Poli Digests

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY.
GOROSPE
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
A.M. No. 93-7-696-0 Febr !r" #$% $99& I' Re JOA(UIN T. )ORROMEO% E* Re+. Ceb C,-" C.!/-er o0 -.e I'-e1r!-e2 )!r o0 -.e P.,+,//,'e3.
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& He even 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 $o& from which he obtained loans with unfulfilled mortgages& ,n relation to this, he filed cases against the lawyers of these ban!s and even against the cler!s of court who signed the minute resolutions of these cases& 'he actions reached the alarming number of -. cases varying from civil, criminal, to administrative cases& ,n response, the court answered all his false alleged accusations through a resolution along with declaring him guilty of contempt of court&
violates the law& 0 case was filed against 1aghirang for violating 0rt 344 *nlawful 0ppointment" under the )+$& +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 and criminal 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%amin 1aghirang was charged with *nlawful 0ppointment, punishable under 0rticle 344, 'itle <, Boo! ,, of the )evised +enal $ode& 'herefore, it was mandatory on Judge 1on=on>s part, considering the 1otion filed, to order the suspension of 1aghirang& 0lso, ,n Ingco v. Sanchez,?:<@ this $ourt e5plicitly ruled that the re2election of a public official e5tinguishes only the administrative, but not the criminal, liability incurred by him during his previous term of office& Be that as it may, it would also do well to note that good faith and lac! of malicious intent cannot completely free respondent from liability&
A.M. MTJ-94-$$57 J +" #% $994 JESUS S. CONDUCTO vs. JUDGE ILUMINADO C. MON6ON
/0$'#: 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
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

e5isting law e5pressly prohibiting members of the Judiciary from engaging or having interest in any lawful business Li!ewise, 0rticle :4 of the $ode of $ommerce which prohibits %udges from engaging in commerce is, as heretofore stated, deemed abrogated automatically upon the transfer of sovereignty from #pain to 0merica, because it is political in nature& virtual law library1oreover, the prohibition in paragraph -, 0rticle :4;: of the 8ew $ivil $ode against the purchase by %udges of a property in litigation before the court within whose %urisdiction they perform their duties, cannot apply to respondent Judge because the sale of the lot in question to him too! place after the finality of his decision in $ivil $ase 8o& (.:. as well as his two orders approving the pro%ect of partitionD hence, the property was no longer sub%ect of litigation& virtual l 6E are not, however, unmindful of the fact that respondent Judge and his wife had withdrawn on January (:, :;E< from the aforesaid corporation and sold their respective shares to third parties& #uch disposal or sale by respondent and his wife of their shares in the corporation only 33 days after the incorporation of the corporation, indicates that respondent reali=ed that early that their interest in the corporation contravenes the aforesaid $anon 3-& 6ith respect to the third and fourth causes of action, complainant alleged that respondent was guilty of coddling an impostor and acted in disregard of %udicial decorum, and that there was culpable defiance of the law and utter disregard for ethics& 'hat fact even if true did not render respondent guilty of violating any canon of %udicial ethics as long as his friendly relations with Dominador 0& 'an and family did not influence his official actuations as a %udge where said persons were concerned& 'here is no tangible convincing proof that herein respondent gave any undue privileges in his court to Dominador 0rigpa 'an or that the latter benefitted in his practice of law from his personal relations with respondent, or that he used his influence, if he had any, on the Judges of the other branches of the $ourt to favor said Dominador 'an.
A.M. No. $33-J M!" 3$% $94# )ERNARDITA R. MACARIOLA 73. 8ONORA)LE ELIAS ). ASUNCION% J 21e o0 -.e Co r- o0 F,r3- I'3-!'9e o0 Le"-e
/0$'#: 'his is a complaint of petitioner against respondent %udge of Aacts unbecoming of a %udgeB 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&B 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 not appear 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 :;<( $onstitutions of the +hilippines, nor is there an

HELD: 87& )0 :(<; raises the prima facie presumption that a property is unlawfully acquired, hence sub%ect to forfeiture, if its amount or value is manifestly disproportionate to the official salary and other lawful income of the public officer who owns it& 'he following facts must be established in order that forfeiture or sei=ure of the #wiss deposits may be effected: :" ownership by the public officer of money or property acquired during his incumbency, whether it be in his name or otherwise, and 3" the e5tent to which the amount of that money or property e5ceeds, i& e&, is grossly disproportionate to, the legitimate income of the public officer& Herein, the spouses /erdinand and ,melda 1arcos were public officials during the time material to the present case was never in dispute& 'he spouses accumulated salary of G(.4,(<3&4( should be held as the only !nown lawful income of the 1arcoses since they did not file any #tatement of 0ssets and Liabilities #0L", as required by law, from which their net worth could be determined& Besides, under the :;(- $onstitution, /erdinand E& 1arcos as +resident could not receive Iany other emolument from the Fovernment or any of its subdivisions and instrumentalitiesI& Li!ewise, under the :;<( $onstitution, /erdinand E& 1arcos as +resident could Inot receive during his tenure any other emolument from the Fovernment or any other source&I 'heir only !nown lawful income of G(.4,(<3&4( can therefore legally and fairly serve as basis for determining the e5istence of a prima facie case of forfeiture of the #wiss funds& 'he )epublic did not fail to establish a prima facie case for the forfeiture of the #wiss deposits& 'he #wiss deposits which were transferred to and are deposited in escrow at the +hilippine 8ational Ban! in the estimated aggregate amount of *#GE-H,:<-,(<(&E. as of (: January 3..3, plus interest, were forfeited in favor of the )epublic&
G.R. No. $&#$&5 J +" $&% #003 REPU)LIC OF T8E P8ILIPPINES 73. 8ONORA)LE SANDIGAN)AYAN :SPECIAL FIRST DI;ISION<% Fer2,'!'2 E. M!r9o3 :re/re3e'-e2 b" .,3 e3-!-e=.e,r3> I?e+2! R. M!r9o3% M!r,! I?e+2! @I?eeA M!r9o3-M!'o-o9% Fer2,'!'2 R. M!r9o3% Jr. !'2 Ire'e M!r9o3Ar!'e-!< !'2 I?e+2! Ro? !+2eB M!r9o3
/0$'#: +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(-E million now estimated to be more than *#GE-H 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 1arcos couple>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 3H, :;;( 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 distribute all 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&

portions of its territory& ,f it does so, it by no means follows that such areas become impressed with an alien character& 'hey retain their status as native soil& 'hey are still sub%ect to its authority& ,ts %urisdiction may be diminished, but it does not disappear& #o it is with the bases under lease to the 0merican armed forces by virtue of the military bases agreement of :;4<& 'hey are not and cannot be foreign territory&
T8E STATE
G.R. No. L-#6379 De9e?ber #7% $969 WILLIAM C. REAGAN% ET. AL 73. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL RE;ENUE
/0$'#: +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,;<;&.. as the income ta5 paid by him be refunded& ,##*E: 678 the $lar! /ield 0ir Base is a foreign property therefore e5cluded from the power of +hilippine ta5ation& HELD: 87& By the ?1ilitary Bases@ 0greement, it should be noted, the +hilippine Fovernment merely consents that the *nited #tates e5ercise %urisdiction in certain cases& 'he consent was given purely as a matter of comity, courtesy, or e5pediency over the bases as part of the +hilippine territory or divested itself completely of %urisdiction over offenses committed therein& 'his provision is not and can not on principle or authority be construed as a limitation upon the rights of the +hilippine Fovernment& 'he #tate is not precluded from allowing another power to participate in the e5ercise of %urisdictional right over certain
G.R. No. $7&444 SU6ETTE NICOLAS 73. ROMULO

/0$'#: )espondent Lance $orporal LJ$+L" Daniel #mith is a member of the *# 0rmed /orces& He was charged with the crime of rape committed against a /ilipina, petitioner herein, sometime on 8ovember :, 3..-& +ursuant to the Kisiting /orces 0greement K/0" between the )epublic of the +hilippines and the *# entered into, the *#, at its request, was granted custody of #mith& 'he )'$ of 1a!ati rendered a decision finding defendant #mith guilty due to sufficient evidence& Defendant #mith was ta!en out of the 1a!ati %ail by a contingent of +hilippine law enforcement agents, purportedly acting under orders of the D,LF and brought to a facility for detention under the control of the *# government under the new agreements between the +hilippines and the *#, referred to as the )omulo2Lenney 0greement& +etitioners contend that the +hilippines should have custody of defendant LJ$+L #mith because, first of all, the K/0 is void and unconstitutional& ,##*E: 678 the unconstitutional& K/0 is void and
HELD: 87& 0rt& MK,,,, #ec& 3- states: #ec& 3-& 0fter the e5piration in :;;: of the 0greement between the +hilippines and the *nited #tates of 0merica concerning 1ilitary Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the

+hilippines e5cept under a treaty duly 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 underB 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 its terms 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 Phili ine a!thorities of "nited States ersonnel shall be carried o!t in facilities agreed on by a ro riate Phili ines and "S a!thorities.# 'herefore, the )omulo2Lenney 0greements of December :; and 33, 3..E, which are agreements on the detention of the accused in the United States Embassy, are not in accord with the K/0 itself because such detention is not Aby +hilippine authorities&B )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&
CORPORATION !'2 )OARD OF LI(UIDATORS

/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 <:4 pages and thereafter submitted to him their bills for the payment of their fees& 'he 8ational $oconut $orporation paid the amount of +-E4 to Leopoldo '& Bacani and +:-. to 1ateo 0& 1atoto for said transcript at the rate of +: per page& However, the 0uditor Feneral disallowed the payment of these fees and ordered that it shall be reimbursed for the reason that 80$7$7, being a public corporation, is e5empted from the fees& /or reimbursement to ta!e place, it was further ordered that the amount of +3- per payday be deducted from the salary of Bacani and +:. from the salary of 1atoto& Hence, this petition& ,##*E: 678 80$7$7 is e5empt from legal fees being an alleged government corporation& HELD: 87& 'here are functions which our government is required to e5ercise to promote its ob%ectives as e5pressed in our $onstitution and which are e5ercised by it as an attribute of sovereignty constitute", and those which it may e5ercise to promote merely the welfare, progress and prosperity of the people ministrant"& 'o this latter class belongs the organi=ation of those corporations owned or controlled by the government to promote certain aspects of the economic life of our people such as the 8ational $oconut $orporation& 'hese are what we call government2owned or controlled corporations which may ta!e on the form of a private enterprise or one organi=ed with powers and
G.R. No. L-96&7. No7e?ber #9% $9&6 LEOPOLDO T. )ACANI !'2 MATEO A. MATOTO 73. NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION% ET AL.% NATIONAL COCONUT

formal characteristics of a private corporations under the $orporation Law& 'hey do not 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$$& 'hus, not part of the government&
G.R. No. L-#$545 No7e?ber #9% $969 T8E AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AND COOPERATI;E FINANCING ADMINISTRATION :ACCFA< 73. CONFEDERATION OF UNIONS IN GO;ERNMENT CORPORATIONS AND OFFICES :CUGCO<% e-. !+.
/0$'#: 'he 0gricultural $redit and $ooperative /inancing 0dministration 0$$/0" was a government agency created under )epublic 0ct 8o& H3:, 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& (H44"& 7n #eptember 4, :;E: a collective bargaining agreement, which was to be effective 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$$/0&
HELD: 87& 6e hold that the respondent *nions are not entitled to the certification election sought in the $ourt below& #uch certification is admittedly for purposes of bargaining in behalf of the employees with respect to terms and conditions of employment, including the right to stri!e as a coercive economic weapon, as in fact the said unions did stri!e in :;E3 against the 0$$/0& 'his is contrary to #ection :: of )epublic 0ct 8o& H<-, which provides for the prohibition against to stri!e in the government& 6ith the reorgani=ation of the 0$$/0 and its conversion into the 0$0 under the Land )eform $ode and in view of our ruling as to the governmental character of the functions of the 0$0, the decision of the respondent $ourt dated 1arch 3-, :;E(, and the resolution en banc affirming it, in the unfair labor practice case filed by the 0$$/0, which decision is the sub%ect of the present review in F& )& 8o& L2 3:4H4, has become moot and academic, particularly insofar as the order to bargain collectively with the respondent *nions is concerned& 'he respondent *nions have no right to the certification election sought by them nor, consequently, to bargain collectively with the petitioner, no further fringe benefits may be demanded on the basis of any collective bargaining agreement&
G.R. No. $53377. Febr !r" #0% #00$ S8IPSIDE INCORPORATED vs. T8E 8ON. COURT OF APPEALS% 8ON. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT% )RANC8 #6 :S!' Fer'!'2o C,-"% L! U',o'< C T.e REPU)LIC OF T8E P8ILIPPINES
/0$'#: 7ctober 3;, :;-H, 7riginal $ertificate of 'itle was issued in favor of )afael Falve=, over four parcels of land& Lots 8o& : and 4 were conveyed by )afael Falve= in favor of /ilipina 1amaril, $leopatra Llana, )egina Bustos, and Erlinda Balatbat in a deed of sale&

'hen 1amaril et al& sold Lots 8o& : and 4 to Lepanto $onsolidated 1ining $ompany& *n!nown to the latest owner, the $,) of La *nion issued an 7rder in Land )egistration $ase 8o& 82(E: declaring the deed of sale between Falve= and 1amaril, et& al& 7$' 8o& .2(H:" 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 interest against 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 :;E(, 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 IMMUNITY
ACT NO. 3043 AN ACT DEFINING T8E CONDITIONS UNDER W8IC8 T8E GO;ERNMENT OF T8E P8ILIPPINE ISLANDS MAY )E SUED
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 were the 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

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 action between 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 +hilippine ,slands under the provisions of this 0ctD but a copy thereof duly certified by the cler! of the $ourt in which %udgment is rendered shall be transmitted by such cler! to the Fovernor2 Feneral, ( within five days after the same becomes final& Sec. &. 'ransmittal o( )ecision. 'he Fovernor2Feneral, 4 at the commencement of each regular session of the Legislature, - shall transmit to that body for appropriate action all decisions so received by him, and if said body determine that payment should be made, it shall appropriate the sum which the Fovernment has been sentenced to pay, including the same in the appropriations for the ensuing year& Sec. *. 'his 0ct shall ta!e effect on its approval& A roved$ %arch 1&, 1'(). 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 or claims 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 the 0uditor 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 particular action of the 0uditor Feneral to
COMMONWEALT8 ACT NO. 3#7 AN ACT FIDING T8E TIME WIT8IN W8IC8 T8E AUDITOR GENERAL S8ALL RENDER 8IS DECISIONS AND PRESCRI)ING T8E MANNER OF APPEAL T8EREFROM

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& A roved$ *!ne 1+. 1')+. 876, 'HE)E/7)E, ,, /E)D,808D E& 10)$7#, +resident of the )epublic of the +hilippines, by virtue 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 e5pressly authori=es the )epublic of the +hilippines to contract or incur a foreign obligation, it may consent to be sued in connection therewith& 'he +resident of the +hilippines or his duly designated representative may, in behalf of the )epublic of the +hilippines, contractually agree to waive any claim to sovereign immunity from suit or legal proceedings and from set2off, attachment or e5ecutive with respect to its property, and to be sued in any appropriate %urisdiction in regard to such foreign obligation& /or purposes of this decree, a foreign obligation means any direct, indirect, or contingent obligation or liability capable of pecuniary estimation and payable in a currency other than +hilippine currency& Section 2. Validity of e.isting -aivers. 8othing in this Decree shall be construed to revo!e or repeal any waiver of sovereign immunity from suit or legal proceedings or from set2off, attachment or e5ecution granted under or pursuant to other provisions of law& Section 3. /ffectivity. 'his Decree shall ta!e effect immediately&
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. $407 PRESCRI)ING T8E PROCEDURE W8ERE)Y T8E REPU)LIC OF T8E P8ILIPPINES MAY WAI;E SO;EREIGN IMMUNITY FROM SUIT AND OT8ER LEGAL PROCEEDING WIT8 RESPECT TO ITSELF OR ITS PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WIT8 FOREIGN O)LIGATIONS CONTRACTED )Y IT PURSUANT TO LAW
6HE)E0#, in the pursuit of economic growth and development, it has become imperative for the )epublic of the +hilippines to enter into contracts or transactions with international ban!ing, financial and other foreign enterprisesD 6HE)E0#, recogni=ing this need, e5isting legislation e5pressly authori=e the )epublic of the +hilippines to contract foreign obligations, including borrowings in foreign currency, and to guarantee foreign obligations of corporations and other entities owned or controlled by the Fovernment of the +hilippinesD 6HE)E0#, circumstances in the international mar!et may require that sovereign states entering into contracts or transactions ma!e e5press waivers of sovereign immunity in connection with such contracts or transactionsD 6HE)E0#, it is in the national interest that a procedure be prescribed with respect to the waiver of sovereign immunity of the )epublic of the +hilippines in respect of international contracts or transactions entered into by itD
ARTICLE #$40 :NCC<

555 'he #tate is responsible in li!e manner when it acts through a special agentD 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:<E shall be applicable. 555
G.R. No. L-$$$&5 M!r9. #$% $9$6 E. MERRITT 73. GO;ERNMENT OF T8E P8ILIPPINE ISLANDS
/0$'#:

$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 damage accordingly in the sum of +3,EEE, instead of +E,... 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 FovernmentD 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 be true that the collision was due to the negligence of the chauffeurD and c" in rendering %udgment against the defendant for the sum of +:4,<4:& $onsequently, the Fovernment issued an act allowing the plaintiff to commence a lawsuit against it& ,##*E: :" 678 the Fovernment conceded its liability to the plaintiff by allowing a lawsuit to commence against it& 3" 678 the chauffeur is a government employee or agent& HELD: :" 87& By consenting to be sued a state simply waives its immunity from suit& ,t does not thereby concede its liability to plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his favor, or e5tend its liability to any cause not previously recogni=ed& ,t merely gives a remedy to enforce a pree5isting liability and submits itself to the %urisdiction of the court, sub%ect to its right to interpose any lawful defense& 3" 87& 6e will now e5amine the substantive law touching the defendantCs liability for the negligent acts of its officers, agents, and employees& +aragraph - of article :;.( of the $ivil $ode reads: The state is liable in this sense 0hen it acts thro!gh a s ecial agent, b!t not 0hen the damage sho!ld have been ca!sed by the official to 0hom ro erly it ertained to do the act erformed, in 0hich case the rovisions of the receding article shall be a licable& 'he responsibility of the state is limited to that which it contracts through a special agent, duly empowered by a definite order or commission to erform some act or charged 0ith some definite !r ose 0hich gives rise to the claim & 'he chauffeur of the ambulance of the Feneral Hospital was not such an agent&
GRN L-3&65& M!" ##% $94&. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA% CAPT. JAMES ). GALLOWAY% WILLIAM I. COLLINS !'2 RO)ERT GO8IER 73. 8ON. ;. M. RUI6% Pre3,2,'1 J 21e o0 )r!'9. D;% Co r- o0 F,r3- I'3-!'9e o0 R,B!+ !'2 ELIGIO DE GU6MAN C CO.% INC.
/0$'#: 'he *nited #tates of 0merica had a naval base in #ubic, Oambales& 'he base was one of those provided in the 1ilitary Bases 0greement between the +hilippines and the *nited #tates& #ometime in 1ay, :;<3, the *nited #tates invited the submission of bids for a couple of repair pro%ects& Eligio de Fu=man land $o&, ,nc& responded to the invitation and submitted bids& #ubsequent thereto, the company received from the *# two telegrams requesting it to confirm its price proposals and for the name of its bonding company& 'he company construed this as an acceptance of its offer so they complied with the requests& 'he company received a letter which was signed by 6illiam ,& $ollins of Department of the 8avy of the *nited #tates, also one of the petitioners herein informing that the company did not qualify to receive an award for the pro%ects because of its previous unsatisfactory performance rating in repairs, and that the pro%ects were awarded to third parties& 'he

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 an integral 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& 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 respondent Benedicto 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$$, shares ac!nowledging that it was within private respondent>s capacity to acquire the same shares out of his income from business and the e5ercise of his profession& ,mplied in this underta!ing is the recognition by petitioner that the sub%ect shares of stoc! could not have been ill2gotten Benedicto filed a 1otion for )elease from #equestration and )eturn of #equestered #haresJDividends praying, inter alia, that his 87F$$, 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 $ourt which it failed to comply with without any %ustifiable grounds& ,n a last2ditch attempt to escape liability, petitioner )epublic, through the +$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
G.R. No. $#9506 M!r9. 6% #006 REPU)LIC OF T8E P8ILIPPINES re/re3e'-e2 b" -.e PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GO;ERNMENT :PCGG< 73. SANDIGAN)AYAN :SECOND DI;ISION< !'2 RO)ERTO S. )ENEDICTO.
/0$'#: 'he +$FF issued writs placing under sequestration all business enterprises, entities and other properties, real and personal, owned or registered in the name of private respondent Benedicto, or of corporations in which he appeared to have controlling or ma%ority interest due to his involvement in cases of ill2gotten wealth& 0mong the properties thus sequestered and ta!en over by +$FF fiscal agents were the 33< shares in 87F$$, owned by and registered under the

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& 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&
G.R. No. L-#3$39 De9e?ber $7% $966 MO)IL P8ILIPPINES EDPLORATION% INC. 73. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SER;ICE !'2 )UREAU o0 CUSTOMS
/0$'#: /our cases of rotary drill parts were shipped from abroad on #&#& ILeovilleI consigned 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 the ground 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 an incident 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
G.R. No. L-33$$# J 'e $&% $974 P8ILIPPINE NATIONAL )ANE 73. 8ON. JUDGE JA;IER PA)ALAN% J 21e o0 -.e Co r- o0 F,r3I'3-!'9e% )r!'9. III% L! U',o'% AGOO TO)ACCO PLANTERS ASSOCIATION% INC.% P8ILIPPINE ;IRGINIA TO)ACCO ADMINISTRATION% !'2 PANFILO P. JIMENE6% De/ -" S.er,00% L! U',o'
/0$'#: '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 government divests itself ro hac vice of its sovereign character, so as to render the

corporation sub%ect to the rules governing private corporations& of law #tate within the rule of immunity of the #tate from suit&
G.R. No. L-3$63& A 1 3- 3$% $97$ ANGEL MINISTERIO !'2 ASUNCION SADAYA 73. T8E COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CE)U% Fo r-. )r!'9.% Pre3,2e2 b" -.e 8o'or!b+e% J 21e JOSE C. )ORROMEO% T8E PU)LIC 8IG8WAY COMMISSIONER% !'2 T8E AUDITOR GENERAL
/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 cannot prosper 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
G.R. No. $69305 M!r9. $3% #007 T8E DEPARTMENT OF 8EALT8% SECRETARY MANUEL M. DAYRIT% USEC. MA. MARGARITA GALON !'2 USEC. ANTONIO M. LOPE6% 73. P8IL. P8ARMAWEALT8% INC.
/0$'#: )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 lower bidder& ,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& ,##*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 %urisdictional capacity, 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%unction and mandamus& 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 constructionsB for the completion of the housing units, despite the absence of appropriations and written contracts to cover subsequent e5penses for the Aadditional constructions&B +etitioners then received payment for the construction wor! duly covered by the individual written contracts, thereby leaving an unpaid balance representing the Aadditional constructions&B +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 #ervices who recogni=ed the e5istence of implied contracts covering the additional constructions& )espondent argues that the #tate may not be sued in the instant case, invo!ing the constitutional doctrine of /on.suability o( the State, otherwise !nown as the 0oyal 1rerogative o( )ishonesty. ,##*E: 678 immunity& D+6H can invo!e state
G.R. No. $3$&55. M!r9. $6% #00$ EPG CONSTRUCTION CO.% ET. AL. vs. 8ONORA)LE GREGORIO R. ;IGILAR% I' 8,3 C!/!9,-" !3 Se9re-!r" o0 P b+,9 WorF3 !'2 8,1.G!"3
/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 this purpose, 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&
HELD: 87& *nder these circumstances, respondent may not validly invo!e the 0oyal 1rerogative o( )ishonesty and conveniently hide under the State1s 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 petitionersP contractors be duly compensated P on the

basis of quantum meruit P for construction done on the public wor!s housing pro%ect& standards, which can only be ignored at the ris! of losing the confidence of the people, the repository of the sovereign power&
G.R. No. L-54#$5 De9e?ber $9% $974 ILDEFONSO SANTIAGO% re/re3e'-e2 b" .,3 A--or'e"-,'F!9-% ALFREDO T. SANTIAGO 73. REPU)LIC OF T8E P8ILIPPINES
/0$'#: #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&
G.R. No. L-#9993 O9-ober #3% $974 LAUDENCIO TORIO% ET. AL. 73. ROSALINA% ANGELINA% LEONARDO% EDUARDO% ARTEMIO% ANGELITA% ANITA% ERNESTO% NORMA% ;IRGINIA% REMEDIOS !'2 RO)ERTO% !++ 3 r'!?e2 FONTANILLA% !'2 T8E 8ONORA)LE COURT OF APPEALS
/0$'#: '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 the complaint 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&
,##*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

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 to secure 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 municipalityD the surrounding circumstances of a particular case are 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& 'he private respondents instituted a complaint for damages against the Estate of 1acario 8ieveras and Bernardo Balagot, owner and driver, respectively, of the passenger %eepney& However, the aforesaid defendants filed a 'hird +arty $omplaint against the petitioner and the driver of a dump truc! of petitioner& +etitioner raised as one of its defenses the non2suability of the #tate& ,##*E: 678 the 1unicipality of #an /ernando is immune from suit& HELD: 9E#& 0nent the issue of whether or not the municipality is liable for the torts committed by its employee, the test of liability of the municipality depends on whether or not the driver, acting in behalf of the municipality, is performing governmental or proprietary functions& ,n the case at bar, the driver of the dump truc! of the municipality insists that Ihe was on his way to the 8aguilian river to get a load of sand and gravel for the repair of #an /ernandoCs municipal streets&I 6e already stressed in the case of Palafo., et& al& vs& Province of Ilocos 3orte , the District Engineer, and the +rovincial 'reasurer :.3 +hil ::HE" that Ithe construction or maintenance of roads in which the truc! and the driver wor!ed at the time of the accident are admittedly governmental activities&I 6e arrive at the conclusion that the m!nici ality cannot be held liable for the torts committed by its reg!lar em loyee, 0ho 0as then engaged in the discharge of governmental f!nctions& Hence, the death of the passenger PP tragic and deplorable though it may be PP imposed on the municipality no duty to pay monetary compensation&
G.R. No. L-&#$79 A/r,+ 4% $99$ MUNICIPALITY OF SAN FERNANDO% LA UNION 73. 8ON. JUDGE ROMEO N. FIRME% ET. AL.
/0$'#: 0t about <am of December :E, :;E-, a collision occurred involving a passenger %eepney driven by Bernardo Balagot owned by the Estate of 1acario 8ieveras", a gravel and sand truc! driven by Jose 1anandeg owned by 'anquilino Kelasque=", and a dump truc! of the 1unicipality of #an /ernando, La *nion and driven by 0lfredo Bislig& Due to the impact, several passengers of the %eepney including Laureano BaniQa #r& died as a result of the in%uries they sustained and four others suffered varying degrees of physical in%uries&
G.R. No. L-3067$ No7e?ber #4% $973 REPU)LIC OF T8E P8ILIPPINES 73. 8ON. GUILLERMO P. ;ILLASOR% ET. AL.

/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& Liener $o&, Ltd&, Favino *nchuan, and ,nternational $onstruction $orporation, and against the petitioner herein, confirming the arbitration award in the amount of +:,<:3,(;E&4., sub%ect of #pecial +roceedings& )espondent Judge Killasor, issued an 7rder declaring the aforestated decision final and e5ecutory, directing the #heriffs of )i=al +rovince, Rue=on $ity ?as well as@ 1anila to e5ecute the said decision& +ursuant to the said 7rder, the corresponding 0lias 6rit of E5ecution ?was issued@& 7n the strength of the afore2mentioned 0lias 6rit of E5ecution, the +rovincial #heriff of )i=al respondent herein" served notices of garnishment with several Ban!s, specially on the monies due the 0rmed /orces of the +hilippines in the form of deposits sufficient to cover the amount mentioned in the said 6rit of E5ecution& 'he +hilippine Keterans Ban! received the same notice of garnishment& 'he funds of the 0rmed /orces of the +hilippines on deposit with the Ban!s, particularly, with the +hilippine Keterans Ban! and the +hilippine 8ational Ban! ?or@ their branches are public funds duly appropriated and allocated for the payment of pensions of retirees, pay and allowances of military and civilian personnel and for maintenance and operations of the 0rmed /orces of the +hilippines& ,##*E: 678 the )epublic can invo!e state immunity from suit& HELD: 9E#& #ince government funds and properties may not be sei=ed under writs of e5ecution or garnishment to satisfy such %udgments, is based on obvious considerations of public policy& Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the corresponding appropriation as required by law& 'he functions and public services rendered by the #tate cannot be allowed to be paraly=ed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific ob%ects, as appropriated by law&
A.M. No. RTJ-0&-$9&9 REPU)LIC OF T8E P8ILIPPINES 73. JUDGE ;ICENTE A. 8IDALGO% Pre3,2,'1 J 21e o0 -.e Re1,o'!+ Tr,!+ Co r- o0 M!',+!% )r!'9. 37
/0$'#: 'arcila Laperal 1endo=a filed an action for the annulment or declaration of nullity of the title and deed of sale, reconveyance andJor recovery of ownership and possession a property against the )epublic of the +hilippinesin the )'$ of 1anila& ,t is also !nown as the Arleg!i 4esidence which housed two +hilippine presidents and which now holds the 7ffice of the +ress #ecretary and the 8ews ,nformation Bureau& 'he case was initially dismissed by the presiding Judge of the 1anila )'$ Branch (-" on the ground of state immunity& 'he case was re2raffled to the 1anila )'$ Branch (<", with respondent Kicente 0& Hidalgo as presiding Judge& ,n an 7rder, Judge Hidalgo declared the )epublic in default for failure of #olicitor Fabriel /rancisco )amire=, the handling solicitor, to file the required 0nswer within the period prayed for in his motion for e5tension& ,t is contended that the respondent Judge violated the $onstitution and the fundamental rule that government funds are e5empt from e5ecution or garnishment when he caused the issuance of the writ of e5ecution against the )epublic& ,##*E: 678 the )epublic can invo!e immunity from suit& HELD: ,t is settled that when the #tate gives its consent to be sued, it does not thereby necessarily consent to an unrestrained e5ecution against it& 'ersely put, when the #tate waives its immunity, all it does, in effect, is to give the other party an opportunity to prove, if it can, that the state has a liability& '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 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&
G.R. No3. 49494-99 O9-ober $% $990 MUNICIPALITY OF MAEATI 73. T8E 8ONORA)LE COURT OF APPEALS% 8ON. SAL;ADOR P. DE GU6MAN% JR.% !3 J 21e RTC o0 M!F!-,% )r!'9. CDLII ADMIRAL FINANCE CREDITORS CONSORTIUM% INC.% !'2 S8ERIFF SIL;INO R. PASTRANA
/0$'#: '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 $orporation and one 0rceli +& Jo, involving a parcel of land and improvements and registered in the name of the latter& ,t was certified that a ban! account had been opened with the +8B Buendia Branch under petitionerCs name made pursuant to the provisions of +res& Decree 8o& 43& 0fter due hearing where the parties presented their respective appraisal reports regarding the value of the property, respondent )'$ %udge rendered a decision fi5ing the appraised value of the property at +-,3;:,EEE&.., 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 two ban! 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
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 the consequence 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 full compensation&
G.R. No. $65#4# O9-ober $#% #00& TERESITA M. YUJUICO 73. 8ON. JOSE L. ATIEN6A% ET. AL.
/0$'#: 7n H 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 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 hereby given 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 power of 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 ensure that %ustice and fair play are served& ,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 8,0" are government funds and therefore, cannot be disbursed without a government appropriation& ,##*E: 678 the )epublic is e5empt from paying the %ust compensation demanded by the 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 lawD 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 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&
G.R. No. 7776& A 1 3- $&% $944 SE)ASTIAN COSCULLUELA 73. T8E 8ONORA)LE COURT OF APPEALS !'2 -.e REPU)LIC OF T8E P8ILIPPINES% re/re3e'-e2 b" NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION
/0$'#: 'he )epublic of the +hilippines filed a complaint with the $ourt of /irst ,nstance of
G.R. No. $0$959 De9e?ber $% $995 T8E 8OLY SEE 73. T8E 8ON. ERI)ERTO U. ROSARIO% JR.% !3 Pre3,2,'1 J 21e o0 -.e Re1,o'!+ Tr,!+ Co r- o0 M!F!-,% )r!'9. 6$ !'2 STAR)RIG8T SALES ENTERPRISES% 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 immune from suit& petitioner Holy #ee is ,n 0rticle (: a" of the $onvention, a diplomatic envoy is granted immunity from the civil and administrative %urisdiction of the receiving 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&
G.R. No. $&570&. J 'e #6% #003 T8E REPU)LIC OF INDONESIA% 8IS EDCELLENCY AM)ASSADOR SOERATMIN% !'2 MINISTER COUNSELLOR A68ARI EASIM vs. JAMES ;IN6ON% 2o,'1 b 3,'e33 '2er -.e '!?e !'2 3-"+e o0 ;IN6ON TRADE AND SER;ICES
/0$'#: +etitioner, )epublic of ,ndonesia, represented by its $ounsellor entered into a 1aintenance 0greement with respondent James 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 of four 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 to the date of e5piration of the said agreement, or before 0ugust :;;;, they informed respondent that the renewal of the agreement shall be at the discretion of the incoming $hief of 0dministration& 6hen the $hief of 0dministration assumed his position, he allegedly found respondent>s wor! and services unsatisfactory and not in compliance with the
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 act 5!re im erii, especially when it is not 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 :;E: Kienna $onvention on Diplomatic )elations&

standards in the 0greement& Hence, the ,ndonesian Embassy terminated the agreement& +etitioners claim, that they had earlier verbally informed respondent of their decision to terminate the agreement& 7n the other hand, respondent claims that the aforesaid termination was arbitrary and unlawful& Hence, he filed a complaint against the petitioners which opposed by invo!ing immunity from suit& ,##*E: 678 the )epublic of ,ndonesia can successfully invo!e state immunity from suit& HELD: 9E#& 'here is no dispute that the establishment of a diplomatic mission is an act 5!re im erii& 0 sovereign #tate does not merely establish a diplomatic mission and leave it at thatD the establishment of a diplomatic mission encompasses its maintenance and up!eep& Hence, the #tate may enter into contracts with private entities to maintain the premises, furnishings and equipment of the embassy and the living quarters of its agents and officials& ,t is therefore clear that petitioner )epublic of ,ndonesia was acting in pursuit of a sovereign activity when it entered into a contract with respondent for the up!eep or maintenance& 'he #olicitor Feneral, in his $omment, submits the view that, Athe 1aintenance 0greement was entered into by the )epublic of ,ndonesia in the discharge of its governmental functions& ,n such a case, it cannot be deemed to have waived its immunity from suit&B sei=ed& 'he narcotic agents were accompanied by private respondent 0rthur #cal=o who would, in due time, become one of the principal witnesses for the prosecution& 7n .H January :;HH, +residing Judge Eutropio 1igrino rendered a decision acquitting the two accused& ,##*E: 678 respondent #cal=o can invo!e immunity from suit& HELD: 9E#& 'he doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply and may not be invo!ed where the public official is being sued in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary citi=en& 'he cloa! of protection afforded the officers and agents of the government is removed the moment they are sued in their individual capacity& 'his situation usually arises where the public official acts without authority or in e5cess of the powers vested in him 0 foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloa!ed with immunity from suit but only as long as it can be established that he is acting within the directives of the sending state& 'he consent of the host state is an indispensable requirement of basic courtesy between the two sovereigns& 'he %ob description of #cal=o has tas!ed him to conduct surveillance on suspected drug suppliers and, after having ascertained the target, to inform local law enforcers who would then be e5pected to ma!e the arrest& ,n conducting surveillance activities on 1inucher, later acting as the poseur2buyer during the buy2bust operation, and then becoming a principal witness in the criminal case against 1inucher, #cal=o hardly can be said to have acted beyond the scope of his official function or duties& 0ll told, this $ourt is constrained to rule that respondent 0rthur #cal=o, an agent of the *nited #tates Drug Enforcement 0gency allowed by the +hilippine government to conduct activities in the country to help contain the problem on the drug traffic, is entitled to the de(ense o( state immunity (rom suit.
G.R. No. $5#396. Febr !r" $$% #003 E8OSROW MINUC8ER vs. 8ON. COURT OF APPEALS !'2 ART8UR SCAL6O
/0$'#: #ometime in 1ay :;HE, an ,nformation for violation of #ection 4 of )epublic 0ct 8o& E43-, otherwise also !nown as the ADangerous Drugs 0ct of :;<3,B was filed against petitioner Lhosrow 1inucher and one 0bbas 'orabian& 'he criminal charge followed a Abuy2bust operationB conducted by the +hilippine police narcotic agents in the house of 1inucher, an ,ranian national, where a quantity of heroin, a prohibited drug, was said to have been
G.R. No. $#577# $5% #007
A 1 3-

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GO;ERNMENT !'2 MAGTANGGOL C. GUNIGUNDO% ,' .,3 9!/!9,-" !3 C8AIRMAN -.ereo0 73. SANDIGAN)AYAN !'2 OFFICECO 8OLDINGS% N.;.
/0$'#: 7n < 0pril :;HE, in connection with criminal proceedings initiated in the +hilippines to locate, sequester and see! restitution of alleged ill2gotten wealth amassed by the 1arcoses and other accused from the +hilippine Fovernment,: the 7ffice of the #olicitor Feneral 7#F" wrote the /ederal 7ffice for +olice 1atters in Berne, #wit=erland, requesting assistance for the latter office to: a" ascertain and provide the 7#F with information as to where and in which cantons the ill2gotten fortune of the 1arcoses and other accused are located, the names of the depositors and the ban!s and the amounts involvedD and b" ta!e necessary precautionary measures, such as sequestration, to free=e the assets in order to preserve their e5isting value and prevent any further transfer thereof herein referred to as the ,10$ 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 to the 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 first e5amining 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 is claimed 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&
G.R. No. $#&46&. J!' !r" #4% #00 JEFFREY LIANG :8UEFENG< 73. PEOPLE OF T8E P8ILIPPINES
/0$'#: +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 $ity with two counts of grave oral defamation& +etitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the 1e'$& 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 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 with malice or in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority or %urisdiction& #E+0)0'E $78$*)),8F 7+,8,78 7/ J*#',$E +*87: The Charter of the ADB p!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) +ead,ua!te!s #g!eement acco!ds the same immunity to the office!s and staff of the ban'. 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 not his, 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 e en the organization itself could ha e no right to wai e an official!s immunity for his official acts" This permits local authorities to assume jurisdiction o er and indi idual 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 wai e its own immunity and appear in court, not the indi idual, 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 !e,ui!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 pri ate li es" 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 Agreement e(plicitly g!ant immunity f!om legal p!ocess to ban' office!s and employees only with !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 pri ate acts, notwithstanding the absence of a wai er 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 e en 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.

G.R. No. $&#3$4 A/r,+ $6% #009 DEUTSC8E GESELLSC8AFT FHR TEC8NISC8E 6USAMMENAR)EIT% ET. AL. 73. 8ON. COURT OF APPEALS% ET. AL.
/0$'#: 'he governments of the /ederal )epublic of Fermany and the )epublic of the +hilippines ratified an 0greement called #ocial Health ,nsuranceN8etwor!ing and Empowerment #H,8E 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 contract employees hired by F'O to wor! for #H,8E& 8icolay, a Belgian national, assumed the post of #H,8E +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 #H,8E 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 own official 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 rules that 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&

Poli Digests

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Poli Digests

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY.

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

G.R. No. $7&444 SU6ETTE NICOLAS 73. ROMULO

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

CORPORATION !'2 )OARD OF LI(UIDATORS

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

ARTICLE #$40 :NCC<

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

G.R. No. $#577# $5% #007

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE

Anda mungkin juga menyukai