Foreign Government the Chief of Naval Personnel contained libelous

imputations and they're suing the petitioners in

Baer vs Tizon
their personal capacity.
Facts:
Issue: WON the petitioners performing their
The logging operations of Edgardo Gener in official duties when they did the acts.
Barrio Mabayo, Bataan was stopped by the
Ruling: YES
American Naval Base authorities, headed by
Donald Bear, commander of the US Naval Base It is clear that they were performed by them in
in Olongapo. the discharge of their official duties. Sanders as
director of the special services dept. of NAVSTA
Gener filed a complaint but Baer invoked the
has supervision over its personnel.
doctrine of state immunity from suit.

Issue: WON Baer may invoke doctrine of state

immunity. US vs Reyes

Ruling: Facts:

Yes. It is well settled that a foreign army,
permitted to march through a friendly country
or to be stationed in it, by permission of its
gov't or sovereign, is exempted from civil and
criminal jurisdiction of the place.
The private respondent, Montoya is an
American citizen, employed as an I.D. checker at
the U.S. Navy Exchange (NEX) at the Joint
United States Military Assistance Group
(JUSMAG) headquarters in Quezon City.

The petitioner, Bradford, also worked at NEX

JUSMAG as an "activity manager."
US vs Ruiz
Bradford had Montoya's person and belongings
Facts:
searched in front of many curious onlookers.
Eligio de Guzman & Co., Inc., private This caused Montoya to feel aggrieved and to
respondent, filed a suit against the US for not file a suit for damages.
granting the company for the repair of the
Issue: WON Bradford acted as an agent of the
equipment and facilities at the US Naval Station
US gov't hence entitled to diplomatic immunity.
Subic Bay in Zambales by reason of its previous
unsatisfactory performance on a repair Ruling: NO.
contract.
She is not among those granted diplomatic
ISSUE: WON the US is suable. immunity under the 1953 Military Assistance
Agreement, and even diplomatic agents who
RULING: NO.
enjoy immunity are liable if they perform acts
The traditional rule of State immunity exempts outside their official functions.
a State from being sued in the courts of another
State without its consent or waiver.

Sandres vs Veridiano

Facts:

The employment of the private respondents,

Anthony Rossi and Ralph Wyers, game room
attendants in the special services department of
the US Naval Station, had been converted from
permanent full-time to pemanent part-time.
The hearing officer recommended their
reinstatement plus back wages.

The petitioner, Sanders, Special Services Holy See vs Rosario

Director of NAVSTA disagreed with the
recommendation.
The private respondent filed suit for damages
claiming that the letters from the petitioners to
Facts:
Archdiocese of Manila donated a parcel of land
to the petitioner, Holy See for the residency of
Papal Nuncio (diplomatic envoy).
When none of the parties involved claimed the
responsibility of clearing the lots from
squatters, the pay for the parcels of land were
demanded to be returned, but it was found out
that the lots were sold to a third party, thus a
petition for the annulment of the Deed of Sale.
Issue: WON the Holy See is entitled to and can
invoke sovereign immunity from suit.
Ruling:
The Court held that Holy See is entitled to
sovereign from suit. The DFA officially certified
that the Embassy of the Holy See is a duly
accredited diplomatic mission to the Republic of
the Philippines, thus, is exempted from the local
jurisdiction.
JUSMAG vs NLRC
Facts:
The private respondent, Florencio Sacramento,
was terminated from service in JUSMAG-
Philippines allegedly due to the abolition of his
position. He filed a complaint with the DOLE on
the ground that he was illegally suspended and
service by JUSMAG.
Issue: WON JUSMAG was immune from suit as
an agency of the US.
Ruling: YES.
When JUSMAG took the services of private
respondent, it was performing a gov't function
on behalf of the US pursuant to the Military
Assistance Agreement.
Larkins vs NLRC
Facts:
The private respondents filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal and underpayment of wages
against petitioner, T/Sgt Aldora Larkins, a
member of the US Air Force assigned to oversee
the dormitories of the Third Aircraft Generation
Squadron at Clark Air Base, Pampanga.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision granting
all the claims of the private respondents, finding
the petitioner "guilty of illegal dismissal" and
ordered them to reinstate private respondents
with full back wages, or if no longer possible, to
pay private respondents' separation pay.
Issue: WON the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction
over the case.
Ruling: NO.
The Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the
case as summonses and other processes issued
by Philippine courts and administrative agencies
for US Armed Forces personnel within any U.S.
base in the Philippines could be served therein
only with the permission of the Base
Commander. Labor Arbiter did not follow said
procedure, he did not addressed the summons
to the Base Commander.
Minucher vs CA
Facts:
Khosrow Minucher, an Iranian nat'l and a
refugee of US, was charged for violation of RA
No. 6425 or the "Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972."
The private respondent, Arthur Scalzo was one
of the principal witnesses for the prosecution.
The RTC acquitted Minucher.
Thereafter, Minucher filed a Civil case before
the RTC Manila for damages against Arthur
Scalzo. Scalzo, being a special agent of the US
Drug Enforcement Administration, contented
he was entitled to diplomatic immunity by
presenting a Diplomatic Note of the United
State.
Issue: WON Scalzo is entitled to diplomatic
immunity?
Ruling: YES
A foreign agent, operating within a territory,
can be cloaked with immunity from suit as long
as it can be established that he is acting within
the directives of the sending state. The job
description of Scalzo has tasked him to conduct
surveillance on suspected drug suppliers and to
inform local law enforcers.
Consent by Law
Carabao vs Agricultural Productivity
Commission
Facts:
The petitioners filed money claims against the
gov't for the recovery of sum of money for 300
units of fire extinguishers sold to the
respondent, since the Auditor General failed to
decide on the matter within 2 months from
presentation, pursuant to Act No. 3083: "the
gov't of the Philippine Islands hereby consents
and submits to be sued upon any money claim
involving liability arising from contract, express
or implied, which serve as basis of civil action Issue: WON the CIAC has jurisdiction to
between private parties." entertain the suit and is immune from suit.

Issue: WON the petitioner have the right of Ruling: NO.

action against the gov't under RA 3083.
Ruling: NO
At the time the claims were filed,
Commonwealth Act No. 327 was already
enacted, superseding Act No. 3083.
The invocation of immunity from suit is without
merit. This is so because the gov't has already
received and accepted the benefits rendered.
To refuse payment as a result of state's
immunity from suit would allow the gov't to
unjustly enrich itself at the expense of another.

Republic vs NLRC
Facts:
Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI) faced
sequestration by the PCGG after the 1986 EDSA
uprising. Its management was transferred to
Asset Privatization Trust, which recommended
privatization to prevent futher losses. As part of
the privatization, around 500 employees were
laid off, leading to labor-related suits.
Issue: WON APT is immune from suit.
Ruling: NO.
The State's consent to be sued may be given
either expressly or implied. Impled consent is
conceded when the State itself commences
litigationm thus opening itself to a counter-
claim, or when it enters into a contract.
However, in the case at bar, the APT cannot be
held liable for PNEI's obligations. When the
State waives its immunity, all it does, in effect,
is to give the other party an opportunity to
present their case.
Agency - Propriety
United States vs Guinto
Facts:
The private respondents are suing several
officers of the US Air Force in Clark Air Base in
connection with the bidding conducted by them
for contracts for barber services in the said
base, which was won by Dizon. The respondents
wanted to cancel the award because they
claimed that Dizon had included in his bid an
area not included in the invitation to bid, and
also, to conduct a rebidding.
Issue: WON the defendants are immune from
suit under the RP-US Bases Treaty.
Ruling: NO.
Sovereign immunity from suit do not confer on
the United States of America a blanket
immunity for all acts done by it or its agents in
the Philippines. The United States of America,
like any other state, will be deemed to have
impliedly waived its non-suability if it has
entered into a contract in its proprietary or
private capacity. It is only when the contract
involves its sovereign or governmental capacity
that no such waiver may be implied.

Exceptional Circumstances to avoid injustice

DOH vs Canchela

Facts:

The private respondent filed charges in before

the Construction Industry Arbitration
Commission (CIAC) against the DOH for non-
payment of professional or consultancy fee.

During the construction of the projects, various

deficiancies in the performance of the agreed
scope of work were allegedly discovered which
were not communicated to the private
respondents, thus the petitioner withheld the
consultancy fees.

The Arbritator issued a decision sentencing the

DOH to pay the private respondent.