Rayo vs.

CFI of Bulacan
Facts: October 26, 1978, typhoon Kading was at its height causing respondent corporation plant superintendent of Angat Da !en"a in #ha$e% to open & floodgates si ultaneously causing da age to 'or%agaray lea$ing about a hundred dead and illion of pesos destroyed( 11 cases were filed for da ages against respondent corp )'ational *ower #orp+ and plant superintendent !en"a in #ha$e%( ,espondent corp clai ed that operation of Angat Da was a purely go$ern ental function so it cannot be sued without the consent of the state( #ourt dis issed all cases filed against the respondent corporation and ade !en"a in #ha$e%, superintendent of Angat Da the sole party-defendant( .otion for reconsideration fro petitioners was dis issed( Isssue/ 0hether '*# is i une fro suit 1( 0hether respondent '*# perfor s a go$ern ental function with respect to the anage ent and operation of the Angat Da 2( 0hether the power of the respondent '*# to sue and be sued under its organic charter includes the power to be sued for tort Held/ '*# is not i une fro suit( 'o need to deter ine whether '*# was perfor ing go$ern ental function with respect to the anage ent and operation of Angat Da ( 1he fact that go$t has organi%ed a pri$ate corp, put oney in it, and allowed it to sue and be sued in any court under its charter deter ines suability( 1his can include a tort clai ( Decision/ #ourt should reinstate the co plaints of the petitioners(

Mobil Philippines Explo ation Inc. vs. Custo!s " ast e #e vice
)Appeal fro an order of dis issal+

Facts: 2 #ases of rotary drill were shipped( 1hese were consigned to .obil *hils( 34ploration 5nc( 6hip ent and were discharged to the custody of #usto s Arrastre 6er$ice( Only & cases were deli$ered( .obil *hils( 34ploration 5nc( filed suit against #usto s Arrastre 6er$ice( Issue: 0hether #usto s Arrastre 6er$ice can be sued by pri$ate indi$iduals Held: #usto s Arrastre 6er$ice cannot be sued( *er ,ules of #ourt 6ec 1 ,ule &/ 76ec 1/ Who may be parties- Only natural or "uridical persons or entities authori%ed by law ay be parties 5 ci$il action( 7 Accordingly, a defendant in ci$il suit authori%ed by laws to be sued( ust be 1+ natural person8 2+ "uridical person and &+ an entity

#usto s Arrastre 6er$ice is neither a natural nor "uridical person8 therefore it cannot be sued on the first 2 rules( !ut at that ti e, its function was proprietary, not go$ern ental so it can be sued under the & rd rule( !asis of which was ,epublic Act 19&7 )1ariff and #usto s #ode+ 6ec( 121& of Receiving, Handling, Custody and Delivery of Articles: Although Arrastre ser$ice ay be dee ed proprietary, it is a necessary

incident of the pri ary and go$ern ental function of the !ureau of #usto s, acting as part of the achinery of the national go$t, thereby i une fro suit( Decision/ Order of dis issal affir ed(

Depa t!ent of "$ icultu e vs. %&RC '%ational &abo Relations Co!!ission(
Petitione : Dept. of "$ icultu e Respondent: %&RC Facts: On April 1, 1989, Dept( of Agriculture and 6ultan 6ecurity Agency entered into a contract for security ser$ices latter will pro$ide for er( #ases were filed by guards for underpay ent )non-pay ent of 1&th onth, holiday and o$erti e pay, night differential, unifor allowance and da ages+ against Dept( of Agriculture and 6ultan 6ecurity Agency( 9abor arbiter rendered decision that petitioner with 6ultan 6ecurity Agency are "ointly and se$erally liable for the pay ent of the oney clai s( On :uly 18, 1991, writ of e4ecution was issued( #ity 6heriff le$eled e4ecution by sei%ing properties of petitioner for public auction( *etition for in"unction, prohibition and anda us was filed )by Dept( of Agriculture+ with prayer for preli inary writ of in"unction because per petitioner, sei%ure of its property would ha per and "eopardi%e petitioner;s go$ern ental functions to the pre"udice of the public good( Issue: 0hether Dept( of Agriculture is suable8 whether writ of e4ecution is $alid Held: Dept( of Agriculture is suable on the basis that it descended itself to the le$el of indi$idual upon contracting with 6ultan 6ecurity Agency( <owe$er, no e4ecution can be applied because disburse ent of funds needs appropriation fro the law so as not to ha per public ser$ices(