right to buy back the properties at the
same price at which they sold them since the Republic failed to
develop the land according to the original purpose for which was
expropriated. In their answer, the Republic and the HUDCC
(defendants) argue that: (1) they are immune from suit as
government instrumentalities; (2) they agreed to neither the
respondents' right to repurchase the properties in case the
government abandons the NGC Project nor a right to additional
compensation in case the respondents' remaining properties
suffer a decrease in market value; (3) the respondents were not
forced, intimidated, or unduly influenced to sell their properties
to the government; and (4) even assuming that any vice of
consent attended the sale, the respondents' action for the
annulment of sale is barred by prescription and laches.
● During trial, Dante Viloria (Viloria) testified on the negotiations
that took place. Viloria was part of the government's negotiating
team for the NGC Project. He testified that: (a) the negotiated
price was lower than the base amounts in Presidential Decree
No. 1517, (b) the government did not file any court action to
expropriate the properties; (c) it did not take possession of the
properties; and (d) it undertook to resell the properties to the
respondents at the same price if the project would not push
through. Gonzalo's testimony corroborated Viloria's testimony.
● The RTC decided in the respondents' favor. It held that: (1) the
Republic is not immune from suit; (2) the respondents' action is
not barred by either prescription or laches; and (3) the sale
should be annulled. On the other hand, the CA affirmed its
decision.
ISSUE:
W/N the Republic is immune from suit.
City of ● Phuture was incorporated in 2004. In May 2005, its Articles of The principle of immunity from suit is embodied in
Bacolod vs Incorporation (AOI) was amended includes the operation of Section 3, Article XVI of the 1987 Philippine
Phuture lotto betting stations and/or other gaming outlets as one of its Constitution which states that "the State cannot be
visions co. secondary purposes. Thereafter, it applied with the Philippine sued without its consent."
Amusement and Gaming Corporation (P AGCOR) for an The State and its political subdivisions are open to suit
authority to operate bingo games at SM Bacolod and SM Prime. only when they consent to it.
PAGCOR then issued Grant of Authority (GOA) to Phuture but
they must comply with certain requirements, and received an Consent may be express or implied, such as when the
Award Notice from SM Prime. government exercises its proprietary functions, or where
● Thereafter, Phuture was able to process the requirements and such is embodied in a general or special law.
paid fees needed for its Application for Permit to Engage in
Business, Trade or Occupation to operate bingo games at SM In the present case, respondent sued petitioners for the
Bacolod. latter's refusal to issue a mayor's permit for bingo
● Phuture was then issued a claim slip for its permit on February operations and for closing its business on account of the
19, 2007, which was to be claimed on March 16, 2007. Phuture lack of such permit. However, while the authority of
amended its AOI on February 27, 2007 to reflect its engagement city mayors issue or grant licenses and business permits
in bingo operations as its primary purpose. is granted by the Local Government Code which also
● Phuture started bingo operations at SM Bacolod on March 2, vests local government units with corporate powers, one
2007, after issuance of the actual hard copy of the mayor's of which is the power to sue and be sued, this Court has
permit. The respondent learned that its bingo outlet was held that the power to issue or grant licenses and
padlocked by agents of the Office of the City Legal Officer and business permits is not an exercise of the government's
that a copy of a Closure Order was posted at the bingo outlet. proprietary function. Instead, it is in an exercise of the
● Phuture claimed that the closure of its bingo outlet at SM police power of the State, ergo a governmental act.
Bacolod is tainted with malice and bad faith and that petitioners No consent to be sued and be liable for damages can
did not have the legal authority to shut down said bingo thus be implied from the mere conferment and exercise
operations, especially since PAGCOR itself had already issued a of the power to issue business permits and licenses.
provisional GOA in its favor. Accordingly, there is merit in petitioners' argument that
they cannot be sued by respondent since the City's
On March 19, 2007, petitioners filed their Answer with consent had not been secured for this purpose. This is
Counterclaim, denying the allegations. notwithstanding petitioners' failure to raise this
exculpatory defense at the first instance before the trial
● As according to them, Phuture applied for the renewal of its court or even before the appellate court.
mayor's permit with " entertainment services" as its declared line
of business. As this Court has repeatedly held, waiver of immunity
● Upon submission of the requirements, Phuture was issued a from suit, being in derogation of sovereignty, will not be
"claim slip" for it to claim the actual mayor's permit if the lightly inferred.33 Moreover, it deserves mentioning
requirements were found to be in order. However, petitioners that the City of Bacolod as a government agency or
found discrepancies in the submitted requirements, wherein it instrumentality cannot be estopped by the omission,
reflect the company's primary purpose for bingo operations. In mistake or error of its officials or agents.34 Estoppel
addition, the respondent failed to pay the necessary permit does not also lie against the government or any of its
fee/assessment fee.Also, without the release of the mayor's agencies arising from unauthorized or illegal acts of
permit, respondent started the operation of its bingo outlet at SM public officers.35 Hence, we cannot hold petitioners
Bacolod. estopped from invoking their immunity from suit on
● This prompted the former City Legal Officer (Atty.Zamora) to account of having raised it only for the first time on
issue a Closure Order. The Closure Order was also presented to appeal. On this score, Justice Barredo's Opinion in
respondent's lawyers to negotiate a possible peaceful solution Insurance Co. of North America v. Osaka Shosen
before its implementation. However, respondent simply ignored Kaisha36 is particularly illuminating:
the information.
● Thus, the closing of said business. Petitioners contended that the x x x [T]he real reason why, from the procedural point
claim slip relied upon by respondent was a mere oversight or of view, a suit against the state filed without its consent
human error of the City Government's employee. must be dismissed is because, necessarily, any such
complaint cannot state a cause of action, since, as the
Ruling of RTC and CA above decision confirms, "there can be no legal right as
● The RTC denied the prayer for the issuance of a temporary against the authority that makes the law on which the
mandatory order and dismissed the case for lack of merit. On the right depends." x x x
other hand, The CA partially granted the appeal by affirming the
trial court's denial of the application for a temporary mandatory The question that arises now is, may failure to state a
order but reversing the dismissal of the suit for damages and cause of action be alleged as a ground of dismissal for
ordering the case to be reinstated and remanded to the court of the first-time on appeal?
origin for further proceedings.
● Aggrieved, petitioners brought the matter before this Court xxx
through the present recourse.
x x x The requirement that this defense should be raised
at the trial is only to give the plaintiff a chance to cure
W/N: The hearing of the action for damages effectively violates the the defect of his complaint, but if, as in this case, the
City's immunity from suit? lack of consent of the state cannot be cured because it is
a matter of judicial notice that there is no law allowing
the present suit, (only Congress that can give such
consent) the reason for the rule cannot obtain, hence it is
clear that such non-suability may be raised even on
appeal. After all, the record on appeal can be examined
to find out if the consent of the state is alleged in the
complaint.
Veterans FACTS: HELD:
Manpower ● Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. (VMPSI) Yes, the filed complaint by VMPSI against PC Chief
and alleges that certain provisions of Republic Act No. 5487 violate and PC-SUSIA is a suit against the state without its
Protective the provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution against consent.
Services Inc. monopolies, unfair competition and combinations in restraint of The State may not be sued without its consent (Article
vs CA trade, and tend to favor and institutionalize the Philippine XVI, Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution). Invoking this
Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators, Inc. rule, the PC Chief and PC-SUSIA contend that, being
(PADPAO) which is monopolistic because it has an interest in instrumentalities of the national government exercising
more than one security agency. a primarily governmental function of regulating the
● Furthermore, VMPSI questions the provision on requiring all organization and operation of private detective,
private security agencies or company security forces to register watchmen, or security guard agencies, said official (the
as members of any PADPAO Chapter organized within the PC Chief) and agency (PC-SUSIA) may not be sued
Region where their main offices are located. without the Government’s consent, especially in this
● On May 12, 1986, a Memorandum of Agreement was executed case because VMPSI’s complaint seeks not only to
by PADPAO and the PC Chief wherein it fixed the minimum compel the public respondents to act in a certain way,
monthly contract rate per guard for eight (8) hours of security but worse, because VMPSI seeks actual and
service per day at P2,255.00 within Metro Manila and P2,215.00 compensatory damages in the sum of P1,000,000.00,
outside of Metro Manila. exemplary damages in the same amount, and
● PADPAO found VMPSI guilty of cut-throat competition in P200,000.00 as attorney’s fees from said public
undercutting its contract rate for services rendered to the respondents. Even if its action prospers, the payment of
Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS), its monetary claims may not be enforced because the
charging said customer lower than the standard minimum rates State did not consent to appropriate the necessary funds
provided in the 1986 Memorandum of Agreement. for that purpose.
● As a result, PADPAO refused to issue a clearance/certificate of A public official may sometimes be held liable in his
membership to VMPSI when it requested one. VMPSI filed a personal or private capacity if he acts in bad faith, or
civil against the PC Chief and Philippine Constabulary beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction (Shauf
Supervisory Unit for the Security and Immigration Agencies v. Court of Appeals, supra), however, since the acts for
(PC-SUSIA). PC Chief and PC-SUSIA filed a motion to dismiss which the PC Chief and PC-SUSIA are being called to
on the grounds that the case is against the State which had not account in this case, were performed by them as part of
given consent thereto. their official duties, without malice, gross negligence, or
bad faith, no recovery may be had against them in their
ISSUE: private capacities. Furthermore, the Supreme Court
Is VMPSI’s complaint against the PC Chief and PC-SUSIA a agreed with the observation of the Court of Appeals that
suit against the State without its consent? Memorandum of Agreement dated May 12, 1986 does
not constitute an implied consent by the State to be
sued.
The consent of the State to be sued must emanate from
statutory authority, hence, from a legislative act, not
from a mere memorandum.
Petition for review is DENIED and the judgment
appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto.
Garcia vs ● This is an appeal from an order of dismissal. This is an appeal from an order of dismissal.
chief of staff On December 1, 1961 - Mariano E. Garcia, filed with the Court On December 1, 1961 - Mariano E. Garcia, filed with
of First Instance of Pangasinan an action to collect a sum of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan an action to
money against the Chief of Staff and the Adjutant General of the collect a sum of money against the Chief of Staff and
Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Chairman of the Philippine the Adjutant General of the Armed Forces of the
Veterans Board and/or the Auditor General. Philippines, the Chairman of the Philippine Veterans
● The complaint alleged: that sometime in July, 1948, the plaintiff Board and/or the Auditor General.
suffered injuries while undergoing the 10-month military The complaint alleged: that sometime in July, 1948, the
training at Camp Florida blanca, Pampanga. plaintiff suffered injuries while undergoing the 10-
● Thereafter, he filed his claim under Commonwealth Act 400 and month military training at Camp Florida blanca,
in April, 1957, he submitted some papers in support of his claim Pampanga.
to the Adjutant General’s Office upon the latter’s request; Thereafter, he filed his claim under Commonwealth Act
● On May 2, 1957 - he received a letter from the said Adjutant 400 and in April, 1957, he submitted some papers in
General’s office disallowing his claim for disability benefits. support of his claim to the Adjutant General’s Office
● On November 24,1958 - the Adjutant General’s Office denied upon the latter’s request;
the said claim, alleging that Commonwealth Act 400 had already On May 2, 1957 - he received a letter from the said
been repealed by Republic Act 610 which took effect on January Adjutant General’s office disallowing his claim for
1, 1950; that by reason of the injuries suffered by plaintiff he disability benefits.
was deprived of his sight or vision rendering him permanently On November 24,1958 - the Adjutant General’s Office
disabled; and that by reason of the unjustified refusal by denied the said claim, alleging that Commonwealth Act
defendants of plaintiff’s claim, the latter was deprived of his
disability pension from July, 1948 totaling no less than P4,000 at 400 had already been repealed by Republic Act 610
the rate of P20 a month and suffered thereby moral damages and which took effect on January 1, 1950;
attorney’s fees in the amount of P2,000.00. that by reason of the injuries suffered by plaintiff he was
● The Philippine Veterans Administration and the Chief of Staff deprived of his sight or vision rendering him
of the Armed Forces filed separate motions to dismiss the permanently disabled; and that by reason of the
complaint on the grounds that the court has no jurisdiction unjustified refusal by defendants of plaintiff’s claim, the
over the subject matter of the complaint; that the plaintiff latter was deprived of his disability pension from July,
failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before coming 1948 totaling no less than P4,000 at the rate of P20 a
to court; that the complaint states no cause of action; and that month and suffered thereby moral damages and
the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations. attorney’s fees in the amount of P2,000.00.
● On March 2, 1962, the court rendered an order dismissing the
complaint on the ground that the action has prescribed. Hence, The Philippine Veterans Administration and the Chief
plaintiff has interposed this appeal. of Staff of the Armed Forces filed separate motions to
dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the court has
no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
complaint; that the plaintiff failed to exhaust all
administrative remedies before coming to court; that
the complaint states no cause of action; and that the
cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations.
ISSUE:
● Did the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) waive its
immunity from suit in this dispute which arose from an
employer-employee relationship?
Merrit vs ● Merrit was riding a motorcycle along Padre Faura Street 1. By consenting to be sued a state simply waives its
Gov’t when he was bumped by the ambulance of the General immunity from suit. It does not thereby concede its
Hospital. Merrit sustained severe injuries rendering him liability to plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his
unable to return to work. The legislature later enacted Act favor, or extend its liability to any cause not previously
2457 authorizing Merritt to file a suit against the recognized. It merely gives a remedy to enforce a
Government in order to fix the responsibility for the preexisting liability and submits itself to the jurisdiction
collision between his motorcycle and the ambulance of the of the court, subject to its right to interpose any lawful
General Hospital, and to determine the amount of the defense.
damages, if any, to which he is entitled. After trial, the lower
court held that the collision was due to the negligence of the 2. Under the Civil Code, the state is liable when it acts
driver of the ambulance. It then determined the amount of through a special agent, but not when the damage should
damages and ordered the government to pay the same. have been caused by the official to whom properly it
pertained to do the act performed. A special agent is one
ISSUE: who receives a definite and fixed order or commission,
1. Did the Government, in enacting the Act 2457, simply waive its foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is
immunity from suit or did it also concede its liability to the plaintiff? a special official. This concept does not apply to any
executive agent who is an employee of the acting
administration and who on his own responsibility
2. Is the Government liable for the negligent act of the driver of the performs the functions which are inherent in and
ambulance? naturally pertain to his office and which are regulated by
law and the regulations. The driver of the ambulance of
the General Hospital was not a special agent; thus the
Government is not liable.
Minsterio vs ● Ministerio filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of RULING:
city of cebu Cebu, sought the payment of just compensation for a registered Yes. Despite the fact that the government is
lot alleging that in 1927 the National Government, through its immune from suit without its consent nor is it
authorized representatives, took physical and material indispensable that it be the party proceeded against.
possessions of it, and used it for the widening of a national road Under such circumstances, the liability of the official
in Cebu City without paying just compensation and any sued is not personal, hence, the party that could be
agreement, either written or verbal. adversely affected is government, and the defense of
● Despite the repeated demands for the payment, Public Highway non-suability may be interposed.
Commissioner and the Auditor General refused to restore its When a public official is made to account in his
possession. Ministerio further alleged that the appraisal capacity as such as for acts contrary to law and injurious
committee of Cebu appraised the lot at P50.00 per square meter to the plaintiff, unauthorized acts of government
or a total of P52,250.00. officials or officers are not acts of the State, and an
● The respondents, through the Solicitor General, answered that action against the officials or officers by one whose
the suit was against the government and should be dismissed rights have been invaded or violated by such acts, for
because no consent was shown. Ministerio then provided a the protection of his rights, is not a suit against the State
stipulation of facts wherein it showed that they are the registered within the rule of Immunity of the State from suit.
owners of the lot, that the National Government in 1927 took the In the case at bar, it is clear that the acts of the
possession of Lot and used it for the road widening, that the Public Highway invaded and violated the personal and
Appraisal Committee of Cebu approved in fixing the price of the property rights of Ministerio, under an unconstitutional
lot at P50.00 per square meter, that the National Government act or under an assumption of authority which he does
still possesses and utilizes the lot, and that the National not have, can then be considered not to be a suit against
Government has not yet paid the value of the land being utilized the State within the constitutional provision that the
for public use. State may be not be sued without its consent.
ISSUE: The fact that the lot is already being used as a
Can Ministerio sue the National Government because of the public road means that it cannot be convenient or
possession and utilization of their lot and not be justly compensated? feasible to restore it, and the only relief that the
Government could do is to make due compensation. The
doctrine of State Immunity from suit cannot serve as an
instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen had
the government followed the procedure indicated by the
governing law at judgment, or after tender to the party
entitled to such payment of the amount fixed.
PNR vs IAC ● That plaintiff (passenger bus) was passing thru the town of RULING:
Calumpit Bulacan temporarily while the bridge at Hagonoy, The PNR is not immune from suit, in line with the
Bulacan was under construction. pronouncement in Malong vs. PNR
● That defendant Philippine National Railways is a purely “In the instant case the State divested itself of its
government owned and regularly passes along the intersection of sovereign capacity when it organized the PNR which is
Barrio Balungao, Calumpit, Bulacan, in going to San Fernando, no different from its predecessor, the Manila Railroad
La Union from Manila and return. Company. The PNR did not become immune from suit.
● That on August 10, 1974, at about 1:20 o'clock in the afternoon, It did not remove itself from the operation of Articles
Passenger train No. 73 hit and bumped the right mid portion of 1732 to 1766 of the Civil Code on common carriers.”
the plaintiff's passenger bus No. 1066, while the rear portion of The correct rule is that "not all government entities,
said bus was at the railroad track and its direction was towards whether corporate or non-corporate, are immune from
Hagonoy, Bulacan at about 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon. suits. Immunity from suit is determined by the character
● That at the time of the collision there was a slight rainfall in the of the objects for which the entity was organized."
vicinity of the scene of the accident and that there was at said When it is apparent, or when in the exercise of
intersection no bar, semaphores, and signal lights that would reasonable diligence commensurate with the
warn the public of the approaching train. surroundings it should be apparent, to the company that
● That on account of said collision, the Baliwag Transit Bus with a person on its track or to get on its track is unaware of
Body No. 1066 driven by Romeo Hughes was damaged and his danger or cannot get out of the way, it becomes the
eighteen (18) of its passengers died and the rest who were more duty of the company to use such precautions, by
than fifty three (53) passengers suffered physical injuries. warnings, applying brakes, or otherwise, as may be
● Plaintiff filed an action for damages against PNR alleging reasonably necessary to avoid injury to him.
therein that the proximate cause of the collision was the What exacerbates against petitioners' contention is the
negligence and imprudence of defendant PNR and its engineer, authority in this jurisdiction to the effect that the failure
Honorio Cabardo alias Honorio Cirbado in operating its of a railroad company to install a semaphore or at the
passenger train in a busy intersection without any bars, very least, to post a flagman or watchman to warn the
public of the passing train amounts to negligence.
semaphores, signal light, flagman or switchman to warn the
public of approaching train that would pass through the crossing.
● In its Answer thereto defendant PNR alleged as affirmative
defense that the collision was caused by negligence, imprudence
and lack of foresight of plaintiff’s bus driver, Romeo Hughes.
● The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff and ordered
the defendant to pay the latter: P179, 511.52 as actual damages;
P436, 642.00 as reimbursement for the damages paid by plaintiff
to death, injury and damage claimants; P50,000.00 as exemplary
damages; P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees, and interest at the legal
rate on the above amounts due to the plaintiff from Aug. 10,
1974 until fully paid.
● The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not PNR can be sued or be held liable for damages.
Ato v Ramos ● Spouses David and Elisea Ramos (respondents) discovered that RULING:
a portion of their land in Baguio City with an area of 985 square The petition for review has no merit. The immunity of
meters, more or less, was being used as part of the runway and the State from suit, known also as the doctrine of
running shoulder of the Loakan Airport being operated by sovereign immunity or non-suability of the State, is
petitioner Air Transportation Office (ATO). expressly provided in Article XVI of the 1987
● On August 11, 1995, the respondents agreed after negotiations Constitution, viz: Section 3. The State may not be sued
to convey the affected portion by deed of sale to the ATO in without its consent.
consideration of the amount of ₱778,150.00. However, the ATO An unincorporated government agency without any
failed to pay despite repeated verbal and written demands. Thus, separate juridical personality of its own enjoys
on April 29, 1998, the respondents filed an action for collection immunity from suit because it is invested with an
against the ATO and some of its officials in the RTC. inherent power of sovereignty. Accordingly, a claim for
● In their answer, the ATO and its co-defendants invoked as an damages against the agency cannot prosper; otherwise,
affirmative defense the issuance of Proclamation No. 1358, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is violated.
whereby President Marcos had reserved certain parcels of land However, the need to distinguish between an
that included the respondents’ affected portion for use of the unincorporated government agency performing
Loakan Airport. governmental function and one performing proprietary
● They asserted that the RTC had no jurisdiction to entertain the functions has arisen. The immunity has been upheld in
action without the State’s consent considering that the deed of favor of the former because its function is governmental
sale had been entered into in the performance of governmental or incidental to such function; it has not been upheld in
functions. favor of the latter whose function was not in pursuit of a
● The RTC held in favor of the Spouses, ordering the ATO to pay necessary function of government but was essentially a
the plaintiffs Spouses the amount of P778,150.00 being the business.
value of the parcel of land appropriated by the defendant ATO The Civil Aeronautics Administration comes under the
as embodied in the Deed of Sale, plus an annual interest of 12% category of a private entity. Although not a body
from August 11, 1995, the date of the Deed of Sale until fully corporate it was created, like the National Airports
paid; (2) The amount of P150,000.00 by way of moral damages Corporation, not to maintain a necessary function of
and P150,000.00 as exemplary damages; (3) the amount of government, but to run what is essentially a business,
P50,000.00 by way of attorneys fees plus P15,000.00 even if revenues be not its prime objective but rather the
representing the 10, more or less, court appearances of plaintiffs promotion of travel and the convenience of the
counsel; (4) The costs of this suit. On appeal, the CA affirmed travelling public. It is engaged in an enterprise which,
the RTCs decision withmodification deleting the awarded cost, far from being the exclusive prerogative of state, may,
and reducing the moral and exemplary damage to P30,000.00 more than the construction of public roads, be
each, and attorneys fees is lowered to P10,000.00. undertaken by private concerns.
In Supreme Courts’ view, the CA thereby correctly
ISSUE: appreciated the juridical character of the ATO as an
Whether or not ATO can be sued without the State's consent? agency of the Government not performing a purely
governmental or sovereign function, but was instead
involved in the management and maintenance of the
Loakan Airport, an activity that was not the exclusive
prerogative of the State in its sovereign capacity. Hence,
the ATO had no claim to the State’s immunity from suit.
SC uphold the CA’s aforequoted holding.SC further
observe the doctrine of sovereign immunity cannot be
successfully invoked to defeat a valid claim for
compensation arising from the taking without just
compensation and without the proper expropriation
proceedings being first resorted to of the plaintiffs’
property. The Court denies the petition for review on
certiorari, and affirms the decision promulgated by the
Court of Appeals. No pronouncement on costs of suit.
Palafox vs Sabas Torralba was employed as the driver of Ilocos Norte and NO. The general rule is that local government units are
Province of detailed to the Office of the District Engineer. While driving his not liable for negligent acts of its employees while they
ilocos norte truck, Sabas ran over Proceto Palafox resulting to the latter’s death. are performing governmental functions or duties. In this
Sabas was prosecuted for homicide through reckless imprudence to case, the driver was involved in the construction or
which he pleaded guilty. The heirs of Palafox instituted a civil case maintenance of roads which was a governmental duty.
against him, the Province, the District Engineer and the Provincial Therefore, the province cannot be held liable for his
Treasurer. negligent act. However tragic and deplorable it may be,
the death of Palafox imposed on the province no duty to
ISSUE: pay monetary consideration.
Whether or not the Province of Ilocos Norte can be held liable.
UP vs Dizon The UP entered into General Construction Agreement with Stern UP’s funds, being government funds, are not subject to
Builders Construction represented by General Manager Secretary garnishment.
villano dela cruz for the construction building and renovation of the UP is a government instrumentality which it has Special
CAS building. Stern Builder submitted 3 progress billings of the Trust Fund audited to COA as defined under P.D. 1445.
work accomplished but UP did not paid the third billing worth 273, Its funds is a government funds could be validly made
739 due to COA’s disapproval. Stern Builders and Dela Cruz filed the subject of the RTC’s writ of execution or
with RTC(2 c) to collect the unpaid billing and recover various garnishment. The adverse judgement rendered against
damages. The RTC in favored to Stern Builders and ordered UP to the UP in a suit to which it had impliedly rendered
pay 503, 462 (3rd billing to accomplished work and retention money; against UP in a suit to which, it had impliedly consented
actual and moral damages, atty’s fees and cost of suit. UP filed a was not immediately enforceable by execution against
notice of appeal but RTC denied for it had been filed out of time and UP, because suability at the state did not necessarily
granted the motion of execution of the decision. UP assailed the mean its liability.
denial of due course to its appeal in the CA but CA dismissed due to
the ground that it was 17 days late of the reglementary period and Disbursements of public funds must be required by law
the RTC’s decision had already become final and executory. and judgement of awards of actual and moral
The UP was exhausting the available remedies to overturn the damages was not validly made I there was no
denial of due course to the appeal and the issuance of the writ of special appropriation by Congress.
execution. RTC granted another motion for execution although the The COA must adjudicate private respondent’s claim
RTC had already issued the writ of execution. The sheriff served before execution should proceed.
notices of garnishment on the UP’s depository banks namely; Land
Bank of the Philippines and the DBP and assailed it and filed motion P.D. 1445 Government Auditing Code of the
to quash the writ of execution and was denied. Philippines
Stern Builders’ motion of ex parte and the release of the garnished - all money claims against the Government must be filed
funds were granted despite of UP’s opposition. Stern Builders and with the Commission on Audit which act upon it within
dela cruz moved to cite DBP in direct contempt of court for its non 60 days.
compliance with the order of release. The UP petition in the CA to 3. Period of appeal did not start without effective service
challenge the jurisdiction of the RTC in issuing the order argued that of decision upon counsel of
government funds and properties could not be seized by virtue of record.
writs of execution or garnishment as cited in PD 1445, Sec. 84. The
CA issued a TRO and Stern Builders and dela cruz filed in RTC
from sheriffs assistance to implement the release order stating that
the TRO 60 days period lapsed. This was granted and directed the
sheriff to proceed tot eh DBP to receive the check; UP presented a
motion to withhold the release of the payment of the judgement
award. RTC noted that the DBP had already delivered to the sheriff
manager’s check representing the garnished funds payable to the
order of Stern builders should not encash the check due to pending
of the UP’s petition for certiorari. CA denied the petitions of UP
given that UP had been given ample time to contest the motion to
direct DBP to deposit the check and that garnished funds could be
the proper subject because they had already marked the project.
Second Issue:
Res Judicata
- GMC asserts that the petition herein by GSIS in
G.R. No. 167000 are barred by res judicata as
the issues involved had been fully resolved not
only by the lower courts but by this Court as
well.
- GSIS and LLDHC both insist that res judicata
does not apply as this Court "has not yet
rendered a decision involving the same or any
similar petition."
- All three parties herein are in agreement with
the facts that led to the petitions in this case.
However, not all of them agree that the matters
involved in this case have already been
judicially settled.
- While GMC contends that GSIS’s petition is
barred by res judicata, both GSIS and LLDHC
assert that this Court has not yet decided any
similar petition, thus disputing the claim of res
judicata.
- Notwithstanding the difference in the forms of
actions GSIS and LLDHC filed, the doctrine of
res judicata still applies considering that the
parties were litigating the same thing, i.e., the
78 lots in Marigondon, Lapu-Lapu City, and
more importantly, the same contentions and
evidence were used in all causes of action
- Evidently, this Court could dispose of this case
simply upon the application of the principle of
res judicata.
- It is clear that GSIS’s petition in G.R. No.
167000 and LLDHC’s petition in CA-G.R. SP
No. 84382 should have never reached those
stages for having been barred by a final and
executory judgment on their claims.
- Third Issue:
GSIS’s Compliance with the
Lapu-Lapu RTC Judgment and Orders
Conclusion
- Although it is settled that the Lapu-Lapu RTC
Decision was not in any way nullified by the
Manila RTC Decision, it is this Court’s duty to
resolve the legal implications of having two
conflicting, final, and executory decisions in
existence.
- In summary, this Court finds the execution of
the Lapu-Lapu RTC Decision in Civil Case No.
2203-L to be in order. We affirm the assailed
Orders of March 11, 2004 and May 7, 2004,
which reiterate, among others, the October 23,
1997 Order issued by the Lapu-Lapu RTC,
directing the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu
City to cancel the certificates of title of LLDHC
and to issue new ones in GMC’s name.
Whatever rights are due LLDHC from GSIS as
a result of the final judgment of the Manila RTC
in Civil Case No. R-82-3429, which we have
previously held to be binding between GSIS and
LLDHC, may be threshed out in an appropriate
proceeding. Such proceeding shall not further
delay the execution of the Lapu-Lapu RTC
Decision.
Itagonoy vs ● Chao was engaged in buying and selling trucks, heavy RULING:
dumdum equipment, et.al. was contacted by Ople for the delivery of Yes, because the general rule in Art. 16, Sec. 3
motor vehicles which were needed to carry out certain of the Constitution is that the State and its political
developmental undertakings in the municipality. subdivisions may not be sued without their consent.
● Chao agreed to deliver from Cebu 21 motor vehicles with a total This means that they are open to suit but only when they
value of P5,820,000.00. But despite several deliveries, Ople consent to it. Consent is implied when the government
allegedly did not pay Chao, and the total obligation already enters into a bsuiness contract, as it then descends to the
totaled to P10,026,060.13. level of the other contracting party, or it may be
● Chao prayed for full payment of the said amount with interest at embodied in a general or special law.
not less than 2% per month, plust P500,000 as damages for In this case, it was stated and proven that Chao
business losses, P500,000 as exemplary damages, P100,000 for did not go through the proper procedure to obtain the
attorney’s fees and the cost for the suit to which the trial court contract. Hence, there is non-existence of an implied
granted, and issued a Writ of Preliminary Attachment directing consent on the part of the Municipality of Hagonoy
the sheriff “to attach the estate, real and personal properties” of
Ople.
● Ople filed a Motion to Dismiss because there was no written
contract that would evince the supposed agreement entered with
Chao. And in order to obtain the contract, Chao is subject to
public bidding and prior approval of the municipal council
wherein she did not obtain.
● Ople also filed a Motion to Dissolve and/or Discharge the Write
of Preliminary Attachment, invoking the immunity of the state
from suit, unenforceability of the contract, and failure to
substantiate the allegation of fraud. The trial court denied the
two motions. Ople appealed to the CA but also denied for lack
of merit and affirmed the trial court’s order.
ISSUE:
Can Ople invoke State Immunity to withhold the right of
Municipality of Hagonoy to be sued?