Callado vs.

IRRI

FACTS: Ernesto Callado was employed as a driver in the International Rice Research Institute
(IRRI) who got into an accident on February 11, 1990 while driving an IRRI vehicle on his trip to
NAIA.

The HR manager evaluated his explanations and evidences.

The manager issued a note of termination on Dec. 7, 1990.

Callado filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter against IRRI.

IRRI informed the Labor Arbiter that the Institute enjoys immunity from legal process by virtue
of Art. 3, PD 1620 and did not waive its immunity

(While admitting IRRI's defense of immunity, the Labor Arbiter, nonetheless, cited an Order
issued by the Institute to the effect that "in all cases of termination, respondent IRRI waives its
immunity," and, accordingly, considered the defense of immunity no longer a legal obstacle in
resolving the case.

The NLRC found merit in private respondent's appeal and, finding that IRRI did not waive its
immunity, ordered the aforesaid decision of the Labor Arbiter set aside and the complaint
dismissed.)

ISSUE: WON Callado can sue IRRI and held it liable

HELD: No. Callado cannot sue IRRI and held it liable. The institute has immunity from legal
process by virtue of Art. 3, PD 1620 . According to the Doctrine of State Immunity, "The State
cannot be sued without its consent." The institute clarified that it did not waive its immunity.
Therefore, the institute cannot be sued because it did not waive it's immunity and cannot be
held liable if not suable

Holy See vs. Rosario

Petitioner: The Holy See

Respondent: Hon. Elidberto Rosario, Jr., in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC Makati, Branch
61 and Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc.
FACTS: Petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of land. Lot 5-A, registered under the
name Holy See, was contiguous to Lot 5-B and 5-D under the name of Philippine Realty
Corporation (PRC). The land was acquired through a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila
for the purpose of building official residence of Papal Nuncio, which represents the Holy See,
who exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City, Rome, Italy, for his residence.

Said lots were sold through an agent to Ramon Licup who assigned his rights to respondents
Starbright Sales
When the squatters refuse to vacate the lots, a dispute arose between the two parties because
both were unsure whose responsibility was it to evict the squatters from said lots. Respondent
Starbright insists that Holy See should clear the property while Holy See says that Starbright
should do it or the earnest money will be returned. With this, Msgr. Cirilios, the agent,
subsequently returned the P100,000 earnest money.

The same lots were then sold to Tropicana Properties and Development Corporation.

(Starbright filed a suit for annulment of the sale, specific performance and damages against
Msgr. Cirilios, PRC as well as Tropicana . The Holy See and Msgr. Cirilos moved to dismiss the
petition for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity from suit. RTC denied the motion
on ground that petitioner already "shed off" its sovereign immunity by entering into a business
contract. The subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was also denied hence this special civil
action for certiorari was forwarded to the Supreme Court.)

ISSUE: Can the Holy See invoke sovereign immunity?

HELD: YES. The Court held that the Holy See may properly invoke sovereign immunity for its non-
suability.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.

Furthermore, it shall be understood that in the case at bar, the 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, its acquisition and disposal were not made for
profit but was acquired by donation from the Archdiocese of Manila for the purpose of building
official residence of Papal Nuncio. However, when the informal settlers refused to leave the
property, the petitioner decided to dispose the property, not for commercial purpose.

The Holy See is immune from suit because the act of selling the lot of concern is non-propriety in
nature. The lot was acquired through a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila, not for a
commercial purpose, but for the use of petitioner to construct the official place of residence of
the Papal Nuncio. The transfer of the property and its 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

FACTS: Petitioner Republic of Indonesia, represented by its Counsellor, entered into

Maintenance Agreement with respondent Vinzon. The agreement stated that the Vinzon shall,
for a consideration, maintain specified equipment at the Embassy buildings and the official
residence of petitioner. Petitioners claim that sometime prior to the date of expiration of the
said argument, they informed Vinzon that the renewal of the agreement shall be of the
discretion of the incoming Chief of Administration, Minister Consellor Azhari Kasim. When the
latter assumed the position, he allegedly found Vinzon's work and services unsatisfactory and
not in compliance with the standards set in the Maintenance Agreement, Hence, the Indonesian
embassy terminated the agreement, Vinzon claims that the aforesaid termination was arbitrary
and unlawful so he filed a complaint before the RTC.

ISSUE: Whether the petitioners have waived their immunity from suit by using as its basis the
Maintenance Agreement

HELD: 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. Such act
is only the start of the inquiry. There is no dispute that the establishment of a diplomatic mission
is an act juri imperii. The state may enter into contracts with private entities to maintain the
premises, furnishings and equipment of the embassy. The Republic of Indonesia is acting in
pursuit of a sovereign activity when it entered into a contract with the respondent. The
maintenance agreement was entered into by the Republic of Indonesia in the discharge of its
governmental functions. It cannot be deemed to have waived its immunity from suit.

US vs. Reyes

FACTS: Nelia T. Montoya, an American citizen employed as an identification checker at the U.S.
Navy Exchange (NEX) at the Joint United States Military Assistance Group (JUSMAG)
headquarters in Quezon City, filed a complaint against Maxine Bradford, also an American citizen
working as a manager at JUSMAG Headquarter’s activity exchange, for damages due to the
oppressive and discriminatory acts committed by the latter in excess of her authority as store
manager of the NEX JUSMAG. This was due to the incident on January 22, 1987 when Bradford
searched Montoya’s body and belongings while the latter was already in the parking area after
buying some items NEX JUSMAG’s retail store, where she had purchasing privileges. To support
the motion, the petitioners claimed that checking of purchases is a routine procedure observed
at base retail outlets to protect and safeguard merchandise, cash, and equipment pursuant to
paragraphs 2 and 4(b) of NAVRESALEACT SUBIC INST. 5500.1. 7. Therefore, Bradford’s order to
check all employee purchases was done in the exercise of her duties as Manager of the NEX-
JUSMAG.

ISSUE: Whether or not Bradford enjoys diplomatic immunity.

HELD: No. Under Art. 16(b) of the 1953 Military Assistance Agreement creating the JUSMAG,
“only the Chief of the Military Adviser Group and not more than six other senior members
thereof designated under by him will be accorded diplomatic immunity”. The court also ruled
that Art. 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations provided an exception; stating
that even diplomatic agents who enjoy immunity are liable if they perform any professional or
commercial activity outside his official functions. Therefore, since Bradford works as NEX-
JUSMAG’s Manager, she is not among those officers granted diplomatic immunity.
WPG Construction et al. vs. Vigilar

FACTS: (1983) The herein petitioners-contractors, under contracts with DPWH, constructed 145
housing units but coverage of construction and funding under the said contracts was only for 2/3
of each housing unit. Through the verbal request and assurance of then DPWH Undersecretary
Canlas, they undertook additional constructions for the completion of the project, but said
additional constructions were not issued payment by DPWH. With a favorable recommendation
from the DPWH Asst. Secretary for LegalAffairs, the petitioners sent a demend letter to the
DPWH Secretary. The DPWH Auditor did not object to the payment subject to whatever action
COA may adopt.(1992) Through the request of then DPWH Secretary De Jesus, the DBM released
the amount for payment but (1996) respondent DPWH Secreatry Vigilar denied the money
claims prompting petitioners to file a petition for mandamus before the RTC which said trial
court denied. Hence, this petition. Among others, respondent-secretary argues that the state
may not be sued invoking the constitutional doctrine of Non-suability of the State also known as
the Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Principle of State Immunity is applicable in the case at bar

HELD: No. the Principle of State Immunity is applicable in this case. The doctrine of
governmentalimmunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on
acitizen. Considering that the principle yeailds to certain setteled exceptions, the rule is not
absolute for it does not say that the State may not be sued under any circumstance. The ends of
justice would be subverted if we were to uphold, in this instance, the state’s immunity from suit.
The court ruled as a guardian of the people's right and welfare, cannot promote injustice by
applying the principle and that the petitioners-contractors be duly compensated , on the basis of
quantum meruit, for construction doneon the public works housing project.

DepEd vs. Oñate

FACTS: Respondent Celso Onate claimed ownership of a said land through the Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement. Represented by his counsel, he sent a letter to the petitioner apprising
it about the facts and circumstances affecting the elementary school and its occupancy of the
lot.

In an answer, the Municipality of Daraga, Albay, through its mayor, denied the respondent's
ownership of the disputed lot as it alleged that the Municipality bought the said lot from Celso's
grandfather and the Municipality then donated the school site to the petitioner DepEd.

The defendants in the case filed a joint motion to dismiss on the ground that respondent's suit
was against the state and is without its consent. Onate then countered with his opposition.
Subsequently, the trial court denied the joint motion to Dismiss, ruling that the State had given
implied consent by entering into a contract.

ISSUE: WON the Deped can be sued without its consent.

HELD: Yes. Petitioner DepEd can be sued without its permission as a result of its being privy to
the Deed of Donation executed by the Municipality of Daraga, Albay over the disputed property.
When it voluntarily gave consent to the donation, any dispute that may arise from it would
necessarily bring petitioner DepEd down to the level of ordinary citizen of the state vulnerable to
a suit by an interested or affected party. If has shed off its mantle of immunity and relinquished
and forfeited its armor of non-suability of the State.

Republic vs. Hidalgo

FACTS: Tarcila Laperal Mendoza filed an action for the annulment or declaration of nullity of the
title and deed of sale, reconveyance and/or recovery of ownership and possession of property
against the Republic of the Philippines in the RTC of Manila. 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. The case was initially dismissed by the presiding
Judge of the Manila RTC (Branch 35) on the ground of state immunity. The case was re-raffled to
the Manila RTC (Branch 37), with respondent Vicente A. Hidalgo as presiding Judge. In an Order,
Judge Hidalgo declared the Republic in default for failure of Solicitor Gabriel Francisco Ramirez,
the handling solicitor, to file the required answer within the period prayed for in his motion for
extension. 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.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Republic can invoke immunity from suit

HELD: It is settled that when the State give its consent to be sued, it does not thereby necessarily
consent to an unrestrained execution against it. Tersely put, when the State waives its immunity,
all it does, in effect, is to give the other party an opportunity to prove, if it can, that the state has
a liability. 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,
as appropriated by law

(NOTES: Section 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion for new trial or reconsideration.—
Within the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved party may move the trial court to set aside
the judgment or final order and grant a new trial for one or more of the following causes
materially affecting the substantial rights of said party:

(a) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which ordinary prudence could not have
guarded against and by reason of which such aggrieved party has probably been impaired in his
rights; or

(b) Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered
and produced at the trial, and which if presented would probably alter the result.)