MUNICIPALITY OF LA UNION (petitioner) v. JUDGE ROMEO N.

FIRME (respondent judge), HEIRS

OF THE DECEASED, LAUREANO BANIÑA (private respondents)

FACTS:

 At 7:00 in the morning of December 11, 1965, a collision occurred involving a passenger
jeepney, driven by Bernardo Balagot, owned by Macario Niervas, a sand and gravel
truck, driven by Jose Manandeg, owned by Tanquilino Velasquez, and a dump truck
owned by the municipality of San Fernando, La Union, driven by Alfredo Bislig.
 Due to the impact, Laureano Baniña died as a result of the injuries he incurred, and four
other passengers suffered physical injuries.
 On December 16, 1986, the heirs of deceased filed for damages against the driver and
the owner of the jeepney, Bernardito Balagot and Macario Niervas, respectively.
 A third-party complaint was filed by the aforesaid defendants against the municipality of
San Fernando and the driver, Alfredo Bislig; private respondents amended there
complaint wherein petitioner and its employee, Alfredo Bislig were impleaded as
defendants.
 On Oct. 10, 1979, defendants, Municipality of San Fernando, La Union and Alfredo Bislig
were ordered to pay plaintiffs, Baniña family, PHP1,500 for funeral expenses,
PHP24,744.24 as the lost expected earnings, PHP30,000 as moral damages, and
PHP2,500 as attorney’s fees.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS:
 Petitioner raised affirmative defenses such as non-suability of the state, lack of cause of
action, prescription of cause of action, and the negligence of the owner and driver of the
passenger jeepney as the main cause of collision.
 Petitioner maintains that respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to excess of jurisdiction.

RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS:
 Private respondents allege that the petition is devoid of merit, lacking the good faith
which is necessary in a petition for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE:
Did respondent judge commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction
when it deferred and failed to resolve the defense of non-suability of the State?

RULING:
 The respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in failing to resolve the
issue of non-suability of the State. However, said judge did act in excess of his
jurisdiction when in he decided to hold the municipality liable for damages committed
by its employee.
 The doctrine of non-suability of the State is expressly provided in Article 16, Sec. 3 of the
1987 Constitution: “The State may not be sued without its consent”.
 Consent can be:
1) Expressed- which may be embodied in a law, or;
2) Implied- when the government enters into business contracts, and when it
commences a suit, therefore opening itself to a counterclaim.
 Municipal corporations enjoy the sovereign immunity from suit when they are engaged
in governmental functions.
 Suability depends on the consent of the State to be sued. Liability depends on the
applicable laws and the established facts.
 Test of liability depends on whether or not the driver was performing a governmental
function, or a proprietary function.
 In the case at bar, the driver insists that “he was on his way to Naguilian river to get a
load of sand and gravel for the repair of San Fernando’s municipal streets.
 The court ruled that the construction of roads are admittedly governmental functions.
 The municipality cannot be held liable for the damages committed by its employee who
was then engaged in the discharge of a governmental function.