Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
23Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Municipality of San Fernando vs Firme

Municipality of San Fernando vs Firme

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,142|Likes:
Published by Raymond Roque

More info:

Published by: Raymond Roque on Oct 16, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/20/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Municipality of San Fernando vs FirmeDate: April 8, 1991Petitioner: Municipality of San Fernando La UnionRespondents: Hon. Judge Romeo Firme, Juana Rimando Banina, Laureano Banina Jr, et alPonente: MedialdeaFacts:Petitioner is a municipal corporation existing under and in accordance with the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. At about 7 am of December 16, 1965, a collision occurred involving a passenger jeepney drivenby Bernardo Balagot and owned by the Estate of Macario Nieveras, a gravel and sand truck driven by JoseManandeg and owned by Tanquilino Velasquez and a dump truck of the petitioner and driven by Alfredo Bislig.Several passengers of the jeepney including Laureano Baniña Sr. died as a result of the injuries they sustainedand 4 others suffered physical injuries.Private respondents instituted an action against Nieveras and Balagot before the CFI. The defendantsfiled a third party complaint against petitioner and Bislig. The complaint was then amended to impleadpetitioner and Bislig. Petitioner raised as defense lack of cause of action, non suability of the State, prescriptionand negligence of the owner and driver of the jeepney. The trial court rendered a decision ordering the petitioner and Bislig to pay the plaintiffs. The owner anddriver of the jeepney were absolved from liability. Petitioner filed an MR which was dismissed for having beenfiled out of time.Issue:WON the 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.Held:YesRatio: In the case at bar, the judge deferred the resolution of the defense of non-suability of the State until trial.However, the judge failed to resolve such defense, proceeded with the trial and then rendered a decision againstthe municipality and its driver. The judge did not commit GAD when it arbitrarily failed to resolve the issue of non-suability of the State in the guise of the municipality. However, the judge acted in excess of his jurisdictionwhen in his decision he held the municipality liable for the quasi-delict committed by its regular employee. The doctrine of non-suability of the State is expressly provided for in Article XVI, Section 3 of the Consti,to wit: "the State may not be sued without its consent." Express consent may be embodied in a general law or aspecial law. The standing consent of the State to be sued in case of money claims involving liability arising fromcontracts is found in Act No. 3083. A special law may be passed to enable a person to sue the government foran alleged quasi-delict. Consent is implied when the government enters into business contracts, therebydescending to the level of the other contracting party, and also when the State files a complaint, thus openingitself to a counterclaim.Municipal corporations are agencies of the State when they are engaged in governmental functions andtherefore should enjoy the sovereign immunity from suit. Nevertheless, they are subject to suit even in theperformance of such functions because their charter provided that they can sue and be sued.A distinction should first be made between suability and liability. "Suability depends on the consent of the state to be sued, liability on the applicable law and the established facts. The circumstance that a state issuable does not necessarily mean that it is liable; on the other hand, it can never be held liable if it does not firstconsent to be sued. Liability is not conceded by the mere fact that the state has allowed itself to be sued. Whenthe state does waive its sovereign immunity, it is only giving the plaintiff the chance to prove, if it can, that thedefendant is liable."Anent the issue of whether or not the municipality is liable for the torts committed by its employee, thetest of liability of the municipality depends on whether or not the driver, acting in behalf of the municipality, isperforming governmental or proprietary functions (Torio vs. Fontanilla). According to City of Kokomo vsLoy(Indiana SC), municipal corporations exist in a dual capacity, and their functions are twofold. In one theyexercise the right springing from sovereignty, and while in the performance of the duties pertaining thereto,their acts are political and governmental. Their officers and agents in such capacity, though elected orappointed by them, are nevertheless public functionaries performing a public service, and as such they areofficers, agents, and servants of the state. In the other capacity the municipalities exercise a private, proprietaryor corporate right, arising from their existence as legal persons and not as public agencies. Their officers andagents in the performance of such functions act in behalf of the municipalities in their corporate or individualcapacity, and not for the state or sovereign power."It has already been remarked that municipal corporations are suable because their charters grant themthe competence to sue and be sued. Nevertheless, they are generally not liable for torts committed by them inthe discharge of governmental functions and can be held answerable only if it can be shown that they wereacting in a proprietary capacity.In the case at bar, the driver of the dump truck of the municipality insists that "he was on his way to theNaguilian river to get a load of sand and gravel for the repair of San Fernando's municipal streets." In theabsence of any evidence to the contrary, the regularity of the performance of official duty is presumed pursuant

Activity (23)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Andy Burce liked this
Jiggle Bencito liked this
Popo Tolentino liked this
Ehna Daguplo liked this
Ehna Daguplo liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->