BARRIOS Immunity

7/23/2019 BARRIOS Immunity

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/barrios-immunity 1/48

Lyons, Inc. v. The United States America



FACTS:

• Plainti (arry Lyons, Inc.! " #ro$%ht an action #ethe CFI of manila to collect s$ms of money arisina contract entered into #et&een 'lainti and def

• efendant (USA " )*+ US aval S$''ly e'ot, U

Phili''ines! - led a motion to dismiss.the co$rt has no /$risdiction over defendan

the s$#/ect matter of the action.



• Plainti (arry Lyons, Inc.! and defendant (USA!

entered contract for stevedorin% service at the U0ase, S$#ic 0ay, Phili''ines,

the contract to terminate on 1$ne 23, +4*).

entered '$rs$ant to the 'rovisions of Section 5 (c! (+! of the Armed Services Proc$reme

+467 of the USA (P$#lic La& 6+2, 83th Con%ress!



The lo&er co$rt s$stained the motdismiss

+. The co$rt lac9s /$risdiction over defendaIt #ein% a soverei%n state &hich cannots$ed &itho$t its content

5. arry Lyons, Inc." failed to eha$st theadministrative remedies 'rovided for in A;;I of the contract.



• &hen a soverei%n state enters into a contract &ith a 'rivate 'estate can #e s$ed $'on the theory that it has descended to thindivid$al from &hich it can #e im'lied that it has %iven its cons$ed $nder the contract.

• If, &here and &hen the state or its %overnment enters into a cthro$%h its o<cers or a%ents, =.. '$rs$ant to constit$tional lea$thority, &here#y m$t$al or reci'rocal #enets accr$e and rio#li%ations arise from s$ch contract ,and if the la& %rantin% the a$thority to enter into s$ch contract do

'rovide for or name the o<cer a%ainst &hom action may #e #ro$%

event of a #reach thereof,

• the state itself may #e s$ed even &itho$t its consent, #eca$seinto a contract the soverei%n state has descended to the level citi>en and consent to #e s$ed is im'lied from the very act ents$ch contract.



S$'reme Co$rt ?$lin%:

• A%reed that the US @overnment, thro$%h its a%ency a0ay, entered into a contract &ith a''ellant for stevedmiscellaneo$s la#or services &ithin the S$#ic 0ay areavy ?eservation,

It is evident that the 'lainti can #rin% an action #efore

Co$rt for any contract$al lia#ility that 'olitical entity mass$me $nder the contract.

The trial co$rt, therefore, has /$risdiction to entertain tin so far as a''ellee is concerned.



0UT:• Ass$min% that the trial co$rt has /$risdiction to en

this case, o$t

ISSU:• id said co$rt err in dismissin% the com'laint on t

%ro$nd that 'lainti has failed to com'ly &ith thecondition 'rescri#ed in the contract #efore an act#e ta9en in co$rt a%ainst the U. S. @overnmentB



APPLICA0L LAArticle ;;I Disputes of the contract 'rovid

• = any dispute =. $nder this contract &hich is no

dis'osed of #y a%reement shall be decided by thContracting Ofcer, ...

• = the Contractor may a''eal #y mailin% or other&f$rnishin% to the Contractin% D<cer a &ritten a''e

addressed to the Secretary, =.

• =. and the decision of the Secretary or his d$ly a$re'resentative for the hearin% of s$ch a''eals, sha



• $nless determined #y a co$rt of com'etent /$risdhave #een fra$d$lent, ar#itrary, ca'ricio$s, or so erroneo$s as necessary to im'ly #ad faith,

• #e nal and concl$sive, 'rovided that, if no s$ch ata9en, the decision of the Contractin% D<cer shaland concl$sive.

• In connection &ith any a''eal 'roceedin% $nder tcla$se, the Contractor shall #e aorded an o''ort#e heard and to oer evidence in s$''ort of its a'



ha$stion of Administrativ?emedies

• Plainti did not com'ly &ith the 'roced$re laid dArticle ;;I of the contract re%ardin% the 'rosec$its claim a%ainst the United States @overnment.

• It has failed to rst eha$st its administrative re

a%ainst said @overnment, the lo&er co$rt acted'ro'erly in dismissin% this case.



MINUCHER v. CA



• 'etitioner led &ith the ?e%ional Trial Co$rt (?TCEanila a com'laint for dama%es a%ainst 'rivateres'ondent Arth$r Scal>o, 1r.



FACTS

• Petitioner (horso& Ein$cher! &as the La#or Attathe m#assy of Iran in the Phili''ines.

• Dn +2 Eay +48), Ein$cher &as introd$ced to 'rivres'ondent (Arth$r Scal>o, 1r.!, then connected &iAmerican m#assy #y one 1ose IHi%o, an #elon%in% to the military intelli%ence comm$nity.



• Scal>o &as interested in #$yin% Iranian 'rod$cts, namely car'ets.

• Dn this same occasion, Ein$cher com'lained to Scal>o a#'ro#lems &ith the American m#assy a#o$t the e'ired v&ife and fello& Iranian, A##as Tora#ian.

• Scal>o oered to hel' and %ave the Ein$cher a callin% car

• sho&in% that the former is an a%ent of the r$% nforcement Adm(A!, e'artment of 1$stice, of the United States of America assAmerican m#assy in Eanila.



• Scal>o also e'ressed his intent to '$rchase t&o (of caviar &orth P+3,333.33 and informed Ein$he mi%ht have 'ros'ective #$yers for these %ood

• he f$rther 'romised to arran%e for the rene&al of aforesaid visas for a K5,333.33 fee.



• In the evenin% of Eay 5) ,+48) " Scal>o came to Einresidence

•

and as9ed to #e entr$sted &ith a 'air of Persian sil9 &ith a Moor Price of K56,333.33 each, for &hich he h

• The follo&in% day, Scal>o ret$rned to Ein$chers restoo9 the car'ets and %ave Ein$cher K56,333.33J

• after a#o$t an ho$r, Scal>o ret$rned, claimed that healready made arran%ements &ith his contacts at them#assy concernin% the visas and as9ed for K5,333.



• It t$rned o$t " that Scal>o had 're'ared an ela#orate 'lframe"$' the Ein$cher and A##as Tora#ian for alle%ed htra<c9in%J

• 0oth &ere falsely arrested #y Scal>o and &ere ta9en to CCrame in their $nder&ear.

• Scal>o too9 Ein$chers 2 s$itcases containin% doc$ment

&allet as &ell as the K56,333.33 &hich Scal>o had earliedelivered to him.



• Ein$cher and Tora#ian &ere handc$ed for 2 days not %iven food and &aterJ

• They &ere as9ed to confess to the 'ossession of herelse they &o$ld #e /ailed or even eec$ted #y Iraniaterrorists.

• The t&o &ere char%ed for the violation of Section 6 o. )65* (an%ero$s r$%s Act of +475! #efore the Pasi%.

• They &ere, " acN$itted #y the said co$rt on 1an 8, +



PetitionerAlleges

• that Scal>o falsely testied a%ainst him in the criminal case.

• that char%es of $nla&f$l arrest, ro##ery and estafa ors&indlin% have already #een led a%ainst Scal>o.

rays• dama%es of not less t

(K56,333.33! " the fair maPe

• K5,333.33 re'resentin% the ref$he had %iv

• moral dama%es in the amo$

• eem'lary dama%es in the s$m

• attys fees of at le



Scal>os co$nsel led a S'ecial A''earance and Eo

• alle%in% that since Scal>o is an a%ent of the A

USA, and the acts and omissions com'lained of &'erformed #y him in the 'erformance of o<cial f$

• the case is no& $nder st$dy #y the e't. of State 1$stice in ashin%ton, .C. for the '$r'ose of det

&hat defenses &o$ld #e a''ro'riateJ



Scal>os co$nsel leda S'ecial A''earance to O$ash S$mmons

• alle%in% that: The action #ein% a 'ersonal action for dama%from an alle%ed tort,

• the defendant #ein% o$tside the Phili''ines and not #ein% a the Phili''ines, efendant is #eyond the 'rocesses of this co

• The trial co$rt denied the motion

• Unsatised &ith the said order, Scal>o led a 'etition for certhe Co$rt of A''eals.

• the Co$rt of A''eals dismissed the 'etition for lac9 of merit.



• th$s so$%ht a revie& of the said decision #y lin%'etition &ith the S$'reme Co$rt (SC!

• Said 'etition &as dismissed #y the SC

• failed to sho& that the Co$rt of A''eals had commany reversi#le error in the N$estioned /$d%ment.



ISSU:• Eay a com'laint for dama%es #e dismissed on the

#asis of a statement contained in a i'lomatic o#elatedly iss$ed after an ans&er to the said com'already #een led, that the defendant &as a memthe di'lomatic sta of the United States i'lomatEission in the Phili''ines at the time the ca$se ofaccr$edB

th i th ll d di l ti i it



the core iss$e Q the alle%ed di'lomatic imm$nity 'rivate Respondent

• it too9 'rivate res'ondent (+! year, ei%ht (8! months and (+7! da

• #efore he co$ld sec$re the i'lomatic ote from the U.S. m#as

• and even %rantin% for the sa9e of ar%$ment that s$ch note is a$tcom'laint for dama%es led #y the 'etitioner still cannot #e 'eredismissed.

• said com'laint contains s$<cient alle%ations &hich indicate thatcommitted the im'$ted acts in his 'ersonal ca'acity and o$tsideof his o<cial d$ties and f$nctions.



•

hether s$ch claim arises from criminal acts or tort, there can #e no N$estion that Scal>o &as s$his 'ersonal ca'acity for acts committed o$tsideo<cial f$nctions and d$ties.



APPLICA0L LAArticle 2+ of the Rienna Convention on i'lomatic ?elations

+. A di'lomatic a%ent shall en/oy imm$nity fro

criminal /$risdiction of the receivin% State. e also en/oy imm$nity from its civil and administ

/$risdiction e!cept in the case of:

x x x (c! an action relatin% to any 'rofessional orcommercial activity eercised #y the di'lomain the receivin% State outside his ofcial"unctions.



• Insofar as the records are concerned, Scal>o did nfor&ard &ith evidence to 'rove that he had acted

o<cial ca'acity.

• It does not a''ear that an act$al hearin% on the to dismiss &as cond$cted and that Scal>o oeredin s$''ort thereof.



Holy See v. Rosario, J



FACTS:

•

Petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of la

•Lot 5-A, registered under the name Holy See, wascontiguous to Lot 5-B and 5-D under the name ofPhilippine Realty Corporation (PRC).

• The land was donated by the Archdiocese of ManilaPapal Nuncio, which represents the Holy See, who esovereignty over the Vatican City, Rome, Italy, for hiresidence.

•SaidlotsweresoldthroughanagenttoRamonLicupwhoas



•Said lots were sold through an agent to Ramon Licup who asrights to respondents Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc.

• When the squatters refuse to vacate the lots, a dispute arosethe two parties because both were unsure whose responsibili

evict the squatters from said lots.

•Starbright Sales Enterprises Inc - insists that Holy See shouproperty

•

While Holy See states - that respondent corporation shoulddearnest money will be returned. With this, Msgr. Cirilios, the subsequently returned the P100,000 earnest money.

• The lots were then sold to Tropicana Properties and DevelopmCorporation.



•Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc. filed a suit for

annulment of the sale,specific performance and damages

against Msgr. Cirilios,

PRC

as well as Tropicana Properties and Development Corporation.



The Holy See and Msgr. Cirilos moved to dismiss the petition

•lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity fr

•RTC denied the motion on ground that petitioner a"shed off" its sovereign immunity by entering into acontract.

• The subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was alshence this special civil action for certiorari was forwthe Supreme Court.



ISSUE:

Can Holy See invoke sovereign immunity?



RULING:

Holy See may properly invoke sovereign immunity fosuability



APPLICA0L LA(S!:

•. As e'ressed in #ec. $ Art II o" the %&'(Constitution, %enerally acce'ted 'rinci'les ofInternational La& are ado'ted #y o$r Co$rts andshall form 'art of the la&s of the land as a condconseN$ence of o$r admission in the society of



Article 2+(A! of the +4)+ Rienna Convention on i'lomatic

• di'lomatic envoy shall #e %ranted imm$nity from cadministrative /$risdiction of the receivin% state ovreal action relatin% to 'rivate immova#le 'ro'erty.

The e'artment of Forei%n Aairs (FA! certiethe m#assy of the oly See is a d$ly accreditedi'lomatic missionary to the ?e'$#lic of the Phand is th$s eem'ted from local /$risdiction anentitled to the imm$nity ri%hts of a di'lomatic or em#assy in this Co$rt.



in the case at bar,

•the petitioner - bought and sold lands in the ordincourse of real estate business, surely, the saidtransaction can be categorized as an act jure ges

•However, petitioner has denied that the acquisitio

subsequent disposal of the lot were made for proficlaimed that it acquired said property for the site mission or the Apostolic Nunciature in the Philipp



• The Holy See is immune from suit because the act oflot of concern isnon-propriety in nature.

• The lot was acquired through a donation from the Arcof Manila, not for a commercial purpose, but for the upetitioner to construct the official place of residence oPapal Nuncio thereof.

• The transfer of the property and its subsequent dispolikewise clothed with a governmental (non-proprietal)as petitioner sold the lot not for profit or gain rather bmerely cannot evict the squatters living in said proper



#OU)HEA#) A#IAN *I#HERIE# +E,E-OMCEN)ER

v. ACO#)A



FACTS• T&o la#or cases, &ere led #y the 'rivate res'ond

a%ainst the 'etitioner, So$theast Asian Fisheriesevelo'ment Center (SAFC!, #efore the atio?elations Commission (L?C!, ?e%ional Ar#itratioIloilo City.

•

In these cases, the 'rivate res'ondents claim hav&ron%f$lly terminated from their em'loyment #y 'etitioner.



• Dn 55 A$%$st +443 " SAFC led a Eotion to challen%in% the /$risdiction of the '$#lic res'ondeta9in% co%ni>ance of the a#ove cases.

• contends to #e an international inter"%overnmentor%ani>ation



• The 'rivate res'ondents, as &ell as res'ondent laar#iter, alle%e that the 'etitioner is not imm$ne fr

• and ass$min% that if, indeed, it is an internationaor%ani>ation, it has im'liedly, if not e'ressly, &aimm$nity #y #elatedly raisin% the iss$e of /$risdic



?ULI@

• The Co$rt r$led for the 'etitioner.

• It is #eyond N$estion that 'etitioner SAFC is international a%ency en/oyin% di'lomatic imm$n

Phili''ine 1$ris'r$dence



Phili''ine 1$ris'r$dence

• Petitioner (SAFC"AO! is an international a%ency #eyond the /$risdicres'ondent L?C.

• It &as esta#lished #y the @overnments of 0$rma, in%dom of Cam#odiathe Phili''ines. . .

• The ?e'$#lic of the Phili''ines #ecame a si%natory to the A%reement esSAFC on 1an$ary +), +4)8.

Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center-Aquaculture Department vs. National Labor Relations Commission , @.?. o. 8

Lacanilao v. de Leon @.?. o. 7

P$r'ose



• to contri#$te to the 'romotion of the sheriesdevelo'ment in So$theast Asia #y m$t$al co"o'eamon% the mem#er %overnments of the Center, .



APPLICA0L LA

• P$rs$ant to its #ein% a si%natory to the A%reement, the ?e'$#lic of

Phili''ines a%reed to #e re'resented #y one irector in %overnin% SCo$ncil Agree/ent Establishing #EA*+EC0 Art. 10 %0. . .20

• and that its national la&s and re%$lations shall a''ly only insofar ascontri#$tions to SAFC of an a%reed amo$nt of money, mova#leimmova#le 'ro'erty and services necessary for the esta#lishment a

o'eration of the Center are concerned

• It e'ressly &aived the a''lication of the Phili''ine la&s on the dis

of f$nds of 'etitioner SAFC"AO #ection $0 .+. No. $&

D f th # i i iti f i t ti l



• Dne of the #asic imm$nities of an internationalor%ani>ation is imm$nity from local /$risdiction

REA#ON3 the s$#/ection of s$ch an or%ani>ation ta$thority of the local co$rts =. may interfere in tho'erations or even inM$ence or control its 'oliciesdecisions of the or%ani>ationJ

s$ch o#/ection to local /$risdiction &o$ld im'aica'acity of s$ch #ody to dischar%e its res'onsi#ilim'artially on #ehalf of its mem#er"states.



Anent the iss$e of &aiver of imm$nity, s$<ce it to say at ththat the 'etitioner has timely raised the iss$e of /$risdiction

• hile the 'etitioner did not N$estion the '$#licres'ondents lac9 of /$risdiction at the early sta%the 'roceedin%s, it, nevertheless, did so #efore iits case and certainly &ell #efore the 'roceedin%thereat had terminated.

BARRIOS Immunity

Documents