CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION VS.

THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

ISSUE: Does the prohibition in Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution insofar as Cabinet members, their deputies or assistants are concerned admit of the broad exceptions made for appointive officials in general under Section 7, par. (2), Article I-XB? HELD: No. The intent of the framers of the Constitution was to impose a stricter prohibition on the President and his official family in so far as holding other offices or employment in the government or elsewhere is concerned. Although Section 7, Article I-XB are contains a blanket prohibition against the holding of multiple offices or employment in the government subsuming both elective and appointive public officials, the Constitutional Commission should see it fit to formulate another provision, Sec. 13, Article VII, specifically prohibiting the President, VicePresident, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants from holding any other office or employment during their tenure, unless otherwise provided in the Constitution itself. While all other appointive officials in the civil service are allowed to hold other office or employment in the government during their tenure when such is allowed by law or by the primary functions of their positions, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants may do so only when expressly authorized by the Constitution itself. In other words, Section 7, Article I-XB is meant to lay down the general rule applicable to all elective and appointive public officials and employees, while Section 13, Article VII is meant to be the exception applicable only to the President, the VicePresident, Members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants. The phrase "unless otherwise provided in this Constitution" must be given a literal interpretation to refer only to those particular instances cited in the Constitution itself, to wit: the Vice-President being appointed as a member of the Cabinet under Section 3, par. (2), Article VII; or acting as President in those instances provided under Section 7, pars. (2) and (3), Article VII; and, the Secretary of Justice being ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council by virtue of Section 8 (1), Article VIII.

FACTS: The two petitions in this case sought to declare unconstitutional Executive Order No. 284 issued by President Corazon C. Aquino. The assailed law provides that: Sec. 1. Even if allowed by law or by the ordinary functions of his position, a member of the Cabinet, undersecretary or assistant secretary or other appointive officials of the Executive Department may, in addition to his primary position, hold not more than two positions in the government and government corporations and receive the corresponding compensation therefore; Provided, that this limitation shall not apply to ad hoc bodies or committees, or to boards, councils or bodies of which the President is the Chairman. The petitioners alleged that the cited provision of EO 284 contravenes the provision of Sec. 13, Article VII which declares: The President, VicePresident, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including governmentowned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office. The petitioners maintained that the phrase "unless otherwise provided in this Constitution" used in Section 13 of Article VII meant that the exception must be expressly provided in the Constitution. Public respondents, on the other hand, maintain that the phrase "unless otherwise provided in the Constitution" in Section 13, Article VII makes reference to Section 7, par. (2), Article I-XB insofar as the appointive officials mentioned therein are concerned. The provision relied upon by the respondents provides: Sec. 7...... Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position, no appointive official shall hold any other office or employment in the government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including governmentowned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

MUTUC VS. COMELEC

FACTS: Mutuc was a candidate for delegate to the Constitutional Convention (1970). His candidacy

was given due course by the COMELEC but he was prohibited from playing his campaign jingle on his mobile units because this is an apparent violation of COMELECs band to purchase, produce, request or distribute sample ballots, or electoral propaganda gadgets such as pens, lighters, fans (of whatever nature), flashlights, athletic goods or materials, wallets, bandanas, shirts, hats, matches, cigarettes, and the like, whether of domestic or foreign origin. It was COMELECs contention that the jingle proposed to be used by petitioner is the recorded or taped voice of a singer and therefore a tangible propaganda material (falling under and the likes category), under the above COMELEC statute subject to confiscation.

ISSUE: Whether or not the sale of Manila Hotel to Renong Berhad is violative of the Constitutional provision of Filipino First Policy and is therefore null and void. HELD: Manila Prince Hotel Corporation should be awarded the sale pursuant to Art 12 of the 1987 Const. This is in light of the Filipino First Policy. Herein resolved as well is the term Qualified Filipinos which not only pertains to individuals but to corporations as well and other juridical entities/personalities.

MACARIOLA VS. JUDGE ASUNCION HELD: By virtue of Ejusdem Generis, general words following any enumeration must be of the same class as those specifically referred to. It did contend, however, that one of its provisions referred to above makes unlawful the distribution of electoral propaganda gadgets, mention being made of pens, lighters, fans, flashlights, athletic goods or materials, wallets, bandanas, shirts, hats, matches, and cigarettes, and concluding with the words and the like. For respondent Commission, the last three words sufficed to justify such an order. We view the matter differently. What was done cannot merit our approval under the wellknown principle of ejusdem generis, the general words following any enumeration being applicable only to things of the same kind or class as those specifically referred to. It is quite apparent that what was contemplated in the Act was the distribution of gadgets of the kind referred to as a means of inducement to obtain a favorable vote for the candidate responsible for its distribution. FACTS: When the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 rendered by respondent Hon. Judge Elias B. Asuncion of Court of First Instance of Leyte became final on June 8, 1863 for lack of an appeal, a project of partition was submitted to him which he later approved in an Order dated October 23, 1963. Among the parties thereto was complainant Bernardita R. Macariola. One of the properties mentioned in the project of partition was Lot 1184. This lot according to the decision rendered by Judge Asuncion was adjudicated to the plaintiffs Reyes in equal shares subdividing Lot 1184 into five lots denominated as Lot 1184-A to 1184-E. On July 31, 1964 Lot 1184-E was sold to Dr. Arcadio Galapon who later sold a portion of Lot 1184-E to Judge Asuncion and his wife Victoria Asuncion. Thereafter spouses Asuncion and spouses Galapon conveyed their respective shares and interests in Lot 1184-E to the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries Inc. wherein Judge Asuncion was the president. Macariola then filed an instant complaint on August 9, 1968 docketed as Civil Case No. 4234 in the CFI of Leyte against Judge Asuncion with "acts unbecoming a judge" alleging that Judge Asuncion in acquiring by purchase a portion of Lot 1184-E violated Article 1491 par. 5 of the New Civil Code, Art. 14, pars. 1 and 5 of the Code of Commerce, Sec. 3 par. H of R.A. 3019, Sec. 12 Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules and Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. On November 2, 1970, Judge Jose Nepomuceno of the CFI of Leyte rendered a decision dismissing the complaints against Judge Asuncion. After the investigation, report and recommendation conducted by Justice Cecilia Munoz Palma of the

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS.GSIS FACTS: Pursuant to the privatization program of the government, GSIS decided to sell 30-51% of the Manila Hotel Corporation. Two bidders participated, Manila Prince Hotel Corporation and Malaysian Firm Renong Berhad. Manila Prince Hotel Corporations bid was at P41.58/per share while Renong Berhads bid was at P44.00/share. Renong Berhad was the highest bidder hence it was logically considered as the winning bidder but is yet to be declared so. Pending declaration, Manila Prince Hotel Corporation matches Renong Berhads bid but GSIS refused to accept. In turn Manila Prince Hotel Corporation filed a TRO to avoid the perfection/consummation of the sale to Renong Berhad.

Court of Appeals, she recommended on her decision dated March 27, 1971 that Judge Asuncion be exonerated. ISSUE: Does Judge Asuncion, now Associate Justice of Court of Appeals violated any law in acquiring by purchase a parcel of Lot 1184-E which he previously decided in a Civil Case No. 3010 and his engagement in business by joining a private corporation during his incumbency as a judge of the CFI of Leyte constitute an "act unbecoming of a judge"? RULING: No. The respondent Judge Asuncion's actuation does not constitute of an "act unbecoming of a judge." But he is reminded to be more discreet in his private and business activities. Supreme Court ruled that the prohibition in Article 1491 par. 5 of the New Civil Code applies only to operate, the sale or assignment of the property during the pendency of the litigation involving the property. Respondent judge purchased a portion of Lot 1184-E on March 6, 1965, the in Civil Case No. 3010 which he rendered on June 8, 1963 was already final because none of the parties therein filed an appeal within the reglementary period. Hence, the lot in question was no longer subject to litigation. Furthermore, Judge Asuncion did not buy the lot in question directly from the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3010 but from Dr. Arcadio Galapon who earlier purchased Lot1184-E from the plaintiffs Reyes after the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 3010. Supreme Court stated that upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the US and later on from the US to the Republic of the Philippines, Article 14 of Code of Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated because where there is change of sovereignty, the political laws of the former sovereign, whether compatible or not with those of the new sovereign, are automatically abrogated, unless they are expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign. There appears no enabling or affirmative act that continued the effectively of the foretasted provision of the Code of Commerce, consequently, Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce have no legal and binding effect and cannot apply to the respondent Judge Asuncion. Respondent Judge cannot also be held liable to par. H, Section 3 of R.A. 3019 because the business of the corporation in which respondent participated had obviously no relation or connection with his judicial office. Supreme Court stated that respondent judge and his wife deserve the commendation for their immediate withdrawal from the firm 22 days after

its incorporation realizing that their interest contravenes the Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.

PLANAS VS. COMELEC

FACTS: On 15 January 1973, there being no freedom of speech, press and assembly, and there being no sufficient time to inform the people of the contents thereof." Substantially identical actions were filed. Meanwhile, or on 17 December 1972, the President had issued an order temporarily suspending the effects of Proclamation 1081, for the purpose of free and open debate on the Proposed Constitution. On December 23, the President announced the postponement of the plebiscite for the ratification or rejection of the Proposed Constitution. No formal action to this effect was taken until 7 January 1973, when General Order 20 was issued, directing "that the plebiscite scheduled to be held on 15 January 1973, be postponed until further notice." Said General Order 20, moreover, "suspended in the meantime" the "order of 17 December 1972, temporarily suspending the effects of Proclamation 1081 for purposes of free and open debate on the proposed Constitution." In view of the events relative to the postponement of the plebiscite, the Court deemed it fit to refrain, for the time being, from deciding the cases, for neither the date nor the conditions under which said plebiscite would be held were known or announced officially. Then, again, Congress was, pursuant to the 1935 Constitution, scheduled to meet in regular session on 22 January 1973, and since the main objection to Presidential Decree 73 was that the President does not have the legislative authority to call a plebiscite and appropriate funds therefore, which Congress unquestionably could do, particularly in view of the formal postponement of the plebiscite by the President reportedly after consultation with, among others, the leaders of Congress and the Commission on Elections the Court deemed it more imperative to defer its final action on these cases. In the afternoon of 12 January 1973, Vidal Tan, et. al. [GR L-35948] filed an "urgent motion," praying that said case be decided "as soon as possible, preferably not later than 15 January 1973." It was alleged in said motion, "that the President subsequently announced the issuance of Presidential Decree 86 organizing the so-called Citizens Assemblies, to be consulted on certain

public questions; and that thereafter it was later announced that 'the Assemblies will be asked if they favor or oppose [1] The New Society; [2] Reforms instituted under Martial Law; [3] The holding of a plebiscite on the proposed new Constitution and when (the tentative new date given following the postponement of the plebiscite from the original date of January 15 are February 19 and March 5); [4] The opening of the regular session slated on January 22 in accordance with the existing Constitution despite Martial Law."

Congress acting as Constituent Assembly, has full authority to propose amendments, or call for convention for the purpose by votes and these votes were attained by Resolution 2 and 4 - Sec 2 RA 6132: it is a mere implementation of Resolution 4 and is enough that the basis employed for such apportions is reasonable. Macias case relied by Gonzales is not reasonable for that case granted more representatives to provinces with less population and vice versa. In this case, Batanes is equal to the number of delegates I other provinces with more population. - Sec 5: State has right to create office and parameters to qualify/disqualify members thereof. Furthermore, this disqualification is only temporary. This is a safety mechanism to prevent political figures from controlling elections and to allow them to devote more time to the Constitutional Convention. - Par 1 Sec 8: this is to avoid debasement of electoral process and also to assure candidates equal opportunity since candidates must now depend on their individual merits, and not the support of political parties. This provision does not create discrimination towards any particular party/group, it applies to all organizations.

ISSUE: Whether the Court has authority to pass upon the validity of Presidential Decree 73. HELD: Presidential Decree 73 purports to have the force and effect of a legislation, so that the issue on the validity thereof is manifestly a justifiable one, on the authority, not only of a long list of cases in which the Court has passed upon the constitutionality of statutes and/or acts of the Executive, 1 but, also, of no less than that of Subdivision (1) of Section 2, Article VIII of the 1935 Constitution, which expressly provides for the authority of the Supreme Court to review cases involving said issue.

TOLENTINO VS. COMELEC IMBONG VS. COMELEC FACTS: FACTS: This is a petition for declaratory judgment. These are 2 separate but related petitions of running candidates for delegates to the Constitutional Convention assailing the validity of RA 6132.Gonzales: Sec, 2, 4, 5 and Par 1 Sec 8, and validity of entire law Imbong: Par 1 Sec 8 ISSUE: Whether or not the Congress has a right to call for Constitutional Convention and whether the parameters set by such a call is constitutional. HELD: The Congress has the authority to call for a Constitutional Convention as a Constituent Assembly. Furthermore, specific provisions assailed by the petitioners are deemed as constitutional. RATIO: - Sec 4 RA 6132: it is simply an application of Sec 2 Art 12 of Constitution -Constitutionality of enactment of RA 6132: In Feb 2001, a Senate seat for a term expiring on June 30 2004 was vacated with the appointment of then Sen. Guingona as VP of the PI. The Senate then adopted Resolution #84 which: 1) certified the existence of a vacancy in the Senate & 2) called the COMELEC to fill up the said vacancy through a special election to be held simultaneously w/ the regular election on May14, 2001, and 3) declared the senatorial candidate garnering the 13th highest number of votes shall serve only for the unexpired term of former Sen. Guingona. According to the Senate, this Resolution is for the guidance & implementation of the COMELEC, &that it had NO discretion to alter the said procedure. Nobody filed a certificate of candidacy to fill the position of senator to serve the unexpired 3yr term in the special election. All the senatorial candidates filed the certificates of candidacy for the 12 regular Senate seats w/ a 6yr term each. COMELEC distributed nationwide official documents (eg Voter Info Sheet, List of Candidates, and Sample Ballot). The List of Candidates DID NOT provides 2 different categories of Senate seats to be voted, namely the 12 regular 6- year term seats & the

single 3-year term seat. Nor did the ballots provide a separate space for the candidate to be voted in the special election & instead provided 13 spaces for 13 senatorial seats. Without any COMELEC resolution/notice on the time, place & manner of the special election, the special election was held on the scheduled May 14 2001 regular elections. A single canvassing of votes for a single list of senatorial candidates was also done. Petitioners assailed the manner by which the special election was conducted for violating the precedents set by the 1951 & 1955 special elections, both of which were held simultaneously & yet distinctly w/ the regular general elections. Thus, they pray that the Court declare that 1) NO special elections were held & that 2) Comelecs Resolutions that proclaim the Senatorial candidate who obtained the 13th highest # of votes as a duly elected be declared NULL&VOID ISSUE: Whether or not the Court has no jurisdiction over the matter because respondents say it is a quo warrant to proceeding (a proceeding which determines the right of a public officer in the exercise of his office & to oust him from it if his claim is not well-founded), where only the Senate Electoral Tribunal can serve as judge. HELD: YES, the Court can properly exercise jurisdiction because what the petitioners are questioning here is the validity of the special election in which Honasan was elected, NOT his right in the exercise of his office as Senator. His election is merely incidental to the petitioners case of action.

inconsistent with Sec. 3 of Resolution 2 (b.) that Sec. 4 constitute class legislation which denies equal protection of laws since it disqualifies public officials and employees from serving as delegates to the constitutional convention by considering them resigned from office upon filing of certificates of candidacy-a disqualification that does not apply to persons employed in private enterprises. ISSUE: Whether or not Sec. 4 and 8 of Republic Act 6132 is constitutional. HELD: Supreme Court held that Sec. 4 and 8 of Republic Act 6132 are constitutional or valid because while Sec. 4 of Republic Act 6132 applies exclusively to officials and employees it does not constitute discriminatory legislation which offends equal protection clause of constitution since the classification is germane to purpose of the act and based on substantial difference between the situation of said officials and employees and that of persons outside of government service.

SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC

FACTS: Private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin, president of Peoples Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action (PIRMA), filed with COMELEC a petition to amend the constitution to lift the term limits of elective officials, through Peoples Initiative. He based this petition on Article XVII, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for the right of the people to exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution. Subsequently the COMELEC issued an order directing the publication of the petition and of the notice of hearing and thereafter set the case for hearing. At the hearing, Senator Roco, the IBP, Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon, Public Interest Law Center, and Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino appeared as intervenors-oppositors. Senator Roco filed a motion to dismiss the Delfin petition on the ground that one which is cognizable by the COMELEC. The petitioners herein Senator Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Isabel Ongpin filed this civil action for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against COMELEC and the Delfin petition rising the several arguments, such as the following: (1) The constitutional provision on peoples initiative to amend the constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. No such law has been passed; (2) the peoples initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to revision thereof. Lifting of the

IN RE: SUBIDO

FACTS: On March 16, 1967 the congress in joint session by a vote of of all its members passed Resolution 2 calling a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. On June 17, 1969 the congress passed Resolution 4 amending Sec. 1 and 2 of Resolution No. 2 and adding a new provision of Sec. 8. Hence on August 24, 1970 Republic Act 6132 was approved implementing Sec. 8 and Sec.4 which provides: copy Sec. 4 and 8 of case page 4. Petitioners Subido and the Commission of Civil Service Commission who are all government officials and employees assail the validity of Sec. 4 and 8 on the ground ( a.) they are contrary to and

term limits constitutes a revision; therefore it is outside the power of peoples initiative. The Supreme Court granted the Motions for Intervention. ISSUE: Whether or not Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision. HELD: Sec. 2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not selfexecutor, thus, without implementing legislation the same cannot operate. Although the Constitution has recognized or granted the right, the people cannot exercise it if Congress does not provide for its implementation. The portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 which prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is void. It has been an established rule that what has been delegated cannot be delegated (potestas delegata non delegari potest). The delegation of the power to the COMELEC being invalid, the latter cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise of the right to peoples initiative. The lifting of the term limits was held to be that of a revision, as it would affect other provisions of the Constitution such as the synchronization of elections, the constitutional guarantee of equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibiting political dynasties. A revision cannot be done by initiative. However, considering the Courts decision in the above Issue, the issue of whether or not the petition is a revision or amendment has become academic.

Lambino Group also claimed that COMELEC election registrars had verified the signatures of the 6.3 million individuals. The Lambino Groups initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department)[4] and Sections 1-4 of Article VII (Executive Department)[5] and by adding Article XVIII entitled Transitory Provisions.[6] These proposed changes will shift the present BicameralPresidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. The Lambino Group prayed that after due publication of their petition, the COMELEC should submit the following proposition in a plebiscite for the voters ratification: ISSUE: Whether or not the Lambino Groups initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a peoples initiative; HELD: There is no merit to the petition. The Lambino Group miserably failed to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for conducting a peoples initiative.

OCCENA VS. COMELEC

FACTS: The challenge in these two prohibition proceedings against the validity of three Batasang Pambansa Resolutions proposing constitutional amendments goes further than merely assailing their alleged constitutional infirmity. Samuel Occena and Ramon A. Gonzales, both members of the Philippine Bar and former delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention that framed the present Constitution, are suing as taxpayers. The rather unorthodox aspect of these petitions is the assertion that the 1973 Constitution is not the fundamental law, the Javellana ruling to the contrary notwithstanding. ISSUE: Whether the 1973 Constitution was valid, and in force and effect when the Batasang Pambansa resolutions and the present petitions were promulgated and filed, respectively. HELD: It is much too late in the day to deny the force and applicability of the 1973 Constitution. In the dispositive portion of Javellana vs. The Executive Secretary, dismissing petitions for prohibition and mandamus to declare invalid its ratification, this Court stated that it did so by a vote of six to four.

LAMBINO VS. COMELEC

FACTS: On 15 February 2006, petitioners in G.R. No. 174153, namely Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado (Lambino Group), with other groups[1]and individuals, commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution. On 25 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under Section 5(b) and (c)[2] and Section 7[3] of Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act (RA 6735). The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952 individuals constituting at least twelve per centum (12%) of all registered voters, with each legislative district represented by at least three per centum (3%) of its registered voters. The

It then concluded: "This being the vote of the majority, there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect." Such a statement served a useful purpose. It could even be said that there was a need for it. It served to clear the atmosphere. It made manifest that as of 17 January 1973, the present Constitution came into force and effect. With such a pronouncement by the Supreme Court and with the recognition of the cardinal postulate that what the Supreme Court says is not only entitled to respect but must also be obeyed, a factor for instability was removed. Thereafter, as a matter of law, all doubts were resolved. The 1973 Constitution is the fundamental law. It is as simple as that. What cannot be too strongly stressed is that the function of judicial review has both a positive and a negative aspect. As was so convincingly demonstrated by Professors Black and Murphy, the Supreme Court can check as well as legitimate. In declaring what the law is, it may not only nullify the acts of coordinate branches but may also sustain their validity. In the latter case, there is an affirmation that what was done cannot be stigmatized as constitutionally deficient. The mere dismissal of a suit of this character suffices. That is the meaning of the concluding statement in Javellana. Since then, this Court has invariably applied the present Constitution. The latest case in point is People v. Sola, promulgated barely two weeks ago. During the first year alone of the affectivity of the present Constitution, at least ten cases may be cited.

and 113 until the nature and effect of the proposals are fairly and properly submitted to the electorate. ISSUE: Whether or not Questions 3 and 4 can be presented to the people on a later date. HELD: The necessity, expediency, and wisdom of the proposed amendments are beyond the power of the courts to adjudicate. Precisely, whether or not "grant" of public land and "urban land reform" are unwise or improvident or whether or not the proposed amendments are unnecessary is a matter which only the people can decide. The questions are presented for their determination. Assuming that a member or some members of this Court may find undesirable any additional mode of disposing of public land or an urban land reform program, the remedy is to vote "NO" in the plebiscite but not to substitute his or their aversion to the proposed amendments by denying to the millions of voters an opportunity to express their own likes or dislikes. The issue before us has nothing to do with the wisdom of the proposed amendments, their desirability, or the danger of the power being abused. The issue is whether or not the voters are aware of the wisdom, the desirability, or the dangers of abuse. The petitioners have failed to make out a case that the average voter does not know the meaning of "grant" of public land or of "urban land reform."

ALMARIO VS. ALBA

JAVELLANA VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

FACTS: As provided for in Batas Pambansa Blg. 643, the Filipino electorate will go to the polls on January 27, 1984 to either approve or reject amendments to the Constitution proposed by Resolution Nos. 104, 105, 110, 111, 112, and 113 of the Batasang Pambansa. The proposed amendments are embodied in four (4) separate questions to be answered by simple YES or NO answers. Petitioners herein seek to enjoin the submission on January 27, 1984 of Question Nos. 3 (grant as an additional mode of acquiring lands belonging to the public domain) and 4 (the undertaking by the government of a land reform program and a social reform program), which cover Resolution Nos. 105 and 113, to the people for ratification or rejection on the ground that there has been no fair and proper submission following the doctrine laid down in Tolentino v. COMELEC. The petitioners do not seek to prohibit the holding of the plebiscite but only ask for more time for the people to study the meaning and implications of Resolution Nos. 105

FACTS: In 1973, Marcos ordered the immediate implementation of the new 1973 Constitution. Javellana, a Filipino and a registered voter sought to enjoin the Exec Sec and other cabinet secretaries from implementing the said constitution. Javellana averred that the said constitution is void because the same was initiated by the president. He argued that the President is w/o power to proclaim the ratification by the Filipino people of the proposed constitution. Further, the election held to ratify such constitution is not a free election there being intimidation and fraud. ISSUE: Whether or not the SC must give due course to the petition. HELD:

The SC ruled that they cannot rule upon the case at bar. Majority of the SC justices expressed the view that they were concluded by the ascertainment made by the president of the Philippines, in the exercise of his political prerogatives. Further, there being no competent evidence to show such fraud and intimidation during the election, it is to be assumed that the people had acquiesced in or accepted the 1973 Constitution. The question of the validity of the 1973 Constitution is a political question which was left to the people in their sovereign capacity to answer. Their ratification of the same had shown such acquiescence.

Barangay officials to six years must be deemed to have been repealed for being inconsistent with Sec. 2, Art. 3 of the Provisional Constitution. ISSUE: Whether or not the designation of respondents to replace petitioners was validly made during the one-year period which ended on Feb 25, 1987. RULING: Supreme Court declared that the Memoranda issued by respondent OIC Gov on Feb 8, 1987 designating respondents as Barangay Captain and Barangay Councilmen of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal has no legal force and effect. The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on Feb 2, 1987, therefore, the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have superseded. Having become inoperative, respondent OIC Gov could no longer rely on Sec 2, Art 3, thereof to designate respondents to the elective positions occupied by petitioners. Relevantly, Sec 8, Art 1 of the 1987 Constitution further provides in part: "Sec. 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three years x x x." Until the term of office of barangay officials has been determined by aw, therefore, the term of office of 6 years provided for in the Barangay Election Act of 1982 should still govern.

DE LEON V. ESGUERRA

FACTS: On May 17, 1982, petitioner Alfredo M. De Leon was elected Barangay Captain together with the other petitioners as Barangay Councilmen of Barangay Dolores, Muncipality of Taytay, Province of Rizal in a Barangay election held under Batas Pambansa Blg. 222, otherwise known as Barangay Election Act of 1982. On February 9, 1987, petitioner De Leon received a Memorandum antedated December 1, 1986 but signed by respondent OIC Governor Benjamin Esguerra on February 8, 1987 designating respondent Florentino G. Magno as Barangay Captain of Barangay Dolores and the other respondents as members of Barangay Council of the same Barangay and Municipality. Petitioners prayed to the Supreme Court that the subject Memoranda of February 8, 1987 be declared null and void and that respondents be prohibited by taking over their positions of Barangay Captain and Barangay Councilmen. Petitioners maintain that pursuant to Section 3 of the Barangay Election Act of 1982 (BP Blg. 222), their terms of office shall be six years which shall commence on June 7, 1988 and shall continue until their successors shall have elected and shall have qualified. It was also their position that with the ratification of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, respondent OIC Governor no longer has the authority to replace them and to designate their successors. On the other hand, respondents contend that the terms of office of elective and appointive officials were abolished and that petitioners continued in office by virtue of Sec. 2, Art. 3 of the Provisional Constitution and not because their term of six years had not yet expired; and that the provision in the Barangay Election Act fixing the term of office of

AGLIPAY VS RUIZ

FACTS: In May 1936, the Director of Posts announced in the dailies of Manila that he would order the issuance of postage stamps commemorating the celebration in the City of Manila of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress, organized by the Roman Catholic Church. The petitioner, Mons. Gregorio Aglipay, Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent Church, in the fulfillment of what he considers to be a civic duty, requested Vicente Sotto, Esq., member of the Philippine Bar, to denounce the matter to the President of the Philippines. In spite of the protest of the petitioners attorney, the Director of Posts publicly announced having sent to the United States the designs of the postage for printing. The said stamps were actually issued and sold though the greater part thereof remained unsold. The further sale of the stamps was sought to be prevented by the petitioner. ISSUE:

Whether or not the issuance of the postage stamps was in violation of the Constitution. HELD: There has been no constitutional infraction in the case at bar, Act No. 4052 grants the Director of Posts, with the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, discretion to misuse postage stamps with new designs. Even if we were to assume that these officials made use of a poor judgment in issuing and selling the postage stamps in question still, the case of the petitioner would fail to take in weight. Between the exercise of a poor judgment and the unconstitutionality of the step taken, a gap exists which is yet to be filled to justify the court in setting aside the official act assailed as coming within a constitutional inhibition. The court resolved that petition for a writ of prohibition is hereby denied, without pronouncement as to costs.

FACTS: This is a petition seeking to declare the ELA invalid on the ground that it is substantially the same as the Contract of Lease nullified in G. R. No. 113373, 232 SCRA 110. Petitioners contended that the amended ELA is inconsistent with and violative of PCSO's charter and the decision of the Supreme Court of 5 May 1995, that it violated the law on public bidding of contracts as well as Section 2(2), Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution in relation to the COA Circular No. 85-55-A. Respondents questioned the petitioners' standing to bring this suit. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners possess the legal standing to file the instant petition. HELD:

MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS.GSIS

FACTS: Pursuant to the privatization program of the government, GSIS decided to sell 30-51% of the Manila Hotel Corporation. Two bidders participated, Manila Prince Hotel Corporation and Malaysian Firm Renong Berhad. Manila Prince Hotel Corporations bid was at P41.58/per share while Renong Berhads bid was at P44.00/share. Renong Berhad was the highest bidder hence it was logically considered as the winning bidder but is yet to be declared so. Pending declaration, Manila Prince Hotel Corporation matches Renong Berhads bid but GSIS refused to accept. In turn Manila Prince Hotel Corporation filed a TRO to avoid the perfection/consummation of the sale to Renong Berhad. ISSUE: Whether or not the sale of Manila Hotel to Renong Berhad is violative of the Constitutional provision of Filipino First Policy and is therefore null and void. HELD: Manila Prince Hotel Corporation should be awarded the sale pursuant to Art 12 of the 1987 Const. This is in light of the Filipino First Policy. Herein resolved as well is the term Qualified Filipinos which not only pertains to individuals but to corporations as well and other juridical entities/personalities.

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. Standing is a special concern in constitutional law because some cases are brought not by parties who have been personally injured by the operation of the law or by official action taken, but by concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the public interest. Petitioners do not in fact show what particularized interest they have for bringing this suit. And they do not have present substantial interest in the ELA as would entitle them to bring this suit.

CIR VS CAMPOS RUEDA

FACTS: Doa Maria de la Estrella Soriano Vda. de Cerdeira died in Tangier (North Africa), on 2 January 1955. At the time of her demise, she was married to a Spanish Citizen and a permanent resident of Tangier from 1931 up to her death. She left properties in Tangier as well as in the Philippines. Among the properties in the Philippines are several parcels of land and many shares of stock, accounts receivable and other intangible personal properties. The real estate situated in the Philippines had a market value of P1,109,483.50 and her personal properties also in the Philippines had a value of P396,308.90. On the real estate, Antonio Campos Rueda, as administrator of her estate, paid the sum of P111,582.00 as estate tax and the sum of P151,791.48 as inheritance tax, on the transfer of her real properties in the Philippines, but refused to pay the corresponding deficiency estate and inheritance taxes due on the transfer of her intangible personal properties, claiming that the

KILOSBAYAN INC VS MORATO

estate is exempt from the payment of said taxes pursuant to Section 122 of the Tax Code. The Collector of Internal Revenue in a decision assessed the estate of the deceased, as deficiency estate and inheritance taxes, the sum of P161,874.95 including interest and penalties, on the transfer of intangible personal properties of Maria Cerdeira. On appeal the Court of Tax Appeals reversed the decision of the Collector, without costs. Campos Rueda elevated the case to the Supreme for review. On 30 May 1962, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for the reception of evidence or proofs on whether or not the words "bienes muebles", "movables" and "movable property" as used in the Tangier laws, include or embrace "intangible personal property", as used in the Tax Code. On 30 October 1957, the Court of Tax Appeals reversed the action taken by the Collector of the Internal Revenue, holding that the element of reciprocity was not lacking based on copies of Tangier legislation. The CTA held that "the expression 'foreign country,' used in the last proviso of Section 122 of the National Internal Revenue Code, refers to a government of that foreign power which, although not an international person in the sense of international law, does not impose transfer or death upon intangible person properties of our citizens not residing therein, or whose law allows a similar exemption from such taxes. It is, therefore, not necessary that Tangier should have been recognized by our Government order to entitle the petitioner to the exemption benefits of the proviso of Section 122 of our Tax Code." The Collector appealed. ISSUE: Whether or not Tangier qualifies as a foreign country to which Section 122 of the Tax Code would apply. HELD: If a foreign country is to be identified with a state, it is required in line with Pound's formulation that it be a politically organized sovereign community independent of outside control bound by penalties of nationhood, legally supreme within its territory, acting through a government functioning under a regime of law. It is thus a sovereign person with the people composing it viewed as an organized corporate society under a government with the legal competence to exact obedience to its commands. It has been referred to as a bodypolitic organized by common consent for mutual defense and mutual safety and to promote the general welfare. Correctly has it been described by Esmein as "the juridical personification of the nation." This is to view it in the light of its historical development. The stress is on its being a nation, its people occupying a definite territory, politically

organized, exercising by means of its government its sovereign will over the individuals within it and maintaining its separate international personality. Laski could speak of it then as a territorial society divided into government and subjects, claiming within its allotted area a supremacy over all other institutions. McIver similarly would point to the power entrusted to its government to maintain within its territory the conditions of a legal order and to enter into international relations. With the latter requisite satisfied, international law do not exact independence as a condition of statehood. So Hyde did opine. Herein, even on the assumption then that Tangier is bereft of international personality, the Collector of Internal Revenue has not successfully made out a case. It bears repeating that 4 days after the filing of the present petition on 6 January 1958 in Collector of Internal Revenue v. De Lara, that Section 122 of the Tax Code does not require that the "foreign country" possess an international personality to come within its terms. Thus, the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is affirmed.

BACANI VS NACOCO

FACTS: Bacani and Matoto are court stenographers assigned in the CFI of Manila. During the pendency of Civil Case No. 2293 of said court, entitled Francisco Sycip vs. NACOCO, Alikpala, counsel for NACOCO, requested said stenographers for copies of the transcript of the stenographic notes taken by them during the hearing. Plaintiffs complied with the request by delivering to Counsel Alikpala the needed transcript containing 714 pages and thereafter submitted to him their bills for the payment of their fees. The National Coconut Corporation paid the amount of P564 to Leopoldo T. Bacani and P150 to Mateo A. Matoto for said transcript at the rate of P1 per page. On January 19, 1953, the Auditor General required the plaintiffs to reimburse said amounts on the strength of a circular of the DOJ it was expressed that NACOCO, being a government entity, was exempt from the payment of the fees in question. Petitioners counter that NACOCO is not a government entity within the purview of section 16, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Defendants set up as a defense that the NACOCO is a government entity within the purview of section 2 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 and, hence, it is exempt from paying the stenographers' fees under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. ISSUE: Whether or not NACOCO is a government entity.

HELD: GOCCs do not acquire that status for the simple reason that they do not come under the classification of municipal or public corporation. Take for instance the NACOCO. While it was organized with the purpose of "adjusting the coconut industry to a position independent of trade preferences in the United States" and of providing "Facilities for the better curing of copra products and the proper utilization of coconut by-products", a function which our government has chosen to exercise to promote the coconut industry, however, it was given a corporate power separate and distinct from our government, for it was made subject to the provisions of our Corporation Law in so far as its corporate existence and the powers that it may exercise are concerned (sections 2 and 4, Commonwealth Act No. 518). It may sue and be sued in the same manner as any other private corporations, and in this sense it is an entity different from our government. ** President Wilson enumerates the constituent functions as follows: "'(1) The keeping of order and providing for the protection of persons and property from violence and robbery. '(2) The fixing of the legal relations between man and wife and between parents and children. '(3) The regulation of the holding, transmission, and interchange of property, and the determination of its liabilities for debt or for crime. '(4) The determination of contract rights between individuals. '(5) The definition and punishment of crime. '(6) The administration of justice in civil cases. '(7) The determination of the political duties, privileges, and relations of citizens. '(8) Dealings of the state with foreign powers: the preservation of the state from external danger or encroachment and the advancement of its international interests.'" The most important of the ministrant functions are: public works, public education, public charity, health and safety regulations, and regulations of trade and industry. The principles deter mining whether or not a government shall exercise certain of these optional functions are: (1) that a government should do for the public welfare those things which private capital would not naturally undertake and (2) that a government should do these things which by its very nature it is better equipped to administer for the public welfare than is any private individual or group of individuals.

CO KIM CHAN VS. VALDEZ TAN KEH

FACTS: Co Kim Chan had a pending civil case, initiated during the Japanese occupation, with the Court of First Instance of Manila. After the Liberation of the Manila and the American occupation, Judge Arsenio Dizon refused to continue hearings on the case, saying that a proclamation issued by General Douglas MacArthur had invalidated and nullified all judicial proceedings and judgments of the courts of the Philippines and, without an enabling law, lower courts have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and continue judicial proceedings pending in the courts of the defunct Republic of the Philippines (the Philippine government under the Japanese). ISSUE: Whether or not judicial proceedings and decisions made during the Japanese occupation were valid and remained valid even after the American occupation; HELD: Writ of mandamus issued to the judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, ordering him to take cognizance of and continue to final judgment the proceedings in civil case no. 3012.

LAWYERS LEAGUE VS. AQUINO

FACTS: On February 25, 1986, President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 1 announcing that she and Vice President Laurel were taking power. On March 25, 1986, proclamation No.3 was issued providing the basis of the Aquino government assumption of power by stating that the "new government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines." ISSUE: Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino is legitimate? HELD: Yes. The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justifiable matter but belongs to the realm of politics where only the people are the judge. The court further held that:

1. The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control of the entire country; 2. It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure government; and 3. The community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government

JOSEPH ESTRADA VS. ANIANO DISIERTO

FACTS: After the sharp descent from power of Chavit Singson, he went on air and accused the petitioner of receiving millions of pesos from jueteng lords. Calls for resignation filled the air and former allies and members of the Presidents administration started resigning one by one. In a session on November 13, House Speaker Villar transmitted the Articles of Impeachment signed by 115 representatives or more than 1/3 of all the members of the House to the Senate. The impeachment trial formally opened which is the start of the dramatic fall from power of the President, which is most evident in the EDSA Dos rally. On January 20, the President submitted two letters one signifying his leave from the Palace and the other signifying his inability to exercise his powers pursuant to Section 11, Article VII of the Constitution. Thereafter, Arroyo took oath as President of the Philippines. ISSUES: 1. Whether President; and the petitioner resigned as

investigation that, under section 12 of RA 3019, bars him from resigning is not affirmed by the Court. The exact nature of an impeachment proceeding is debatable. But even assuming arguendo that it is an administrative proceeding, it cannot be considered pending at the time petitioner resigned because the process already broke down when a majority of the senator-judges voted against the opening of the second envelope, the public and private prosecutors walked out, the public prosecutors filed their Manifestation of Withdrawal of Appearance, and the proceedings were postponed indefinitely. There was, in effect, no impeachment case pending against the petitioner when he resigned.

REAGAN v CIR

FACTS: A question novel in character, the answer to which has far-reaching implications, is raised by petitioner William C. Reagan, at one time a civilian employee of an American corporation providing technical assistance to the United States Air Force in the Philippines. He would dispute the payment of the income tax assessed on him by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue on an amount realized by him on a sale of his automobile to a member of the United States Marine Corps, the transaction having taken place at the Clark Field Air Base at Pampanga. It is his contention, seriously and earnestly pressed, that in legal contemplation the sale was made outside Philippine territory and therefore beyond our jurisdictional power to tax. ISSUE: Whether or not the sale was made outside the Philippine territory and therefore beyond our jurisdictional function to tax. HELD: The Court held that nothing is better settled than that the Philippines being independent and sovereign, its authority may be exercised over its entire domain. There is no portion there of that is beyond its power. Within its limits, its decrees are supreme, its commands paramount. Its laws govern therein, and everyone to whom it applies must submit to its terms. That is the extent of its jurisdiction, both territorial and personal. Necessarily, likewise, it has to be exclusive. If it were not thus, there is a diminution of its sovereignty. It is to be admitted that any state may, by its consent, express or implied, submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights. There may thus be a

2. Whether the impeachment proceedings bar the petitioner from resigning RULING: 1. For a resignation to be legally valid, there must be an intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment which may be oral or written, express or implied, for as long as the resignation is clear. In the press release containing his final statement, he acknowledged the oath-taking of Arroyo as President; he emphasized he was leaving the Palace without the mention of any inability and intent of reassumption; he expressed his gratitude to the people; he assured will not shirk from any future challenge that may come ahead in the same service of the country. This is of high grade evidence of his intent to resign. 2. Petitioners contention impeachment proceeding is an that the administrative

curtailment of what otherwise is a power plenary in character. That is the concept of sovereignty as auto-limitation, which, in the succinct language of Jellinek, "is the property of a state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal selfdetermination and self-restriction." 7 A state then, if it chooses to, may refrain from the exercise of what otherwise is illimitable competence. Its laws may as to some persons found within its territory no longer control. Nor does the matter end there. It is not precluded from allowing another power to participate in the exercise of jurisdictional right over certain portions of its territory. If it does so, it by no means follows that such areas become impressed with an alien character. They retain their status as native soil. They are still subject to its authority. Its jurisdiction may be diminished, but it does not disappear. So it is with the bases under lease to the American armed forces by virtue of the military bases agreement of 1947. They are not and cannot be foreign territory.

PEOPLE V GOZO

FACTS: Appellant seeks to set aside a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Zambales, convicting her of a violation of an ordinance of Olongapo, Zambales, requiring a permit from the municipal mayor for the construction or erection of a building, as well as any modification, alteration, repair or demolition thereof. She questions its validity on the pretext that her house was constructed within the naval base leased to the American armed forces. While yielding to the well-settled doctrine that it does not thereby cease to be Philippine territory, she in effect seek to emasculate the State's sovereign rights by the assertion that the latter cannot exercise therein administrative jurisdiction. ISSUE: Whether or not the State can exercise administrative jurisdiction within the naval base leased by the Philippines to the American armed forces. HELD: The Philippine Government has not abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory or divested itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed therein. Under the terms of the treaty, the United States Government has prior or preferential but not exclusive jurisdiction of such offenses. The Philippine Government retains not only jurisdictional lights not granted, but also all such ceded rights as the United States Military

authorities for reasons of their own decline to make use of. The first proposition is implied from the fact of Philippine sovereignty over the bases; the second from the express provisions of the treaty." There was a reiteration of such a view in Reagan. Thus: "Nothing is better settled than that the Philippines being independent and sovereign, its authority may be exercised over its entire domain. There is no portion thereof that is beyond its power. Within its limits, its decrees are supreme, its commands paramount. Its laws govern therein, and everyone to whom it applies must submit to its terms. That is the extent of its jurisdiction, both territorial and personal. Necessarily, likewise, it has to be exclusive. If it were not thus, there is a diminution of it sovereignty." Then came this paragraph dealing with the principle of autolimitation: "It is to be admitted that any state may, by its consent, express or implied, submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights. There may thus be a curtailment of what otherwise is a power plenary in character. That is the concept of sovereignty as auto-limitation, which, in the succinct language of Jellinek, 'is the property of a state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-determination and selfrestriction.' A state then, if it chooses to, may refrain from the exercise of what otherwise is illimitable competence." 16 The opinion was at pains to point out though that even then, there is at the most diminution of jurisdictional rights, not it appearance. The words employed follow: "Its laws may as to some persons found within its territory no longer control. Nor does the matter end there. It is not precluded from allowing another power to participate in the exercise of jurisdictional right over certain portions of its territory. If it does so, it by no means follows that such areas become impressed with an alien character. They retain their status as native soil. They are still subject to its authority. Its jurisdiction may be diminished, but it does not disappear. So it is with the bases under lease to the American armed forces by virtue of the military bases agreement of 1947. They are not and cannot be foreign territory."

CIR VS ROBERTSON

FACTS: Frank and James Robertson (brothers) were American citizens born in the Philippines. They stayed here in the Philippines until they were repatriated by the US in 1945. Thereafter they established their domicile in California. Soon after they were employed by the US Federal Government as workers in the US Navy. They were later assigned at the US Naval Base in Olongapo City in 1962. They hold American passports and are

admitted as special temporary visitors under the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940. On the other hand, the Commissioner contends that the respondents are subject to taxation because their residence here in the Philippines is not by reason of their employment in connection with the construction, maintenance, operation or defense of the US Bases here as provided by the MBA. The CIR claims that the respondents have properties here in the Philippines and that James Robertson is even a retiree and is currently living in Olongapo City with his family. Furthermore, the burden of proof of such exemption to taxation shall be upon the respondents. ISSUE: Whether or not Respondents are exempt from taxation. HELD: The law and the facts of the case are so clear that there is no room left for doubt the validity of private respondents' defense. In order to avail oneself of the tax exemption under the RP-US Military Bases Agreement: he must be a national of the United States employed in connection with the construction, maintenance, operation or defense, of the bases, residing in the Philippines by reason of such employment, and the income derived is from the U.S. Government (Art. XII par. 2 of PI-US Military Bases Agreement of 1947). Said circumstances are all present in the case at bar.

Alejandro R. Alinsug filed the petition for prohibition and mandamus with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, as taxpayers and registered voters in the Cities of Cebu and Mandaue. They vigorously assail Section 3 of BP 51, which uses the annual income of a given city as the basis for classification of whether or not a particular city is a highly urbanized city whose voters may not participate in the election of provincial officials of the province where the city is geographically located; and RA 5519 (Charter of Mandaue City), which went into effect without the benefit of ratification by the residents of Mandaue in a plebiscite or referendum. They prayed that a restraining order to temporarily prohibit the election for Provincial Governor and elective provincial officials in Cebu, prohibiting the National Treasurer to release public funds and the Commission on Audit (COA) to pass in audit said funds in connection with and for the purpose of holding the local elections; and after hearing render Section 3 of BP 885 void, as well as Section 96, Article XVIII of RA 5519 (Charter of Mandaue). ISSUE: Whether the exclusion of inhabitants of highly urbanized cities and component cities from electing provincial government officials violate the equal protection of law. HELD: The equal protection of the law contemplates equality in the enjoyment of similar rights and privileges granted by law. It would have been discriminatory and a denial of the equal protection of the law if the statute prohibited an individual or group of voters in the city from voting for provincial officials while granting it to another individual or group of voters in the same city. The classification of cities into highly urbanized cities and component cities on the basis of their regular annual income is based upon substantial distinction. The revenue of a city would show whether or not it is capable of existence and development as a relatively independent social, economic, and political unit. It would also show whether the city has sufficient economic or industrial activity as to warrant its independence from the province where it is geographically situated. Cities with smaller income need the continued support of the provincial government thus justifying the continued participation of the voters in the election of provincial officials in some instances. These cities being independent of the province in the administration of their affairs leaves the provincial government without governmental supervision over highly urbanized cities. Such being the case, it is but just and proper to limit the selection and election of the provincial officials to the voters of the province whose interests are vitally affected

CENIZA V. COMELEC

FACTS: On 22 December 1979, the Interim Batasang Pambansa enacted Batas Pambansa 51 providing for local elections on 30 January 1980. To implement this Act, COMELEC adopted Resolution 1421, excluding 18 cities (including Cebu and Mandaue) from participating in the election of provincial officials. Because of its income, the City of Cebu is classified as a highly urbanized city and the voters thereof cannot take part in the election of the elective provincial officials of the province of Cebu, although the Charter of Cebu City allows the qualified voters of the city to vote in the election of the provincial officials of the Province of Cebu. The City of Mandaue is classified as a component city. But the registered voters of the city cannot vote for the provincial elective officials because its Charter expressly provides that the registered voters of the city cannot participate in the election of the provincial officials of the Province of Cebu, except to be a candidate therefor. Ramon B. Ceniza, Federico C. Cabilao Jr., Nelso J. Rosal and

and exclude therefrom the voters of highly urbanized cities. Further, express provisions in Charter of a City may exclude registered voters of the city from voting for the provincial officials of the province. The practice of allowing voters in one component city to vote for provincial officials and denying the same privilege to voters in another component city is a matter of legislative discretion which violates neither the Constitution nor the voters right of suffrage.

METRAN VS. PAREDES

FACTS: Prior to the Court of Industrial Relations a petition was filed in case No. 36-V entitled "National Labor Union, versus Metropolitan Transportation Service (Metran)," wherein petitioner alleged that it was a legitimate labor organization, thirty of whose affiliated members were working and under the employ of the respondent; that the respondent "is a semi-governmental transportation entity, popularly known as `Metran, having nine demands at length set forth in said petition be granted. Wherefore, Metran filed a petition for the dismissal of the case "on the ground that it belongs to the Republic of the Philippines and as such, it cannot be sued". It is an office "under the supervision and control of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications," under Executive Order No. 59. ISSUE: Whether or not Metran can be able to invoke the Doctrine of State Immunity. RULING: Yes, the court held that Metran was a mere office or agency of the government, unincorporated and possessing no juridical personality under the law, incapable of suing or being sued and that a claim against it would in effect be a suit against the Government, which suit may not prosper without the Government's consent.

Emiliana Santos and 5/7 undivided share for Leoncio Santos. Petitioners complained that from 1945 to 1949 Leoncio Santos collected from the Army of the United States of America rentals for the use and occupation of a parcel of land and later sold the lot the Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics Administration on or about 13 May 1949. Petitioners demand for the accounting of the payments for the rentals of the lot and to give to the portion of the fruits of the rentals according to their portion of the said lot. They also prayed to restore to their ownership the portions of the said land that belongs to them contending that the said contract of sale is null and void because it is performed without their consent and to pay the petitioners for damages and cost. The Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics Administration moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and insufficiency of the complaint against him. This motion was granted on the ground that the Civil Aeronautics Administration not being a juridical person has no capacity to sue and be sued and for that reason it cannot come under the jurisdiction of the court. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners can sue the Civil Aeronautics Administration who is not a juridical entity. HELD: An obligation or liability of the state created by statute is enforceable against the officer or agent charged with the duty to execute the law. If there should be anything demandable which had been paid or delivered to or collected by officers or agents of the state without the authority of law, the action would not be against the state but against the responsible officers or agents who received what was not due the state or made the unauthorized collection. Punishable acts or omissions committed by officers or agents of the state are crimes and violations of law perpetuated by such officers or agents and not by the state. The same postulate may be applied to torts committed by officers or agents of the state. Nevertheless, if, where and when the state or its government enters into a contract, through its officers or agents, in furtherance of a legitimate aim and purpose and pursuant to constitutional legislative authority, whereby mutual or reciprocal benefits accrue and rights and obligations arise therefrom, and if the law granting the authority to enter into such contract does not provide for or name the officer against whom action may be brought in the event of a breach thereof, the state itself may be sued even without its consent, because by entering into a contract the sovereign state has descended to the level of the citizen and its consent to be used is implied from the very act

SANTOS V. SANTOS

FACTS: An undivided parcel of land situated in the Municipality of Las Pias, Province of Rizal with an area of 21,577 square meters was owned by the petitioners and the respondent in the proportion of 1/7 undivided share for Teodora Santos and 1/14 undivided share each for Josefina Santos and

of entering into such contract. If the dignity of the state, the sacredness of the institution, the respect for to the are to be preserved and the dragging of its name in a suit to be prevented, the legislative department should name the officer or agent against whom the action may be brought in the event of breach of the contract entered into under its name and authority. And the omission or failure of the legislative department to do so is no obstacle or impediment for an individual or citizen, who is aggrieved by the breach of the contract, to bring an action against the state itself for the reasons already adverted to, to wit; the descent of the sovereign state to the level of the individual or citizen with whom it entered into a contract and its consent to be sued implied from the act of entering into such contract. The Civil Aeronautics Administration, even if it is not a juridical entity, cannot legally prevent a party or parties from enforcing their propriety rights under the cloak or shield of lack of juridical personality, because it took over all the powers and assumed all the obligations of the defunct corporation which had entered into the contract in question. In National Airports Corporation vs. Teodoro*, G.R. No. L-5122, 30 April 1952, we held that the Civil Aeronautics Administration may be sued and that the principle of state immunity from suit does not apply to it. The order appealed from dismissing the complaint as to the Civil Aeronautics Administration is reversed and the case remanded to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with law. No cost shall be taxed.

completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution and that the power of the Courts ends when the judgment is rendered, since government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is based on obvious considerations of public policy. Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the corresponding appropriation as required by law. The functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE VS. NLRC

FACTS: Petitioner Department of Agriculture (DA) and Sultan Security Agency entered into a contract for security services to be provided by the latter to the said governmental entity. Pursuant to their arrangements, guards were deployed by Sultan Security Agency in the various premises of the DA. Thereafter, several guards filed a complaint for underpayment of wages, nonpayment of 13th month pay, uniform allowances, night shift differential pay, holiday pay, and overtime pay, as well as for damages against the DA and the security agency. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding the DA jointly and severally liable with the security agency for the payment of money claims of the complainant security guards. The DA and the security agency did not appeal the decision. Thus, the decision became final and executory. The Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution to enforce and execute the judgment against the property of the DA and the security agency. Thereafter, the City Sheriff levied on execution the motor vehicles of the DA. ISSUE: Whether or not the doctrine of non-suability of the State applies in the case. HELD: The basic postulate enshrined in the Constitution that the State may not be sued without its consent reflects nothing less than a recognition of the sovereign character of the State and an express affirmation of the unwritten rule effectively insulating it from the jurisdiction of courts. It is based on the very essence of sovereignty. A sovereign is exempt from suit based on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law

REPUBLIC VILLASOR

OF

THE

PHILIPPINES

VS.

FACTS: A writ of execution (a writ to put in force the sentence that the law has given) was issued by the court against the funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to satisfy a judgment rendered against the Philippine Government. ISSUE: Whether or not the writ of execution, issued by respondent judge, is valid. HELD: It was ruled that public funds cannot be the object of garnishment proceedings even if the consent to be sued had been previously granted and even if the State liability had been adjudged. The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either by general or special law, it may limit claimants action only up to the

on which the right depends. The rule is not really absolute for it does not say that the State may not be sued under any circumstances. The State may at times be sued. The States consent may be given expressly or impliedly. Express consent may be made through a general law or a special law. Implied consent, on the other hand, is conceded when the State itself commences litigation, thus opening itself to a counterclaim, or when it enters into a contract. In this situation, the government is deemed to have descended to the level of the other contracting party and to have divested itself of its sovereign immunity. But not all contracts entered into by the government operate as a waiver of its nonsuability; distinction must still be made between one which is executed in the exercise of its sovereign function and another which is done in its proprietary capacity. A State may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can this be deemed to have actually given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts. It does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions. In the case, the DA has not pretended to have assumed a capacity apart from its being a governmental entity when it entered into the questioned contract; nor that it could have, in fact, performed any act proprietary in character. But, be that as it may, the claims of the complainant security guards clearly constitute money claims. Act No. 3083 gives the consent of the State to be sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract, express or implied. Pursuant, however, to Commonwealth Act 327, as amended by PD 1145, the money claim must first be brought to the Commission on Audit. TAN vs. DIRECTOR OF FORESTRY

Natural Resources praying that the license issued in the name of petitioner be cancelled or revoked on the ground that the grant thereof was irregular, anomalous and contrary to existing forestry laws, rules and regulations. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources revokes Tans timber license. His motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this petition. Petitioner-appellant, in his petition, alleged that he has exhausted all his administrative remedies to no avail as respondentsappellees have failed, neglected, refused and continue to refuse to allow petitioner-appellant to continue operation in the area covered by his timber license. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner has exhausted all administrative remedies before filing his petition to the Supreme Court. HELD: NO. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the CFI. Petitioner did not appeal the order of the respondent Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources to the President of the Philippines, who issued Executive Proclamation No. 238 withdrawing the area from private exploitation, and establishing it as the Olongapo Watershed Forest Reserve. Considering that the President has the power to review on appeal the orders or acts of the respondents, the failure of the petitioner-appellant to take that appeal is failure on his part to exhaust all available administrative remedies.

REPUBLIC V. FELICIANO

FACTS: Petitioner seeks the review of the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court dated April 30, 1985 reversing the order of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Branch VI, dated August 21, 1980, which dismissed the complaint of respondent Pablo Feliciano for recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land on the ground of non-suability of the State. On January 22, 1970, Feliciano filed a complaint with the then Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur against the RP, represented by the Land Authority, for the recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land, consisting of four (4) lots with an aggregate area of 1,364.4177hectares, situated in the Barrio of Salvacion, Municipality of Tinambac, Camarines Sur. Feliciano alleged that he bought the property in question from Victor Gardiola by virtue of a Contract of Sale dated May 31, 1952,followed by a Deed of Absolute Sale on October 30, 1954; that Gardiola had acquired the property by purchase

FACTS: The Bureau of Forestry issued Notice No. 2087, advertising for public bidding a certain tract of public forest land situated in Olongapo, Zambales. Herein petitioner-appellant Wenceslao Vinzons Tan submitted his application after paying the necessary fees and posting the required bond therefore. Nine other applicants submitted their offers before the deadline. The proposed area was awarded to petitioner. Thereafter he was given an Ordinary Timber License. However, it was not signed by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources as required. One of the bidders, Ravago Commercial Company wrote a letter to the Secretary of Agriculture and

from the heirs of Francisco Abrazado whose title to the said property was evidenced by an informacion posesoria that upon his purchase of the property, he took actual possession of the same, introduced various improvements there in and caused it to be surveyed in July 1952, which survey was approved by the Director of Lands on October 24, 1954.On November 1, 1954, President Ramon Magsaysay issued Proclamation No. 90 reserving for settlement purposes, under the administration of the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA), a tract of land situated in the Municipalities of Tinambac and Siruma, Camarines Sur, after which the NARRA and its successor agency, the Land Authority, started sub-dividing and distributing the land to the settlers; that the property in question, while located within the reservation established under Proclamation No. 90, was the private property of Feliciano and should therefore be excluded there from. Feliciano prayed that he be declared the rightful and true owner of the property in question consisting of 1,364.4177 hectares; that his title of ownership based on informacion posesoria of his predecessor-in-interest be declared legal valid and subsisting and that defendant be ordered to cancel and nullify all awards to the settlers. ISSUE: Whether or not the State can be sued for recovery and possession of a parcel of land. RULING: No. A suit against the State, under settled jurisprudence is not permitted, except upon a showing that the State has consented to be sued, either expressly or by implication through the use of statutory language too plain to be misinterpreted. It may be invoked by the courts sua sponte at any stage of the proceedings. Waiver of immunity, being a derogation of sovereignty, will not be inferred lightly. But must be construed in strictissimi juris (of strictest right). Moreover, the Proclamation is not a legislative act. The consent of the State to be sued must emanate from statutory authority. Waiver of State immunity can only be made by an act of the legislative body. Addt l: Worthy of note is the fact, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, that the informacion posesoria registered in the Office of the Register of Deed of Camarines Sur on September 23, 1952 was a "reconstituted possessory information; it was "reconstituted from the duplicate presented to this office (Register of Deeds) by Dr. Pablo Feliciano, without the submission of proof that the alleged duplicate was authentic or that the original thereof was lost. Reconstitution can be validly made only in case of loss of the original. These circumstances raise grave doubts as to the authenticity and validity of the "informacion posesoria" relied upon

by respondent Feliciano. Adding to the dubiousness of said document is the fact that "possessory information calls for an area of only100 hectares," whereas the land claimed by respondent Feliciano comprises 1,364.4177 hectares, later reduced to 701-9064 hectares. Courts should be wary in accepting "possessory information documents, as well as other purportedly old Spanish titles, as proof of alleged ownership of lands.

SANDERS VS. VERIDIANO

FACTS: 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 Rossi is an American citizen with permanent residence in the Philippines. Private respondent Rossi and Wyer were both employed as game room attendants in the special services department of the NAVSTA. On October 3, 1975, the private respondents were advised that their employment had been converted from permanent full-time 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. However, in a letter addressed to petitioner Moreau, Sanders disagreed with the hearing officer's report. The letter contained the statements that: a ) "Mr. Rossi tends to alienate most coworkers and supervisors;" b) "Messrs. Rossi and Wyers have proven, according to their immediate supervisors, to be difficult employees to supervise;" and c) "even though the grievants were under oath not to discuss the case with anyone, (they) placed the records in public places where others not involved in the case could hear." Before the start of 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. So, private respondent filed for damages alleging that the letters contained libelous imputations and that the prejudgment of the grievance proceedings was an invasion of their personal and proprietary rights. However, petitioners argued that the acts complained of were performed by them in the discharge of their official duties and that, consequently, 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: Whether or not the petitioners were performing their official duties? RULING: Yes. Sanders, as director of the special services department of NAVSTA, undoubtedly had supervision over its personnel, including the private respondents. Given the official character of the letters, the petitioners were being sued as officers of the United States government because they have acted on behalf of that government and within the scope of their authority. Thus, it is that government and not the petitioners personally that is responsible for their acts. It is stressed at the outset that 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. By the same token, 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. These well-settled principles are applicable not only to the officers of the local state but also where the person sued in its courts pertains to the government of a foreign state, as in the present case. 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 not by the petitioners in their personal capacities but by the United States government as their principal. This will require that government to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the judgment, viz, the appropriation of the necessary amount to cover the damages awarded, thus making the action a suit against that government without its consent. The practical justification for the doctrine, as Holmes put it, is that "there can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which the right depends. In the case of foreign states, the rule is derived from the principle of the sovereign equality of states which wisely admonishes that par in parem non habet imperium and that a contrary attitude would "unduly vex the peace of nations." Our adherence to this precept is formally expressed in Article II, Section 2, of our Constitution, where we reiterate from our previous charters that the Philippines "adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. FACTS: VMPSI (Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc.) alleges that the provisions of RA 5487(Private Security Agency Law) violate the provisions of the Constitution against monopolies, unfairc ompetition and combinations of restraint of trade and tend to favor and institutionalize the PADPAO(Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Services, Inc.). Furthermore, VMPSI questions the provision on requiring all private security agencies or company security forces to register as members of any PADPAO chapter organized within the region. On May 12, 1986, a Memorandum of Agreement was executed by PADPAO and the PC Chief, which fixed the minimum monthly contract rate per guard for 8hours of security service per day at P2,255.00 within Metro Manila and P2,215.00 outside of Metro Manila. PADPAO found VMPSI guilty of cut-throat competition when it charged Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System lower than the standard minimum rates provided in the MOA. As a result, PADPAO refused to issue a clearance/certificate of membership to VMPSI. VMPSI filed a civil case against the PC chief and PC-SUSIA (Philippine Constabulary Supervisory Unit for Security and Investigation Agencies). PC Chief and PC-SUSIA filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the case is against the State which had not given consent thereto. ISSUE: Whether or not VMPSI s complaint against the PC Chief and PC-SUSIA is a suit against the State without its consent. HELD: Yes. A public official may sometimes be held liable in his personal or private capacity if he acts in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction, however, since the acts for which the PC Chief and PC-SUSIA are being called to account in this case, were performed as part of their official duties, without malice, gross negligence, or bad faith, no recovery may be had against them in their private capacities. Furthermore, the Supreme Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the 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, a legislative act, not from a mere memorandum. Without such consent, the trial court did not acquired jurisdiction over the public respondents. VETERANS APPEAL MANPOWER VS COURT OF

Petition for review is denied and the judgment appealed from is affirmed in toto.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VS. REYES

FACTS: 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. Shes married to Edgardo Montoya, a Filipino-American serviceman employed by the US Navy & stationed in San Francisco. Petitioner Maxine is an American Citizen employed at the JUSMAG headquarters as the activity exchange manager. 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, a fellow ID checker approached her & told her that she needed to search her bags upon Bradfords instruction. Montoya approached Bradford to protest the search but she was told that it was to be made on all JUSMAG employees on that day. Mrs. Kennedy then performed the search on her person, bags & car in front of Bradford & other curious onlookers. Nothing irregular was found thus she was allowed to leave afterwards. Montoya learned that she was the only person subjected to such search that day & she was informed by NEX Security Manager Roynon that NEX JUSMAG employees are not searched outside the store unless there is a strong evidence of a wrong-doing. Montoya cant recall any circumstance that would trigger suspicion of a wrong-doing on her part. She is aware of Bradfords propensity to suspect Filipinos for theft and/or shoplifting. Montoya filed a formal protest w/Mr. Roynon but no action was taken. Montoya filed a suit against Bradford for damages due to the oppressive & discriminatory acts committed by petitioner in excess of her authority as store manager. She claims that she has been exposed to contempt & ridicule causing her undue embarrassment & indignity. She further claims that the act was not motivated by any other reason aside from racial discrimination in our own land w/c is a blow to our national pride & dignity. She seeks for moral damages of P500k and exemplary damages of P100k. May 13, 1987 Summons & complaint were served on 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. They claim that US has rights, power & authority w/in the bases, necessary for the establishment, use & operation & defense thereof. It will also use facilities & areas w/in bases & will have effective command over the facilities, US personnel, employees, equipment & material. They further claim that checking of purchases at NEX is a routine procedure observed at base retail outlets to protect & safeguard merchandise, cash & equipment pursuant to par. 2 & 4(b) of NAVRESALEACT SUBIC INST. 5500.1. July 6, 1987 Montoya filed a motion for preliminary attachment claiming that Bradford was about to leave the country & was removing & disposing her properties w/intent to defraud her creditors. Motion granted by RTC. July 14, 1987 Montoya opposed Bradfords motion to dismiss. She claims that: (1) search was outside NEX JUSMAG store thus its improper, unlawful & highly-discriminatory and beyond Bradfords authority; (2) due to excess in authority and since her liability is personal, Bradford cant rely on sovereign immunity; (3) Bradfords act was committed outside the military base thus under the jurisdiction of Philippine courts; (4) the Court can inquire into the factual circumstances of case to determine WON Bradford acted w/in or outside her authority. RTC granted Montoyas motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment and later on issued writ of attachment opposed by Bradford. Montoya allowed to present evidence & Bradford declared in default for failure to file an answer. RTC ruled in favor of Montoya claiming that search was unreasonable, reckless, oppressive & against Montoyas liberty guaranteed by Consti. She was awarded P300k for moral damages, P100k for exemplary damages & P50k for actual expenses. Bradford filed a Petition for Restraining Order. SC granted TRO enjoining RTC from enforcing decision. 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. She claims that criminal acts of a public officer/employee are his private acts & he alone is liable for such acts. She believes that this case is under RP courts jurisdiction because act was done outside the

territorial control of the US Military Bases, it does not fall under offenses where US has been given right to exercise its jurisdiction and Bradford does not possess diplomatic immunity. She further claims that RP courts can inquire into the factual circumstances & determine WON Bradford is immune.

outside their official functions (Art. 31, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations).

THE HOLY SEE VS. ROSARIO, JR.

FACTS: ISSUE: 1. Whether or not case at bar is a suit against the State. 2. Whether or not Bradford enjoys diplomatic immunity. HELD: 1. NO. Doctrine of state immunity is expressed in Art. XVI, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution. This immunity also 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 such as appropriation of amount to pay damages. This will be regarded as a case against the state even if it has not be formally impleaded. But this is not all encompassing. Its a different matter where the public official is made to account in his capacity as such for acts contrary to law & injurious to rights of plaintiff. State authorizes only legal acts by its officers. Action against officials by one whose rights have been violated by such acts is not a suit against the State w/in the rule of immunity of the State from suit. The doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice. 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. A public official is liable if he acted w/malice & in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction. (Shauf vs. CA) Also, USA vs. Guinto declared that USA is not conferred with blanket immunity for all acts done by it or its agents in the Philippines merely because they have acted as agents of the US in the discharge of their official functions. In 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. This petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of land consisting of 6,000 square meters located in the Municipality of Paranaque. Said lot was contiguous with two other lots. These lots were sold to Ramon Licup. In view of the refusal of the squatters to vacate the lots sold, a dispute arose as to who of the parties has the responsibility of evicting and clearing the land of squatters. Complicating the relations of the parties was the sale by petitioner of the lot of concern to Tropicana. ISSUE: Whether the Holy See is immune from suit insofar as its business relations regarding selling a lot to a private entity. RULING: As expressed in Section 2 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution, we have adopted the generally accepted principles of International Law. Even without this affirmation, such principles of International Law are deemed incorporated as part of the law of the land as a condition and consequence of our admission in the society of nations. In the present case, if petitioner has bought and sold lands in the ordinary course of real estate business, surely the said transaction can be categorized as an act jure gestionis. However, petitioner has denied that the acquisition and subsequent disposal of the lot were made for profit but claimed that it acquired said property for the site of its mission or the Apostolic Nunciature in the Philippines. The Holy See is immune from suit for the act of selling the lot of concern is non-proprietary in nature. The lot was acquired by petitioner as a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila. The donation was made not for commercial purpose, but for the use of petitioner to construct thereon the official place of residence of the Papal Nuncio. The decision to transfer the property and the subsequent disposal thereof are likewise clothed with a governmental character. Petitioner did not sell the lot for profit or gain. It merely wanted to dispose of the same because the squatters living thereon made it almost impossible for petitioner to use it for the purpose of the donation.

2. NO. First of all, she is not among those granted diplomatic immunity under Art. 16(b) of the 1953 Military Assistance Agreement creating the JUSMAG. Second, even diplomatic agents who enjoy immunity are liable if they perform acts

CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION VS. CA

negligence on the part of the plaintiff, considering the following test formulated in the early case of Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil. 809 (1918): The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent man would have used in the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The law here in effect adopts the standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias of the Roman law. The existence of the negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that. The question as to what would constitute the conduct of a prudent man in a given situation must of course be always determined in the light of human experience and in view of the facts involved in the particular case. Abstract speculations cannot be here of much value but this much can be profitably said: Reasonable men-overn their conduct by the circumstances which are before them or known to them. They are not, and are not supposed to be omniscient of the future. Hence they can be expected to take care only when there is something before them to suggest or warn of danger. Could a prudent man, in the case under consideration, foresee harm as a result of the course actually pursued' If so, it was the duty of the actor to take precautions to guard against that harm. Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring of the suggestion born of this prevision, is always necessary before negligence can be held to exist.... [Picart v. Smith, supra, p. 813] The private respondent, who was the plaintiff in the case before the lower court, could not have reasonably foreseen the harm that would befall him, considering the attendant factual circumstances. Even if the private respondent had been looking where he was going, the step in question could not easily be noticed because of its construction. "WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error, the Petition for review on certiorari is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 51172-R is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED."

FACTS: Ernest E. Simke, a naturalized Filipino citizen, was Honorary Consul General of Israel in the Philippines. He went to Manila International Airport to meet his future son-in-law. As the plane was landing, he and his companions went to the viewing deck to watch the arrival of the plane. While walking, Simke slipped on an elevation 4 inches high and fell on his back, breaking his thigh bone in the process. He underwent a 3-hour operation and after recovery he filed a claim for damages against the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA), which was the government entity in charge of the airport. ISSUE: Whether or not CAA was negligent. HELD: CAA contended that the elevation in question "had a legitimate purpose for being on the terrace and was never intended to trip down people and injure them. It was there for no other purpose but to drain water on the floor area of the terrace." But upon ocular inspection by the trial court, it was found that the terrace was in poor condition. Under RA 776, the CAA is charged with the duty of planning, designing, constructing, equipping, expanding, maintenance...etc. of the Manila International Airport. Responsibility of CAA The SC held that pursuant to Art. 1173, "the fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the person, of the time, and of the place." Here, the obligation of the CAA in maintaining the viewing deck, a facility open to the public, requires that CAA insure the safety of the viewers using it. As these people come to look to where the planes and the incoming passengers are and not to look down on the floor or pavement of the viewing deck, the CAA should have thus made sure that no dangerous obstructions or elevations exist on the floor of the deck to prevent any undue harm to the public. Contributory Negligence Under Art. 2179, contributory negligence contemplates a negligent act or omission on the part of the plaintiff, which although not the proximate cause of his injury, CONTRIBUTED to his own damage. The Court found no contributory

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, INTERMEDIATE APPLELATE COURT

VS.

FACTS: Rhonda Brunty, daughter of respondent Ethel Brunty and an American citizen, came to the Philippines for a visit sometime in January 1980. Prior to her departure, she, together with her Filipino host Juan Manuel M. Garcia, traveled to Baguio City on board a Mercedes Benz sedan with plate number FU 799, driven by Rodolfo L. Mercelita. It was about 12:00 midnight, January 25, 1980. By then, PNR Train No. T-71, driven by Alfonso Reyes, was on its way to Tutuban, Metro Manila 4 as it had left the La Union station at 11:00 p.m., January 24, 1980. Rhonda Brunty, Garcia and Mercelita were already approaching the railroad crossing at Barangay Rizal, Moncada, Tarlac. Mercelita, driving at approximately 70 km/hr, drove past a vehicle, unaware of the railroad track up ahead and that they were about to collide with PNR Train No. T-71. Mercelita was instantly killed when the Mercedes Benz smashed into the train; the two other passengers suffered serious physical injuries. 5 A certain James Harrow 6 brought Rhonda Brunty to the Central Luzon Doctors Hospital in Tarlac, where she was pronounced dead after ten minutes from arrival. Garcia, who had suffered severe head injuries, was brought via ambulance to the same hospital. He was transferred to the Manila Doctors Hospital, and later to the Makati Medical Center for further treatment. On July 28, 1981, Ethel Brunty sent a demand letter 8 to the PNR demanding payment of actual, compensatory, and moral damages, as a result of her daughters death. When PNR did not respond, Ethel Brunty and Garcia, filed a complaint 9 for damages against the PNR before the RTC of Manila. ISSUE: Whether or not PNR will be liable for damages. HELD: CA held that a vehicle coming from the Moncada side would have difficulty in knowing that there is an approaching train because of the slight curve, more so, at an unholy hour as 2:00 a.m. Thus, it is imperative on the part of the PNR to provide adequate safety equipment in the area. As to whether or not the doctrine of last clear chance is applicable, we rule in the negative. The doctrine of last clear chance states that where both parties are negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later than that of the other, or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence caused the loss, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the loss but failed to do so, is chargeable with the loss. Stated differently, the antecedent negligence of plaintiff

does not preclude him from recovering damages caused by the supervening negligence of defendant, who had the last fair chance to prevent the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. The proximate cause of the injury having been established to be the negligence of petitioner, we hold that the above doctrine finds no application in the instant case. Considering the circumstances attendant in this case, we find that an award of P500,000.00 as moral damages to the heirs of Rhonda Brunty is proper. In view of recent jurisprudence, indemnity of P50,000.00 for the death of Rhonda Brunty and attorneys fees amounting to P50,000.00 is likewise proper. The award of actual damages is deleted, and in lieu thereof, temperate damages of P25,000.00 is awarded to the heirs of Rhonda Brunty. The award of moral damages is reduced to P500,000.00.

BUREAU OF PRINTING VS. THE BUREAU OF PRINTING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

FACTS: The action in question was upon complaint of the respondents Bureau of Printing Employees Association (NLU) Pacifico Advincula, Roberto Mendoza, Ponciano Arganda and Teodulo Toleran filed by an acting prosecutor of the Industrial Court against herein petitioner Bureau of Printing, Serafin Salvador, the Acting Secretary of the Department of General Services, and Mariano Ledesma the Director of the Bureau of Printing. The complaint alleged that Serafin Salvador and Mariano Ledesma have been engaging in unfair labor practices by interfering with, or coercing the employees of the Bureau of Printing particularly the members of the complaining association petition, in the exercise of their right to self-organization an discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of their employment in order to discourage them from pursuing the union activities. The petitioners Bureau of Printing, Serafin Salvador and Mariano Ledesma denied the charges of unfair labor practices attributed to the and, by way of affirmative defenses, alleged, among other things, that respondents Pacifico Advincula, Roberto Mendoza Ponciano Arganda and Teodulo Toleran were suspended pending result of an administrative investigation against them for breach of Civil Service rules and regulations petitions; that the Bureau of Printing has no juridical personality to sue and be sued; that said Bureau of Printing is not an industrial concern engaged for the purpose of

gain but is an agency of the Republic performing government functions. The Bureau of Printing is an office of the Government created by the Administrative Code of 1916 (Act No. 2657). As such instrumentality of the Government, it operates under the direct supervision of the Executive Secretary, Office of the President, and is "charged with the execution of all printing and binding, including work incidental to those processes, required by the National Government and such other work of the same character as said Bureau may, by law or by order of the (Secretary of Finance) Executive Secretary, be authorized to undertake. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners be sued. HELD: Indeed, as an office of the Government, without any corporate or juridical personality, the Bureau of Printing cannot be sued. The record also discloses that the instant case arose from the filing of administrative charges against some officers of the respondent Bureau of Printing Employees' Association by the Acting Secretary of General Services. Said administrative charges are for insubordination, grave misconduct and acts prejudicial to public service committed by inciting the employees, of the Bureau of Printing to walk out of their jobs against the order of the duly constituted officials. Under the law, the Heads of Departments and Bureaus are authorized to institute and investigate administrative charges against erring subordinates. For the Industrial Court now to take cognizance of the case filed before it, which is in effect a review of the acts of executive officials having to do with the discipline of government employees under them, would be to interfere with the discharge of such functions by said officials. WHEREFORE, the petition for a writ of prohibition is granted. The orders complained of are set aside and the complaint for unfair labor practice against the petitioners is dismissed, with costs against respondents other than the respondent court.

damages. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that not being persons under the law, defendants cannot be sued. After plaintiff opposed the motion, the court, on April 25, 1964, dismissed the complaint on the ground that neither the Customs Arrastre Service nor the Bureau of Customs is suable. Plaintiff appealed to Us from the order of dismissal. Appellant contends that not all government entities are immune from suit; that defendant Bureau of Customs as operator of the arrastre service at the Port of Manila, is discharging proprietary functions and as such, can be sued by private individuals. Accordingly, a defendant in a civil suit must be (1) a natural person; (2) a juridical person or (3) an entity authorized by law to be sued. Neither the Bureau of Customs nor (a fortiori) its function unit, the Customs Arrastre Service, is a person. They are merely parts of the machinery of Government. The Bureau of Customs is a bureau under the Department of Finance (Sec. 81, Revised Administrative Code); and as stated, the Customs Arrastre Service is a unit of the Bureau of Custom, set up under Customs Administrative Order No. 862 of November 9, 1962 (Annex "A" to Motion to Dismiss, pp. 13-15, Record an Appeal). It follows that the defendants herein cannot he sued under the first two abovementioned categories of natural or juridical persons. ISSUE: Whether or not defendant is immnue from suit. HELD: Thus, the ruling therein was that the Court of Industrial Relations had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, but not that the Bureau of Customs can be sued. Said issue of suability was not resolved, the resolution stating only that "the issue on the personality or lack of personality of the Bureau of Customs to be sued does not affect the jurisdiction of the lower court over the subject matter of the case, aside from the fact that amendment may be made in the pleadings by the inclusion as respondents of the public officers deemed responsible, for the unfair labor practice acts charged by petitioning Unions". The Bureau of Printing is an office of the Government created by the Administrative Code of 1916 (Act No. 2657). As such instrumentality of the Government, it operates under the direct supervision of the Executive Secretary, Office of the President, and is "charged with the execution of all printing and binding, including work incidental to those processes, required by the National Government and such other work of the same character as said Bureau may, by law or by order

MOBIL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION, INC., VS. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE

FACTS: Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc., filed suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Customs Arrastre Service and the Bureau of Customs to recover the value of the undelivered case in the amount of P18,493.37 plus other

of the (Secretary of Finance) Executive Secretary, be authorized to undertake . Indeed, as an office of the Government, without any corporate or juridical personality, the Bureau of Printing cannot be sued.Any suit, action or proceeding against it, if it were to produce any effect, would actually be a suit, action or proceeding against the Government itself, and the rule is settled that the Government cannot be sued without its consent, much less over its objectionIt must be remembered that statutory provisions waiving State immunity from suit are strictly construed and that waiver of immunity, being in derogation of sovereignty, will not be lightly inferred.

ISSUE: Does the court have jurisdiction to hear and try the case? HELD: It is clear that the courts of the Philippines have no jurisdiction over the present case for Unlawful Detainer. The question of lack of jurisdiction was raised and interposed at the very beginning of the action. The US Government has not given its consent to the filing of the suit which is essentially against her, though not in name. Morever, this is not only a case of a citizen filing a suit against his own Government without the latters consent but it is of a citizen filing an action against a foreign government without said governments consent, which renders more obvious the lack of jurisdiction of the courts of this country.

SYQUIA VS. LOPEZ, ET AL.

FACTS: Plaintiffs, Pedro Syquia and Leopoldo Syquia are the undivided joint owners of three apartment buildings situated in Manila. They executed three lease contracts one for each of the three apartments. The period for the three leases was to be for the duration of the war and six months thereafter, unless sooner terminated by the US. The apartment buildings were used for billeting and quartering officers of the US Armed Forces stationed in Manila. Plaintiffs approached the defendants George Moore and Erland Tillman and requested the return of the apartment buildings. Moore and Tillman expressed to plaintiffs that the US Army wanted to continue occupying the premises. Plaintiffs requested to renegotiate said leases, to execute a lease contract for a period of three years and to pay a reasonable rental higher than those payable under the old contracts. Respondents sent a letter refusing to execute new leases but advised that the US Army will vacate the apartments before February 1, 1947. Not being in conformity with the old lease agreements, plaintiffs formally requested Tillman to cancel said leases and to release the apartments on June 28, 1946. Tillman refused to comply with the request. Because of the assurance that the US Government would vacate the premises before February 1, 1947, the plaintiffs took no further steps to secure possession of the buildings and accepted the monthly rentals tendered by respondents. On February 17, 1947, plaintiffs served a formal notice to the occupants demanding: (a) cancellation of said leases; (b) increase in rentals to P300 a month; (c) execution of new leases (d) release of said apartment buildings within thirty days of said notice in the event of failure to comply with said demands.

CALUB VS. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS: The Forest Protection and Law Enforcement Team of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office of the DENR apprehended two trucks carrying with it illegally sourced lumber. The drivers failed to show any legal documents. Thereafter, the trucks and lumber were seized. A criminal complaint was filed against them. The trucks were taken forcibly by the two drivers from the custody of DENR. This prompted the department to file charges but these were dismissed. Again though, the trucks were then caught and seized, for carrying illegally sourced lumber once again. Subsequently, an action for replevin was filed by the private respondents. The trial court granted the application for replevin and the CA affirmed this decision. HELD: Since there was a violation of the Revised Forestry Code and the seizure was in accordance with law, the subject vehicles were validly deemed in custodia legis. It could not be subject to an action for replevin. For it is property lawfully taken by virtue of legal process and considered in the custody of the law, and not otherwise.

SHAUF VS. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS: 1990: Petitioner, Loida Shauf, a Filipino by origin and married to an American who is a member of the US Air Force, was rejected for a position of Guidance Counselor in the Base Education Office at Clark Air Base. She boasts of related working experience and being a qualified dependent locally available. By reason of her non-selection, she filed a complaint for damages and an equal employment opportunity complaint against private respondents, Don Detwiler (civillian personnel officer) and Anthony Persi (Education Director), for alleged discrimination by reason of her sex (female), color (brown) and national origin (Filipino by birth). Shauf was offered a temporary position as a temporary Assistant Education Adviser for a 180day period with the condition that if a vacancy occurs, she will be automatically selected to fill the vacancy. But if no vacancy occurs after 180 days, she will be released but will be selected to fill a future vacancy if shes available. Shauf accepted the offer. During that time, Mrs. Mary Abalateos was about to vacate her position. But Mrs. Abalateos appointment was extended thus, Shauf was never appointed to said position. She claims that the Abalateos stay was extended indefinitely to deny her the appointment as retaliation for the complaint that she filed against Persi. Persi denies this allegation. He claims it was a joint decision of the management & it was in accordance of with the applicable regulation. Shauf filed for damages and other relief in different venues such as the Civil Service Commission, Appeals Review Board, Philippine Regional Trial Court, etc. RTC ruled in favor of Shauf ordering defendants to pay $39,662.49 as actual damages + 20% of such amount as attorneys fees + P100k as moral & exemplary damages. Both parties appealed to the CA. Shauf prayed for the increase of the damages to be collected from defendants. Defendants on the other hand, continued using the defense that they are immune from suit for acts done/statements made by them in performance of their official governmental functions pursuant to RP-US Military Bases Agreement of 1947. They claim that the Philippines does not have jurisdiction over the case because it was under the exclusive jurisdiction of a US District Court. They likewise claim that petitioner failed to exhaust all administrative remedies thus case should be dismissed. CA reversed RTC decision. According to the CA, defendants are immune from suit.

Shauf claims that the respondents are being sued in their private capacity thus this is not a suit against the US government w/c would require consent. Respondents still maintain their immunity from suit. They further claim that the rule allowing suits against public officers & employees for criminal & unauthorized acts is applicable only in the Philippines & is not part of international law. ISSUE: Whether or not private respondents are immune from suit being officers of the US Armed Forces HELD: Respondents ordered, jointly and severally, to pay petitioners the sum of P100K as moral damages, P20K for attorneys fees. RATIO: No, the respondents cannot rely on the US blanket of diplomatic immunity for all its acts or the acts of its agents in the Phils. Private respondents are personally liable in indemnifying petitioner Shauf.

While the doctrine of immunity is also applicable to complaints filed against state officials, it only contemplates acts done in their official capacity. This does not cover acts contrary to law & injurious to the rights of the plaintiff. When an official acts in a manner that invades or violates the personal & property rights of another, the aggrieved party may sue the official & such suit will not be a suit against the state. (Director of the Bureau of Telecommunications vs. Aligaen) The doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply where the public official is being sued in his private & personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. The discrimination is very evident. Shauf was not considered for the position even if she was previously employed as a Guidance Counselor at the Clark Airbase. She was not granted an interview. The person appointed was not even qualified for that position and that person kept the position despite orders from the US Civil Service Commission for his removal. Extension of Abalateos services is another proof. She was not appointed even if US officials found her highly qualified for the position (letters from the Director of the US Civil Service Commission, Staff Judge Advocate of the Department of Air Force). Shauf has proven that discrimination did occur whereas respondents merely denied allegations. The US Constitution assures everyone of equality in employment & work opportunities regardless of sex, race, or creed. The Philippine Constitution has a similar provision. Persi & Detwiler violated Shaufs

constitutional right to earn a living, an integral aspect of her right to life. Thus, they should be accountable. Though Shauf is entitled to damages, she should not be paid for the supposedly unearned income had she been hired as a Guidance Counselor. She never acquired rights over that amount because she was never appointed. Shauf followed the proper procedure in seeking relief for the defendants discriminatory acts. The Department of Air Force in Washington told her that one of her appeal rights would be to file a civil action if a final decision has not been rendered after 180 days from the dated of the initial appeal to the Commission. The appeal was lodged on Sept. 30, 1978 and it has not been decided up to the time SC has decided. Shauf is entitled to choose the remedy, not otherwise prohibited, which will best advance & protect her interests.

MINUCHER VS. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS: Khosrow Minucher, an Iranian national and a Labor Attach for the Iranian Embassies in Tokyo, Japan and Manila came to the country to study in 1974 and continued to stay as head of the Iranian National Resistance Movement. In May 1986, Minucher was charged with an Information for violation of Republic Act No.6425, Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The criminal charge followed a buybust operation conducted by the Philippine police narcotic agents in his house where a quantity of heroin was said to have been seized. The narcotic agents were accompanied by private respondent Arthur Scalzo who became one of the principal witnesses for the prosecution. In August 1988, Minucher filed Civil Case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for damages on the trumped-up charges of drug trafficking made by Arthur Scalzo. ISSUE: Whether or not private respondent Arthur Scalzo can be sued provided his alleged diplomatic immunity conformably with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations RULING: The SC DENIED the petition. Conformably with the Vienna Convention, the functions of the diplomatic mission involve the representation of the interests of the sending state and promoting friendly relations with the receiving state. Only diplomatic agents, are vested with blanket diplomatic immunity from civil and criminal suits. Indeed, the main yardstick in ascertaining whether a person is a diplomat entitled to immunity is the

determination of whether or not he performs duties of diplomatic nature. Being an Attache, Scalzos main function is to observe, analyze and interpret trends and developments in their respective fields in the host country and submit reports to their own ministries or departments in the home government. He is not generally regarded as a member of the diplomatic mission. On the basis of an erroneous assumption that simply because of the diplomatic note, divesting the trial court of jurisdiction over his person, his diplomatic immunity is contentious. Under the related doctrine of State Immunity from Suit, the precept that a State cannot be sued in the courts of a foreign state is a long-standing rule of customary international law. If the acts giving rise to a suit are those of a foreign government done by its foreign agent, although not necessarily a diplomatic personage, but acting in his official capacity, the complaint could be barred by the immunity of the foreign sovereign from suit without its consent. Suing a representative of a state is believed to be, in effect, suing the state itself. The proscription is not accorded for the benefit of an individual but for the State, in whose service he is, under the maxim par in parem, non habetimperium that all states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. The implication is that if the judgment against an official would require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the award, such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages decreed against him, the suit must be regarded as being against the state itself, although it has not been formally impleaded a foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked with immunity from suit but only as long as it can be established that he is acting within the directives of the sending state. The consent of the host state is an indispensable requirement of basic courtesy between the two sovereigns. The buybust operation and other such acts are indication that the Philippine government has given its imprimatur, if not consent, to the activities within Philippine territory of agent Scalzo of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency. In conducting surveillance activities on Minucher, later acting as the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation, and then becoming a principal witness in the criminal case against Minucher, Scalzo hardly can be said to have acted beyond the scope of his official function or duties.

WYLIE VS. RARANG

FACTS: AT THE NAVAL BASE. In Feb. 1978, M.H. Wylie was the assistant administrative officer and Capt. James Williams was the commanding officer of the US

Naval Base in Subic Bay, Olongapo City. Aurora I. Rarang was employed as a merchandise control guard in the Office of the Provost Marshal. THE POD. Wylie, in his capacity as asst. admin. officer, supervised the publication of the Naval Base stations Plan of the Day (POD), which featured important announcements, necessary precautions, and general matters of interest to military personnel. One of its regular features was the action line inquiry. THE CAUSE OF THIS MESS. On Feb. 3, 1978, the POD published, under the NAVSTA Action Line Inquiry, the ff: Question: I have observed that Merchandise Control inspector/ inspectress are (sic) consuming for their own benefit things they have confiscated from Base Personnel. The observation is even more aggravated by consuming such confiscated items as cigarettes and food stuffs PUBLICLY. This is not to mention Auring who is in herself, a disgrace to her division and to the Office of the Provost Marshal. In lieu of this observation, may I therefore, ask if the head of the Merchandise Control Division is aware of this malpractice? Answer: Merchandise Control Guards and all other personnel are prohibited from appropriating confiscated items for their own consumption or use. Two locked containers are installed at the Main Gate area for deposit of confiscated items and the OPM evidence custodian controls access to these containers. Merchandise Control Guards are permitted to eat their meals at their worksite due to heavy workload. Complaints regarding merchandise control guards procedure or actions may be made directly at the Office of the Provost Marshal for immediate and necessary action. Rarang was the Auring referred to here, as she was the only one with that name in the Office of the Provost Marshall, and Wylies letter of apology for the inadvertent publication was also conclusive proof of this. AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES was instituted by Rarang against Wylie, Williams, and the US Naval Base. She prayed for P300K moral damages, exemplary damages, and P50K attorneys fees. RARANGS ALLEGATIONS: the article constituted false, injurious, and malicious defamation and libel tending to impeach her honesty, virtue and reputation exposing her to public hatred, contempt and ridicule; and that the libel was published and circulated in the English language and read by almost all the U.S. Naval Base personnel. WYLIE, WILLIAMS, THE NAVAL BASE FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS, BASED ON THESE GROUNDS:

1. Wylie and Williams acted in the performance of their official functions as officers of the US Navy and are immune from suit; 2. The US Naval Base is an instrumentality of the US government which cannot be sued without its consent; and 3. lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. MOTION DENIED. THE TCS DECISION: the acts of Wylie and Williams werent official acts of the US government in the operation and control of the Base but personal and tortious acts which are exceptions to the general rule that a sovereign country cant be sued in the court of another country without its consent. Thus their acts werent imputable against the US government but were done in their individual and personal capacities. They were ordered to pay Rarang P100K moral and exemplary damages, and P30K attorneys fees. However, the suit against the US Naval Base was dismissed.

BOTH PARTIES APPEALED. Wylie and Williams asserted that they are immune from suit since the publication was made in their official capacities as officers of the U. S. Navy, and that they did not intentionally and maliciously cause the publication. Rarang appealed as she wasnt satisfied with the award. THE IAC MODIFIED THE TCS DECISION: Rarang was awarded P175K moral damages and P60K exemplary damages. WYLIE AND WILLIAMS ARGUMENT in this Petition for Review: they made the publication in the performance of their official functions as administrative assistant (Wylie) and commanding officer (Williams) of the US Navy and were, therefore, immune from suit for their official actions. ISSUE: Whether or not Wylie and Williams are liable for the published article in the POD. Does the grant of rights, power, and authority to the US under the RP-US Bases Treaty cover immunity of its officers from crimes and torts? HELD: YES and NO respectively. THE PRINCIPLE OF STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT, QUOTING US v. GUINTO: The rule that a state may not be sued without its consent, now expressed in Article XVI, Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution, is one of the generally accepted principles of

international law that we have adopted as part of the law of our land under Article II, Section 2Even without such affirmation, we would still be bound by the generally accepted principles of international law under the doctrine of incorporation As applied to the local state, the doctrine of state immunity is based on the justification given by Justice Holmes that there can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which the right depends! (Kawanakoa v. Polybank) There are other practical reasons for the enforcement of the doctrine. In the case of the foreign state sought to be impleaded in the local jurisdiction, the added inhibition is expressed in the maxim par in parem, non habet imperium . All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. A contrary disposition would, in the language of a celebrated case, unduly vex the peace of nations. (Da Haber v. Queen of Portugal) While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent, it is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. The rule is that if the judgment against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same, such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages awarded against them, the suit must be regarded as against the state itself although it has not been formally impleaded (Garcia v. Chief of Staff). In such a situation, the state may move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has been filed without its consent. The doctrine is sometimes derisively called the royal prerogative of dishonesty because of the privilege it grants the state to defeat any legitimate claim against it by simply invoking its non-suability. That is hardly fair, at least in democratic societies, for the state is not an unfeeling tyrant unmoved by the valid claims of its citizens. In fact, the doctrine is not absolute and does not say the state may not be sued under any circumstance. On the contrary, the rule says that the state may not be sued without its consent, which clearly imports that it may be sued if it consents. The consent of the state to be sued may be manifested expressly or impliedly. Express consent may be embodied in a general law or a special law. Consent is implied when the state enters into a contract it itself commences litigationThe above rules are subject to qualification. Express consent is effected only by the will of the legislature through the medium of a duly enacted statute. (Rep. v. Purisima) not all contracts entered into by the government will operate as a waiver of its non-suability; distinction must be made between its sovereign and proprietary acts (US v. Ruiz). As for the filing of a complaint by the government, suability will result

only where the government is claiming affirmative relief from the defendant. (Lim v. Brownell) THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF IMMUNITY FROM SUIT, ALSO UNDER US v. GUINTO: In the case of the US, the customary rule of international law on state immunity is expressed with more specificity in the RP-US Bases Treaty The petitioners also rely heavily on Baer v. Tizon to support their position that they are not suable, the US not having waived its sovereign immunity from suit. It is emphasized that in Baer, the Court held: The invocation of the doctrine of immunity from suit of a foreign state without its consent is appropriate insofar as alien armed forces are concerned, the starting point is Raquiza v. Bradford, a 1945 decision. In dismissing a habeas corpus petition for the release of petitioners confined by American army authorities, Justice Hilado cited Coleman v. Tennessee, where it was explicitly declared: It is well settled that a foreign army, permitted to march through a friendly country or to be stationed in it, by permission of its government or sovereign, is exempt from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the place. Two years later, in Tubb and Tedrow v. Griess, this Court relied on Raquiza v. Bradford and cited in support excerpts from the works of the authoritative writers Accuracy demands the clarification that after the conclusion of the Philippine-American Military Bases Agreement, the treaty provision should control on such matter, the assumption being that there was a manifestation of the submission to jurisdiction on the part of the foreign power whenever appropriate. More to the point is Syquia v. Almeda Lopez It was the ruling that respondent Judge acted correctly considering that the action must be considered as one against the U.S. Government. The opinion of Justice Montemayor continued: It is clear that the courts of the Philippines including the Municipal Court of Manila have no jurisdiction over the present case for unlawful detainer. The question of lack of jurisdiction was raised and interposed at the very beginning of the action. The U.S. Government has not given its consent to the filing of this suit which is essentially against her, though not in name. Moreover, this is not only a case of a citizen filing a suit against his own Government without the latters consent but it is of a citizen filing an action against a foreign government without said governments consent, which renders more obvious the lack of jurisdiction of the courts of his country. The principles of law behind this rule are so elementary and of such general acceptance that we deem it unnecessary to cite authorities in support thereof. The above observations do not confer on the US a blanket immunity for all acts done by it or its

agents in the Philippines. Neither may the other petitioners claim that they are also insulated from suit in this country merely because they have acted as agents of the US in the discharge of their official functions. 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 In the words of Justice Vicente Abad Santos: The traditional rule of immunity excepts a State from being sued in the courts of another State without its consent or waiver. This rule is a necessary consequence of the principles of independence and equality of States. However, the rules of International Law are not petrified; they are constantly developing and evolving. And because the activities of states have multiplied, it has been necessary to distinguish them-between sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) and private, commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis). The result is that State immunity now extends only to acts jure imperii... The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs. Stated differently, a State may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts. It does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions. The other petitioners in the cases before us all aver they have acted in the discharge of their official functions as officers or agents of the US. However, this is a matter of evidence. The charges against them may not be summarily dismissed on their mere assertion that their acts are imputable to the US, which has not given its consent to be sued. In fact, the defendants are sought to be held answerable for personal torts in which the US itself is not involved. If found liable, they and they alone must satisfy the judgment. SUMMARY OF THE EVENTS. The POD was published under the direction and authority of the commanding officer. The administrative assistant, among his other duties, is tasked to prepare and distribute the POD. The NAVSTA Action Line Inquiry is a regular feature of the POD , which was to provide personnel access to the Commanding Officer on matters they feel should be brought to his attention for correction or investigation . According to Wylie, the action line naming Auring was received about 3 weeks prior to the articles publication. It was forwarded to the Provost Marshal for comment, and the response

included a short note stating that if the article was published, to remove the name. This note was forwarded to the executive officer and to the commanding officer for approval. The approval of the commanding officer was forwarded to the office of the Administrative Assistant for inclusion in the POD. A clerk typist in the office of the Administrative Assistant prepared the smooth copy of the POD and Wylie, the administrative assistant signed the smooth copy of the POD but failed to notice the reference to Auring in the action line inquiry. As the article implied that Rarang was consuming and appropriating confiscated items, she was investigated by her supervisor. Before the article came out, she had been the recipient of commendations by her superiors for honesty in the performance of her duties. PART OF OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS. Wylie and Williams actively participated in screening the features and articles in the POD as part of their official functions. Under the rule that US officials in the performance of their official functions are immune from suit, then it should follow that they may not be held liable for the questioned publication. BUT: TAKE NOTE THAT THEY WERE SUED IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITIES for their alleged tortious acts in publishing a libelous article. And our laws and, we presume, those of the US dont allow the commission of crimes in the name of official duty, and these arent covered by the immunity agreement. CHAVEZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN on the law on immunity from suit of public officials is applicable here: the general rule is that public officials can be held personally accountable for acts claimed to have been performed in connection with official duties where they have acted ultra vires or where there is showing of bad faith A mere invocation of the immunity clause does not ipso facto result in the charges being automatically dropped. In the case of PCGG v. Pea, Chief Justice Teehankee added a clarification of the immunity accorded PCGG officials under Section 4(a) of Exec. Order No. I as follows: First, the main opinion does not claim absolute immunity for the members of the Commission, The cited section provides the Commissions members immunity from suit thus: No civil action shall lie against the Commission or any member thereof for anything done or omitted in the discharge of the task contemplated by this order. No absolute immunity like that sought by Mr. Marcos in his Constitution for himself and his subordinates is herein involved. It is understood that the immunity granted the members of the Commission by virtue of the unimaginable

magnitude of its task to recover the plundered wealth and the States exercise of police power was immunity from liability for damages in the official discharge of the task granted the members of the Commission much in the same manner that judges are immune from suit in the official discharge of the functions of their office. Immunity from suit cannot institutionalize irresponsibility and nonaccountability nor grant a privileged status not claimed by any other official of the Republic. Where the petitioner exceeds his authority as Solicitor General, acts in bad faith, or maliciously conspir(es) with the PCGG commissioners in persecuting respondent Enrile by filing against him an evidently baseless suit in derogation of the latters constitutional rights and liberties, there can be no question that a complaint for damages does not confer a license to persecute or recklessly injure another. The actions governed by Articles 19, 20, 21, and 32 of the Civil Code on Human Relations may be taken against public officers or private citizens alike. ARGUMENT: that Williams as commanding officer is far removed in the chain of command from the offensive publication and it would be asking too much to hold him responsible for everything which goes wrong on the base. WHILE THIS IS TRUE AS A GEN. RULE, FOR THIS CASE NO. The records show that the offensive publication was sent to the commanding officer for approval and he approved it. Art. 2176 prescribes a civil liability for damages caused by a persons act or omission constituting fault or negligence. Fault or negligence in this Article covers not only acts not punishable by law but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional or voluntary or negligent. Moreover, Art. 2219(7) provides that moral damages may be recovered in case of libel, slander or any other form of defamation. In effect, the offended party in these cases is given the right to receive from the guilty party moral damages for injury to his feelings and reputation in addition to punitive or exemplary damages . ULTRA VIRES ACT CANT BE PART OF OFFICIAL DUTY. Indeed the imputation of theft contained in the POD is a defamation against Rarangs character and reputation. Wylie himself admitted that the Office of the Provost Marshal explicitly recommended the deletion of the name if the article was published, but they were negligent because under their direction they issued the publication without deleting the name. Such act or omission is ultra vires and cannot be part of official duty. It was a tortious act which ridiculed Rarang, and as a result she suffered besmirched reputation, serious anxiety, wounded feelings and social humiliation, specially so, since the article was baseless and false. Wylie and Williams alone, in

their personal capacities, are liable for the damages they caused. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. The questioned decision and resolution of the IAC are AFFIRMED.

REPUBLIC SANDOVAL

OF

THE

PHILIPPINES

VS

FACTS: This case deals with the tragedy that transpired on January 22, 1987. Popularly known as the Black Thursday or the Mendiola Massacre. Twelve people died and the heirs of these people are seeking for retribution. (the gist is that the people marched to Mendiola because of failed agrarian reforms and the police and military were there to defend the palace. There were shooting and no one knows who started it. End result = some people were killed.) Heirs of the deceased and the injured filed this case for damages. President Aquino issued AO no. 11 which created the Citizens Mendiola Commission and in their report there commended the criminal prosecution of four unidentified, uniformed individuals. The most significant recommendation that they made was that the deceased and wounded victims of the Mendiola incident be compensated by the government. This recommendation of the commission was the basis of the claim for damages by the petitioners. February 23, 1988 the Solicitor General filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the State cannot be sued without its consent. The petitioner maintained that the State has waived its immunity from suit and that the dismissal of the instant action is contrary to both the Constitution and the International Law on Human Rights. ISSUE: Whether or not the State has waived its immunity from suit. HELD: No. Immunity from suit is expressly provided in Article XVI , sec. 3. The principle is based on the very essence of sovereignty and on the practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. It also rests on reason of public policy that public policy would be hindered and the public endangered, if the sovereign authority could be subjected to law suits at the instance of every

citizen and consequently controlled in the uses and disposition of the means required for the proper administration of the government. Recommendation made by the commission does not in any way mean that liability automatically attaches to the State. The purpose of the commission as provided for in AO 11 was to have a body that will conduct an investigation of the disorder, deaths and casualties that took place. The findings of the commission shall only serveas the cause of action in the event that any party decides to litigate his/her claim. Consent to be sued may be given impliedly it cannot be maintained that such consent was given in this case. The commission was a fact finding body. The commission was merely a preliminary venue and it was not an end in itself. The case does not qualify as a suit against the state. Some instances when a suit against the State is proper are: when the Republic is sued by name, when the suit is against an unincorporated government agency, when the suit is on its face against a government officer but the case is such that ultimate liability, will belong not to the officer but to the government. The ultimate liability in this case does not pertain to the government. Based on the investigation the military officials acted beyond their authority and there was lack of jurisdiction by the government forces in the use of firearms. The committed a prohibited act under BP 880 as there was unnecessary firing by them in dispersing the marchers. The court ruled before that an officer cannot shelter himself by plea that he is a public agent acting under the color of his office when his acts are wholly without authority.

the record. With the change of the Government after the EDSA Revolution, anew chairman of the NPDC, Amado J. Lansang (herein petitioner), 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 park. Notice was given March 5, 1988 and respondents were given until March 8 to vacate. The notice was signed by Jose Iglesias, GABI president, allegedly to indicate his conformity to its contents. However, Iglesias, who was totally blind, claims that he was deceived into signing the notice. GABI filed an action for damages and injunction in the Regional Trial Court against petitioner. The trial court issued a TRO and expired on March 28, 1988. The following day GABI was finally evicted by NPDC. ISSUES: Whether or not respondent court erred in not holding that private respondents complaint against petitioner, as chairman of NPDC, and his co-defendants in civil case no. 88-43887, is in effect a suit against the state which cannot be sued without its consent. HELD: The rule does not apply where the public official is charged in his official capacity for acts that are unlawful and injurious to the rights of others. Public officials are not exempt, in their personal capacity, from liability arising from acts committed in bad faith. There is no question in the capacity of the petitioner as NPDC chairman and his authority to terminate the agreement. The question now is whether or not the petitioner abused his authority in ordering the ejectment of the private respondents. However, no evidence of such abuse of authority is on record. Rizal part is beyond the commerce of man, thus could not be subject to lease of contract. Private respondents cannot and doesnt claim a vested right to continue to occupy Rizal Park. However, the petitioners cannot be awarded with moral and exemplary damages as well as attorneys fees. There is no evidence on record to support Iglesias claim that he suffered moral injury as a result of GABIs ejectment from Rizal Park. ] WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is set aside.

LANSANG VS. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS: Private respondents General Assembly of the Blind (GABI) were allegedly awarded a verbal contract of lease in 1970 by the National Parks Development Committee (NPDC), a government initiated civic body engaged in the development of national perks including Rizal Park. No document or instrument appears on record to show the grantor of the verbal license to private respondents to occupy a portion of the government park. They were given office and library space as well as kiosks for selling food and drinks along TM Kalaw. 40% of the profits derived from the kiosks were to remit to NPDC again without anything shown on

CARABAO INC VS. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSION

FACTS: Plaintiff had filed on Oct. 3, 1967 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal its complaint to recover the

sum of P238, 500 representing the unpaid price of 300 units of fire extinguishers sold and delivered by it to defendant Agricultural Productivity Commission. It allegedly that it had presented on June 14, 1967 a claim for payment of the sum with the Auditor General, but that since the latter had failed to decide the claim within two months from date of its presentation which should have been by August 13, 1967, it had acquired the right under Act No. 3083 to file the original action for collection in the lower court. The lower court sustained defendants dismissal motion and declared itself without jurisdiction to hear the case. Upon plaintiffs filing of its motion for reconsideration Dec. 9, 1967, defendants further brought out the fact that on Oct. 6, 1967, the Auditor General had rendered his decision denying plaintiffs claim on the ground that the alleged purchase order relied upon by plaintiff was null and void, since there was no obligating instrument as required by law. ISSUE: Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the case. HELD: No, the court has no jurisdiction over the case. The contention of the plaintiff that Act 3083 has not been repealed, amended declared unconstitutional is not correct. Since Com Act superseded and abrogated it under the principle of leges posteriors priores contrarias abrogant. Which states that a latter statute which is repugnant to an earlier statute is deemed abrogated the earlier one on the same subject matter. Com longer entitles the claimant to a direct suit in court. The court decision affirmed. Plaintiff-appellant is ordered to remove immediately the 300 units of fire extinguisher from the firehouse of the APC.

SAYSON v. SINGSON

FACTS: "In January 1967, the Office of the District Engineer requisitioned various items of spare parts for the repair of a D-8 bulldozer which was signed by the District Engineer, Adventor Fernandez, and the Requisitioning Officer (civil engineer), Manuel S. Lepatan. It was approved by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, Antonio V. Raquiza. It is noted in the approval of the said requisition that "This is an exception to the telegram dated Feb. 21, 1967 of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications.... So, a canvass or public bidding was conducted on May 5, 1967 The committee on award accepted the bid of the Singkier Motor Service for the sum of P43,

530.00... Subsequently, it was approved by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications; and on May 16, 1967 the Secretary sent a letterorder to the Singkier Motor Service, Mandaue, Cebu requesting it to immediately deliver the items listed therein for the lot price of P43,530.00. ... It would appear that a purchase order signed by the District Engineer, the Requisitioning Officer and the Procurement Officer, was addressed to the Singkier Motor Service. ... In due course the Voucher No. 07806 reached the hands of Highway Auditor Sayson for pre-audit. He then made inquiries about the reasonableness of the price. ... Thus, after finding from the endorsements of the Division Engineer and the Commissioner of Public Highways that the prices of the various spare parts are just and reasonable and that the requisition was also approved by no less than the Secretary of Public Works and Communications with the verification of V.M. Secarro a representative of the Bureau of Supply Coordination, Manila, he approved it for payment in the sum of P34,824.00, with the retention of 20% equivalent to P8,706.00 to submit the voucher with the supporting papers to the Supervising Auditor, which he did. ... The voucher was paid on June 9, 1967 in the amount of P34, 824.00 to Singson. On June 10,1967, Highway Auditor Sayson received a from Supervising Auditor Fornier quoting a telegraphic message of the General Auditing Office which states: "In view of prices charge for purchase of spare parts and equipment shown by vouchers already submitted this Office direct all highway auditors refer General Office payment similar nature for appropriate action." ... In the interim it would appear that when the voucher and the supporting papers reached the GAO, a canvass was made of the spare parts among the suppliers in Manila, particularly, the USI (Phil.), which is the exclusive dealer of the spare parts of the caterpillar tractors in the Philippines. Said firm thus submitted its quotations at P2, 529.64 only which is P40, 000.00 less than the price of the Singkier. ... In view of the overpricing the GAO took up the matter with the Secretary of Public Works in a third endorsement of July 18, 1967. ... The Secretary then circularized a telegram holding the district engineer responsible for overpricing." What is more, charges for malversation were filed against the district engineer and the civil engineer involved. It was the failure of the Highways Auditor, one of the petitioners before us that led to the filing of the mandamus suit below, with now respondent Singson as sole proprietor of Singkier Motor Service, being adjudged as entitled to collect the balance of P8, 706.00, the contract in question having been upheld. Hence this appeal by certiorari. ISSUE:

WON the mandamus suit of the respondent (Singson) involving a money claim against the government, predicated on a contract is valid. RULING: No. The claim is void for the cause or consideration is contrary to law, morals or public policy, mandamus is not the remedy to enforce the collection of such claim against the State but an ordinary action for specific performance. The suit disguised as one for mandamus to compel the Auditors to approve the vouchers for payment, is a suit against the State, which cannot prosper or be entertained by the Court except with the consent of the State... . In other words, the respondent should have filed his claim with the General Auditing Office, under the provisions of Com. Act 327 which prescribe the conditions under which money claim against the government may be filed: "In all cases involving the settlement of accounts or claims, other than those of accountable officers, the Auditor General shall act and decide the same within sixty days, exclusive of Sundays and holidays, after their presentation. If said accounts or claims need reference to other persons, office or offices, or to a party interested, the period aforesaid shall be counted from the time the last comment necessary to a proper decision is received by him. "Thereafter, the procedure for appeal is indicated: "The party aggrieved by the final decision of the Auditor General in the settlement of an account or claim may, within thirty days from receipt of the decision, take an appeal in writing: (a) To the President of the United States, pending the final and complete withdrawal of her sovereignty over the Philippines, or (b) To the President of the Philippines, or (c) To the Supreme Court of the Philippines if the appellant is a private person or entity. "Once consent is secured, an action may be filed. There is nothing to prevent the State, however, in such statutory grant, to require that certain administrative proceedings be had and be exhausted. Also, the proper forum in the judicial hierarchy can be specified if thereafter an appeal would be taken by the party aggrieved. Here, there was no ruling of the Auditor General. Even had there been such, the court to which the matter should have been elevated is this Tribunal; the lower court could not legally act on the matter.

arrangements, guards were deployed by Sultan Security Agency in the various premises of the DA. Thereafter, several guards filed a complaint for underpayment of wages, non-payment of 13th month pay, uniform allowances, night shift differential pay, holiday pay, and overtime pay, as well as for damages against the DA and the security agency.

The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding the DA jointly and severally liable with the security agency for the payment of money claims of the complainant security guards. The DA and the security agency did not appeal the decision. Thus, the decision became final and executor. The Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution to enforce and execute the judgment against the property of the DA and the security agency. Thereafter, the City Sheriff levied on execution the motor vehicles of the DA. ISSUE: Whether or not the doctrine of non-suability of the State applies in the case. HELD: The basic postulate enshrined in the Constitution that the State may not be sued without its consent reflects nothing less than recognition of the sovereign character of the State and an express affirmation of the unwritten rule effectively insulating it from the jurisdiction of courts. It is based on the very essence of sovereignty. A sovereign is exempt from suit based on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. The rule is not really absolute for it does not say that the State may not be sued under any circumstances. The State may at times be sued. The States consent may be given expressly or impliedly. Express consent may be made through a general law or a special law. Implied consent, on the other hand, is conceded when the State itself commences litigation, thus opening itself to a counterclaim, or when it enters into a contract. In this situation, the government is deemed to have descended to the level of the other contracting party and to have divested itself of its sovereign immunity. But not all contracts entered into by the government operate as a waiver of its nonsuability; distinction must still be made between one which is executed in the exercise of its sovereign function and another which is done in its proprietary capacity. A State may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can this be deemed to have actually given its consent to be

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE VS. NLRC

FACTS: Petitioner Department of Agriculture (DA) and Sultan Security Agency entered into a contract for security services to be provided by the latter to the said governmental entity. Pursuant to their

sued only when it enters into business contracts. It does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions. In the case, the DA has not pretended to have assumed a capacity apart from its being a governmental entity when it entered into the questioned contract; nor that it could have, in fact, performed any act proprietary in character. But, be that as it may, the claims of the complainant security guards clearly constitute money claims. Act No. 3083 gives the consent of the State to be sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract, express or implied. Pursuant, however, to Commonwealth Act 327, as amended by PD 1145, the money claim must first be brought to the Commission on Audit.

PNB v. CIR

The Court finds no merit in this argument. Republic Act No. 4201 has, since June 19, 1965, already repealed Commonwealth Act No. 103, and under this law, it is now the Clerk of this Court that is at the same time the Ex-Officio Sheriff. As such ExOfficio Sheriff, the Clerk of this Court has therefore the authority to issue writs of execution and notices of garnishment in an area encompassing the whole of the country, including Quezon City, since his area of authority is coterminous with that of the Court itself, which is national in nature. ... At this stage, the Court notes from the record that the appeal to the Supreme Court by individual employees of PHHC which questions the award of attorney's fees to Atty. Gabriel V. Manansala, has already been dismissed and that the same became final and executory on August 9, 1970. There is no longer any reason, therefore, for withholding action in this case. [Wherefore], the motion to quash filed by the Philippine National Bank is denied for lack of merit. The said Bank is therefore ordered to comply within five days from receipt with the 'notice of Garnishment' dated May 6, 1970." There was a motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner, but in a resolution dated September22, 1970, it was denied. Hence, this certiorari petition. ISSUE: Whether or not the funds mentioned may be garnished. RULING: No. National Shipyard and Steel Corporation v. court of Industrial Relations is squarely in point. As was explicitly stated in the opinion of the then Justice, later Chief Justice, Concepcion: "The allegation to the effect that the funds of the NASSCO are public funds of the government, and that, as such, the same may not be garnished, attached or levied upon, is untenable for, as a government owned and controlled corporation. The NASSCO has a personality of its own, distinct and separate from that of the Government. It has pursuant to Section 2 of Executive Order No. 356, dated October 23, 1950 ..., pursuant to which the NASSCO has been established 'all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law...' Accordingly, it may sue and be sued and may be subjected to court processes just like any other corporation (Section 13, Act No. 1459), as amended." In a 1941 decision, Manila Hotel Employees Association v. Manila Hotel Company, 8 this Court, through Justice Ozaeta, held: "On the other hand, it is well settled that when the government enters into commercial business, it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation. (Bank of the United States v. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat,904, 6 L.ed. 244). By engaging in a particular business thru the instrumentality of a corporation, the

FACTS: Petitioner s motion to quash a notice of garnishment was denied for lack of merit. What was sought to be garnished was the money of the People's Homesite and Housing Corporation deposited at petitioner's branch in Quezon City, to satisfy a decision of respondent Court which had become final and executory. A writ of execution in favor of private respondent Gabriel V. Manansala had previously been issued. He was the counsel of the prevailing party, the United Homesite Employees and Laborers Association. The validity of the order assailed is challenged on two grounds: (1) that the appointment of respondent Gilbert P. Lorenzo as authorized deputy sheriff to serve the writ of execution was contrary to law and (2) that the funds subject of the garnishment "may be public in character." The order of August 26, 1970 of respondent Court denying the motion to quash, subject of this certiorari proceeding, reads as follows: "The Philippine National Bank moves to quash the notice of garnishment served upon its branch in Quezon City by the authorized deputy sheriff of this Court. It contends that the service of the notice by the authorized deputy sheriff of the court contravenes Section 11 of Commonwealth Act No.105, as amended which reads:" 'All writs and processes issued by the Court shall be served and executed free of charge by provincial or city sheriffs, or by any person authorized by this Court, in the same manner as writs and processes of Courts of First Instance.' Following the law, the Bank argues that it is the Sheriff of Quezon City, and not the Clerk of this Court who is its Ex-Officio Sheriff, that has the authority to serve the notice of garnishment, and that the actual service by the latter officer of said notice is therefore not in order.

government divests itself pro hacvice of its sovereign character, so as to render the corporation subject to the rules of law governing private corporations. "Both the Palacio and the Commissioner of Public Highways decisions, insofar as they reiterate the doctrine that one of the coronaries of the fundamental concept of nonsuability is that governmental funds are immune from garnishment. It is an entirely different matter if, according to Justice Sanchez in Ramos v. Court of Industrial Relations, the office or entity is "possessed of a separate and distinct corporate existence." Then it can sue and be sued. Thereafter, its funds may be levied upon organised.

dump truck of the Municipality of San Fernando, La Union and driven by Alfredo Bislig. Due to the impact,several passengers of the jeepney includingLaureano Bania Sr. died as a result of the injuries they sustained and four others suffered varying degrees of physical injuries. The private respondents instituted a complaint for damages against the Estate of Macario Nieveras and Bernardo Balagot, ownerand driver, respectively, of the passenger jeepney. However, the aforesaid defendants filed a Third Party Complaint against the petitioner and the driver of a dump truck of petitioner. Petitioner raised as one of its defenses the non-suability of the State. ISSUE:

SSS VS. COURT OF APPEALS

Whether or not the Municipality of San Fernando is immune from suit. HELD: YES. Anent the issue of whether or not the municipality is liable for the torts committed by its employee, the test of liability of the municipality depends on whether or not the driver, acting in behalf of the municipality, is performing governmental or proprietary functions. In the case at bar, the driver of the dump truck of the municipality insists that "he was on his way to the Naguilian river to get a load of sand and gravel for the repair of SanFernando's municipal streets." We already stressed in the case of Palafox, et al vs. Province of Ilocos Norte, the District Engineer, and the Provincial Treasurer (102Phil 1186) that "the construction or maintenance of roads in which the truck and the driver worked at the time of the accident are admittedly governmental activities. "We arrive at the conclusion that the municipality cannot be held liable for the torts committed by its regular employee, who was then engaged in the discharge of governmental functions. Hence, the death of the passenger tragic and deplorable though it may be imposed on the municipality no duty to pay monetary compensation.

FACTS: SSS and petitioners filed with the Social Security Commission seeking to be declared as employees of COSMOS. The petitioners here are peddlers of Mafinco. Mafinco contended that they are independent contractors. ISSUE: Whether or not there exists an employer-employee relationship. HELD: No. Under the peddling contract, Mafinco would provide the peddler with a delivery truck and the peddler is responsible for compensation of his driver and helpers. In addition, the peddler would also bear the cost of gasoline and maintenance of the truck and secure their licenses and permits. The petitioner would also post a cash bond and the contract may be terminated upon 5 days prior notice. On the basis of the peddling contract, no employeremployee relationship was created. Thus, the petitioner is an independent contractor.

MUNICIPALITY UNION

OF

SAN

FERNANDO,LA

MERITT V. GOVERNMENT PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

OF

THE

vs. HON. JUDGE ROMEO N. FIRME

FACTS: This is an appeal by both parties from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of P14,741, together with the costs of the cause. The plaintiff, riding on a motorcycle, was going toward the western part of Calle Padre Faura, passing along the west side thereof at a speed of ten to twelve miles an hour, upon crossing Taft Avenue and

FACTS: At about 7am of December 16, 1965, a collision occurred involving a passenger jeepney driven by Bernardo Balagot (owned by the Estate of Macario Nieveras), a gravel and sand truck driven by Jose Manandeg (owned by Tanquilino Velasquez), and a

when he was ten feet from the south-western intersection of said streets, the General Hospital ambulance, upon reaching said avenue, instead of turning toward the south, after passing the center thereof, so that it would be on the left side of said avenue, as is prescribed by the ordinance and the Motor Vehicle Act, turned suddenly and unexpectedly and long before reaching the center of the street, into the right side of Taft Avenue, without having sounded any whistle or horn, by which movement it struck the plaintiff, who was already six feet from the south-western point or from the post place there. By reason of the resulting collision, the plaintiff was so severely injured that, according to Dr. Saleeby, who examined him on the very same day that he was taken to the General Hospital, he was suffering from a depression in the left parietal region, a wound in the same place and in the back part of his head, while blood issued from his nose and he was entirely unconscious. The patient apparently was slightly deaf, had a light weakness in his eyes and in his mental condition. The plaintiff's mental and physical condition prior to the accident was excellent, and that after having received the injuries, his physical condition had undergone a noticeable depreciation, for he had lost the agility, energy, and ability that he had constantly displayed before the accident as one of the best constructors of wooden buildings and he could not now earn even a half of the income that he had secured for his work because he had lost 50per cent of his efficiency. As a contractor, he could no longer, as he had before done, climb up ladders and scaffoldings to reach the highest parts of the building. The two items which constitute a part of the P14,741 are (a) P5,000, the award awarded for permanent injuries, and (b) the P2,666, the amount allowed for the loss of wages during the time the plaintiff was incapacitated from pursuing his occupation. Nothing was found in the record which would justify increasing the amount of the first. As to the second, the record shows, and the trial court so found, that the plaintiff's services as a contractor were worth P1,000 per month. The court, however, limited the time to two months and twenty-one days, which the plaintiff was actually confined in the hospital. In this the Court thinks there was error, because it was clearly established that the plaintiff was wholly incapacitated for a period of six months. The mere fact that he remained in the hospital only two months and twenty-one days while the remainder of the six months was spent in his home, would not prevent recovery for the whole time. The Court, therefore, find that the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff, without any fault on his part, isP18,075.The petitioner vis--vis Act No. 2457 effective February 3, 1915 was authorized to bring suit against the Government of the Philippine

Islandsand authorizing the Attorney-General to appear in said suit. ISSUE: Whether or not the scope of the Act authorizes the Court to hold that the Government is legally liable for the said amount. RULING: No. Plaintiff claims that by the enactment of this law the legislature admitted liability on the part of the state for the acts of its officers, and that the suit now stands just as it would stand between private parties. It is difficult to see how the act does, or was intended to do, more than remove the state's immunity from suit. It simply gives authority to commence suit for the purpose of settling plaintiff's controversies with the estate. Nowhere in the act is there a whisper or suggestion that the court or courts in the disposition of the suit shall depart from well-established principles of law, or that the amount of damages is the only question to be settled. The act opened the door of the court to the plaintiff. It did not pass upon the question of liability, but left the suit just where it would be in the absence of the state's immunity from suit. If the Legislature had intended to change the rule that obtained in this state so long and to declare liability on the part of the state, it would not have left so important a matter to mere inference, but would have done so in express terms. (Murdock Grate Co. vs. Commonwealth, 152 Mass., 28; 24 N.E., 854; 8 L. R. A., 399.)Paragraph 5 of article 1903 of the Civil Code reads: The state is liable in this sense when it acts through a special agent, but not when the damage should have been caused by the official to whom properly it pertained to do the act performed, in which case the provisions of the preceding article shall be applicable. It follows there from that the state, by virtue of such provisions of law, is not responsible for the damages suffered by private individuals inconsequence of acts performed by its employees in the discharge of the functions pertaining to their office, because neither fault nor even negligence can be presumed on the part of the state in the organization of branches of public service and in the appointment of its agents; on the contrary, we must presuppose all foresight humanly possible on its part in order that each branch of service serves the general weal and that of private persons interested in its operation. Between these latter and the state, therefore, no relations of a private nature governed by the civil law can arise except in a case where the state acts as a judicial person capable of acquiring rights and contracting obligations. (Supreme Court of Spain, January 7, 1898; 83 Jur. Civ., 24.) According to paragraph 5 of article 1903 of the Civil Code and the principle laid down in a decision, among others, of the 18th of

May, 1904,in a damage case, the responsibility of the state is limited to that which it contracts through a special agent, duly empowered by a definite order or commission to perform some act or charged with some definite purpose which gives rise to the claim, and not where the claim is based on acts or omissions imputable to a public official charged with some administrative or technical office who can be held to the proper responsibility in the manner laid down by the law of civil responsibility. Consequently, the trial court in not so deciding and in sentencing the said entity to the payment of damages, caused by an official of the second class referred to, has by erroneous interpretation infringed the provisions of articles 1902 and1903 of the Civil Code.

was the private property of Feliciano and should therefore be excluded there from. Feliciano prayed that he be declared the rightful and true owner of the property in question consisting of 1,364.4177 hectares; that his title of ownership based on informacion posesoria of his predecessor-in-interest be declared legal valid and subsisting and that defendant be ordered to cancel and nullify all awards to the settlers. ISSUE: Whether or not the State can be sued for recovery and possession of a parcel of land. RULING: No. A suit against the State, under settled jurisprudence is not permitted, except upon a showing that the State has consented to be sued, either expressly or by implication through the use of statutory language too plain to be misinterpreted. It may be invoked by the courts sua sponte at any stage of the proceedings. Waiver of immunity, being a derogation of sovereignty, will not be inferred lightly. But must be construed in strictissimi juris (of strictest right). Moreover, the Proclamation is not a legislative act. The consent of the State to be sued must emanate from statutory authority. Waiver of State immunity can only be made by an act of the legislative body. Addt l: Worthy of note is the fact, as pointed out by the Solicitor General, that the informacion posesoria registered in the Office of the Register of Deed of Camarines Sur on September 23, 1952 was a "reconstituted possessory information; it was "reconstituted from the duplicate presented to this office (Register of Deeds) by Dr. Pablo Feliciano, without the submission of proof that the alleged duplicate was authentic or that the original thereof was lost. Reconstitution can be validly made only in case of loss of the original. These circumstances raise grave doubts as to the authenticity and validity of the "informacion posesoria" relied upon by respondent Feliciano. Adding to the dubiousness of said document is the fact that "possessory information calls for an area of only100 hectares," whereas the land claimed by respondent Feliciano comprises 1,364.4177 hectares, later reduced to 701-9064 hectares. Courts should be wary in accepting "possessory information documents, as well as other purportedly old Spanish titles, as proof of alleged ownership of lands.

REPUBLIC V. FELICIANO

FACTS: Petitioner seeks the review of the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court dated April 30, 1985 reversing the order of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Branch VI, dated August 21, 1980, which dismissed the complaint of respondent Pablo Feliciano for recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land on the ground of non-suability of the State. On January 22, 1970, Feliciano filed a complaint with the then Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur against the RP, represented by the Land Authority, for the recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land, consisting of four (4) lots with an aggregate area of 1,364.4177hectares, situated in the Barrio of Salvacion, Municipality of Tinambac, Camarines Sur. Feliciano alleged that he bought the property in question from Victor Gardiola by virtue of a Contract of Sale dated May 31, 1952,followed by a Deed of Absolute Sale on October 30, 1954; that Gardiola had acquired the property by purchase from the heirs of Francisco Abrazado whose title to the said property was evidenced by an informacion posesoria that upon his purchase of the property, he took actual possession of the same, introduced various improvements there in and caused it to be surveyed in July 1952, which survey was approved by the Director of Lands on October 24, 1954.On November 1, 1954, President Ramon Magsaysay issued Proclamation No. 90 reserving for settlement purposes, under the administration of the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA), a tract of land situated in the Municipalities of Tinambac and Siruma, Camarines Sur, after which the NARRA and its successor agency, the Land Authority, started sub-dividing and distributing the land to the settlers; that the property in question, while located within the reservation established under Proclamation No. 90,

BENITO LIM VS HERBERT BROWNELL

FACTS: The property in dispute consists of four parcels of land situated in Tondo, Manila. The lands were,

after the last world war, found by the Alien Property Custodian of the United States to be registered in the name of Asaichi Kagawa, national of an enemy country, Japan. Alien Property Custodian, issued a vesting order on the authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act of the United States, as amended, vesting in himself the ownership over two of the said lots, Lots Nos. 1 and 2. On July 6, 1948, the Philippine Alien Property Administrator (successor of the Alien Property Custodian) under the authority of the same statute, issued a supplemental vesting order, vesting in himself title to the remaining Lots Nos. 3 and 4. The Philippine Alien Property Administrator (acting on behalf of the President of the US) and the President of the Philippines executed two formal agreements, one referring to Lots 1 and 2 and the other to Lots 3 and 4, whereby the said Administrator transferred all the said four lots to the Republic of the Philippines. The transfer agreements were executed. On the theory that the lots in question still belonged to Arsenia Enriquez, the latters son Benito Lim filed a formal notice of claim to the property with the Philippine Alien Property Administrator. The notice was subsequently amended to permit Lim to prosecute the claim as administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased Arsenia Enriquez, thus, in effect, substituting the inestate estate as the claimant, it being alleged that the lots were once the property of Arsenia Enriquez. The claim was disallowed by the Vested Property Claims Committee of the Philippine Alien Property Administrator. The claimant Benito Lim filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Philippine Alien Property Administrator (later substituted by the Atty General of the United States) for the recovery of the property in question with back rents. The complaint was later amended to include Asaichi Kagawa as defendant. As amended, it alleged that the lands in question formerly belonged to Arsenia Enriquez. He stated some reasons in his allegations to prove that Arsenia is the owner of the property. Plaintiff, therefore, prayed that the sheriffs sale to Kagawa and the vesting of the properties in the Philippine Alien Property Administrator and the transfer thereof by the United States to the Republic of the Philippines be declared null and void; that Arsenia Enriquez be adjudged owner of the said properties and the Register of the Deeds of Manila be ordered to issue the corresponding transfer certificates of title to her. The Court ordered the complaint dismissed on the ground as stated in the dispositive part of the

order that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action. ISSUE: Whether or not Lim has the right to sue or claim for damages against the Republic and Attorney General of the United States? HELD: The immunity of the state from suit, however cannot be invoked where the action, as in the present case, is instituted by a person who is neither an enemy or ally of an enemy for the purpose of establishing his right, title or interest in vested property, and of recovering his ownership and possession. Congressional consent to such suit has expressly been given by the United States. The order of dismissal, however, with respect to plaintiffs claim for damages against the defendant Attorney General of the US must be upheld. The relief available to a person claiming enemy property which has been vested by the Philippines Alien Property Custodian is limited to those expressly provided for in the Trading with the Enemy Act, which does not include a suit for damages for the use of such vested property. That action, as held by this Court in the Castelo case just cited, is not one of those authorized under the act which may be instituted in the appropriate courts of the Philippines under the provisions of section 3 of the Philippine Property Act of 1946. Congressional consent to such suit has not been granted. The claim for damages for the use of the property against the intervenor defendant Republic of the Philippines, to which it was transferred, likewise, cannot be maintained because of the immunity of the state from suit. The claim obviously constitutes a charge against, or financial liability to, the Government and consequently cannot be entertained by the courts except with he consent of said government.

SANTIAGO VS PHILIPPINES

REPUBLIC

OF

THE

FACTS: On 20 Jan 1971, Santiago gratuitously donated a parcel of land to the Bureau of Plant Industry. The terms of the donation are; that the Bureau should construct a building on the said lot and that the building should be finished by December 7, 1974, that the Bureau should install lighting facilities on the said lot. However, come 1976 there were still no improvements on the lot. This prompted Santiago to file a case pleading for the revocation of such contract of donation. The trial court

dismissed the petition claiming that it is a suit against the government and should not prosper without the consent of the government. ISSUE: Whether or not the state has not waived its immunity from suit. HELD: The government has waived its immunity and such waiver is implied by virtue of the terms provided in the deed of donation. The government is a beneficiary of the terms of the donation. But the government through the Bureau has breached the terms of the deed by not complying with such, therefore, the donor Santiago has the right to have his day in court and be heard. Further, to not allow the donor to be heard would be unethical and contrary to equity which the government so advances. Case should prosper.

We hold that a defendant in a criminal case is not guilty by reason of insanity if at the time of the conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he is unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct. We reach this conclusion for several reasons. First, a majority of psychiatrists believe there are not enough accurate scientific bases for measuring a persons capacity for self-control. Secondly, the risks of fabrication in administering the insanity defense are greatest when the experts and the jury are asked to speculate about the defendants capacity to control himself. In addition, testimony concerning volition is more likely to confuse the jury than testimony about an appreciation for the wrongfulness of an act. Finally, the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt makes it an almost improbable task with regard to the present state of medical knowledge. Dissent. Judge Rubin and Judge Tate dissenting. An adjudication of guilt is not only a factual determination but a moral judgment that an individual is to blame. The courts decision rests on its desire to redefine insanity and to narrow the defense on policy considerations. Pleas of insanity are rarely successfully made and many do not even go to trial. There is a perception that an individual who successfully pleads insanity is released form custody. In almost every case, the individual is hospitalized and evaluated for dangerousness. The proper inquiry under either branch of the insanity test is a subjective one focusing on the defendants state of mind. Our duty to investigate defendants state of mind is not based on expert testimony, but the ethical tenet that his mental state is a vital aspect of his blameworthiness. The availability of expert testimony and probative value of such testimony are evidentiary problems that can fit within the existing test.

LYONS VS USA

FACTS: Lyons was convicted of twelve counts of knowingly and intentionally securing controlled narcotics. During trial, Lyons claimed his drug addiction was a mental disease within the definition proscribed in the insanity defense. He offered evidence that in 1978 he became addicted to several prescription drugs given to him for pain relief from ailments. In addition, Lyons sought to present expert witnesses who would testify that his drug addiction changed the physiology and psychology of his brain resulting in an incapacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. The trial court, however, excluded the proffered evidence. ISSUE: Whether or not the existing insanity defense standard of a lack of capacity to conform ones conduct to the requirements of the law coincides with current medical and scientific knowledge? HELD: No. Judge Gee delivered the opinion of the court. Although addiction is not a mental disease, the addiction itself may cause actual physical damage to the brain resulting in a mental disease or defect of the brain. Defendant rightfully sought to offer such evidence to the jury. Although the court no longer recognizes the volitional prong under the insanity defense, defendant should be afforded the opportunity to offer such evidence in an attempt to satisfy the cognitive prong.

U.S.A VS. GUINTO

FACTS: Several cases have been consolidated because they all involve the doctrine of state immunity. The United States of America was not impleaded in the complaints below but has moved to dismiss on the ground that they are in effect suits against it to which it has not consented. It is now contesting the denial of its motions by the respondent judges. In G.R. No. 76607, the private respondents are suing several officers of the U.S. Air Force stationed in Clark Air Base in connection with the bidding conducted by them for contracts for barber services in the said base.

In G.R. No. 79470, Fabian Genove filed a complaint for damages against petitioners Anthony Lamachia, Wilfredo Belsa, Rose Cartalla and Peter Orascion for his dismissal as cook in the U.S. Air Force Recreation Center at the John Hay Air Station in Baguio City. It had been ascertained after investigation, from the testimony of Belsa Cartalla and Orascion, that Genove had poured urine into the soup stock used in cooking the vegetables served to the club customers. Lamachia, as club manager, suspended him and thereafter referred the case to a board of arbitrators conformably to the collective bargaining agreement between the Center and its employees. The board unanimously found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. This was effected on March 5, 1986, by Col. David C. Kimball, Commander of the 3rd Combat Support Group, PACAF Clark Air Force Base. Genove's reaction was to file Ms complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City against the individual petitioners. In G.R. No. 80018, Luis Bautista, who was employed as a barracks boy in Camp O' Donnell, an extension of Clark Air Base, was arrested following a buy-bust operation conducted by the individual petitioners herein, namely, Tomi J. King, Darrel D. Dye and Stephen F. Bostick, officers of the U.S. Air Force and special agents of the Air Force Office of Special Investigators (AFOSI). On the basis of the sworn statements made by them, an information for violation of R.A. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, was filed against Bautista in the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac. The abovenamed officers testified against him at his trial. As a result of the filing of the charge, Bautista was dismissed from his employment. He then filed a complaint for damages against the individual petitioners herein claiming that it was because of their acts that he was removed. In G.R. No. 80258, a complaint for damages was filed by the private respondents against the herein petitioners (except the United States of America), for injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiffs as a result of the acts of the defendants.9 There is a conflict of factual allegations here. According to the 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. The defendants deny this and claim the plaintiffs were arrested for theft and were bitten by the dogs because they were struggling and resisting arrest, The defendants stress that the dogs were called off and the plaintiffs were immediately taken to the medical center for treatment of their wounds. ISSUE: Whether or not the doctrine of state immunity is applicable on the said cases.

RULING: The answer depends on each and every case involved. As applied to the local state, the doctrine of state immunity is based on the justification given by Justice Holmes that "there can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which the right depends." There are other practical reasons for the enforcement of the doctrine. In the case of the foreign state sought to be impleaded in the local jurisdiction, the added inhibition is expressed in the maxim par in parem, non habet imperium. All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. A contrary disposition would, in the language of a celebrated case, "unduly vex the peace of nations." While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent, it is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. The rule is that if the judgment against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same, such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages awarded against them, the suit must be regarded as against the state itself although it has not been formally impleaded.14 In such a situation, the state may move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it has been filed without its consent. The doctrine is sometimes derisively called "the royal prerogative of dishonesty" because of the privilege it grants the state to defeat any legitimate claim against it by simply invoking its non-suability. That is hardly fair, at least in democratic societies, for the state is not an unfeeling tyrant unmoved by the valid claims of its citizens. In fact, the doctrine is not absolute and does not say the state may not be sued under any circumstance. On the contrary, the rule says that the state may not be sued without its consent, which clearly imports that it may be sued if it consents. The general law waiving the immunity of the state from suit is found in Act No. 3083, under which the Philippine government "consents and submits to be sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract, express or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil action between private parties. When the government 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. Waiver is also implied when the government files a complaint, thus opening itself to a counterclaim.

There is no question that the United States of America, 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. The other petitioners in the cases before us all aver they have acted in the discharge of their official functions as officers or agents of the United States. However, this is a matter of evidence. The charges against them may not be summarily dismissed on their mere assertion that their acts are imputable to the United States of America, which has not given its consent to be sued. In fact, the defendants are sought to be held answerable for personal torts in which the United States itself is not involved. If found liable, they and they alone must satisfy the judgment. WHEREFORE, after considering all the above premises, the Court hereby renders judgment as follows: 1. In G.R. No. 76607, the petition is DISMISSED and the respondent judge is directed to proceed with the hearing and decision of Civil Case No. 4772. The temporary restraining order dated December 11, 1986, is LIFTED. 2. In G.R. No. 79470, the petition is GRANTED and Civil Case No. 829-R(298) is DISMISSED. 3. In G.R. No. 80018, the petition is GRANTED and Civil Case No. 115-C-87 is DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order dated October 14, 1987, is made permanent. 4. In G.R. No. 80258, the petition is DISMISSED and the respondent court is directed to proceed with the hearing and decision of Civil Case No. 4996. The temporary restraining order dated October 27, 1987, is LIFTED

Whether the US naval base in bidding for said contracts exercise governmental functions to be able to invoke state immunity. HELD: The traditional role of the state immunity exempts a state from being sued in the courts of another state without its consent or waiver. This rule is necessary consequence of the principle of independence and equality of states. However, the rules of international law are not petrified; they are continually and evolving and because the activities of states have multiplied. It has been necessary to distinguish them between sovereign and governmental acts and private, commercial and proprietary acts. The result is that state immunity now extends only to sovereign and governmental acts. The restrictive 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. A state may be descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued. Only when it enters into business contracts. It does not apply where the contracts relates the exercise of its sovereign function. 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.

MINISTERIO VS. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

FACTS: Petitioners as plaintiffs in a complaint filed with the Court of First Instance of Cebu, dated April 13, 1966, sought the payment of just compensation for a registered lot, containing an area of 1045 square meters, alleging that in 1927 the National Government through its authorized representatives took physical and material possession of it and used it for the widening of the Gorordo Avenue, a national road, Cebu City, without paying just compensation and without any agreement, either written or verbal. There was an allegation of repeated demands for the payment of its price or return of its possession, but defendants Public Highway Commissioner and the Auditor General refused to restore its possession. It was further alleged that on August 25, 1965, the appraisal committee of the City of Cebu approved Resolution No. 90, appraising the reasonable and just price of Lot No. 647-B at P50.00 per square meter or a total price of P52,250.00. Thereafter, the complaint was

US VS. RUIZ

FACTS: The USA had a naval base in Subic, Zambales. The base was one of those provided in the military bases agreement between Phililppines and the US. 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. For this reason, a suit for specific performance was filed by him against the US. ISSUE:

amended on June 30, 1966 in the sense that the remedy prayed for was in the alternative, either the restoration of possession or the payment of the just compensation. In the answer filed by defendants, now respondents, through the then Solicitor General, now Associate Justice, Antonio P. Barredo, the principal defense relied upon was that the suit in reality was one against the government and therefore should be dismissed, no consent having been shown. Then on July 11, 1969, the parties submitted a stipulation of facts to this effect: "That the plaintiffs are the registered owners of Lot 647-B of the Banilad estate described in the Survey plan RS-600 GLRO Record No. 5988 and more particularly described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-5963 containing an area of 1,045 square meters; That the National Government in 1927 took possession of Lot 647-B Banilad estate, and used the same for the widening of Gorordo Avenue; That the Appraisal Committee of Cebu City approved Resolution No. 90, Series of 1965 fixing the price of Lot No. 647-B at P50.00 per square meter; That Lot No. 647-B is still in the possession of the National Government the same being utilized as part of the Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City, and that the National Government has not as yet paid the value of the land which is being utilized for public use." The lower court dismissed the complaint on January 30, 1969 stating that the case is undoubtedly against the National Government and there is now showing that the Government has not consented to be sued in this case. The petitioners appealed by certiorari to review the decision and contended that they are entitled for just compensation under the Art III, Sec. 1 (2) of the Constitution. ISSUE: Whether or not, the decision of the CFI of Cebu to dismiss the complaint by reason Government immunity from suit correct? HELD: NO. The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot be an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. If there were an observance of procedural regularity, petitioners would not be in sad plaint they are now. It is unthinkable then that precisely there was a failure on what the law requires and the petitioners has the right to demand from the Government what is due to them. The Supreme Court decided that the lower courts decision of dismissing the complaint is reversed and the case remanded to the lower court for proceedings in accordance with law.

AMIGABLE VS. CUENCA

FACTS: Appeal from CFI of Cebu, dismissing plaintiffs complaint. Victoria Amigable, the appellant herein, is the registered owner of Lot No. 639 of the Banilad Estate in Cebu City. No annotation in favor of the government of any right or interest in the property appears at the back of the transfer certificate of title of said lot. Without prior expropriation or negotiated sale, the government used a portion of said lot, with an area of 6,167 square meters, for the construction of the Mango and Gorordo Avenues. Amigable's counsel wrote the President of the Philippines, requesting payment of the portion of her lot which had been appropriated by the government; Auditor General disallowed it. Amigable filed for recovery of ownership to said CFI, but denied on grounds primarily that government is immune from suit without its consent. ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant may properly sue the government under the facts of the case. HELD: It is not immune from suit. Where the government takes away property from a private landowner for public use without going through the legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit against the government without thereby violating the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit without its consent (Ministerio vs. CFI of Cebu). Since no annotation in favor of the government appears at the back of her certificate of title and that she has not executed any deed of conveyance of any portion of her lot to the government, the appellant remains the owner of the whole lot. The only relief available (since Avenues have been constructed) is for the government to make due compensation. To determine due compensation for the land, the basis should be the price or value thereof at the time of the taking. The plaintiff is entitled to damages in the form of legal interest on the price of the land from the time it was taken up to the time that payment is made by the government. Government should pay attorneys fees.

DE LOS SANTOS APPELATE COURT

VS.

INTERMEDIATE

FACTS:

Petitioners were co-owners of a parcel of land located in Barrio Wawa,Binangonan, Rizal (19,061 square meters). They filed civil case no. 46800, against Lorenzo Cadiente, a private contractor and Provincial Engineer constructed a road within their property without their consent. Respondents also constructed an artificial creek occupying 2906 square meters of their property. They also filed Civil Case no. 46801 against deprivation of property without due process of law and without compensation. The two cases were consolidated and Solicitor General filed a motion to dismiss both cases. ISSUE: Whether or not the State may be sued being that it has not given its consent. HELD: YES. From Amigable v Cuenca: where a governments takes away property from a private landowner for public use without going through the legal process of expropriation or negotiated sale, a suit may properly be maintained against the government. The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetratingan injustice on a citizen. The civil action may be based under Art 32 NCC and the constitutional provisions on rights against privation of property without due process of law and without just compensation.

Supplemental Agreement dated December 28, 1993 were executed by the Marcos children and then PCGG Chairman Magtanggol Gunigundo for a global settlement of the assets of the Marcos family. The General Agreement/Supplemental Agreements sought to identify, collate, cause the inventory of and distribute all assets presumed to be owned by the Marcos family under the conditions contained therein. The General Agreement specified in one of its premises or "whereas clauses" the fact that petitioner "obtained a judgment from the Swiss Federal Tribunal on December 21, 1990, that the Three Hundred Fifty-six Million U.S. dollars (US$356 million) belongs in principle to the Republic of the Philippines provided certain conditionalities are met x x x. Hearings were conducted by the Sandiganbayan on the motion to approve the General/Supplemental Agreements. In a resolution dated 31 January 2002, the Sandiganbayan denied the Republic's motion for summary judgment." The evidence offered for summary judgment of the case did not prove that the money in the Swiss Banks belonged to the Marcos spouses because no legal proof exists in the record as to the ownership by the Marcoses of the funds in escrow from the Swiss Banks. The basis for the forfeiture in favor of the government cannot be deemed to have been established and our judgment thereon, perforce, must also have been without basis." The Republic filed the petition for certiorari. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Republic was able to prove its case for forfeiture in accordance with the requisites of Sections 26 and 37 of RA 1379? HELD:

REPUBLIC V. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS: Republic (petitioner), through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a petition for forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan pursuant to RA 1379 declaration of the aggregate amount of US$ 356M deposited in escrow in the PNB, as ill-gotten wealth. The funds were previously held by 5 account groups, using various foreign foundations in certain Swiss banks. In addition, the Republic sought the forfeiture of US$25 million and US$5 million in treasury notes which exceeded the Marcos couple's salaries other lawful income as well as income from legitimately acquired property. The treasury notes are frozen at the Central Bank of the Philippines, now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, by virtue of the freeze order issued by the PCGG. Before the case was set for pre-trial, a General Agreement and the

RA 1379 raises the prima facie presumption that a property is unlawfully acquired, hence subject to forfeiture, if its amount or value is manifestly disproportionate to the official salary and other lawful income of the public officer who owns it. The following facts must be established in order that forfeiture or seizure of the Swiss deposits may be effected: (1) ownership by the public officer of money or property acquired during his incumbency, whether it be in his name or otherwise, and (2) the extent to which the amount of that money or property exceeds, i. e., is grossly disproportionate to, the legitimate income of the public officer, (3) that the said amount is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property. The Republic was able to establish a prima facie case for the forfeiture of the Swiss funds pursuant to RA 1379.

Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos were public officers. Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos had acquired and owned properties during their term of office, as evidenced by their admittance regarding the ownership of the Swiss accounts. The Swiss accounts of the Marcoses had balances amounting to US$356 million, a figure beyond the aggregate legitimate income of $304,372.43. The Petition was granted. The Swiss deposits which were transferred to and are now deposited in escrow at the Philippine National Bank in the estimated aggregate amount of US$658,175,373.60 as of January 31, 2002, plus interest, are hereby forfeited in favor of petitioner.

liability adjudged. The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either by general or special law, it may limit claimants action only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution and that the power of the Courts ends when the judgment is rendered, since the government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is based on obvious considerations of public policy. The functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law.

REPUBLIC VS. VILLASOR, ET AL DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE VS. NLRC FACTS: Respondent Honorable Guillermo Villasor issued an Order declaring the decision final and executory. Villasor directed the Sheriffs of Rizal Province, Quezon City as well as Manila to execute said decision. The Provincial Sheriff of Rizal served Notices of Garnishment with several Banks, especially on Philippine Veterans Bank and PNB. The funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines on deposit with Philippine Veterans Bank and PNB are public funds duly appropriated and allocated for the payment of pensions of retirees, pay and allowances of military and civilian personnel and for maintenance and operations of the AFP. Petitioner, on certiorari, filed prohibition proceedings against respondent Judge Villasor for acting in excess of jurisdiction with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in granting the issuance of a Writ of Execution against the properties of the AFP, hence the notices and garnishment are null and void. ISSUE: Is the Writ of Execution issued by Judge Villasor valid? HELD: It is a fundamental postulate of constitutionalism flowing from the juristic concept of sovereignty that the state as well as its government is immune from suit unless it gives its consent. A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. A corollary, both dictated by logic and sound sense from a basic concept is that public funds cannot be the object of a garnishment proceeding even if the consent to be sued had been previously granted and the state FACTS: Petitioner Department of Agriculture (DA) and Sultan Security Agency entered into a contract for security services to be provided by the latter to the said governmental entity. Pursuant to their arrangements, guards were deployed by Sultan Security Agency in the various premises of the DA. Thereafter, several guards filed a complaint for underpayment of wages, nonpayment of 13th month pay, uniform allowances, night shift differential pay, holiday pay, and overtime pay, as well as for damages against the DA and the security agency. The petitioner charges the NLRC with grave abuse of discretion for refusing to quash the writ of execution. The petitioner faults the NLRC for assuming jurisdiction over a money claim against the Department, which, it claims, falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit. More importantly, the petitioner asserts, the NLRC has disregarded the cardinal rule on the nonsuability of the State. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner can be sue. HELD: The rule, in any case, is not really absolute for it does not say that the state may not be sued under any circumstances. On the contrary, as correctly phrased, the doctrine only conveys, "the state may not be sued without its consent;" its clear import then is that the State may at times be sued. In this jurisdiction, the general law waiving the immunity of the state from suit is found in Act No. 3083, where the Philippine government "consents and submits to be sued upon any money claims involving liability arising from contract, express or

implied, which could serve as a basis of civil action between private parties." Implied consent, on the other hand, is conceded when the State itself commences litigation, thus opening itself to a counterclaim or when it enters into a contract. In this situation, the government is deemed to have descended to the level of the other contracting party and to have divested itself of its sovereign immunity. This rule, relied upon by the NLRC and the private respondents, is not, however, without qualification. Not all contracts entered into by the government operate as a waiver of its nonsuability; distinction must still be made between one which is executed in the exercise of its sovereign function and another which is done in its proprietary capacity.

HELD: No jurisdiction was ever acquired by the Labor Arbiter over the case and the person of petitioner and the judgment rendered is null and void. Summonses and other processes issued by Philippine courts and administrative agencies for United States Armed Forces personnel within any U.S. base in the Philippines could be served therein only with the permission of the Base Commander. If he withholds giving his permission, he should instead designate another person to serve the process, and obtain the server's affidavit for filing with the appropriate court. Respondent Labor Arbiter did not follow said procedure. He instead, addressed the summons to Lt. Col. Frankhauser and not the Base Commander. Respondents do not dispute petitioner's claim that no summons was ever issued and served on her. They contend, however, that they sent notices of the hearings to her Notices of hearing are not summonses. The provisions and prevailing jurisprudence in Civil Procedure may be applied by analogy to NLRC proceedings (Revised Rules of the NLRC, RuleI, Sec. 3).It is basic that the Labor Arbiter cannot acquire jurisdiction over the person of the respondent without the latter being served with summons. In the absence of service of summons or a valid waiver thereof, the hearings and judgment rendered by the Labor Arbiter are null and void. Petitioner, in the case at bench, appealed to the NLRC and participated in the oral argument before the said body. This, however, does not constitute a waiver of the lack of summons and a voluntary submission of her person to the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. She may have raised in her pleadings grounds other than lack of jurisdiction, but these grounds were discussed in relation to and as a result of the issue of the lack of jurisdiction. In effect, petitioner set forth only one issue and that is the absence of jurisdiction over her person. If an appearance before the NLRC is precisely to question the jurisdiction of the said agency over the person of the defendant, then this appearance is not equivalent to service of summons. Be that as it may, on the assumption that petitioner validly waived service of summons on her, still the case could not prosper. There is no allegation from the pleadings filed that Lt. Col. Frankhauser and petitioner were being sued in their personal capacities for tortuous acts. However, private respondents named 3AGSasone of the respondents in their complaint. Private respondents were dismissed from their employment by Lt. Col. Frankhauser acting for and in behalf of the U.S. Government. The employer of private respondents was neither Lt. Col. Frankhauser nor petitioner. The employer of private respondents, as found by NLRC, was the U.S.

LARKINS VS.NLRC

FACTS: On August 12, 1988, private respondents filed a complaint with the Regional Arbitration Branch No. III of the NLRC, San Fernando, Pampanga, against petitioner Larkins, a member of the United States Air Force (USAF) assigned to oversee the dormitories of the Third Aircraft Generation Squadron (3AGS) at Clark Air Base, Pampanga., Lt. Col. Frankhauser, and Cunanan (the new contractor ) for illegal dismissal and under payment of wages. Petitioner and Lt. Col. Frankhauser failed to answer the complaint and to appear at the hearings. They, likewise, failed to submit their position paper, which the Labor Arbiter deemed a waiver on their part to do so. On the basis of private respondents' position paper and supporting documents, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision granting all the claims of private respondents. He found both Lt. Col. Frankhauser and petitioner guilty of illegal dismissal" and ordered them to reinstate private respondents with full back wages, or if that is no longer possible, to pay private respondents' separation pay. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC claiming that the Labor Arbiter never acquired jurisdiction over her person because no summons or copies of the complaints, both original and amended, were ever served on her. In her "Supplemental Memorandum to Memorandum of Appeal," petitioner argued that the attempts to serve her with notices of hearing were not in accordance with the provisions of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement of 1947. ISSUE: Whether or not the questioned resolutions are null and void.

Government which, by right of sovereign power, operated and maintained the dormitories at Clark Air Base for members of the USAF. Indeed, assuming that jurisdiction was acquired over the United States Government and the monetary claims of private respondents proved, such awards will have to be satisfied not by Lt. Col. Frankhauser and petitioner in their personal capacities, but by the United States government.

PNB VS. PABALAN

FACTS: Philippine National Bank invoked the doctrine of non-suability in behalf of PVTA. It is to be admitted that under the present Constitution, what was formerly implicit as a fundamental doctrine in constitutional law has been set forth in express terms: "The State may not be sued without its consent." In addition, the amount held by said bank is subject to garnishment. ISSUE: The petitioner is requesting for certiorari against the writ of execution authorized by the Hon Judge Pabalan regarding the transfer of funds amounting to P12,724.66 belonging to Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration. HELD: The certiorari was dismissed without cost by the Supreme Court saying that the funds held by PNB is subject for garnishment, thus, the writ of execution be imposed immediately. The nonsuability clause raised by PVTA being a government owned corporation was also denied citing previous decisions held by the Supreme Court specifically citing that of Manila Hotel Employees Association vs Manila Hotel Company and to quote 'it is wellsettled that when the government enters into commercial business, it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation.'

damage accordingly in the sum of P2,666, instead of P6,000 as claimed by plaintiff in his complaint." The Attorney-General on behalf of the defendant urges that the trial court erred: (a)in finding that the collision between the plaintiff's motorcycle and the ambulance of the General Hospital was due to the negligence of the chauffeur, who is an alleged agent or employee of the Government; (b) in holding that the Government of the Philippine Islands is liable for the damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the collision, even if it be true that the collision was due to the negligence of the chauffeur; and (c) in rendering judgment against the defendant for the sum of P14,741. Consequently, the Government issued an act allowing the plaintiff to commence a lawsuit against it. ISSUE: 1) WON the Government conceded its liability to the plaintiff by allowing a law suit to commence against it. 2) WON the chauffeur is a government employee or agent. HELD: 1) NO. By consenting to be sued a state simply waives its immunity from suit. It does not thereby concede its liability to plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his favor, or extend its liability to any cause not previously recognized. It merely gives a remedy to enforce a pre-existing liability and submits itself to the jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right to interpose any lawful defense. 2) NO. We will now examine the substantive law touching the defendant's liability for the negligent acts of its officers, agents, and employees. Paragraph 5 of article 1903 of the Civil Code reads: The state is liable in this sense when it acts through a special agent, but not when the damage should have been caused by the official to whom properly it pertained to do the act performed, in which case the provisions of the preceding article shall be applicable . The responsibility of the state is limited to that which it contracts through a special agent, duly empowered by a definite order or commission to perform some act or charged with some definite purpose which gives rise to the claim. The chauffeur of the ambulance of the General Hospital was not such an agent.

MERRITT VS. GOVERNMENT PHILIPPINEISLANDS

OF

THE

FACTS: Counsel for the plaintiff insists that the trial court erred (1) "in limiting the general damages which the plaintiff suffered to P5,000,instead of P25,000 as claimed in the complaint," and (2) "in limiting the time when plaintiff was entirely disabled to two months and twenty-one days and fixing the