Case Digest Political

8/11/2019 Case Digest Political

1/24

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

PRELIMINARYCONSIDERATIONS

A.M. No. 93-7-696-0 February 2!99"

I# Re $OA%&IN T. 'ORROMEO! E(Re). Cebu C*+y C,a+er o +,e

I#+e/ra+e 'ar o +,e P,*)**#e1.HELD:

Joaquin Borromeo was declared guilty

of constructive contempt of court for

repetitiously disrespecting the decisions and

resolutions issued by the courts, and even by

issuing a circular containing libelous and

offending accusations li!e whimsical,

capricious, and tyrannical" against the

#upreme $ourt %ustices and its employees& Heeven delivered a letter accusing lawyers of

defamatory comments and insults& 'his is due

to his series of dismissed complaints and

appeals against ( ban!s namely 'raders )oyal

Ban!, *nited $oconut +lanters Ban!, and

#ecurity Ban! and 'rust $o& from which he

obtained loans with unfulfilled mortgages& n

relation to this, he filed cases against the

lawyers of these ban!s and even against the

cler!s of court who signed the minute

resolutions of these cases& 'he actions reached

the alarming number of -. cases varying fromcivil, criminal, to administrative cases&

n response, the court answered all his

false alleged accusations through a resolution

along with declaring him guilty of contempt of

court&

A.M. MT$-9-7 $u)y 2! 99$ES&S S. COND&CTO vs.

$&D4E IL&MINADO C. MON5ON

/0$'#:0 complaint was filed by petitioner

$onducto with the #angguniang +anlungsod of

#an +ablo $ity against Ben%amin 1aghirang,

the barangay chairman of Barangay 2E of

#an +ablo $ity, for abuse of authority, serious

irregularity and violation of law in that, among

other things for appointing his sister2in2law to

the position of barangay secretary which

violates the law& 0 case was filed against

1aghirang for violating 0rt 344 *nlawful

0ppointment" under the )+$& +etitioner see!s

that 1aghirang be suspended from his office

but it was denied by the respondent %udge

holding that the requirement for such action is

a simultaneous e5istence of administrative andcriminal cases as against the accused, which

according to him is not present in this case,

and that the reelection of the Barangay

$hairman is a condonation of his mista!es

during his prior term& Hence, petitioner filed a

case against the respondent %udge for

ignorance of the law&

##*E: 678 respondent %udge is guilty of

ignorance of the law&

HELD: 9E#&'he claim of respondent Judge that a

local official who is criminally charged can be

preventively suspended only if there is an

administrative case filed against him is without

basis& t is well settled that #ection ( of )0

(.; ma!es it mandatory for the

#andiganbayan or the $ourt" to suspend any

public officer against whom a valid information

charging violation of this law, Boo! , 'itle < of

the )+$, or any offense involving fraud upon

government or public funds or property is filed

in court& Barangay $hairman Ben%amin1aghirang was charged with *nlawful

0ppointment, punishable under 0rticle 344,

'itle


2/24


A.M. No. 33-$ May 3! 92'ERNARDITA R. MACARIOLA1. ONORA'LE ELIAS '.

AS&NCION! $u/e o +,e Cour+ oF*r1+ I#1+a#8e o Ley+e

/0$'#:

'his is a complaint of petitioner against

respondent %udge of Aacts unbecoming of a

%udge regarding an act following the

unfavorable decision rendered by the

respondent %udge against the former

concerning disputed properties of her deceased

father which were being claimed by the latter>s

children from a subsequent marriage& t turned

out that respondent %udge purchased one of

the lots in the case decided by him and

transferred it to the fishing corporation where

he is a stoc!holder and a ran!ing officer& 0long

with this, other misdeeds were also e5posed

such as that his involvement in the mentioned

business corporation while he is sitting as a

%udge is in violation of the law, his alleged

coddling of and close relations with an

impostor, Dominador 'an, who misrepresents

himself as a practicing attorney, and other

disregard for ethics&

##*E: 678 respondent %udge should be held

guilty of Aacts unbecoming of a %udge&

HELD: 87&

)espondent Judge cannot be held liable

for involving himself in a business because

there is no showing that respondent

participated or intervened in his

official capacity in the business or transactions

of the 'raders 1anufacturing and /ishing

ndustries, nc& n the case at bar, the business

of the corporation in which respondent

participated has obviously no relation or

connection with his %udicial office& t does notappear also from the records that the aforesaid

corporation gained any undue advantage in its

business operations by reason of respondentCs

financial involvement in it, or that the

corporation benefited in one way or another in

any case filed by or against it in court& 8o

provision in both the ;(- and ;


3/24


4.R. No. "2" $u)y "! 2003REP&'LIC OF TE PILIPPINES

1. ONORA'LESANDI4AN'AYAN SPECIAL

FIRST DI:ISION;! Fer*#a# E.Mar8o1 rere1e#+e by ,*1

e1+a+ee)a R. Mar8o1!Mar*a I>e)a ?I>ee@ Mar8o1-

Ma#o+o8! Fer*#a# R. Mar8o1! $r.a# Ire#e Mar8o1-Ara#e+a; a#

I>e)a Ro>ua)e Mar8o1

/0$'#:

+etitioner )epublic, through the

+residential $ommission on Food Fovernment

+$FF", represented by the 7ffice of the#olicitor Feneral 7#F", filed a petition for

forfeiture before the #andiganbayan& +etitioner

sought the declaration of the aggregate

amount of *#G(- million now estimated to

be more than *#G- million inclusive of

interest" deposited in escrow in the +8B, as ill2

gotten wealth& 'he funds were previously held

by the following five account groups, using

various foreign foundations in certain #wiss

ban!s& n addition, the petition sought the

forfeiture of *#G3- million and *#G- million in

treasury notes which e5ceeded the 1arcoscouple>s salaries, other lawful income as well

as income from legitimately acquired property&

'he treasury notes are fro=en at the

$entral Ban! of the +hilippines by virtue of the

free=e order issued by the +$FF& Before the

case was set for pre2trial, a Feneral 0greement

and the #upplemental 0greement dated

December 3, ;;( were e5ecuted by the

1arcos children and then +$FF $hairman

1agtanggol Funigundo for a global settlement

of the assets of the 1arcos family to identify,

collate, cause the inventory of and distributeall assets presumed to be owned by the 1arcos

family under the conditions contained therein&

##*E: 678 the #wiss funds can be forfeited

in favor of the )epublic, on the basis of the

1arcoses> lawful income&

HELD: 87&

)0 (


4/24


TE STATE

4.R. No. L-26379 De8e>ber 27!969

BILLIAM C. REA4AN! ET. AL 1.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

RE:EN&E

/0$'#:

+etitioner )eagan, a civilian employee

of an 0merican corporation providing technical

assistance to the *# 0ir /orce in the

+hilippines, questioned the payment of the

income ta5 assessed on him by respondent $)

on an amount reali=ed by him on a sale of his

automobile to a member of the *# 1arine

$orps, the transaction having ta!en place at

the $lar! /ield 0ir Base at +ampanga& t is his

contention, that in legal contemplation the sale

was made outside +hilippine territory and

therefore beyond our %urisdictional power to

ta5& He see!s that an amount of +3,;


5/24


concurred in by the #enate and, when

the $ongress so requires, ratified by a

ma%ority of the votes cast by the

people in a national referendum held

for that purpose, and recogni=ed as a

treaty by the other contracting #tate&

'he provision of 0rt& MK, #ec& 3- of the$onstitution, is complied with by virtue of the

fact that the presence of the *# 0rmed /orces

through the K/0 is a presence Aallowed under

the )+2*# 1utual Defense 'reaty& #ince the

)+2*# 1utual Defense 'reaty itself has been

ratified and concurred in by both the +hilippine

#enate and the *# #enate, there is no

violation of the $onstitutional provision

resulting from such presence&

'he K/0 being a valid and binding

agreement, the parties are required as a

matter of international law to abide by itsterms and provisions&

0pplying, however, the provisions of

K/0, the $ourt finds that there is a different

treatment when it comes to detention as

against custody& Art. V, Sec. 10. The

confinement or detention by Philiine

a!thorities of "nited States ersonnel shall be

carried o!t in facilities agreed on by

aroriate Philiines and "S a!thorities.#

'herefore, the )omulo2enney

0greements of December ; and 33, 3..,

which are agreements on the detention of theaccused in the United States Embassy, are

not in accord with the K/0 itself because such

detention is not Aby +hilippine

authorities& )espondents should therefore

comply with the K/0 and negotiate with

representatives of the *nited #tates towards

an agreement on detention facilities under

+hilippine authorities as mandated by 0rt& K,

#ec& . of the K/0&

4.R. No. L-96"7. Noe>ber 29!9"6LEOPOLDO T. 'ACANI a# MATEO

A. MATOTO 1. NATIONALCOCON&T CORPORATION! ET AL.!

NATIONAL COCON&TCORPORATION a# 'OARD OF

LI%&IDATORS

/0$'#:

+laintiffs herein are court

stenographers assigned in Branch K of the

$ourt of /irst nstance of 1anila& During the

pendency of $ivil $ase 8o& 33;( of said court,entitled /rancisco #ycip vs& 8ational $oconut

$orporation, 0ssistant $orporate $ounsel

/ederico 0li!pala, counsel for Defendant,

requested said stenographers for copies of the

transcript of the stenographic notes ta!en by

them during the hearing& +laintiffs complied

with the request by delivering to $ounsel

0li!pala the needed transcript containing


6/24


acquire the status of a government entity for

the simple reason that they do not come under

the classification of municipal or public

corporation& 80$7$7 is a F7$$& 'hus, not

part of the government&

4.R. No. L-2 Noe>ber29! 969

TE A4RIC&LT&RAL CREDITAND COOPERATI:E FINANCIN4ADMINISTRATION ACCFA; 1.

CONFEDERATION OF &NIONS IN4O:ERNMENT CORPORATIONSAND OFFICES C&4CO;! e+. a).

/0$'#:

'he 0gricultural $redit and $ooperative

/inancing 0dministration 0$$/0" was a

government agency created under )epublic 0ct

8o& 3, as amended& ts administrative

machinery was reorgani=ed and its name

changed to 0gricultural $redit 0dministration

0$0" under the Land )eform $ode )epublic

0ct 8o& (44"&

7n #eptember 4, ; a collective

bargaining agreement, which was to beeffective for a period of one " year was

entered into by and between the *nions and

the 0$$/0& 0 few months thereafter, the

*nions started protesting against alleged

violations and non2implementation of said

agreement& 'hereafter *nions declared a

strike, which was ended when the stri!ers

voluntarily returned to wor!& 'he *nions,

together with its mother union, the

$onfederation of *nions in Fovernment

$orporations and 7ffices $*F$7", filed a

complaint with the $ourt of ndustrial )elations

against the 0$$/0 for having allegedly

committed acts of unfair labor practice&

##*E: 678 the *nions and $*F$7 had the

right to commence a $B0 with 0$0, formerly

0$$/0&

HELD: 87&

6e hold that the respondent *nions

are not entitled to the certification election

sought in the $ourt below& #uch certification is

admittedly for purposes of bargaining in behalf

of the employees with respect to terms and

conditions of employment, including the right

to stri!e as a coercive economic weapon, as infact the said unions did stri!e in ;3 against

the 0$$/0& 'his is contrary to #ection of

)epublic 0ct 8o&


7/24


Lepanto $onsolidated 1ining $ompany&

*n!nown to the latest owner, the $) of La

*nion issued an 7rder in Land )egistration

$ase 8o& 82( declaring the deed of sale

between Falve= and 1amaril, et& al& 7$' 8o&

.2(" null and void, and ordered the

cancellation thereof&Lepanto $onsolidated 1ining $ompany

sold to herein petitioner #hipside nc& Lots 8o&

and 4&

'wenty2four years after, the lots have

never been e5ecuted& $onsequently, a

complaint for revival of %udgment and

cancellation of titles was filed by the 7#F&

##*E: 678 Republic of the hilippines can

maintain the action fo! !e"i"al of judgment he!ein

despite the issue of p!esc!iption.

HELD: 87&

6hile it is true that prescription does not

run against the #tate, the same may not be

invo!ed by the government in this case since it

is no longer interested in the sub%ect matter&

1oreover, to recogni=e the Fovernment as

a proper party to sue in this case would set a

bad precedent as it would allow the )epublic to

prosecute, on behalf of government2owned or

controlled corporations, causes of action which

have already prescribed, on the prete5t that

the Fovernment is the real party in interestagainst whom prescription does not run, said

corporations having been created merely as

agents for the reali=ation of government

programs&

+arenthetically, petitioner was not a party

to the original suit for cancellation of title

commenced by the )epublic twenty2seven

years for which it is now being made to

answer, nay, being made to suffer financial

losses&

t should also be noted that petitioner is

unquestionably a buyer in good faith and for

value, having acquired the property in ;(, or

- years after the issuance of the original

certificate of title, as a third transferee& f only

not to do violence and to give some measure

of respect to the 'orrens #ystem, petitioner

must be afforded some measure of protection&

STATE IMM&NITY

ACT NO. 303AN ACT DEFININ4 TE

CONDITIONS &NDER BICTE 4O:ERNMENT OF TE

PILIPPINE ISLANDS MAY 'ES&ED

Section 1. Complaint against Government&

N #ub%ect to the provisions of this 0ct, the

Fovernment of the +hilippine slands hereby

consents and submits to be sued upon any

moneyed claim involving liability arising from

contract, e5pressed or implied, which could

serve as a basis of civil action between private

parties&

Sec. 2& 0 person desiring to avail himself of

the privilege herein conferred must show that

he has presented his claim to the nsular

0uditor and that the latter did not decide the

same within two months from the date of its

presentation&

Sec. 3. Venue. 7riginal actions brought

pursuant to the authority conferred in this 0ct

shall be instituted in the $ourt of /irst nstance

of the $ity of 1anila or of the province werethe claimant resides, at the option of the latter,

upon which court e5clusive original %urisdiction

is hereby conferred to hear and determine

such actions&

Sec. !. 0ctions instituted as aforesaid shall be

governed by the same rules of procedure, both

original and appellate, as if the litigants were

Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST LawIts not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden


8/24


private parties&

Sec. ". 6hen the Fovernment of the +hilippine

sland is plaintiff in an action instituted in any

court of original %urisdiction, the defendant

shall have the right to assert therein, by way of

set2off or counterclaim in a similar actionbetween private parties&

Sec. #. +rocess in actions brought against the

Fovernment of the +hilippine slands pursuant

to the authority granted in this 0ct shall be

served upon the 0ttorney2Feneral 3 whose

duty it shall be to appear and ma!e defense,

either himself or through delegates&

Sec. $. E%ecution. 8o e5ecution shall issue

upon any %udgment rendered by any court

against the Fovernment of the +hilippineslands under the provisions of this 0ct but a

copy thereof duly certified by the cler! of the

$ourt in which %udgment is rendered shall be

transmitted by such cler! to the Fovernor2

Feneral, ( within five days after the same

becomes final&

Sec. &. 'ransmittal o( )ecision. 'he

Fovernor2Feneral, 4 at the commencement of

each regular session of the Legislature, - shall

transmit to that body for appropriate action all

decisions so received by him, and if said bodydetermine that payment should be made, it

shall appropriate the sum which the

Fovernment has been sentenced to pay,

including the same in the appropriations for

the ensuing year&

Sec. *. 'his 0ct shall ta!e effect on its

approval&

Aroved$ %arch 1&, 1'().

COMMONBEALT ACT NO. 327AN ACT FIIN4 TE TIME

BITIN BIC TE A&DITOR4ENERAL SALL RENDER ISDECISIONS AND PRESCRI'IN4

TE MANNER OF APPEALTEREFROM

Section 1. n all cases involving the

settlement of accounts or claims, other than

those of accountable officers, the 0uditor

Feneral shall act and decide the same within

si5ty days, e5clusive of #undays and holidays,

after their presentation& f said accounts orclaims need reference to other persons, office

or offices, or to a party interested, the period

aforesaid shall be counted from the time the

last comment necessary to a proper decision is

received by him& 6ith respect to the accounts

of accountable officers, the 0uditor Feneral

shall act on the same within one hundred days

after their submission, #undays and holidays

e5cepted&

n case of accounts or claims already

submitted to but still pending decision by the0uditor Feneral on or before the approval of

this 0ct, the periods provided in this section

shall commence from the date of such

approval&

Section 2. 'he party aggrieved by the final

decision of the 0uditor Feneral in the

settlement of an account for claim may, within

thirty days from receipt of the decision, ta!e

an appeal in writing:

+a, 'o the +resident of the *nited #tates,pending the final and complete withdrawal of

her sovereignty over the +hilippines, or

+b, 'o the +resident of the +hilippines, or

+c, 'o the #upreme $ourt of the +hilippines if

the appellant is a private person or entity&

f there are more than one appellant, all

appeals shall be ta!en to the same authority

resorted to by the first appellant&

/rom a decision adversely affecting the

interests of the Fovernment, the appeal may

be ta!en by the proper head of the department

or in case of local governments by the head of

the office or branch of the Fovernment

immediately concerned&

'he appeal shall specifically set forth the



9/24


particular action of the 0uditor Feneral to

which e5ception is ta!en with the reasons and

authorities relied on for reversing such

decision&

Section 3. 'his 0ct shall ta!e effect upon its

approval&

Aroved$ *!ne 1+. 1')+.

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 07PRESCRI'IN4 TE PROCED&REBERE'Y TE REP&'LIC OFTE PILIPPINES MAY BAI:ESO:EREI4N IMM&NITY FROM

S&IT AND OTER LE4ALPROCEEDIN4 BIT RESPECT TO

ITSELF OR ITS PROPERTY INCONNECTION BIT FOREI4N

O'LI4ATIONS CONTRACTED 'YIT P&RS&ANT TO LAB

6HE)E0#, in the pursuit of economic growthand development, it has become imperative forthe )epublic of the +hilippines to enter intocontracts or transactions with international

ban!ing, financial and other foreignenterprises

6HE)E0#, recogni=ing this need, e5istinglegislation e5pressly authori=e the )epublic ofthe +hilippines to contract foreign obligations,including borrowings in foreign currency, andto guarantee foreign obligations of corporationsand other entities owned or controlled by theFovernment of the +hilippines

6HE)E0#, circumstances in the internationalmar!et may require that sovereign statesentering into contracts or transactions ma!e

e5press waivers of sovereign immunity inconnection with such contracts or transactions

6HE)E0#, it is in the national interest that aprocedure be prescribed with respect to thewaiver of sovereign immunity of the )epublicof the +hilippines in respect of internationalcontracts or transactions entered into by it

876, 'HE)E/7)E, , /E)D808D E& 10)$7#,+resident of the )epublic of the +hilippines, byvirtue of the powers vested in me by the$onstitution, do hereby order and decree:

Section 1.Proced!re for, and onditions of,-aiver of Sovereign Imm!nity.n instances where the law e5presslyauthori=es the )epublic of the +hilippines tocontract or incur a foreign obligation, it mayconsent to be sued in connection therewith&'he +resident of the +hilippines or his dulydesignated representative may, in behalf of the)epublic of the +hilippines, contractually agreeto waive any claim to sovereign immunity fromsuit or legal proceedings and from set2off,attachment or e5ecutive with respect to itsproperty, and to be sued in any appropriate

%urisdiction in regard to such foreign obligation&/or purposes of this decree, a foreignobligation means any direct, indirect, orcontingent obligation or liability capable ofpecuniary estimation and payable in a currencyother than +hilippine currency&

Section 2.Validity of eisting -aivers.8othing in this Decree shall be construed torevo!e or repeal any waiver of sovereignimmunity from suit or legal proceedings orfrom set2off, attachment or e5ecution grantedunder or pursuant to other provisions of law&

Section 3./ffectivity.'his Decree shall ta!eeffect immediately&

ARTICLE 20 NCC;555

'he #tate is responsible in li!e manner when it

acts through a special agent but not when the

damage has been caused by the official to

whom the tas! done properly pertains, in

which case what is provided in 0rticle 3


10/24


$ounsel for the plaintiff insists that the

trial court erred " Iin limiting the general

damages which the plaintiff suffered to +-,...,

instead of +3-,... as claimed in the

complaint,I and 3" Iin limiting the time when

plaintiff was entirely disabled to two months

and twenty2one days and fi5ing the damageaccordingly in the sum of +3,, instead of

+,... as claimed by plaintiff in his complaint&I

'he 0ttorney2Feneral on behalf of the

defendant urges that the trial court erred: a"

in finding that the collision between the

plaintiffCs motorcycle and the ambulance of the

Feneral Hospital was due to the negligence of

the chauffeur, who is an alleged agent or

employee of the Fovernment b" in holding

that the Fovernment of the +hilippine slands

is liable for the damages sustained by the

plaintiff as a result of the collision, even if it betrue that the collision was due to the

negligence of the chauffeur and c" in

rendering %udgment against the defendant for

the sum of +4,


11/24


company filed a complaint against the

defendants herein demanding specific

performance that the company be allowed to

perform the wor! on the pro%ects and, in the

event that specific performance was no longer

possible, to order the defendants to pay

damages&

##*E: 678 the *# is immune from suit

having dealt with a private corporation&

HELD: 9E#&

0 #tate may be said to have descended

the the level of an individual and can thus be

deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be

sued only when it enters into business

contracts& t does not apply where the contract

relates to the e5ercise of its sovereign

functions& n this case the pro%ects are anintegral part of the naval base which is devoted

to the defense of both the *nited #tates and

the +hilippines, indisputably a function of the

government of the highest order, they are not

utili=ed for nor dedicated to commercial or

business purposes&

4.R. No. 2906 Mar8, 6!2006

REP&'LIC OF TE PILIPPINESrere1e#+e by +,ePRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON4OOD 4O:ERNMENT PC44;1.

SANDI4AN'AYAN SECONDDI:ISION; a# RO'ERTO S.

'ENEDICTO.

/0$'#:

'he +$FF issued writs placing under

sequestration all business enterprises, entities

and other properties, real and personal, ownedor registered in the name of private respondent

Benedicto, or of corporations in which he

appeared to have controlling or ma%ority

interest due to his involvement in cases of ill2

gotten wealth& 0mong the properties thus

sequestered and ta!en over by +$FF fiscal

agents were the 33< shares in 87F$$ owned

by and registered under the name of private

respondent& 0s sequester of the 33< shares

formerly owned by Benedicto, +$FF did not

pay the monthly membership fee& Later on, the

shares were declared to be delinquent to be

put into an auction sale& Despite filing a writ of

in%unction, it was nevertheless dismissed& #o

petitioner )epublic and private respondentBenedicto entered into a $ompromise

0greement which contains a general release

clause where petitioner agreed and bound itself

to lift the sequestration on the 33< 87F$$

shares ac!nowledging that it was within private

respondent>s capacity to acquire the same

shares out of his income from business and the

e5ercise of his profession& mplied in this

underta!ing is the recognition by petitioner

that the sub%ect shares of stoc! could not have

been ill2gotten

Benedicto filed a 1otion for )eleasefrom #equestration and )eturn of #equestered

#haresDividends praying, inter alia, that his

87F$$ shares of stoc! be specifically released

from sequestration and returned, delivered or

paid to him as part of the parties> $ompromise

0greement in that case& t was granted but the

shares were ordered to be put under the

custody of the $ler! of $ourt& 0long with this,

+$FF was ordered to deliver the shares to the

$ler! of $ourt which it failed to comply with

without any %ustifiable grounds&

n a last2ditch attempt to escapeliability, petitioner )epublic, through the

+$FF, invo!es state immunity from suit&

##*E: 678 the )epublic can invo!e state

immunity&

HELD: 87&

n fact, by entering into a $ompromise

0greement with private respondent Benedicto,

petitioner )epublic thereby stripped itself of its

immunity from suit and placed itself in the

same level of its adversary& 6hen the #tate

enters into contract, through its officers or

agents, in furtherance of a legitimate aim and

purpose and pursuant to constitutional

legislative authority, whereby mutual or

reciprocal benefits accrue and rights and

obligations arise therefrom, the #tate may be

sued even without its e5press consent,

precisely because by entering into a contract



12/24


the sovereign descends to the level of the

citi=en& ts consent to be sued is implied from

the very act of entering into such contract,

breach of which on its part gives the

corresponding right to the other party to the

agreement&

4.R. No. L-2339 De8e>ber 7!966

MO'IL PILIPPINESEPLORATION! INC.1.

C&STOMS ARRASTRE SER:ICEa# '&REA& o C&STOMS

/0$'#:

/our cases of rotary drill parts were

shipped from abroad on #& ILeovilleIconsigned to 1obil +hilippines E5ploration, nc&,

1anila& t was discharged to the custody of the

$ustoms 0rrastre #ervice, the unit of the

Bureau of $ustoms then handling arrastre

operations therein& 'he $ustoms 0rrastre

#ervice later delivered to the bro!er of the

consignee three cases only& +etitioner filed suit

in the $ourt of /irst nstance of 1anila against

the $ustoms 0rrastre #ervice and the Bureau

of $ustoms to recover the value of the

undelivered case plus other damages& 'he

respondents filed a motion to dismiss on theground that not being persons under the law,

they cannot be sued&

##*E: 678 the defendants can invo!e state

immunity&

HELD: 9E#&

8ow, the fact that a non2corporate

government entity performs a function

proprietary in nature does not necessarily

result in its being suable& f said non2

governmental function is underta!en as anincident to its governmental function, there is

no waiver thereby of the sovereign immunity

from suit e5tended to such government entity&

'he Bureau of $ustoms, to repeat, is

part of the Department of /inance with no

personality of its own apart from that of the

national government& ts primary function is

governmental, that of assessing and collecting

lawful revenues from imported articles and all

other tariff and customs duties, fees, charges,

fines and penalties& 'o this function, arrastre

service is a necessary incident&

4.R. No. L-332 $u#e "! 97PILIPPINE NATIONAL 'AN1.ON. $&D4E $A:IER PA'ALAN!

$u/e o +,e Cour+ o F*r1+I#1+a#8e! 'ra#8, III! La *o#!A4OO TO'ACCO PLANTERS

ASSOCIATION! INC.! PILIPPINE:IR4INIA TO'ACCO

ADMINISTRATION! a# PANFILOP. $IMENE5! Deu+y S,er*! La

*o#

/0$'#:

'he reliance of petitioner +hilippine 8ational

Ban! against respondent Judge Javier +abalan

who issued a writ of e5ecution, followed

thereafter by a notice of garnishment of the

funds of respondent +hilippine Kirginia 'obacco

0dministration, deposited with it, is on the

fundamental constitutional law doctrine of non2

suability of a state, it being alleged that such

funds are public in character&

##*E: 678 the funds are public in character,

thus immune from suit&

HELD: 87&

t is to be admitted that under the

present $onstitution, what was formerly

implicit as a fundamental doctrine in

constitutional law has been set forth in e5press

terms: I'he #tate may not be sued without its

consent&I f the funds appertained to one of

the regular departments or offices in the

government, then, certainly, such a provision

would be a bar to garnishment& #uch is not the

case here&

t is well2settled that when the

government enters into commercial business, it

abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be

treated li!e any other corporation& By engaging

in a particular business thru the

instrumentality of a corporation, the



13/24


government divests itselfro hac viceof its

sovereign character, so as to render the

corporation sub%ect to the rules of law

governing private corporations&

4.R. No. L-363" Au/u1+ 3! 97AN4EL MINISTERIO a#AS&NCION SADAYA 1.

TE CO&RT OF FIRST INSTANCEOF CE'&! Four+, 'ra#8,! Pre1*eby +,e o#orab)e! $u/e $OSE C.

'ORROMEO! TE P&'LICI4BAY COMMISSIONER! a#

TE A&DITOR 4ENERAL

/0$'#:

+etitioners sought the payment of %ust

compensation for a registered lot alleging that

in ;3< the 8ational Fovernment through its

authori=ed representatives too! physical and

material possession of it and used it for the

widening of a national road, without paying

%ust compensation and without any agreement,

either written or verbal& 'here was an

allegation of repeated demands for the

payment of its price or return of its possession,

but defendants +ublic Highway $ommissioner

and the 0uditor Feneral refused to restore its

possession&

##*E: 678 the defendants are immune from

suit&

HELD: 87&

6here the %udgment in such a case

would result not only in the recovery of

possession of the property in favor of said

citi=en but also in a charge against or financial

liability to the Fovernment, then the suit

should be regarded as one against the

government itself, and, consequently, it cannotprosper or be validly entertained by the courts

e5cept with the consent of said Fovernment&

nasmuch as the #tate authori=es only

legal acts by its officers, unauthori-ed acts

o( government o((icials or o((icers are not

acts o( the State, and an action against the

officials or officers by one whose rights have

been invaded or violated by such acts, for the

protection of his rights, is not a suit against the

#tate within the rule of immunity of the #tate

from suit&

4.R. No. 6930 Mar8,

3! 2007TE DEPARTMENT OF EALT!SECRETARY MAN&EL M. DAYRIT!&SEC. MA. MAR4ARITA 4ALON

a# &SEC. ANTONIO M.LOPE5!1.

PIL. PARMABEALT! INC.

/0$'#:

)espondent +hil& +harmawealth, nc& is

a domestic corporation engaged in the

business of manufacturing and supplying

pharmaceutical products to government

hospitals in the +hilippines& 'hen #ecretary of

Health 0lberto F& )omualde=, Jr& issued

0dministrative 7rder 0&7&" 8o& 3< outlining

the guidelines and procedures on the

accreditation of government suppliers for

pharmaceutical products& 0&7& 8o& 3< was later

amended by providing for additional

guidelines (or accreditation of drug

suppliers aimed at ensuring that only qualified

bidders can transact business with petitioner&

)espondent submitted to petitioner

D7H a request for the inclusion of additional

items in its list of accredited drug products,

including the antibiotic I+enicillin F

Ben=athine&I D7H issued an nvitation for Bids

for the procurement of &3 million units vials of

+enicillin F Ben=athine& Despite the lac! of

response from petitioner D7H regarding

respondent>s request for inclusion of additional

items in its list of accredited products,

respondent submitted its bid for the +enicillin F

Ben=athine contract& 7nly two companies

participated, the respondent being the lowerbidder& n view, however, of the non

accreditation of respondent>s +enicillin F

Ben=athine product, the contract was awarded

to the other company& Hence, respondent filed

a complaint in%unction, mandamus and

damages against D7H&



14/24


##*E: 678 D7H can invo!e immunity from

suit&

HELD: 87&

'he suability of a government official

depends on whether the official concerned was

acting within his official or %urisdictionalcapacity, and whether the acts done in the

performance of official functions will result in a

charge or financial liability against the

government& n the first case, the $onstitution

itself assures the availability of %udicial

review, and it is the official concerned who

should be impleaded as the proper party& 0s

regards petitioner D7H, the defense of

immunity from suit will not avail despite its

being an unincorporated agency of the

government, for the only causes of action

directed against it are preliminary in%unctionand mandamus&

4.R. No. 3". Mar8, 6! 200

EP4 CONSTR&CTION CO.! ET. AL.vs. ONORA'LE 4RE4ORIO R.:I4ILAR! I# *1 Caa8*+y a1Se8re+ary o Pub)*8 BorG1 a#

*/,Hay1

/0$'#:

'he 1inistry of Human #ettlement,

through the BL## Development $orporation,

initiated a housing pro%ect on a government

property along the east ban! of the

1anggahan /loodway in +asig $ity& /or thispurpose, the 1inistry of Human #ettlement

entered into a 1emorandum of 0greement

170" with the 1inistry of +ublic 6or!s and

Highways, where the latter undertoo! to

develop the housing site and construct thereon

4- housing units& By virtue of the 170, the

1inistry of +ublic 6or!s and Highways forged

individual contracts with herein petitioners E+F

$onstruction $o&, et& al& for the construction of

the housing units&

By reason of the verbal request and

assurance of then D+6H that additional funds

would be available and forthcoming, petitioners

agreed to underta!e and perform Aadditional

constructions for the completion of thehousing units, despite the absence of

appropriations and written contracts to cover

subsequent e5penses for the Aadditional

constructions& +etitioners then received

payment for the construction wor! duly

covered by the individual written contracts,

thereby leaving an unpaid balance

representing the Aadditional constructions&

+etitioners sent a demand letter to the

D+6H #ecretary and submitted that their claim

for payment was favorably recommended by

D+6H 0ssistant #ecretary for Legal #erviceswho recogni=ed the e5istence of implied

contractscovering the additional

constructions&

)espondent argues that the #tate may not

be sued in the instant case, invo!ing the

constitutional doctrine of /onsuability o( the

State, otherwise !nown as the 0oyal

rerogative o( )ishonesty.

##*E: 678 D+6H can invo!e state immunity&

HELD: 87&*nder these circumstances, respondent

may not validly invo!e the 0oyal rerogative

o( )ishonestyand conveniently hide under

the States cloa2 of invincibility against

s!it,considering that this principle yields to

certain settled e5ceptions& 'rue enough, the

rule, in any case, is not absolute for it does not

say that the state may not be sued under any

circumstance& 'he doctrine of governmental

immunity from suit cannot serve as an

instrument for perpetrating an in%ustice on a

citi=en&'o be sure, this $ourt P as the staunch

guardian of the citi=ens> rights and welfare P

cannot sanction an in%ustice so patent on its

face, and allow itself to be an instrument in the

perpetration thereof& Justice and equity sternly

demand that the #tate>s cloa! of invincibility

against suit be shred in this particular instance,

and that petitionersPcontractors be duly



15/24


compensated P on the basis of quantum

meruitP for construction done on the public

wor!s housing pro%ect&

4.R. No. L-2 De8e>ber 9!

97ILDEFONSO SANTIA4O!rere1e#+e by ,*1 A++or#ey-*#-

Fa8+! ALFREDO T. SANTIA4O 1.REP&'LIC OF TE PILIPPINES

/0$'#:

#antiago>s plea was for the revocation of a

deed of donation e5ecuted by him and his

spouse with the Bureau of +lant ndustry as

the donee& 0s alleged in such complaint, such

Bureau, contrary to the terms of the donation,failed to Iinstall lighting facilities and water

system on the property donated and to build

an office building and par!ing ?lot@ thereon

which should have been constructed and ready

for occupancy& 'hat led him to conclude that

under the circumstances, he was e5empt from

compliance with such an e5plicit constitutional

command&

##*E: 678 the Bureau is immune from suit&

HELD: 9E#&

f an order of dismissal would suffice,

then the element of unfairness enters, the

facts alleged being hypothetically admitted& t

is the considered opinion of this $ourt then

that to conform to the high dictates of equity

and %ustice, the presumption of consent could

be indulged in safely& 'hat would serve to

accord to petitioner as plaintiff, at the very

least, the right to be heard&

'he doctrine of governmental immunity

from suit cannot serve as an instrument for

perpetrating an in%ustice on a citi=en&

*nder the circumstances, the

fundamental postulate of non2suability cannot

stand in the way& t is made to accommodate

itself to the demands of procedural due

process, which is the negation of arbitrariness

and inequity& 'he government, in the final

analysis, is the beneficiary& t thereby

manifests its adherence to the highest ethical

standards, which can only be ignored at the

ris! of losing the confidence of the people, the

repository of the sovereign power&

4.R. No. L-29993 O8+ober 23! 97LA&DENCIO TORIO! ET. AL. 1.

ROSALINA! AN4ELINA!LEONARDO! ED&ARDO! ARTEMIO!

AN4ELITA! ANITA! ERNESTO!NORMA! :IR4INIA! REMEDIOS

a# RO'ERTO! a)) 1ur#a>eFONTANILLA! a# TE

ONORA'LE CO&RT OF APPEALS

/0$'#:'he 1unicipal $ouncil of 1alasiqui,

+angasinan, passed a resolution whereby Iit

resolved to manage the ;-; 1alasiqui town

fiesta celebration& 0nother resolution was also

passed creating the I;-; 1alasiqui C'own

/iesta E5ecutive $ommitteeI which in turn

organi=ed a sub2committee on entertainment

and stage& 'he council appropriated an amount

for the construction of 3 stages, one for the

I=ar=uelaI and another for the cancionan Jose

1acaraeg supervised the construction of the

stage& 'he I=ar=uelaI then began but before

the dramatic part of the play was reached, the

stage collapsed and Kicente /ontanilla who was

at the rear of the stage was pinned

underneath& /ontanilia was ta!en to the

hospital where he died in the afternoon of the

following day&

'he heirs of Kicente /ontanilia filed a

complaint against 1unicipality& 0nswering thecomplaint defendant municipality invo!ed inter

alia the principal defense that as a legally and

duly organi=ed public corporation it performs

sovereign functions and the holding of a town

fiesta was an e5ercise of its governmental

functions from which no liability can arise to

answer for the negligence of any of its agents&

##*E: 678 the defendant 1unicipality was

performing sovereign functions therefore

immune from suit&

HELD: 87&



16/24


Holding a fiesta even if the purpose is

to commemorate a religious or historical event

of the town is in essence an act for the special

benefit of the community and not for the

general welfare of the public performed in

pursuance of a policy of the state& 'he mere

fact that the celebration, as claimed was not tosecure profit or gain but merely to provide

entertainment to the town inhabitants is not a

conclusive test& /or instance, the maintenance

of par!s is not a source of income for the

nonetheless it is private underta!ing as

distinguished from the maintenance of public

schools, %ails, and the li!e which are for public

service&

'here can be no hard and fast rule for

purposes of determining the true nature of an

underta!ing or function of a municipality the

surrounding circumstances of a particular caseare to be considered and will be decisive& 'he

basic element, however beneficial to the public

the underta!ing may be, is that it is

governmental in essence, otherwise& the

function becomes private or proprietary in

character& Easily, no governmental or public

policy of the state is involved in the celebration

of a town fiesta&

4.R. No. L-"279 Ar*) ! 99M&NICIPALITY OF SANFERNANDO! LA &NION1.

ON. $&D4E ROMEO N. FIRME!ET. AL.

/0$'#:

0t about


17/24


/0$'#:

n the petition filed by the )epublic of

the +hilippines, a summary of facts was set

forth thus:

0 decision was rendered in favor of

respondents +& J& iener $o&, Ltd&, Favino*nchuan, and nternational $onstruction

$orporation, and against the petitioner herein,

confirming the arbitration award in the

amount of +,


18/24


'he functions and public services

rendered by the #tate cannot be allowed to

paraly=ed or disrupted by the diversion of

public funds from their legitimate and specific

ob%ects, as appropriated by law

4.R. No1. 99-99 O8+ober !990

M&NICIPALITY OF MAATI 1.TE ONORA'LE CO&RT OF

APPEALS! ON. SAL:ADOR P. DE4&5MAN! $R.! a1 $u/e RTC o

MaGa+*! 'ra#8, CLII ADMIRALFINANCE CREDITORS

CONSORTI&M! INC.! a#

SERIFF SIL:INO R. PASTRANA

/0$'#:

'he present petition for review is an

off2shoot of e5propriation proceedings initiated

by petitioner 1unicipality of 1a!ati against

private respondent 0dmiral /inance $reditors

$onsortium, nc&, Home Building #ystem S

)ealty $orporation and one 0rceli +& Jo,

involving a parcel of land and improvements

and registered in the name of the latter&

t was certified that a ban! account

had been opened with the +8B Buendia Branchunder petitionerCs name made pursuant to the

provisions of +res& Decree 8o& 43& 0fter due

hearing where the parties presented their

respective appraisal reports regarding the

value of the property, respondent )'$ %udge

rendered a decision fi5ing the appraised value

of the property at +-,3;,&.., and ordering

petitioner to pay this amount minus the

advanced payment which was earlier released

to private respondent&

+etitioner however refused to comply

with the garnishment despite its having twoban! accounts in +8B& 'he first one was

dedicated for e5propriation proceedings while

the other was for public funds& 'he first ban!

account cannot cover the remaining amount

due, while the other account had more than

enough to satisfy the amount due& +etitioner

reasoned out that its funds at the +8B Buendia

Branch could neither be garnished nor levied

upon e5ecution, for to do so would result in the

disbursement of public funds without the

proper appropriation required under the law&

##*E: 678 the 1unicipality of 1a!ati is

e5empt from paying %ust compensation&

HELD: 87&

/or three years now, petitioner has

en%oyed possession and use of the sub%ect

property notwithstanding its ine5cusable failure

to comply with its legal obligation to pay %ust

compensation& Just compensation means not

only the correct determination of the amount

to be paid to the owner of the land but also the

payment of the land within a reasonable time

from its ta!ing& 6ithout prompt payment,

compensation cannot be considered I%ustI for

the property owner is made to suffer theconsequence of being immediately deprived of

his land while being made to wait for a long

period&

'he #tateCs power of eminent domain

should be e5ercised within the bounds of fair

play and %ustice& n the case at bar, considering

that valuable property has been ta!en, the

compensation to be paid fi5ed and the

municipality is in full possession and utili=ing

the property for public purpose, for three ("

years, the $ourt finds that the municipality has

had more than reasonable time to pay fullcompensation&

4.R. No. 622 O8+ober 2! 200"TERESITA M. Y&$&ICO 1.

ON. $OSE L. ATIEN5A! ET. AL.

/0$'#:

7n December ;;-, the $ity $ouncil

of 1anila enacted an ordinance authori=ing the

$ity 1ayor to acquire by negotiation or

e5propriation certain parcels of land for

utili=ation as a site for the /rancisco Benite=

Elementary #chool& /ailing to acquire the land



19/24


by negotiation, the $ity filed a case for

eminent domain against petitioner as owner of

the property&

t is the $ity #chool Board which has

the authority to pass a resolution allocating

funds for the full satisfaction of the %ust

compensation fi5ed, the said body is herebygiven thirty (." days from receipt to pass the

necessary resolution for the payments of the

remaining balance due to 9u%uico& However,

despite petitioner demanding compliance from

the $#B after (. days, the latter still did not

ta!e action&

##*E: 678 respondent is %ustified in not

paying the petitioner her %ust compensation&

HELD: 87&

6hile this $ourt recogni=es the powerof LF* to e5propriate private property for

public use, it will not stand idly by while the

e5propriating authority maneuvers to evade

the payment of %ust compensation of property

already in its possession&

'he notion of e5propriation is hard

enough to ta!e for a private owner& He is

compelled to give up his property for the

common weal& But to give it up and wait in

vain for the %ust compensation decreed by the

courts is too much to bear& n cases li!e these,

courts will not hesitate to step in to ensurethat %ustice and fair play are served&

4.R. No. 7776" Au/u1+ "! 9SE'ASTIAN COSC&LL&ELA 1.

TE ONORA'LE CO&RT OFAPPEALS a# +,e REP&'LIC OFTE PILIPPINES! rere1e#+e by

NATIONAL IRRI4ATIONADMINISTRATION

/0$'#:

'he )epublic of the +hilippines filed a

complaint with the $ourt of /irst nstance of

loilo to e5propriate two parcels of land in the

municipality of Barotac, loilo owned by

petitioner #ebastian $osculluela and one 1ita

Lumampao, for the construction of the canal

networ! of the Barotac rrigation +ro%ect&'he trial court rendered a decision

granting the e5propriation and ordered the

public respondent to pay Lumampao, the sum

of +3.,... and $osculluela, the sum of

+3..,...&..&

'he )epublic contends that the funds

of the 8ational rrigation 0uthority 80" are

government funds and therefore, cannot be

disbursed without a government appropriation&

##*E: 678 the )epublic is e5empt from

paying the %ust compensation demanded bythe petitioner in view of non2disbursement of

funds without prior public appropriation&

HELD: 87&

7ne of the basic principles enshrined in

our $onstitution is that no person shall be

deprived of his private property without due

process of law and in e5propriation cases, an

essential element of due process is that there

must be %ust compensation whenever private

property is ta!en for public use&

Just compensation means not only thecorrect determination of the amount to be paid

to the owner of the land but also the payment

of the land within a reasonable time from its

ta!ing&

4.R. No. 099 De8e>ber !99TE OLY SEE 1.

TE ON. ERI'ERTO &.ROSARIO! $R.! a1 Pre1**#/ $u/e

o +,e Re/*o#a) Tr*a) Cour+ oMaGa+*! 'ra#8, 6 a#



20/24


STAR'RI4T SALESENTERPRISES! INC.

/0$'#:

'his petition arose from a controversy

over a parcel of land, Lot -20, located in the

1unicipality of +araQaque, 1etro 1anila and

registered in the name of petitioner& #aid Lot

-20 is contiguous to Lots -2B and -2D

registered in the name of the +hilippine )ealty

$orporation +)$"& 'he three lots were sold to

)amon Licup, through 1sgr& Domingo 0&

$irilos, Jr&, acting as agent to the sellers& Later,

Licup assigned his rights to the sale to private

respondent, #tarbright Enterprises&

'he squatters refused to vacate the

lots sold to private respondent so a dispute

arose as to who of the parties has the

responsibility of evicting and clearing the land

of squatters occurred& $omplicating the

relations of the parties was the sale by

petitioner of Lot -20 to 'ropicana +roperties

and Development $orporation 'ropicana"&

+rivate respondent filed a complaint for

annulment of the sale of the three parcels of

land, and specific performance and damages

against petitioner, represented by the +apal

8uncio, and three other defendants: namely,

1sgr& Domingo 0& $irilos, Jr&, the +)$ and

'ropicana&

##*E: 678 the petitioner Holy #ee is immune

from suit&

HELD: 9E#&

'he logical question is whether the

foreign state is engaged in the activity in the

regular course of business& f the foreign state

is not engaged regularly in a business or trade,

the particular act or transaction must then be

tested by its nature& f the act is in pursuit of a

sovereign activity, or an incident thereof, then

it is an act5!re imerii, especially when it isnot underta!en for gain or profit&

Lot -20 was acquired by petitioner as a

donation from the 0rchdiocese of 1anila& 'he

donation was made not for commercial

purpose, but for the use of petitioner to

construct thereon the official place of residence

of the +apal 8uncio& 'he right of a foreign

sovereign to acquire property, real or personal,

in a receiving state, necessary for the creation

and maintenance of its diplomatic mission, is

recogni=ed in the ; Kienna $onvention on

Diplomatic )elations&

n 0rticle (a" of the $onvention, a

diplomatic envoy is granted immunity from the

civil and administrative %urisdiction of thereceiving state over any real action relating to

private immovable property situated in the

territory of the receiving state which the envoy

holds on behalf of the sending state for the

purposes of the mission& f this immunity is

provided for a diplomatic envoy, with all the

more reason should immunity be recogni=ed as

regards the sovereign itself, which in this case

is the Holy #ee&

4.R. No. "70". $u#e 26! 2003TE REP&'LIC OF INDONESIA!IS ECELLENCY AM'ASSADOR

SOERATMIN! a# MINISTERCO&NSELLOR A5ARI ASIM vs.$AMES :IN5ON! o*#/ bu1*#e11

u#er +,e #a>e a# 1+y)e o:IN5ON TRADE AND SER:ICES

/0$'#:

+etitioner, )epublic of ndonesia,

represented by its $ounsellor entered into a

1aintenance 0greement with respondentJames Kin=on, owner of Kin=on 'rade and

#ervices& 'he 1aintenance 0greement stated

that respondent shall, for a consideration,

maintain specified equipment at the Embassy

1ain Building, Embassy 0nne5 Building and the

6isma Duta, the official residence of petitioner

0mbassador #oeratmin& 'he equipment

covered by the 1aintenance 0greement are air

conditioning units, generator sets, electrical

facilities, water heaters, and water motor

pumps& t is li!ewise stated therein that the

agreement shall be effective for a period offour years and will renew itself automatically

unless cancelled by either party by giving thirty

days prior written notice from the date of

e5piry&

+etitioners claim that sometime prior tothe date of e5piration of the said agreement,or before 0ugust ;;;, they informedrespondent that the renewal of the agreementshall be at the discretion of the incoming $hief



21/24


of 0dministration& 6hen the $hief of0dministration assumed his position, heallegedly found respondent>s wor! and servicesunsatisfactory and not in compliance with thestandards in the 0greement& Hence, thendonesian Embassy terminated theagreement& +etitioners claim, that they had

earlier verbally informed respondent of theirdecision to terminate the agreement&

7n the other hand, respondent claims thatthe aforesaid termination was arbitrary andunlawful& Hence, he filed a complaint againstthe petitioners which opposed by invo!ingimmunity from suit&

##*E: 678 the )epublic of ndonesia cansuccessfully invo!e state immunity from suit&

HELD: 9E#&'here is no dispute that the

establishment of a diplomatic mission is an

act5!re imerii& 0 sovereign #tate does notmerely establish a diplomatic mission andleave it at that the establishment of adiplomatic mission encompasses itsmaintenance and up!eep& Hence, the #tatemay enter into contracts with private entitiesto maintain the premises, furnishings andequipment of the embassy and the livingquarters of its agents and officials& t istherefore clear that petitioner )epublic ofndonesia was acting in pursuit of a sovereignactivity when it entered into a contract withrespondent for the up!eep or maintenance&

'he #olicitor Feneral, in his $omment,

submits the view that, Athe 1aintenance0greement was entered into by the )epublic ofndonesia in the discharge of its governmentalfunctions& n such a case, it cannot be deemedto have waived its immunity from suit&

4.R. No. 2396. February !2003

OSROB MIN&CER vs. ON.CO&RT OF APPEALS a# ART&R

SCAL5O

/0$'#:

#ometime in 1ay ;, an nformation for

violation of #ection 4 of )epublic 0ct 8o& 43-,

otherwise also !nown as the ADangerous Drugs

0ct of ;


22/24


4.R. No. 2772 Au/u1+! 2007

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON4OOD 4O:ERNMENT a#

MA4TAN44OL C. 4&NI4&NDO! *#

,*1 8aa8*+y a1 CAIRMAN +,ereo1.

SANDI4AN'AYAN a# OFFICECOOLDIN4S! N.:.

/0$'#:

7n < 0pril ;, in connection with criminal

proceedings initiated in the +hilippines to

locate, sequester and see! restitution of

alleged ill2gotten wealth amassed by the

1arcoses and other accused from the

+hilippine Fovernment,the 7ffice of the

#olicitor Feneral 7#F" wrote the /ederal

7ffice for +olice 1atters in Berne, #wit=erland,

requesting assistance for the latter office to:

a" ascertain and provide the 7#F with

information as to where and in which cantons

the ill2gotten fortune of the 1arcoses and other

accused are located, the names of the

depositors and the ban!s and the amounts

involved and b" ta!e necessary precautionary

measures, such as sequestration, to free=e the

assets in order to preserve their e5isting value

and prevent any further transfer thereof

herein referred to as the 10$ request"& 'he

7ffice of the District 0ttorney in Ourich,

pursuant to the 7#F>s request, issued an 7rder

directing the #wiss Ban!s in Ourich to free=e

the accounts of the accused&

##*E: 678 the #wiss officials can invo!e

state immunity from suit&

HELD: 87&

'he act of state doctrine is one of the

methods by which #tates prevent their national

courts from deciding disputes which relate tothe internal affairs of another #tate, the other

two being immunity and non2%usticiability& t is

an avoidance technique that is directly related

to a #tate>s obligation to respect the

independence and equality of other #tates by

not requiring them to submit to ad%udication in

a national court or to settlement of their

disputes without their consent& t requires the

forum court to e5ercise restraint in the

ad%udication of disputes relating to legislative

or other governmental acts which a foreign

#tate has performed within its territorial limits&

t is petitioners> contention that the

#andiganbayan Icould not grant or deny the

prayers in ?7fficeco>s@ complaint without firste5amining and scrutini=ing the free=e order of

the #wiss officials in the light of the evidence,

which however is in the possession of said

officialsI and that it would therefore Isit in

%udgment on the acts of the government of

another country&I 6e disagree&

'he parameters of the use of the act of

state doctrine were clarified in 6anco 3acional

de !ba v. Sabbatino.'here, the *& #upreme

$ourt held that international law does not

require the application of this doctrine nor does

it forbid the application of the rule even if it isclaimed that the act of state in question

violated international law& 1oreover, due to the

doctrine>s peculiar nation2to2nation character,

in practice the usual method for an individual

to see! relief is to e5haust local remedies and

then repair to the e5ecutive authorities of his

own state to persuade them to champion his

claim in diplomacy or before an international

tribunal&

4.R. No. 2"6". $a#uary 2! 200$EFFREY LIAN4 &EFEN4;1.PEOPLE OF TE PILIPPINES

/0$'#:

+etitioner is an economist wor!ing with

the 0sian Development Ban! 0DB"& #ometime

in ;;4, for allegedly uttering defamatory

words against fellow 0DB wor!er Joyce $abal,

he was charged before the 1etropolitan 'rial

$ourt 1e'$" of 1andaluyong $ity with two

counts of grave oral defamation&

+etitioner was arrested by virtue of awarrant issued by the 1e'$& 0fter fi5ing

petitioner>s bail, the 1e'$ released him to the

custody of the #ecurity 7fficer of 0DB& 'he

ne5t day, the 1e'$ %udge received an Ioffice of

protocolI from the D/0 stating that petitioner

is covered by immunity from legal process

under #ection 4- of the 0greement between

the 0DB and the +hilippine Fovernment

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_124772_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_124772_2007.html#fnt1


23/24


regarding the Headquarters of the 0DB

hereinafter 0greement" in the country& Based

on the said protocol communication that

petitioner is immune from suit, the 1e'$ %udge

without notice to the prosecution dismissed the

two criminal cases&

##*E: 678 petitioner Liang is immune from

suit&

HELD: 87&

#landering a person could not possibly

be covered by the immunity agreement

because our laws do not allow the commission

of a crime, such as defamation, in the name of

official duty& t is well2settled principle of law

that a public official may be liable in his

personal private capacity for whatever damage

he may have caused by his act done withmalice or in bad faith or beyond the scope of

his authority or %urisdiction&

#E+0)0'E $78$*))8F 7+878 7/ J*#'$E

+*87:

The Charter of the ADBp!o"ides unde! #!ticle

$$%i& that office!s and employees of the ban' shall

be immune f!om legal p!ocess with !espect to acts

pe!fo!med by them in thei! official capacity e(cept

when the )an' wai"es immunity. Section *$ %a& of

the #D) +eadua!te!s #g!eement acco!ds the

same immunity to the office!s and staff of theban'. There can be no dispute that international

officials are entitled to immunity only with

respect to acts performed in their official

capacity, unlike international organizations

which enjoy absolute immunity

Clea!ly, the most impo!tant immunity to an

inte!national official, in the discha!ge of his

inte!national functions, is immunity f!om local

ju!isdiction. The!e is no a!gument in doct!ine o!

p!actice with the p!inciple that an inte!national

official is independent of the ju!isdiction of the local

autho!ities fo! his official acts. Those acts a!e nothis, but a!e imputed to the o!gani-ation, and without

wai"e! the local cou!ts cannot hold him liable fo!

them. In strict law, it would seem that een the

organization itself could hae no right to waie

an official!s immunity for his official acts" This

permits local authorities to assume jurisdiction

oer and indiidual for an act which is not, in

the wider sense of the term, his act at all" It is

the organization itself, as a juristic person,

which should waie its own immunity and

appear in court, not the indiidual, e#cept

insofar as he appears in the name of the

organization"

+isto!ically, inte!national officials we!e g!anted

diplomatic p!i"ileges and immunities and we!e thus

conside!ed immune fo! both p!i"ate and official

acts. n p!actice, this wide g!ant of diplomatic

p!e!ogati"es was cu!tailed because of p!actical

necessity and because the p!ope! functioning of the

o!gani-ation did not !eui!e such e(tensi"e

immunity fo! its officials. Thus, the current status

of the law does not maintain that states grant

jurisdictional immunity to international officials

for acts of their priate lies"

Unde! the /ienna Con"ention on Diplomatic

Relations, a diplomatic en"oy is immune f!om

c!iminal ju!isdiction of the !ecei"ing State fo! all

acts, whethe! p!i"ate o! official, and hence he

cannot be a!!ested, p!osecuted and punished fo!

any offense he may commit, unless his diplomatic

immunity is wai"ed.0 1n the othe! hand, officials

of international organizations enjoy $functional%

immunities, that is, only those necessary for the

e#ercise of the functions of the organization

and the fulfillment of its purposes . This is the

!eason why the ADB Charter and &ead'uarters

Agreemente(plicitly g!ant immunity f!om legal

p!ocess to ban' office!s and employees onlywith

!espect to acts pe!fo!med by them in thei! official

capacity, e(cept when the )an' wai"es

immunity. In other words, officials and

employees of the ADB are subject to the

jurisdiction of the local courts for their priate

acts, notwithstanding the absence of a waier

of immunity"

Conside!ing that ban' officials and employees a!e

co"e!ed by immunity only fo! thei! official acts, the

necessa!y infe!ence is that the authority of the

Department of Affairs, or een of the ADB for

that matter, to certify that they are entitled to

immunity is limited only to acts done in their

official capacity. Stated othe!wise, it is not within

the powe! of the D2#, as the agency in cha!ge of

the e(ecuti"e depa!tment3s fo!eign !elations, no!

the #D), as the inte!national o!gani-ation "ested

with the !ight to wai"e immunity, to in"o'e immunity

fo! p!i"ate acts of ban' official and employees,

since no such p!e!ogati"e e(ists in the fi!st place. f

the immunity does not e(ist, the!e is nothing to

ce!tify.



24/24


4.R. No. "23 Ar*) 6!2009

DE&TSCE 4ESELLSCAFT FRTECNISCE

5&SAMMENAR'EIT! ET. AL. 1.ON. CO&RT OF APPEALS! ET. AL.

/0$'#:

'he governments of the /ederal

)epublic of Fermany and the )epublic of the

+hilippines ratified an 0greement called #ocial

Health nsuranceN8etwor!ing and

Empowerment #H8E which was designed to

Ienable +hilippine familiesPespecially poor

onesPto maintain their health and secure

health care of sustainable quality&I +rivate

respondents were engaged as contractemployees hired by F'O to wor! for #H8E&

8icolay, a Belgian national, assumed

the post of #H8E +ro%ect 1anager&

Disagreements eventually arose between

8icolay and private respondents in matters

such as proposed salary ad%ustments, and the

course 8icolay was ta!ing in the

implementation of #H8E different from her

predecessors&

'he dispute culminated in a signed by

the private respondents, addressed to 8icolay,

and copies furnished officials of the D7H,+hilheath, and the director of the 1anila office

of F'O& 'he letter raised several issues which

private respondents claim had been brought up

several times in the past, but have not been

given appropriate response&

n response, 8icolay wrote each of the

private respondents a letter, all similarly

worded e5cept for their respective addressees&

#he informed private respondents that they

could no longer find any reason to stay with

the pro%ect unless 0LL of these issues be

addressed immediately and appropriately&*nder the foregoing premises and

circumstances, it is now imperative that am

to accept your resignation, which e5pect to

receive as soon as possible&

8egotiations ensued between private

respondents and 8icolay, but for naught& Each

of the private respondents received a letter

from 8icolay, informing them of the pre2

termination of their contracts of employment

on the grounds of Iserious and gross

insubordination, among others, resulting to

loss of confidence and trust&I

HELD: 87&

'his self2description of F'O in its ownofficial website gives further cause for pause in

adopting petitioners> argument that F'O is

entitled to immunity from suit because it is Ian

implementing agency&I 'he above2quoted

statement does not dispute the

characteri=ation of F'O as an Iimplementing

agency of the /ederal )epublic of Fermany,I

yet it bolsters the notion that as a company

organi=ed under private law, it has a legal

personality independent of that of the /ederal

)epublic of Fermany&

'he $ourt is thus holds and so rulesthat F'O consistently has been unable to

establish with satisfaction that it en%oys the

immunity from suit generally en%oyed by its

parent country, the /ederal )epublic of

Fermany&

Digested and compiled by Monica S Cajucom UST Law

Case Digest Political

Documents