The Concept of the State PVTA vs. CIR, July 25, 1975 Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration vs.

Court of Industrial Relations. Ponente: Fernando Facts: Appeal by certiorari. This case is concerned with the expanded role of government necessitated by the increased responsibility to provide for the general welfare. Dec. 20, 1966, private respondents filed a petition wherein they are seeking relief for their alleged overtime services (in excess of their 8 regular hours a day) and the failure to pay for said compensation in accordance with Commonwealth Act. No. 444. Petitioner denies allegations for lack of a cause of action and lack of jurisdiction. Presiding Judge Arsenio Martinez issued an order, directing petitioner to pay the same (minus what was already paid). Hence, respondents filed a petition for certiorari on grounds that the corporation is exercising governmental functions and is therefore exempt from Commonwealth Act No. 444. Issue: Whether the PVTA discharges governmental and not proprietary functions and is exempt from CA No. 444. Held: RA No. 2265 also provides a distinction between constituent and ministrant functions which the Chief Justice points out, is irrelevant considering the needs of the present time: “The growing complexities of modern society have rendered this traditional classification of the functions of government obsolete.” The court affirms that the motion for reconsideration be denied. The contention of petitioner that the 8 Hour Labor Law does not apply to them does not deserve any consideration.

Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Monte de Piedad, Dec 13, 1916 Ponente: Trent Facts: This case is one of trusteeship. $400,000 was paid into the treasury of the Philippine Islands by Spain for the relief of those damaged by an earthquake. Upon the petition of Monte de Piedad (institution under the control of the church), the Philippine Government directed its treasurer to give the former $80,000 of the relief fund in 4 installments. Petitions of various persons, including heirs of those entitled to allotments, prayed for the State to bring suit against Monte de Piedad, and to pay the same with interest. Defendant appealed as funds have been exhausted on jewelry loans. Issue: Whether the loan on Monte de Piedad was charity for an ecclesiastical pious work, and if the government is the proper authority to the cause of action towards this case (who may sue to recover this loan?). Held: If such loan was for ecclesiastical pious work, then Spain would not exercise its civil capacities. The Philippine government as a trustee towards the funds could maintain action for there has been no change of sovereignty. The state, as a sovereign, is the parens patriae. These principles based upon the foundation of a principle of public policy. The judgment appealed is affirmed.

Lourdes Limkaichong Iway

Issue: Whether the plaintiff can exercise sovereign powers and can invoke the exemptions thereof? Held: Plaintiff does not exercise sovereign powers and can not invoke the exemptions thereof – it is an agency for the performance of purely corporate. Veridiano ii Facts: Sanders. the judge was misled by the terms of the contract between private respondent Yellow Ball Freight Lines Inc. Issue: Whether our courts have jurisdiction? Held: Under the doctrine of state immunity and sovereign equality of states. a special services director of US Naval Station and Moreau.905. Respondents filed a complaint for damages against the petitioners for letters they claimed were libelous in nature (defamatory remarks). Letters dealt with financial budgeting problems of their department recommending a solution and a re-designation of the respondents to temporary working status as respondents alienated coworkers and were difficult to deal with. However. Plaintiff argues that it is erroneous as the statute of limitations does not run against the plaintiff because it is an instrumentality of the government. a commanding officer of Subic Naval Base supervised Rossi & Wyers. proprietary or business functions. Sanders vs. Purisima Facts: Failure of Judge Amante Purisima of CFI-Manila to apply the well known doctrine of non-suability of State including its offices and agencies from suit without its consent. where RCA anticipated a breach of contract and the suits that were to arise after. Apparently. Consent to be sued must come from the State through a statute. from an order of the CFI of Negros Occidental dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on grounds of prescription. Without its consent. the courts have no jurisdiction over this case. represented by its agent.Nadeco Development Company vs. Tobias Facts: Appeal taken by plaintiff. apparent from its Organic Act (Commonwealth Act 182. whatever counsel for RCA agreed to had no binding force on the government as it was beyond the scope of its authority. Plaintiff cites Monte de Piedad case. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss upon grounds that the action upon which complaint is based had prescribed more than 10 years ago. amended by CA 311). the Philippine National Bank. the US employees were acting on their official duties and such a case would be a suit against the US. In complaint. respondents.81 under a promissory note. which says: “shall be subject to the provisions of the Corporation Law in so far as they are not inconsistent” Republic vs. Issue: Whether or not RCA are applicable to the non-suability doctrine and can still be sued since they waived immunity? Held: There is lack of jurisdiction of a court to pass merits on a claim against any office or entity acting as part of the machinery of the national government unless consent is shown. plaintiff seeks to recover from Jose Yulo Tobias the sum of P6. Rice and Corn Administration (RCA) filed a motion to dismiss a pending civil suit for the collection of a money claim arising from a breach of contract. Lourdes Limkaichong Iway . Nadeco.

Lourdes Limkaichong Iway .