MUNICIPALITY OF SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION V JUDGE FIRME

(G.R. No. L-52179, April 8, 1991)

On Public Corporations in the Philippines (Political and corporate nature of LGUs)

FACTS:
In 1965, a jeepney, a gravel and sand truck, and a dump truck of the Municipality of San Fernando collided.
Due to the impact, several passengers of the jeepney suffered physical injuries and few others died,
including one Laureano Banina, Sr.

The heirs of Banina instituted a complaint for damages against the estate of the owner and driver of the
jeepney. However, the latter filed a third party complaint against the Municipality and the driver of the dump
truck. In the course of the proceedings, Judge Firme rendered judgment in favor of the heirs and ordered
the Municipality and the driver to pay.

The Municipality maintains that Judge Firme committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of
jurisdiction in rendering the decision for failure to consider the Municipality’s defense of non-suability of the
State.

ISSUE:
W/N Judge Firme committed grave abuse of discretion when it deferred and failed to resolve the defense of
non-suability of the State

RULING:
The Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion when in the exercise of its judgment it arbitrarily failed
to resolve the vital issue of non-suability of the State in the guise of the municipality. However, he acted in
excess of his jurisdiction when he held the municipality liable for the tort committed by its regular employee.

RATIO:
A distinction should be made between suability and liability - suability depends on the consent of the state
to be sued, liability on the applicable law and the established facts. The circumstance that a state is suable
does not necessarily mean that it is liable; on the other hand, it can never be held liable if it does not first
consent to be sued.

Municipal corporations are subject to suit even in the performance of their functions because their charter
provided that they can sue and be sued. However, municipal corporations are generally not liable for torts
committed by them and in the discharge of government functions and can be held answerable only if it can
be shown that they were acting in a proprietary capacity.

In this case, the driver of the dump truck of the municipality insists that ‘he was on his way to get a load of
sand and gravel for the repair of San Fernando’s municipal streets.’ In the absence of any evidence to the
contrary, the regularity of the performance of official duty is presumed - hence, the Court rules that the
driver was performing duties or tasks pertaining to his office.

Therefore, the municipality cannot be held liable for the torts committed by its regular employee, who was
then engaged in the discharge of governmental functions.