PALAFOX VS PROVINCE OF ILOCOS NORTE

FACTS: Sabas Torralba was employed as a truck driver of the provincial govt. of Ilocos Norte. One day while on duty, he
ran over Proceto Palafox, killing him then. Torralba was prosecuted for homicide through reckless imprudence to which
he pleaded guilty. The heirs of Palafox instituted a civil case against him and the municipality.

ISSUE: W/N the municipality of Ilocos Norte can be held liable

HELD:NO. Local govt. Units are not liable for negligent acts of its employees while they are performing
governmental functions or duties. In this case, Torralba was involved in the construction or maintenance of roads
which was a government duty at the time of the accident. Thus, the municipality cannot be held liable for death of
Palafox.

TORIO VS FONTANILLA

FACTS: The municipality of Malasiqui, Pangasinan passed Resolution No. 159 whereby it resolved to manage the 1959
Malasiqui town fiesta. Another Resolution was passed creating the Executive Committee for such event. The Municipal
Council appropriated P100.00 for the construction of 2 stages for the zarzuela and cancionan, The zarzuela to be
performed was donated by an association of Malasiqui employees where Vicente Fontanilla was a member. During the
performance, the stage collapsed, pinning Fontanilla causing his death. The heirs of Fontanilla filed claims for damages
against the Municipality.

ISSUE: W/N the Municipality can be held liable

HELD: Yes. The celebration of a town fiesta by the Municipality of Malasiqui was not a governmental function. The legal
consequence thereof is that the Municipality stands on the same footing as an ordinary private corporation with the
municipal council acting as its board of directors. It is an elementary principle that a corporation has a
personality, separate and distinct from its officers, directors, or persons composing it and the latter are
not as a rule co-responsible in an action for damages for tort or negligence culpa aquilla committed by
the corporation's employees or agents unless there is a showing of bad faith or gross or wanton
negligence on their part. Further, under the doctrine of respondent superior, petitioner-municipality is
liable for damages for the death of Vicente Fontanilla because the accident was attributable to the
negligence of the municipality's officers, employees, or agents.

The municipality acting through its municipal council appointed Macaraeg as chairman of the sub-committee on
entertainment and in charge of the construction of the "zarzuela" stage. Macaraeg acted merely as an agent of the
Municipality. Under the doctrine of respondent superior mentioned earlier, petitioner is responsible or liable for the
negligence of its agent acting within his assigned tasks.

MUNICIPALITY OF SAN FERNANDO VS FIRME

FACTS: A passenger jeepney, a sand truck, and a dump truck of the Municipality of San Fernando, La Union collided.
Several passengers died, including Laureano Banina, Sr. His heirs filed a complaint for damages against the owner and
driver of the jeepney, who in turnn, filed a third party complaint against the Municipality and its dump truck driver Alfredo
Bislig. The Municipality raised the defense of non-suability of the State.

ISSUE: W/N the Municipality is liable for the tort committed by its employee who was then engaged in the discharge of
governmental functions

HELD: Generally, municipal corporations are not liable for the torts committed by them or by their
employees or agents in the discharge of official governmental functions and can be answerable only if it
can be shown that they were acting in a proprietary capacity/ function.

In this case, the driver of the dump truck insists that he was on his was to get a load of sand and gravel for the repair
of the San Fernando’s municipal streets at the time the accident occured. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the
regularity of performance is presumed. Hence, the driver is presumed to be performing official functions at the time of
the accident. In line with this, the Municipality cannot be held liable.
 JAYME vs APOSTOL

FACTS: Mayor Miguel of Koronadal, South Cotabato was on board the Isuzu pick-up truck driven by Fidel Lozano, an
employee of the Municipality of Koronadal. The pick-up truck was registered under the name of Rodrigo Apostol, but it
was then in the possession of Ernesto Simbulan. Lozano borrowed the pick-up truck from Simbulan to bring Miguel to
Buayan Airport at GenSan to catch his Manila flight. The pick-up truck accidentally hit Marvin C. Jayme, a minor, who was
then crossing the National Highway in South Cotabato. The collision sent Marvin 50 meters away from the point of impact,
an indication that Lozano was driving at a very high speed. Marvin sustained severe head injuries and died 6 days after.

ISSUE: W/N an LGU can be held liable for the tortuous act of a government employee

RULING: The municipality may not be sued because it is an agency of the State engaged in governmental functions
and, hence, immune from suit. Nevertheless, they are generally not liable for torts committed by them in the discharge
of governmental functions and can only be held answerable only if it can be shown that they were acting in proprietary
capacity. In permitting such entities to be sued, the State merely gives the claimant the right to show that the defendant
was not acting in governmental capacity when the injury was committed or that the case comes under the exceptions
recognized by law.

QUISUMBING VS GARCIA

FACTS: The subject COA report stated "Several contracts in the total amount of P102,092,841.47 were not supported
with a Sangguniang Panlalawigan resolution

authorizing the Provincial Governor to enter into a contract, as required under Section 22of R.A. No. 7160."

Gov. Garcia sought for reconsideration from COA but without waiting for its resolution, she instituted an action for
Declaratory Relief where she alleged that the infrastructure contracts complied with R.A. No. 9184 bidding procedures
and were entered into pursuant to the general and/or supplemental appropriation ordinances passed by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan, hence a separate authority to enter into such contracts was no longer necessary.

The trial court declared that Gov. Garcia need not secure prior authorization from the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.

It further declared that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan does not have juridical personality nor is it vested by R.A. No.
7160 with authority to sue and be sued. It also ruled that it is only when the contract involves obligations which are not
backed by prior ordinances that the prior authority of the sanggunian concerned is required.

ISSUE: Whether or not prior approval by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan is required before Gov.Garcia could have validly
entered into the questioned contracts.

HELD: Yes. The fact that the Province of Cebu operated under a reenacted budget in 2004 lent a complexion to this case
which the trial court did not apprehend. Sec. 323 of R.A. No. 7160 provides that in case of a reenacted budget, "only the
annual appropriations for salaries and wages of... existing positions, statutory and contractual obligations, and essential
operating expenses authorized in the annual and supplemental budgets for the preceding year shall be deemed
reenacted and disbursement of funds shall be in accordance therewith."

It should be observed that, as indicated by the word "only" preceding the above enumeration in Sec.
323, the items for which disbursements may be made under a reenacted budget are exclusive. Clearly,
contractual obligations which were not included in the previous year's annual and supplemental budgets
cannot be disbursed by the local government unit. It follows, too, that new contracts entered into by the
local chief executive require the prior approval of the Sanggunian.

And so, to give life to the obvious intention of the law and to avoid a construction which would render Sec. 22(c) of
R.A. No. 7160 meaningless, disbursement, as used in Sec. 346, should be understood to pertain to payments for
statutory and contractual obligations which the Sanggunian has already authorized thru ordinances enacting the annual
budget and are therefore already subsisting obligations of the local government unit. Contracts, as used in Sec. 22(c)
on the other hand, are those which bind the local government unit to new obligations, with their
corresponding terms and conditions, for which the local chief executive needs prior authority from the
Sanggunian. This confirms the indispensability of the sanggunian's authorization in the execution of contracts which
bind the local government unit to new obligations.