E. MERRITT, plaintiff-appellant vs.

GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

The plaintiff, E. Merritt, was driving his motorcycle along Taft Avenue when the ambulance driven by the
employee of the defendant hit the former. The collision caused severe injuries to the Plaintiff that he
almost died because of such and though the same has recovered after six months, the injuries sustained
has affected his performance in his work which causes the dissolution of his partnership and the
cancellation of one of his contract that resulted to the lost of income. The plaintiff through an act passed
by the Philippine Legislature filed a case against the Government of the Philippine Island claiming that
the latter should be liable for damages through the acts of its employees (agent). The trial court ruled in
favor of the plaintiff, but limited the amount of damages that is to be given to the same. Both parties
appealed the decision of the trial court. The plaintiff contended the limiting of the liability while the
defendant appealed the decision holding the government liable for damages instead of the government
employee/agent.

Issue:

Did the defendant, in enacting the above quoted Act, simply waive its immunity from suit or did it also
concede its liability to the plaintiff?

Held/Ruling:

The court ruled that the act was only to waive the immunity of the State from suit and not to concede its
liability to the plaintiff. The court stated that 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 preexisting liability and submits itself to the jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right to
interpose any lawful defense.

It also quoted Claussen vs. City of Luverne stating that “In the United States the rule that the state is not
liable for the torts committed by its officers or agents whom it employs, except when expressly made so
by legislative enactment, is well settled. "The Government," says Justice Story, "does not undertake to
guarantee to any person the fidelity of the officers or agents whom it employs, since that would involve
it in all its operations in endless embarrassments, difficulties and losses, which would be subversive of
the public interest”

Finally, the court used the civil code as per definition of the Supreme Court of spain, it stated that the
responsibility of the state is limited by article 1903 to the case wherein it acts through a special
agent(and a special agent, in the sense in which these words are employed, is one who receives a
definite and fixed order or commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special
official) so that in representation of the state and being bound to act as an agent thereof, he executes
the trust confided to him. This concept does not apply to any executive agent who is an employee of the
acting administration and who on his own responsibility performs the functions which are inherent in
and naturally pertain to his office and which are regulated by law and the regulations.

And thus, the appealed decision was reverse by the Supreme Court, since the determination of the
should be left to the legislatory and not the Judiciary.