Facts

Issue

Ruling
y Affirmed, with costs against Francisco Pilapil y Basis: Article 320 and 321 of NCC y Condition: child stays with the mother w/o any evidence of lack of material care y Adherence to the concept of the judiciary, as an agency of the State acting as parenspatriae; called upon when a suit of litigation affects a minor to accord priority to his best interest y parenspatriae inherent in the supreme power of every State and has no affinity to those illogical powers y State shall strengthen the family as a basic social institution y when respondent Judge purchased on March 6, 65 a portion of lot 1184-E, the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 which he rendered on June 8, 1963 was already final because none of the parties filed an appeal within the reglementary period y lot in question was no longer subject of litigation y respondent Judge did not buy the lot in question directly from the plaintiffsbut from Dr. ArcadioGalapon who earlier purchased on the lot from three of the plaintiffs after the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 y the sale took place not during the pendency of the litigation y Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the US and from US to RP, Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce, being political in nature must be deemed to have been abrogated because where there is a change of sovereignty. y Rule: all government funds deposited in the PNB or any other official depositary of the Philippine Government, by any of its agencies or instrumentalities, remain government funds and may not be subject to garnishment or levy, in the absence of a corresponding appropriation as required by law. y Even though the rule as to immunity of a state from suit is relaxed, the power of the courts ends when the judgment is rendered. Although the liability of the state has been judicially ascertained, the state is at liberty to determine for itself whether to pay the judgment or not, and execution cannot issue on a judgment against the state. y rule is not absolute and admits of a well-defined exception, that is, when there is a corresponding appropriation as required by law. y City Council already approved and passed Ordinance No. 0134, allocating an amount of for Santiago s back-wages plus interest. The judgment of the trial court could then be validly enforced against such funds.

CABANAS(plaintiff) vs PILAPIL(defendant)

y FlorentinoPilapil, deceased, left an insurance having his child, MillianPilapil, as the beneficiary and authorized his brother, Francisco Pilapil, to act as trustee during his daughter s minority. y Lower court gave the right to act as trustee to the child s Melchora Cabanas. y Defendant appealed claiming the retention of the amount in question by invoking terms of insurance policy (rightful trustee)

WON the mother should be entitled to act as the trustee of a minor beneficiary.

BERNARDITA MACARIOLA(complainant)vsHON. ELIAS ASUNCION(respondent) Prohibiting judges from engaging in commerce was political in nature and so was automatically abrogated with the end of Spanish Rule in the country

y Judge Elias Asuncionwas the presiding Judge in Civil Case No. 3010 for partition.Among the parties thereto wasBernardita R. Macariola. y June 8, 63 respondent Judge rendered a decision, which became final for lack of an appeal. y Oct 16, 63 a project of partition was submitted to Judge Asuncion which he approved in an Order dated October 23, 1963, later amended on November 11, 63. y March 6, 65, a portion of lot 1184-E, one of the properties subject to partition under Civil Case No. 3010, was acquired by purchase by respondent Judge and his wife. y Macariola filed a complaint that respondent Judge Asuncionviolated Article 14 of the Code of Commerce by purchasing a portion of Lot No. 1184-E which was one of those properties involved in the case decided by him.Macariola charged him w/ acts unbecoming of a judge

Is the actuation of Judge Asuncion in acquiring by purchase a portion of property in a Civil Case previously handled by him an act unbecoming of a Judge?

y 1972, Mayor Marcial Samson of Caloocan abolished the position of

CITY OF CALOOCAN and NORMA M. ABRACIA, (petitioners) vs. HON. MAURO T. ALLARDE, Presiding Judge of Branch 123, RTC of Caloocan City, ALBERTO A. CASTILLO, Deputy Sheriff of Branch 123, RTC of Caloocan City, and DELFINA HERNANDEZ SANTIAGO and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK (PNB), (respondent)

y y y

Assistant City Administrator and 17 other positions; affected employees assailed the legality of the abolition.CFI declared abolition illegal, ordered the reinstatement of all the dismissed employees and payment of their back-wages.City Gov t appealed but was dismissed 1986, City paid Santiago as partial payment of her back-wages. Others were paid in full.1987, City appropriated funds for her unpaid back salaries but the City later refused to release the money to. The City of Caloocan argued that Santiago was not entitled to back wages 1992 Sheriff Castillo levied and sold at public auction the motor vehicles of the City Government; amount was given to Santiago. Judge Allarde ordered the City Treas. and the Sheriff to garnish the funds of the City Gov t corresponding to the claim of Santiago. Notice of garnishment was forwarded to the PNB but the City Treasurer sent an advice letter to PNB that the garnishment was illegal; it would hold PNB liable for any damages which may be caused.

WON the funds of City of Caloocan, in PNB, may be garnished to satisfy Santiago s claim.

Facts
y In lieu of an expropriation proceedings initiated by petitioner Municipality of Makatiagainst respondent Admiral Finance Creditors Consortium, MM opened a bank account with the PNB containing a sum of money. y After due hearing, the court fixed the amount of the property and ordered petitioner to pay such amount. After this decision became final and executory, a writ of execution was issued and a Notice of Garnishment was served by respondent sheriff upon the manager of the PNB Buendia Branch. But he was informed that a "hold code" was placed on the account of petitioner. y Private respondent then filed a motion praying for the court to order the bank to deliver the unpaid balance, while petitioner also filed a motion to lift the garnishment. y With these motions are pending, a Manifestation was filed, informing the court that private respondent was no longer the owner of the subject property and that ownership to this has been transferred to PSB. Compromise agreement was made between private respondent and PSB which was then approved by the court. Court ordered PNB Buendia Branch to immediately release to PSBa sum of moneyw/c corresponds to the balance of the appraised value of the subject property, from the garnished account of petition;the bank failed to comply y Petitioner raised for the first time that it had two accounts with PNB Buendia Branch: one was made exclusively for the expropriation of the subject property, and the other is for statutory obligations and other purposes of the municipal government y Msgr. Cirilos Jr., on behalf of the petitioner and the PRC agreed to sell 3 parcels of land to Ramon Licup. Condition: an earnest money shall be paid by Licup and the sellers shall clear the said lots of squatters. y Licup assigned his rights to Starbright Enterprises. The private respondent demanded the undertaking but due to the refusal of the squatters to vacate the land, Cirilos proposed that the private respondent shall be the one to undertake the eviction or he shall return the earnest money. y Private respondent counterproposed that it would undertake the eviction but the price of the land shall be decreased. Earnest money was returned. y Without the notice to the private respondent, the petitioner and PRC sold the lots to Tropicana. Private respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner but the latter moved to dismiss the complaint alleging that there is lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity from suit. But the private respondent argued that by entering into a business contract, the Holy See shed off its sovereign immunity. The DFA filed for an intervention on behalf of the Holy See.

Issue

Ruling
y Funds deposited in the 2nd PNB Account No. S/A 263530850-7 are public funds. y Public funds are not subject to levy and execution, unless otherwise provided for by statute y Properties of a municipality, which are necessary for public use cannot be attached and sold at execution sale to satisfy a money judgment against the municipality. y Municipal revenues which are intended primarily and exclusively for the purpose of financing the governmental activities and functions of the municipality, are exempt from execution. y In the case at bar, considering that valuable property has been taken, the compensation to be paid fixed and the municipality is in full possession and utilizing the property for public purpose for three (3) years, the Court finds that the municipality has had more than reasonable time to pay full compensation.

MUNICIPALITY of MAKATI vs. COURT of APPEALS

Municipal revenues derived from taxes, licenses and market fees, and which are intended primarily and exclusively for the purpose of financing the governmental activities and functions of the municipality, are exempt from execution.

WON thebalance of the appraised value of the subject property may be levied upon the second account of petitioner municipality. (WON public funds earmarked for the municipal government's other statutory obligations, are exempted from execution without the proper appropriation required under the law)

HOLY SEE vs ROSARIO A diplomatic employee is granted immunity from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over any reaction relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving state which the diplomat holds on behalf of the sending state for the purposes of the mission

1. WON the Holy See can invoke the doctrine of immunity 2. WON the Holy See entered into a commercial transaction

1. The RP has accorded the Holy See the status of a foreign sovereign. Through the Papal Nuncio, its Ambassador, it has had diplomatic representation in the Philippines since 1957. DFA has already certified the Embassy of the Holy See as a diplomatic mission to the RP, exempt from local jurisdiction and entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of a diplomatic mission in the country. 2. Court distinguished the transactions by a state with private parties as jure imperii and jure gestionis. y A state impliedly waves its immunity upon entering into contracts that are commercial or proprietary in nature. y Mere entering into a contract by a foreign state with a private party cannot be the ultimate test of its proprietary functions y Holy See did not buy and sell the lot in the ordinary course of business. Lot 5-A, was a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila, for the residence of the Papal Nuncio. The sale of Lot 5-A was not entered into for profit or gain. It merely wanted to dispose off the same. y Decision to transfer the property and the subsequent disposal are clothed with a governmental character.

Facts
y Contributions were collected during the Spanish regime for the relief of the victims of an earthquake. y Monte de Piedad, in need for more working capital, petitioned the Governor-General for the transfer of $80,000 as a loan. y 1893, the Dep t of Finance called upon the Monte de Piedad to return the $80,000. The Monte declined to comply with this order upon the ground that only the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands. y Philippine Islands, bring suit against the Monte de to recover the $80,000, together with interest, for the benefit of those persons or their heirs. y Judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff; defendant appealed. y Defendant questioned the competence of thegov t to bring the action, contending that the suit could be instituted only by the intended beneficiaries themselves or by their heirs. y Outbreak of the war against Japanese invaders y Ramon Ruffy - Provincial Commander;Prudente FranciscoJunior officer;Andres Fortus - A corporal of the Philippine Constabulary garrison In Mindoro y Japanese forces came to Mindoro which made Ruffy s troop retreat to the mountains and organized a guerilla outfit called the Bolo Combat Team or the Bolo Area. Civilians Jose Garcia, DominadorAdeva and VictorianoDinglasan became members. y Petitioners were promoted: Ruffy was named the Commanding Officer of the Bolo Area, Dinglasan became the Finance Officer, Garcia was named Captain while Adeva and Francisco were named 3rd Lt. and 2ndLt y Change in the command of the Bolo Area was effected relieving Ruffy of his position by Capt. Beloncio who was allegedly slain by petitioners

Issue

Ruling
y Supreme Court affirmed the judgment appealed from and upheld the right of the Government to file the case as parenspatriae in representation of the legitimate claimants. Gov t has the right to enforce all charities of public nature, by virtue of its general superintending authority over the public interests, where no other person is entrusted with it. y parenspatriae is inherent in the supreme power of every State. The beneficiaries of charities, who are often incapable of vindicating their rights, and justly look for protection to the sovereign authority, acting as parenspatriae. y To deny the Government's right to maintain this action would be contrary to sound public policy. y YES. The Court ruled that members of the Armed Forces were still covered by the National Defense Act, Articles of War and other laws relating to the Armed Forces even during the Japanese occupation. y The act of unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, held subjects liable to military jurisdiction and trial. y Petitioners were officers of the 6thMilitary District, operating under orders of duly established and duly appointed commanders of the US Army. y Courts-martial do have authority, being agencies of executive character. (inferior courts established by law) y Enemy occupation does not relieve petitioners from their sworn duties as well as from the punishment they must incur for their conduct is affirmed.

GOV T OF THE PHILS(plaintiff) vsMONTE DE PIEDAD (defendant) Statutes of limitation do not run against the State unless the contrary is provided by law; Parenspatriae

WON Philippine government is competent to file a complaint against the respondent bank?

RAMON RUFFY(petitioner) vsCHIEF OF STAFF (respondent) Rule suspending political laws affects only the civilian inhabitants of the occupied territory and is not intended to bind the enemies in arms

WON petitioners were subject to military law at the time the offense for which they had been placed on trial was committed.

US Vs. Ruiz 136 SCRA 487 Suability would follow only if the contract entered into by the gov t in its proprietary capacity

y USA had a naval base in Subic, Zambales which was one of those provided in the military bases agreement between Philippines and the US. y Respondent alleges that it won in the bidding conducted by the US for the construction of wharves in said base that was merely awarded to another group. y For this reason, a suit for specific performance was filed by him against the US.

WON US naval base in bidding for said contracts exercise governmental functions to be able to invoke state immunity

y The traditional role of the state immunity exempts a state from being sued in the courts of another state without its consent or waiver. -- Necessary consequence of the principle of independence and equality of states. y State immunity now extends only to sovereign and governmental acts. y The limiting application of state immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign. Its commercial activities of economic affairs y State may be descended to the level of an individual and can be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts. y In this case, the project are integral part of the naval base which is devoted to the defense of both US and Philippines indisputably, a function of the government of highest order, they are not utilized for , nor dedicated to commercial or business purposes.

Facts
. y GR No. 76607, the private respondents are suing several officers of the US Air Force stationed in Clark Air Base in connection with the bidding conducted by them for contracts for barbering services in the said base. y GR No. 79470, Fabian Genove filed a complaint for damages against petitioners for his dismissal as cook in the US Air Force Recreation Center at Camp John Hay Air Station in Baguio City. Boardunanimously found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. Genove sfileda complaint against the petitioners. y GR No. 80018, Luis Bautista, employed as a barracks boy in Cano O Donnell, extension of Clark Air Base, was arrested following a buy-bust operation conducted by the individual petitioners who are officers of the US Air Force and special agents of the Air Force Office of Special Investigators. Bautista was dismissed from his employment. He filed a complaint. y GR No. 80258, a complaint for damages was filed by the private respondents against the herein petitioners (except the US), for injuries sustained by the plaintiffs as a result of the acts of the defendants. y Conflict of factual allegations: Plaintiffs; the defendants beat them up, handcuffed them and unleashed dogs on them which bit them in several parts of their bodies and caused extensive injuries to them. Defendants: deny this and claim that plaintiffs were arrested for theft and were bitten by the dogs because they were struggling and resisting arrest. y In a motion to dismiss the complaint, the US and the individually named defendants argued that the suit was in effect a suit against the US, which had not given its consent to be sued.

Issue

Ruling
yA State may not be sued without its consent is one of the generally accepted principles of international law that were adopted as part of the law of our land; also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the states for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties - will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same y All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. y When the gov t enters into a contract, it is deemed to have descended to the level of the other contracting party and divested of its sovereign immunity from suit with its implied consent. y In the case of US, the usual law of international law on state immunity is expressed with more specificity in the RP-US Bases Treaty. There is no question that the US, like any other state, will be deemed to have impliedly waived its non-suability if it has entered into a contract in its proprietary or private capacity. It is only when the contract involves its sovereign or governmental capacity that no such waiver may be implied. y GR No. 80018: petitioners acted the exercise of their official functions when they conducted the buy-bust operations against the complainant and thereafter testified against him at his trial. y GR No. 79470/76607: The operation of the US gov t of restaurants in Camp John Hay and of barbershops in Clark Air Base were proprietary in nature and so not covered by the doctrine of state immunity as these establishments were open to the public for a fee. y Doctrine of state immunity from suit applies to complaints filed against public officials for acts done in the performance of their duties; that the suit must be regarded as one against the state where satisfaction of the judgment against the public official concerned will require the state itself to perform a positive act. y Rule does not apply where the public official is charged in his official or personal capacity for acts that are unlawful and injurious to the rights of others; acts committed in bad faith. y Petitioner is being suedin his personal capacity. y petitioner is sued allegedly for having personal motives in ordering the ejectment of GABI from Rizal Park y Court found no evidence of abuse of authority. Rizal Park is beyond the commerce of man and, could not be the subject of lease contract Petitioner may validly discontinue the accommodation extended to private respondents, who may be ejected from the park when necessary. Private respondents cannot and do not claim a vested right to continue to occupy Rizal Park.

United States of America vs. Guinto 182 SCRA 644 Operations of the gov t which are propriety in nature are not covered by the doctrine of State immunity

WON the defendants were also immune from suit under the RP-US Bases Treaty for acts done by them in the performance of their official duties.

LANSANG vs COURT of APPEALS

y Private respondentsGABI and Jose Iglesias were allegedly awarded a verbal contract of lease in 1970 to occupy a portion of Rizal Parkby the (NPDC), a gov t initiated civic body engaged in the dev t of national parks. y GABI was to remit to NPDC 40% of the profits derived from operating the kiosks. y After the EDSA Revolution, petitioner Lansang, the new Chairman of the NPDC, sought to clean up Rizal Park. Petitioner terminated the so-called verbal agreement with GABI and demanded that the latter vacate the premises and the kiosks it ran privately within the public park. y GABI filed an action for damages and injunction against petitioner.

WON the complaint filed against the petitioner is in reality, a complaint against the State, which could not prosper without the State s consent

Facts
y Respondent Nelia Montoya, an American Citizen, worked as an ID checker at the US Navy Exchange (NEX) at the US Military Assistance Group (JUSMAG) headquarters in Quezon City. y Jan. 22, 1987 Montoya bought some items from the retail store Bradford managed, where she had purchasing privileges. After shopping & while she was already at the parking lot, Mrs. Yong Kennedy, approached her & searched her bags. y Montoya learned that she was the only person subjected to such search that day. Montoya filed a suit against Bradford for damages due to the oppressive & discriminatory acts. Summons & complaint were served on y May 13, 1987 Bradford but instead of filing an answer, she along with USA government filed a motion to dismiss on grounds that: (1) this is a suit against US w/c is a foreign sovereign immune from suit w/o its consent and (2) Bradford is immune from suit for acts done in the performance of her official functions under Phil-US Military Assistance Agreement of 1947 & Military Bases Agreement of 1947. y July 14, 1987 Montoya opposed Bradford s motion to dismiss. She claims that: (1) due to excess in authority and since her liability is personal, Bradford can t rely on sovereign immunity; (2) Bradford s act was committed outside the military base thus under the jurisdiction of Philippine courts. y Montoya claims that Bradford was acting as a civilian employee thus not performing governmental functions. Even if she were performing governmental acts, she would still not be covered by the immunity since she was acting outside the scope of her authority. y Petitioner Sanders was the special services director of the U.S. Naval Station. Petitioner Moreau was the commanding officer of the Subic Naval Base. Private respondent Rossiis an American citizen with permanent residence in the Philippines. y Private respondent Rossi and Wyer were both employed as game room attendants in the special services department of the NAVSTA. y October 3, 1975, the private respondents were advised that their employment had been converted from permanent fulltime to permanent part-time. They instituted grievance proceedings to the rules and regulations of the U.S. Department of Defense. The hearing officer recommended for reinstatement of their permanent full-time status. y Before the the grievance hearings, a-letter from petitioner Moreau was sent to the Chief of Naval Personnel explaining the change of the private respondent's employment status. y Private respondent filed for damages alleging that the letters contained libelous imputations y Petitioners argued that the acts complained of were performed by them in the discharge of their official duties and the court had no jurisdiction over them under the doctrine of state immunity. However, the motion was denied on the main ground that the petitioners had not presented any evidence that their acts were official in nature.

Issue

Ruling
yDoctrine of state immunity applies to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in discharge of their duties since it will require the state to perform an affirmative act. yNot absolute. When the public official is made to account in his capacity as such for acts contrary to law & injurious to rights of plaintiff. Action against officials by one whose rights have been violated by such acts is not a suit against the State. y It will not apply & may not be invoked where the public official is being sued in his private & personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. This usually arises where the public official acts w/o authority or in excess of the powers vested in him. yIn this case, Bradford was sued in her private/personal capacity for acts done beyond the scope & place of her official function, thus, it falls w/in the exception to the doctrine of state immunity. yShe is not among those granted diplomatic immunity under Art. 16(b) of the 1953 Military Assistance Agreement creating the JUSMAG. yEven diplomatic agents who enjoy immunity are liable if they perform acts outside their official functions

WON case at bar is a suit against the State. WON Bradford enjoys diplomatic immunity

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. REYES

DALE SANDERS, AND A.S. MOREAU, JR vs. HON. REGINO T. VERIDIANO II

WON the petitioners were performing their official duties

y Yes. Sanders, as director of the special services department of NAVSTA, undoubtedly had supervision over its personnel, including the private respondents. y Given the official character of the letters, the petitioners were being sued as officers of the United States governmentbec they have acted on behalf of that , it is that government. y The mere allegation that a government functionary is being sued in his personal capacity will not automatically remove him from the protection of the law of public officers and, if appropriate, the doctrine of state immunity. The mere invocation of official character will not suffice to insulate him from suability and liability for an act imputed to him as a personal tort committed without or in excess of his authority. y Assuming that the trial can proceed and it is proved that the claimants have a right to the payment of damages, such award will have to be satisfied by the United States government as their principal. This will require that government to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the judgment,thus making the action a suit against that government without its consent.

Facts

Issue

Ruling
y NIA is not immune from suit by express provision of Presidential Decree No. 552 y A reading of Section 2, sub-paragraph (f) of P.D. No. 552, amending Republic Act No. 3601 shows the granting to NIA the power to exercise all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. y Petitioner NIA may sue and be sued in court for all kind of actions, whether contractual or quasi-contractual, in the recovery of compensation and damages as in the instant case considering that private respondents action is based on damages caused by the negligence of petitioners. y theNational Irrigation Administration is a government agency with a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government. It is not a mere agency of the government but a corporate body performing proprietary functions as it has its own assets and liabilities as well as its own corporate powers to be exercised by a Board of Directors.

NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION AND THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ANDRES VENTURA, AN-TONIO FAJARDO, MARCELO FAJARDO, ALFONSO VEN-TURA AND FLORENTINO VENTURA, respondents.

y 1967, petitioner NIAconstructed an irrigation canal on the property of Isabel and Virginia Tecson which passed through the private respondents landholdings and eventually caused the latter to sustain damages consisting in the destruction of the planted palay crops and also prevented them from planting on their landholdings causing them to file a complaint. y The complaint was found to be meritorious and NIA was ordered to pay the sum of P35,000.00 representing damages, P5000.00 for attorney s fees and the cost of the suit. y Not satisfied with said decision, petitioners elevated the matter to the appellate court which rendered a decision on February 27, 1986 affirming in toto the decision of the trial court. y It is petitioners position that the respondent appellate court erred in affirming the decision of the trial courtbecause NIA is immune from suit for quasi-delict or tort and assuming NIA could be sued, it is not liable for tort since it did not act through a special agent.

WON NIA is protected by the Doctrine of State immunity.