PCGG vs Sandiganbayan, et al
G.R. Nos. 151809-12. April 12, 2005

On February 1991, Former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoz, who has currently resumed the private practice
of law, was sought to be disqualified from representing the Lucio Tan group, in the 1987 case involving General Bank
and Trust Company (GENBANK) as one of those properties subject to a writ of sequestration by PCGG being alleged
to be ill –gotten wealth acquired during the Marcos Regime. It was averred by the PCGG that there exists an adverse
interest on Mendoza since he was the one who filed a petition praying for assistance and supervision of the court in
the liquidation of GENBANK when he was still a Solicitor General, which bank was subsequently owned by the Lucio
Tan group when it submitted the winning bid.
PCGG invokes Rule 6.03of the Code of Professional Responsibility which prohibits former government lawyers from
accepting “engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said
Sandiganbayan rejects PCGG’s motion by arguing that CGG failed to prove the existence of an inconsistency between
respondent Mendoza’s former function as Solicitor General and his present employment as counsel of the Lucio Tan
group and that Mendoza’s appearance as counsel for respondents Tan, et al. was beyond the one-year prohibited
period under Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 6713 since he ceased to be Solicitor General in the year 1986.

Issue: WON Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to respondent Mendoza

No, Rule 6.03 of the CPR is inapplicable in the case. Rule 6.03 – A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service,
accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service.
The motion for disqualification should be dismissed for the following reasons:
1) After discussing the history of the present Code of Professional Responsibility which revealed that the word
“intervene” is applicable to both adverse interest conflicts and congruent interest conflicts, it has been found
that neither of these conflicts exists in the liquidation case and the sequestration case.

2) The legality of the liquidation of GENBANK is not an issue in the sequestration cases.
The “matter” where he got himself involved was in informing Central Bank on the procedure provided by law
to liquidate GENBANK through the courts and in filing the necessary petition in the then Court of First
Instance. The subject “matter” of the special proceeding, therefore, is not the same nor is related to but is
different from the subject “matter” in the civil case. The civil case involves the sequestration of the stocks
owned by respondents Tan, et al., in Allied Bank on the alleged ground that they are ill-gotten. The case does
not involve the liquidation of GENBANK. Nor does it involve the sale of GENBANK to Allied Bank. Whether the
shares of stock of the reorganized Allied Bank are ill-gotten is far removed from the issue of the dissolution
and liquidation of GENBANK. GENBANK was liquidated by the Central Bank due, among others, to the alleged
banking malpractices of its owners and officers.

3) Mendoza’s intervention in the liquidation of Genbank is not substantial and significant to warrant
The petition in the special proceedings is an initiatory pleading, hence, it has to be signed by respondent
Mendoza as the then sitting Solicitor General. For another, the record is arid as to the actual participation of
respondent Mendoza in the subsequent proceedings. Moreover, the petition filed merely seeks
the assistance of the court in the liquidation of GENBANK. The principal role of the court in this type of
proceedings is to assist the Central Bank in determining claims of creditors against the GENBANK.
It is worthy to note that in construing the words of such rule in this case, the Court balanced the two policy
considerations of having a chilling effect on government recruitment of able legal talent and the use of former
government employment as a litigation tactic to harass opposing counsel.


Article 3 provides: Art. accordingly. cited an Order issued by the Institute to the effect that "in all cases of termination. No.blogspot. There is in this case "a categorical recognition by the Executive Branch of the Government that IRRI enjoys immunities accorded to international organizations. However. civil and administrative proceedings. it is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of the government or other officer acting under his direction. 1620. In this petition petitioner contends that the immunity of the IRRI as an international organization granted by Article 3 of Presidential Decree No. respondent IRRI waives its immunity." and. he was charged with: (1) Driving an institute vehicle while on official duty under the influence of liquor. petitioner figured in an accident. 1620." Issue: Did the (IRRI) waive its immunity from suit in this dispute which arose from an employer-employee relationship? Held: No.D. except insofar as that immunity has been expressly waived by the Director-General of the Institute or his authorized representatives. (2) Serious misconduct consisting of failure to report to supervisors the failure of the vehicle to start because of a problem with the car battery. nonetheless. IRRI issued a Notice of Termination to petitioner.: <http://casesdigests. Petitioner submitted his answer and defenses to the charges against him. 1620. illegal suspension and indemnity pay with moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. J. While admitting IRRI's defense of immunity. and (3) Gross and habitual neglect of duties. was employed as a driver at the IRRI. 3. petitioner. 2 . One day while driving an IRRI vehicle on an official trip to the NAIA and back to the IRRI. It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by the executive branch of the government. The Institute shall enjoy immunity from any penal. 1995/ ROMERO. No. 1620 may not be invoked in the case at bench inasmuch as it waived the same by virtue of its Memorandum on "Guidelines on the handling of dismissed employees in relation to P. not having waived the same.html> Facts: Ernesto Callado. INTERNATIONAL RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE (IRRI) ERNESTO CALLADO vs. In view of the findings. Immunity from Legal Process. 5 and that it invokes such diplomatic immunity and privileges as an international organization in the instant case filed by petitioner. The raison d'etre for these immunities is the assurance of unimpeded performance of their functions by the agencies concerned. Thereafter. The SC upholds the constitutionality of the aforequoted law. petitioner filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal. 106483 May 22. considered the defense of immunity no longer a legal obstacle in resolving the case. The grant of immunity to IRRI is clear and unequivocal and an express waiver by its Director-General is the only way by which it may relinquish or abandon this immunity. Petitioner was informed of the findings of a preliminary investigation conducted by the IRRI's Human Resource Development Department Manager. and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the government as in the case at bar. finding that IRRI did not waive its immunity. ordered the aforesaid decision of the Labor Arbiter set aside and the complaint dismissed. P. The NLRC found merit in private respondent's appeal and. IRRI wrote the Labor Arbiter to inform him that the Institute enjoys immunity from legal process by virtue of Article 3 of Presidential Decree No.R. which determination has been held to be a political question conclusive upon the Courts in order not to embarass a political department of Government. the Labor Arbiter.D.

RTC denied the motion on ground that petitioner already "shed off" its sovereign immunity by entering into a business contract. the petitioner has bought and sold lands in the ordinary course of real estate business.html> December 1.R. Inc. It was noted in Article 31(A) of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that diplomatic envoy shall be granted immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over any real action relating to private immovable property. insists that Holy See should clear the property while Holy See says that respondent corporation should do it or the earnest money will be returned. Cirilos moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity from suit. The subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was also denied hence this special civil action for certiorari was forwarded to the Supreme Court. 1994 Petitioner: The Holy See Respondent: Hon. Elidberto Rosario. the said transaction can be categorized as an act jure gestionis. Furthermore. ISSUE: Whether or not Holy See can invoke sovereign immunity. Holy See vs Rosario G. Rome. was contiguous to Lot 5-B and 5-D under the name of Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC). subsequently returned the P100. The lot was acquired through a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila. but for the use of petitioner to construct the official place of residence of the Papal Nuncio thereof. The Holy See is immune from suit because the act of selling the lot of concern is non-propriety in Cirilios. The Holy See and Msgr. not for a commercial purpose. surely. Respondent Starbright Sales Enterprises Inc. The transfer of the property and its 3 . PRC as well as Tropicana Properties and Development Corporation. FACTS: Petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of land. However. Jr. HELD: The Court held that Holy See may properly invoke sovereign immunity for its non-suability. Said lots were sold through an agent to Ramon Licup who assigned his rights to respondents Starbright Sales Enterprises. registered under the name Holy See. a dispute arose between the two parties because both were unsure whose responsibility was it to evict the squatters from said lots. The land was donated by the Archdiocese of Manila to the Papal Nuncio. Lot 5-A. who exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City. Italy. in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC Makati. 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. Branch 61 and Starbright Sales Enterprises. With this. filed a suit for annulment of the sale. the agent. for his residence. generally accepted principles of International Law are adopted by our Courts and thus shall form part of the laws of the land as a condition and consequence of our admission in the society of nations. 101949 238 SCRA 524 <http://reeseisreal. No. Cirilios.blogspot. it shall be understood that in the case at bar. Inc. The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) certified that the Embassy of the Holy See is a duly accredited diplomatic missionary to the Republic of the Philippines and is thus exempted from local jurisdiction and is entitled to the immunity rights of a diplomatic mission or embassy in this Court.. The same lots were then sold to Tropicana Properties and Development Corporation. signifying that such waiver is discretionary on its part. the Institute may waive its immunity. As expressed in Sec. 2 Art II of the 1987 Constitution.In cases involving dismissed employees.000 earnest money. specific performance and damages against Msgr. Starbright Sales Enterprises. Inc. When the squatters refuse to vacate the lots. which represents the Holy See. Msgr.

In view of the foregoing. the restrictive theory. There is no dispute that the establishment of a diplomatic mission is an act juri imperii. JAMES VINZON. The rules of International> THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA. represented by its Counsellor. holds that the immunity of the sovereign is recognized only with regard to public acts or acts jure imperii (public acts of the government of a state). This concept. The Republic of Indonesia is acting in pursuit of a sovereign activity when it entered into a contract with the respondent. The mere entering into a contract by a foreign state with a private party cannot be construed as the ultimate test of whether or not it is an act juri imperii or juri gestionis. are not unbending or immune to change. Siti Partinah. sole proprietor of Vinzon Trade and Services. as expressed in the maxim par in parem non habet imperium. petitioners. however. All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. the Indonesian Embassy terminated the agreement. The maintenance agreement was entered 4 . he allegedly found respondent’s work and services unsatisfactory and not in compliance with the standards set in the Maintenance Agreement. doing business under the name and style of VINZON TRADE AND SERVICES. HIS EXCELLENCY AMBASSADOR SOERATMIN. The state may enter into contracts with private entities to maintain the premises. When Indonesian Minister Counsellor Kasim assumed the position of Chief of Administration. furnishings and equipment of the embassy. The practical justification for the doctrine of sovereign immunity is that there can be no legal right against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.] A contrary attitude would “unduly vex the peace of nations”. and MINISTER COUNSELLOR AZHARI KASIM.) Rulings: The Supreme Court ruled that the republic of Indonesia cannot be deemed to have waived its immunity to suit. he filed a complaint against the petitioners which opposed by invoking immunity from suit. Issues: Whether or not the Republic of Indonesia can invoke the doctrine of sovereign immunity from suit. No. The respondent claims that the aforesaid termination was arbitrary and unlawful. the rule is derived from the principle of the sovereign equality of States. Whether or not petitioners Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim may be sued herein in their private capacities. Hence. Facts: This is a petition for review of the decision made by Court of Appeals in ruling that the Republic of Indonesia gave its consent to be sued and voluntarily submitted itself to the laws and jurisdiction of Philippine courts and that petitioners Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim waived their immunity from suit.R.subsequent disposal are likewise clothed with a governmental (non-proprietal) character as petitioner sold the lot not for profit or gain rather because it merely cannot evict the squatters living in said property. REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA VS VINZON G. entered into a Maintenance Agreement with respondent James Vinzon. vs. Republic of Indonesia. In the case of foreign States. Such act is only the start of the inquiry. Discussions: The rule that a State may not be sued without its consent is a necessary consequence of the principles of independence and equality of States. The increasing need of sovereign States to enter into purely commercial activities remotely connected with the discharge of their governmental functions brought about a new concept of sovereign immunity. 154705 405 SCRA 126 June 26. The equipment covered by the Maintenance Agreement are air conditioning units and was to take effect in a period of four years. but not with regard to private acts or acts jure gestionis (the commercial activities of a state. the petition is hereby GRANTED and the complaints were dismissed accordingly. 2003 <http://casedigest. Hence.asialighttravel. Petitioner. respondent.

L.Bradford filed two (2) motions for extension of time to file her Answer which were both granted by the trial court. and NELIA T. respondent. for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. < https://www.Montoya filed complaint with RTC-Cavite for damages due to the oppressive and discriminatory acts committed by the latter in excess of her authority as store manager . administrator. . . It cannot be deemed to have waived its immunity from suit.Montoya filed her opposition alleging: o Bradford.Respondent’s body and belongings were searched by Yong Kennedy.academia. Petitioners would have Us annul and set aside. a foreign sovereign immune from suit without its consent for the cause of action pleaded in the complaint. vs. . Bradford cannot rely on the sovereign immunity of the public petitioner because her liability is personal 5 . R. Roynon.Nelia Montoya. but checking the records. Quezon City. at the time material to this case.D. together with USA. hereinafter referred to as Bradford. as Presiding Judge of Branch 22.she was informed by the defendant that the search is to be made on all Jusmag employees that day. heir or legatee as a private person and not on behalf of the sending State. had committed an improper. petitioners. filed Motion to Dismiss on ff. 5500. it’s only she. unlawful and highly discriminatory act against a Filipino employee and had exceeded the scope of her authority o having exceeded her authority. Navy Exchange (NEX) at the Joint United States Military Assistance Group (JUSMAG) headquarters in Quezon City. is immune from suit for act(s) done by her in the performance of her official functions under the Philippines-United States Military Assistance Agreement of 1947 and Military Bases Agreement of 1947. is likewise an American citizen who was the activity exchange manager at the said JUSMAG Headquarters. Bradford's order to have purchases of all employees checked on 22 January 1987 was made in the exercise of her duties as Manager of the NEX-JUSMAG. but instead of answering. MONTOYA. except in the case of:  a real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State. upon the instruction of the store manager.  an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions. unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission. REYES. Regional Trial Court of Cavite. which is not the case herein. as manager of the US Navy Exchange Branch at JUSMAG.Petitioner Maxine Bradford.) checker at the U. is an American citizen who. . but said provision clearly applies only to a situation where the diplomatic agent engages in any professional or commercial activity outside official functions. Maxine Bradford while she was already at the parking area in the presence of the defendant and numerous curious onlookers. as amended. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and MAXINE BRADFORD. also an ID checker. Checking of purchases at the NEX is a routine procedure observed at base retail outlets to protect and safeguard merchandise. was employed as an identification (I. The Solicitor General believes that said act may fall under subparagraph (c) thereof. LUIS R. 1987 in a letter addressed to Mr. respondents. Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations provides that a diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisidiction of the receiving State.into by the Republic of Indonesia in the discharge of its governmental functions. 7Thus. . grounds: o (This) action is in effect a suit against the United States of America.Montoya formally protested the illegal search on February 14. cash and equipment pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 4(b) of NAVRESALEACT SUBIC INST. Ms.1. she. the Resolution of 17 July 1987 of Branch 22 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) FACTS: .  an action relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent is involved as executor. HON. but no action was undertaken by the said officer. in ordering the search upon her person and belongings outside the NEX JUSMAG store in the presence of onlookers. Process:> Petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. and o Bradford. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction.

respondent may not validly invoke the Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty and hide under the state’s cloak of invincibility against suit. under contracts with DPWH. HELD: Petition denied for lack of merit.Montoya has a sufficient and viable cause of action that Bradford acted not only outside the scope of her authority — or more specifically. in this instance.scribd. Hence. HELD: The principle of state immunity finds no application in this case. The rule is not absolute for it does not say that the state may not be sued under any circumstance. a foreign sovereign immune from suit which has not given consent to such suit and .Among others. the complaint in Civil Case No. o Philippine courts are vested with jurisdiction over the case because Bradford is a civilian employee who had committed the challenged act outside the U. so Montoya presented her evidence ex-parte. at the parking area which has not been shown to form part of the facility of which she was the manager. This court . Secretary for Legal Affairs. Considering that this principle yields to certain settled exceptions. The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. EPG CONSTRUCTION VS VIGILAR March the staunch guardian of the citizen’s rights and welfare. . Navy Exchange of JUSMAG pursuant to the Philippines-United States Military Assistance Agreement of 1947 and the Military Bases Agreement of 1947. outside the NEX-JUSMAG — particularly. respondent- secretary argues that the state may not be suedinvoking the constitutional doctrine of Non-suability of the State also known as the Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty. This situation usually arises where the public official acts without authority or in excess of the powers vested in him. .(1992) Through the request of then DPWH Secretary De Jesus. It is just as important that there be fidelity to legal norms on the part of officialdom if the rule of law is to be maintained. Military Bases. The DPWH Auditor did not object to the payment subject to whatever action COA may adopt. Through the verbal request and assurance of then DPWH Undersecretary Canlas. The ends of justice would be subverted if we were to uphold. agents and officials of the United States armed forces stationed in Clark Air Base are no exception to this rule.Bradford is immune from suit for acts done by her in the performance of her official functions as manager of the U.the doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply and may not be invoked where the public official is being sued in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen.. as amended. the DBM released the amount for payment but (1996) respondent DPWH Secretary Vigilar denied the money claims prompting petitioners to file a petition for mandamus before the RTC which said trial court> FACTS: (1983) The herein petitioners-contractors. 2001 < https://www. that is.cannotsanction an injustice so patent on its face. they undertook additional constructionsfor the completion of the project. With a favorable recommendation from the DPWH Asst. 224-87 is in effect a suit against the public petitioner. ISSUES: Whether or not the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss based on the following grounds: . such act is not one of those exempted from the jurisdiction of Philippine courts o Philippine courts can inquire into the factual circumstances of the case to determine whether or not Bradford had acted within or outside the scope of her authority. Justice and equity sternly demand that the state’s 6 . the state’s immunity from suit.S. . and allow itself to be an instrument of perpetration thereof. Under the circumstances. This default also showed admission of truth of allegation. but said additional constructions were not issued payment by DPWH. The cloak of protection afforded the officers and agents of the government is removed the moment they are sued in their individual capacity. the petitioners sent a demand letter to the DPWH Secretary. They exchanged replies until Bradford was declared in default for failure to answer.constructed 145 housing units but coverage of construction and funding under the said contracts was only for 2/3 of each housing unit. this petition.S. ISSUE: Whether or not the Principle of State Immunity is applicable in the case at bar. in her private capacity — but also outside the territory where she exercises such authority.

DPWH Asst. MPWH forged individual contracts with petitioners EPG. applying the principle of quantum meruit Even the DPWH Asst. even the DPWH Auditor did not object to the payment of the money claims 2. in view of violation of applicable laws. 1996. Vigilar (Consti1) Second Division < http://diegestd16.html> Buena. the scope of construction and funding covered only around "2/3 of each housing unit" Petitioners agreed to undertake and perform "additional constructions" for the completion of the housing units despite the fact that there was only a verbal promise. intiated a housing project on a government property along the east bank of Manggahan Floodway in Pasig The MHS entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Ministry of Public Works and Highways (MPWH) where the latter undertook to develop the housing site and construct thereon 145 housing units By virtue of the MOA. 1997 Issue: Whether or not the implied. considering that this principle yields to certain settled exceptions.cloak of invincibility against suit be shred in this particular instance and that petitioners-contractors be duly compensated. and De Leon Araneta Construction for the construction of the housing units Under the contracts. Branch 226 a Petition for Mandamus to order the respondent to pay petitioners their money claims plus damages and attorney's fees. March 16. 1988. Ciper. Sec. the amount of P5. Petition GRANTED. through the BLISS Development Corporation. not from any intrinsic illegality "in the interest of substantial justice. for construction done on the public works housing project. on November 14. No.Suits not against the State . 7 .blogspot. and lack of legal requirements. by the MPWH Undersecretary Aber Canlas that additional funds will be available and forthcoming Unpaid balance for the additional constructions amounted to P5.316. Home Construction. Performance Builders. and not a written contract. Phil. The State's immunity cannot serve as an instrument perpetrating injustice Petition granted. Ratio: While the court agrees with the respondent that the implied contracts are void. Glass World. 1994.Justice and Equity Facts: In 1983.918.819. auditing rules. RTC decision reversed and set aside. A4-1303-04-41- 303 In an indorsement dated December 27. 1995. 2001 Topic: Sovereignty . Lower court denied the petition on February 18. the COA referred anew the money claims to the DPWH In a letter dated August 26. it still finds merit in the instant petition The illegality of the implied contracts proceeds from an express declaration or prohibition by law. respondent Secretary Gregorio Vigilar denied the subject money claims Petitioners filed before the RTC of QC. World Builders. on the basis of quantum meruit. for Legal Affairs recommends their compensation. The respondent may not conveniently hide under the State's cloak of invincibility against suit.00 was then released for the payment of the petitioners' money claims under Advise of Allotment No.63 Upon a demand letter from the petitioners. Secretary Madamba opined that payment of petitioners' money claims should be based on quantum meruit (what one has earned) and should be forwarded to the Commission on Audit (COA) In a Letter of the Undersecretary of Budget and Management dated December 20." petitioners-contractors' right to be compensated is upheld. [2] EPG Construction Co. verbal contracts between the petitioners and then Undersecretary Canlas should be upheld Whether or not the State is immune from suit Holding: Yes. vs. the Ministry of Human Settlement (MHS). Septa.

Albay vs. NO. respondent Onate cannot claim Lot No. now Dept. YES. Dept. sometime in> Facts: Spouses Claro Onate and Gregoria Los Banos own the disputed lot Lot No. DECS being non-suable has become moot. As sequester of the 227 shares formerly owned by Benedicto. the shares were declared to be delinquent to be put into an auction sale. the respondent’s grandfather. apply only to disputed Lot No. to do that which could or should have been done earlier. So petitioner Republic and private respondent Benedicto entered into a Compromise Agreement which contains a general release clause where petitioner agreed and bound itself to lift the sequestration on the 227 NOGCCI shares acknowledging that it was within private respondent’s capacity 8 . The petitioner then claimed that respondent was guilty of laches.907 sqm) registered under the Torrens System of land registration with an Original Certificate of Title (OCT). and 4)preliminary facts show grave prejudice to the petitioner DECS as they have made major changes in construction and expansion of the school. Therefore. This lot was already settled through a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate and Cession in 1991. owned or registered in the name of private respondent Benedicto. It turns out that the same land was where the Daraga North Central Elementary School was built and had been operating since 1940. DepEd (formerly DECS) now has the rights of possession and property over Lot No. SANDIGANBAYAN and ROBERTO BENEDICTO. 484 SCRA 119 < https://www. The laches. 6849-A anymore. real and personal. of Education. By virtue of laches. The lot’s rights will be returned to respondents the moment DECS no longer needs it. Later on. 6849-A. that he knew only of the school’s occupation on a portion of the land on 1991 and knew of the Deed of Donation on 1992. Onarte cannot sell. Despite filing a writ of injunction. of Education (DepEd) through a Deed of Donation. DECS can be sued independently from the State as it gave its authority to continue with the donation. DECS can be sued as a result of being privy to the Deed of Donation executed by the Municipality of Daraga (as its recipient) over disputed property. By giving its consent to the donation. however. Laches is defined as the failure or neglect. entities and other properties. Onate < https://www. then named Bagumbayan Elementary School of Daraga. 3) petitioner DECS did not anticipate that their occupancy of the land would be later questioned. The Municipality of Daraga gave that land to> FACTS: The PCGG issued writs placing under sequestration all business enterprises.scribd. 2) respondent failed to prove that him and his predecessors undertook steps to regain the use of their land. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. to protest the building of the school as early as1940. PCGG did not pay the monthly membership fee. which carries withit the full responsibility of suing or being sued. or of corporations in which he appeared to have controlling or majority interest due to his involvement in cases of ill-gotten wealth. it brings DECS down to level of ordinary citizen. or an unreasonable and unexplained length of time. it was nevertheless dismissed. of Education. Elements of laches have set in: 1) disputed land has been used for public education since 1940. confident that the municipality owned the land through buying it from Claro Onate. 6849 (27. mortgage or encumber said Lot while still being used by DepEd. Issue: Is the respondent guilty of laches? Will it be applied to him in this case? Is the State immune from this case? Can DECS be sued independently from the State? Ruling: YES. 6849-A. from which he took possession of the lot the same year. in favor of respondent as his three sisters waived their rights to the property. Among the properties thus sequestered and taken over by PCGG fiscal agents were the 227 shares in NOGCCI owned by and registered under the name of private respondent. Respondent testified that he only knew of the dispute on1973. Culture and Sports (DECS).

ISSUE: WON the Republic can invoke state immunity. In fact. inter alia. breach of which on its part gives the corresponding right to the other party to the agreement. Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. When the State enters into contract. petitioner Republic. It is also known as the Arlegui Residence which housed two Philippine presidents and which now holds the Office of the Press Secretary and the News Information Bureau. In a last-ditch attempt to escape liability. it thereby descends to the level of a private individual and thus opens itself to whatever counterclaims or defenses the latter may have against it. When the State enters into contract. through its duly authorized officers takes the initiative in a suit against a private party. It was granted but the shares were ordered to be put under the custody of the Clerk of Court. in furtherance of a legitimate aim or purpose and pursuant to a constitutional legislative authority. ISSUE: WON the Republic can invoke immunity from suit. The case was initially dismissed by the presiding Judge of the Manila RTC (Branch 35) on the ground of state immunity. enters into a compromise agreement . The functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects. < https://lawphilreviewer. through its officers or agents. It is contended that the respondent Judge violated the Constitution and the fundamental rule that government funds are exempt from execution or garnishment when he caused the issuance of the writ of execution against the Republic. Where the State itself is no less than the plaintiff in the main case. the handling solicitor. through its officers or agents. petitioner Republic thereby stripped itself of its immunity from suit and placed itself in the same level of its adversary. The case was re-raffled to the Manila RTC (Branch 37). HIDALGO. to file the required Answer within the period prayed for in his motion for extension. immunity from suit cannot be invoked because when a state. Its consent to be sued is implied from the very act of entering into such contract. the State may be sued even without its express consent. that the state has a liability. Implied in this undertaking is the recognition by petitioner that the subject shares of stock could not have been ill-gotten Benedicto filed a Motion for Release from Sequestration and Return of Sequestered Shares/Dividends praying. Tersely> Garcia. it does not thereby necessarily consent to an unrestrained execution against it. Judge Hidalgo declared the Republic in default for failure of Solicitor Gabriel Francisco Ramirez. reconveyance and/or recovery of ownership and possession a property against the Republic of the Philippinesin the RTC of Manila.: When the State through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed a complaint against a private individual before the Sandiganbayan and thereafter. is to give the other party an opportunity to prove. by entering into a Compromise Agreement with private respondent Benedicto. with respondent Vicente A. delivered or paid to him as part of the parties’ Compromise Agreement in that case. PCGG was ordered to deliver the shares to the Clerk of Court which it failed to comply with without any justifiable grounds. Hidalgo as presiding Judge. HELD: It is settled that when the State gives its consent to be sued. if it can. that his NOGCCI shares of stock be specifically released from sequestration and> FACTS: Tarcila Laperal Mendoza filed an action for the annulment or declaration of nullity of the title and deed of acquire the same shares out of his income from business and the exercise of his profession. through the PCGG. Branch 37 < https://www. Along with this. when the State waives its immunity. in effect. all it does. invokes state immunity from suit. in furtherance of a legitimate aim and purpose and pursuant to constitutional legislative authority. it cannot later on invoke immunity from suit. HELD: NO. as appropriated by law. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. the State may be sued even without its express consent. breach of which on its part gives the corresponding right of the other party to the agreement. Its consent to be sued is implied from the very act of entering into such contract. JUDGE VICENTE A. J. In an Order. precisely because by entering into a contract the sovereign descends to the level of the citizen.wordpress. whereby mutual or reciprocal benefits accrue and rights and obligations arise therefrom. whereby mutual and reciprocal benefits accrue and rights and obligations arise therefrom. 9 .scribd. precisely because by entering into a contract the sovereign descends to the level of the citizen.

per square meter. a duly organized domestic corporation. heirs filed a motion for execution since the trial court move for the entry of the partial judgment as modified by the omnibus order.000. 176628. 2012 DOCTRINE: The application of state immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of sovereign transactions and not in cases of commercial activities or economic affairs. The civil works of the project commenced. Petitioner NHA are not exempt from garnishment or execution. March 19.000. No. thereafter trial court declares plaintiff has a right to expropriate the properties of the defendant heirs and appointed 3 commissioners who ascertain the just compensation of the said properties be fixed at 11. The sub-contract agreement also provides that PHILGOLF shall submit its progress billings directly to PTA and. Petition was DENIED and the trial court’s decision denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss expropriation proceeding was AFFIRMED. as a government entity. Inc. Petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari. After the rendition of such order the plaintiff shouldn’t be permitted to dismiss or discontinue such proceedings except on such terms of the court be equitable. to build the golf course amounting to P27. PHILGOLF filed a collection suit against PTA amounting to P11. But the trial court issued an omnibus order to deny the motion of respondent granting the petitioner’s motion and of just compensation. Whether or not writs of execution and garnishment may be issued against the state in an expropriation where in the exercise of power of eminent domain will not serve public use or purpose Ruling: The state as represented by the NHA for housing project can continue its inherent power of eminent domain provided that the just compensation for the property sought is taken. whose main function is to bolster and promote tourism. FACTS: PTA. 200. PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY vs. 13 and 19 as well as the amount of just compensation. (AEI) for the construction of the Intramuros Golf Course Expansion Projects for a contract price of P57. entered into a contract with Atlantic Erectors.blogspot. The order was final after the non-appealing of the petitioner as the lawful right to expropriate the properties of respondent heirs of Guivelondo. however the respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial courts partial judgment. Heirs of Guivelondo Facts: NHA filed with RTC of Cebu Branch 11 a complaint as amended regarding the eminent domain against Heirs of Guivelondo docketed as civil case. The petitioner alleged that defendant heirs et. invokes its state immunity.647. The Court of Appeals rendered dismissal of the petition for certiorari on the ground of partial judgment and omnibus order became a final and executory when petitioner failed to appeal. 2. Its injunctive relief against the levy and garnishment of its funds and personal properties was also DENIED. Thereafter.00.00 php.R. for the construction of the golf course. The respondent heirs filed a manifestation of waiving their objections to petitioners power to expropriate their properties. PTA. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but then it was denied by the court. The temporary Restraining Order was LIFTED. Whether or not judgment has become final and executory and if estoppel or laches applies to government.94. al were the rightful private owners of the land which the petitioner intends to develop a socialized housing project. 3. NHA VS. Since AEI was incapable of constructing the golf course aspect of the project.550. PGDE 668 SCRA 406 G. HEIRS OF GUIVELONDO < http://eulalaw4.53.954. PTA shall directly pay PHILGOLF. Whether or not the state can be compelled and coerced by the courts to continue with its inherent power of eminent domain. ISSUE: 1. 10 .html> Topic: Execution/Garnishment NHA vs. ISSUE: WON PTA can invoke state immunity. an agency of the Department of although it is public in character since it is arbitrary and capricious for a government entity to initiate expropriation proceedings that seize a private owner’s property. The courts of appeals serve on petitioner for a notice of levy pursuant to writ of Execution and a Notice of third garnishment from the Land bank of the Philippines. in turn. Petitioner NHA filed 2 motion for reconsideration that assails inclusion of lots 12. plus interest. it entered into a sub-contract agreement with PHILGOLF.

for the conduct of a feasibility study on a possible railway line from Manila to San Fernando.” it cannot be held liable for governmental acts (jus imperil). The CTA ordered the BOC to pay UNIMEX the commercial value of the goods with interest. The application of state immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of sovereign transactions and not in cases of commercial activities or economic affairs. La Union (the Northrail Project). Courts have recognized with almost pedantic adherence that what is inconvenient and contrary to reason is not allowed in law. HELD: No. and at the rate of 3% per annum. the forfeiture decree was reversed and the court ordered the release of the goods. On 1 October 2003. However. Jr. REPUBLIC VS UNIMEX MICRO-ELECTRONICS March 9. Wang Chungui (Amb.000 in favor of the DOF. Ren Hongbin. The Republic of the Philippines. the Export Import Bank of China (EXIM Bank) and the Department of Finance of the Philippines (DOF) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (Aug 30 MOU). in entering into a business contract. petitioner China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. represented by its president. Justice and equity now demand that the State’s cloak of invincibility against suit and liability be shredded. China National Machinery & Equipment Group (CNMEG) v. Camacho) informing him of CNMEG’s designation as the Prime Contractor for the Northrail Project.3 The Chinese government designated EXIM Bank as the lender. Wang). cannot sanction an injustice so patent in its face. the Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines. The court cannot turn a blind eye to BOC’s ineptitude and gross negligence in the safekeeping of respondent’s goods. respondent’s counsel failed to secure a writ of execution to enforce the CTA decision. represented by its chairperson. and that under the political doctrine of “state immunity. When the latter filed a petition for review in the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). as the staunch guardian of the people’s rights and welfare. The circumstances of the case warrant its exclusion from the purview of the state immunity doctrine. When respondent asked for release of its shipment. Under the Aug 30 MOU. The situation does not allow us to reject respondent’s claim on the mere invocation of the doctrine of state immunity. 11 . The SC. the court still holds that petitioner cannot escape its liability. descends to the level of an individual and is deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued.academia. PTA cannot avoid its financial liability by merely invoking immunity from suit.000. Jose L. Cortes. BOC could no longer find subject shipment in its warehouses. EXIM Bank agreed to extend an amount not exceeding USD 400. Since the Intramuros Golf Course Expansion Projects partakes of a proprietary character entered into between PTA and PHILGOLF. The State. One of its grounds was that the government funds cannot be charged with respondent’s claim without a corresponding appropriation and cannot be decreed by mere judicial order. entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the North Luzon Railways Corporation (Northrail). 2007 <scribd> FACTS: The Bureau of Customs (BOC) seized and forfeited the shipment owned by UNIMEX Micro-Electronics. assailed the decision of the CTA in the SC. The doctrine must be fairly observed and the State should not avail itself of this prerogative to take undue advantage of parties that may have legitimate claims against it. Santamaria < https://www. while the Philippine government named the DOF as the borrower. payable in 20 years. (Group) (CNMEG). Assailed decision of the CTA is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. with a 5-year grace> Facts: On 14 September 2002. ISSUE: Can the government be held for actual damages? HELD: Although the satisfaction of respondent’s demand will ultimately fall on the government. wrote a letter to DOF Secretary Jose Isidro Camacho (Sec. and allow itself to be an instrument in the perpetration thereof. represented by the BOC Commissioner. On 30 August 2003. wherein China agreed to extend Preferential Buyer’s Credit to the Philippine government to finance the Northrail Project.

1445. the appellate court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari. the Memorandum of Understanding dated 14 September 2002. (b) Republic Act No. 145).A. Thus. respondents filed a Complaint for Annulment of Contract and Injunction with Urgent Motion for Summary Hearing to Determine the Existence of Facts and Circumstances Justifying the Issuance of Writs of Preliminary Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction and/or TRO against CNMEG.050. CNMEG filed before the CA a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated 4 April 2008. No. Petitioners Argument: Petitioner claims that the EXIM Bank extended financial assistance to Northrail because the bank was mandated by the Chinese government. 9184). No. Makati City. while the Contract Agreement was between Northrail and CNMEG. the immunity of the sovereign is recognized only with regard to public acts or acts jure imperii of a state. 292. The Court explained the doctrine of sovereign immunity in Holy See v. Although the Contract Agreement is silent on the classification of the legal nature of the transaction. otherwise known as the Government Procurement Reform Act. 292. CNMEG filed a Motion for Reconsideration. nonetheless reveal the intention of the parties to the Northrail Project to classify the whole venture as commercial or proprietary in character. functions.7 The contract price for the Northrail Project was pegged at USD 421. otherwise known as the Administrative Code.000.000. Petitioner China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. as opposed to proprietary. (c) Presidential Decree No. 1445. and (d) Executive Order No. 9184 (R. to wit: There are two conflicting concepts of sovereign immunity.) As it stands now. CNMEG’s prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction is DENIED for being moot and academic. CNMEG then filed a Motion for Reconsideration. private and proprietary acts (jure gestionis). Branch 145 (RTC Br. Whether or not the Northrail contracts are products of an executive agreement between two sovereign states. piecing together the content and tenor of the Contract Agreement. Wang’s letter dated 1 October 2003. 145 issued an Omnibus Order denying CNMEG’s Motion to Dismiss and setting the case for summary hearing to determine whether the injunctive reliefs prayed for should be issued. the foregoing provisions of the Loan Agreement. which was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated 5 December 2008. and the Contract Agreement is not an executive agreement. Amb. but not with regard to private acts or acts jure gestionis. 9184 (R. In the Loan Agreement. The case was filed before the Regional Trial Court. Ruling: The instant Petition is DENIED. the Loan Agreement was entered into between EXIM Bank and the Philippine government. Respondents Argument: respondents alleged that the Contract Agreement and the Loan Agreement were void for being contrary to (a) the Constitution. Rosario. and (d) Executive Order No. without its consent. (Group) is not entitled to immunity from suit. the Department of Budget and Management. According to the classical or absolute theory.On 30 December 2003. The mantle of state immunity cannot be extended to commercial. EXIM Bank agreed to extend Preferential Buyer’s Credit in the amount of USD 400. which is an inextricable part of the entire undertaking. each widely held and firmly established. (c) Presidential Decree No.A. otherwise known as the Government Auditing Code. Subsequently. and the Loan Agreement would reveal the desire of CNMEG to construct the Luzon Railways in pursuit of a purely commercial activity performed in the ordinary course of its business. Northrail and CNMEG executed a Contract Agreement for the construction of Section I. BLA 04055 (the Loan Agreement). Ruiz Admittedly.000 in favor of the Philippine government in order to finance the construction of Phase I of the Northrail Project. In the Complaint. RTC Br. 9184). the Office of the Executive Secretary. a sovereign cannot. Thus. On 13 February 2006. Since the Philippines adheres to the restrictive theory. which was denied by the trial court in an Order dated 10 March 2008. otherwise known as the Government Auditing Code. respondents alleged that the Contract Agreement and the Loan Agreement were void for being contrary to (a) the Constitution. Issues: Whether or not petitioner CNMEG is an agent of the sovereign People’s Republic of China. On 15 May 2007. According to the newer or restrictive theory. the DOF. National Capital Judicial Region. the application of the doctrine of immunity from suit has been restricted to sovereign or governmental activities (jure imperii). (b) Republic Act No. otherwise known as the Government Procurement Reform Act. be made a respondent in the courts of another sovereign. 12 . As held in United States of America v. citations omitted. it is crucial to ascertain the legal nature of the act involved – whether the entity claiming immunity performs governmental. Phase I of the North Luzon Railway System from Caloocan to Malolos on a turnkey basis (the Contract Agreement). it is clear from the foregoing provisions that the Northrail Project was a purely commercial transaction. and not because of any motivation to do business in the Philippines. otherwise known as the Administrative Code. (Emphasis supplied. the Philippine government and EXIM Bank entered into a counterpart financial agreement – Buyer Credit Loan Agreement No. the National Economic Development Authority and Northrail. On 26 February 2004.