PIL - Immunity Cases

1
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW CASES 2014-2015 | ATTY. BATULA

FRATERNITAS SCINTILLA LEGIS

respondents by a writ of preliminary injunction
IMMUNITY FROM JURISDICTION
to continue operating the concessions pending

litigation. Respondent court directed the
USA v. GUINTO
individual petitioners to maintain the status quo

On July 22, 1986, the petitioners filed a
182 SCRA 644
motion to dismiss and opposition to the

petition for preliminary injunction on the
Facts:
ground that the action was in effect a suit

In the 4 consolidated suits, the USA
against USA, which had not waived its non-
moves to dismiss the cases on the ground that
suability.
they are in effect suits against it which it has not

On July 22, 1986, trial court denied the
consented
application for a writ of preliminary injunction.
On the first suit:
On Oct. 10, 1988, trial court denied the

On February 24, 1986, the Western
petitioners' motion to dismiss
Pacific Contracting Office, Okinawa Area
On the second suit:
Exchange, US Air Force, solicited bids for barber
Fabian Genove filed a complaint for damages
services contracts through its contracting officer
against petitioners Anthony Lamachia, Wilfredo
James F. Shaw. Among those who submitted
Belsa, Rose Cartalla and Peter Orascion for his
their bids were private respondents Roberto T.
dismissal as cook in the US Air Force Recreation
Valencia, Emerenciana C. Tanglao, and Pablo C.
Center at the John Hay Air Station in Baguio City
del Pilar

It had been ascertained that Genove

Bidding was won by Ramon Dizon over
had poured urine into the soup stock used in
the objection of the private respondents who
cooking the vegetables served to the club
claimed that he had made a bid for 4 facilities,
customers. His dismissal was effected on March
including the Civil Engineering Area which was
5, 1986 by Col. David C. Kimball, Commander of
not included in the invitation to bid.
the 3rd Combat Support Group, PACAF Clark Air

The Philippine Area Exchange (PHAX),
Force Base.
through its representatives petitioners Yvonne

Genove filed a complaint in the RTC of
Reeves and Frederic M. Smouse, upon the
Baguio. The defendants, joined by the United
private respondents' complaint, explained that
States of America, moved to dismiss the
the Civil Engineering concession had not been
complaint, alleging that Lamachia (the
awarded to Dizon. But Dizon was already
manager) as an officer of the US Air Force was
operating this concession, then known as the
immune from suit for the acts done by him in
NCO club concession.
his official capacity; they argued that the suit

On June 30, 1986, the private
was in effect against USA, which had not given
respondents filed a complaint in the court
its consent to be sued.
below to compel PHAX and the individual
Motion was denied by respondent judge:
petitioners to cancel the award to Dizon, to
although acting initially in their official
conduct a rebidding for the barbershop
capacities, the defendants went beyond what
concessions and to allow the private
their functions called for; this brought them out
1.

2



of the protective mantle of whatever
States which had not given its consent to be
immunities they may have had in the beginning
sued; that they were also immune from suit
On the third suit:
under the RP-US Bases Treaty for acts done by
Luis Bautisa, who was employed as a barracks
them in the performance of their official
boy in Camp O'Donnell, an extension of Clark
functions
Air Base, was arrested following a buy-bust
Motion to dismiss was denied by the trial
operation conducted by the individual
court: the acts cannot be considered Acts of
petitioners Tomi J. King, Darrel D. Dye and
State, if they were ever admitted by the
Stephen F. Bostick, officers of the US Air Force
defendants.
and special agents of the Air Force of Special

Investigators (AFOSI). Bautista was dismissed
Issue:
from his employment as a result of the filing of
1. Whether or not the suits above are in
the charge. He then filed a complaint for
effect suits against United States of America
damages against the individual petitioners,
without its consent.
claiming that it was because of their acts that

2. In relation, whether or not the
he was removed. Defendants alleged that they
defendants are also immune from suit for acting
had only done their duty in the enforcement of
within their official functions.
laws of the Philippines inside the American

bases, pursuant to the RP-US Military Bases
Held:
Agreement. The counsel for the defense

invoked that the defendants were acting in
1st suit: No. The barbershops concessions are
their official capacity; that the complaint was in
commercial enterprises operated by private
effect a suit against the US without its consent.
persons. They are not agencies of the US Armed

Motion was denied by respondent
forces. Petitioners cannot plead immunity. Case
judge: immunity under the Military Bases
should be remanded to the lower court.
Agreement covered only criminal and not civil

cases; moreover, the defendants had come
2nd suit: No. The petitioners cannot invoke
under the jurisdiction of the court when they
the doctrine of state immunity. The restaurants
submitted their answer.
are commercial enterprises. By entering into
On the fourth suit:
the employment contract with Genove, it

Complaint for damages was filed by
impliedly divested itself of its sovereign
private respondents against the petitioners
immunity from suit. (However, the petitioners
(except USA). According to the plaintiffs, the
are only suable, not liable.)
defendants beat them up, handcuffed the, and

unleashed dogs on them. Defendants deny this
3rd suit: Yes. It is clear that the petitioners
and claim that the plaintiffs were arrested for
were acting in the exercise of their official
theft and were bitten by dogs because they
functions. For discharging their duties as agents
were struggling and resisting arrest.
of the US, they cannot be directly impleaded for

USA and the defendants argued that
acts attributable to their principal, which has
the suit was in effect a suit against the United
not given its consent to be sued.

3



character of the letters, the petitioners were
4th suit: The contradictory factual allegations
being sued as officers of the United States
deserve a closer study. Inquiry must first be
government because they have acted on behalf
made by the lower court. Only after can it be
of that government and within the scope of
known in what capacity the petitioners were
their authority. Thus, it is that government and
acting at the time of the incident.
not the petitioners personally that is

responsible for their acts.

It is stressed at the outset that the mere
allegation that a government functionary is
Sanders v. Veridiano
being sued in his personal capacity will not
GR No. L-46930; June 10, 1988
automatically remove him from the protection
Facts:
of the law of public officers and, if appropriate,

Petitioner Dale Sanders was the special
the doctrine of state immunity. By the same
services of the US Naval Station (NAVSTA) in
token, the mere invocation of official character
Olongapo City. Private respondents Anthony
will not suffice to insulate him from suability
Rossi and Ralph Wyers are American citizens
and liability for an act imputed to him as a
permanently residing in the Philippines and who
personal tort committed without or in excess of
were employed as game room attendants in the
his authority. These well-settled principles are
special services department of NAVSTA. On
applicable not only to the officers of the local
October 3, 1975, the respondents were advised
state but also where the person sued in its
that their employment had been converted
courts pertains to the government of a foreign
from permanent full-time to permanent part-
state, as in the present case.
time. In a letter addressed to petitioner
Assuming that the trial can proceed and
Moreau, Sanders disagreed with the hearing
it is proved that the claimants have a right to
officers report of the reinstatement of private
the payment of damages, such award will have
respondents to permanent full-time status plus
to be satisfied not by the petitioners in their
back wages. Respondents allege that the letters
personal capacities but by the United States
contained libelous imputations, which caused
government as their principal. This will require
them to be ridiculed and thus filed for damages
that government to perform an affirmative act
against
petitioners.
to satisfy the judgment, viz, the appropriation

of the necessary amount to cover the damages
Issue:
awarded, thus making the action a suit against

Whether or not the petitioners were
that government without its consent.
performing
their
official
duties?

Held:

Yes. Sanders, as director of the special

services department of NAVSTA, undoubtedly

had supervision over its personnel, including

the private respondents. Given the official
2.

4



Laboratories, Inc. and direct defendant DOH,
DOH versus PHIL
defendant Romualdez, defendant Galon and
defendant Lopez to declare plaintiff
PHARMAWEALTH
Pharmawealth as the lowest complying

responsible bidder for the Benzathine
Facts:
contract, and that they accordingly award the
Phil. Pharmawealth, Inc. (respondent)
same to plaintiff company and adjudge
is a domestic corporation engaged in the
defendants Romualdez, Galon and Lopez
business of manufacturing and supplying
liable, jointly and severally to plaintiff, for
[the therein specified damages].
pharmaceutical products to government

Petitioners subsequently filed Motion
hospitals in the Philippines.
To
Dismiss
for dismissal of the complaint
Secretary of Health Alberto G.
based
o
n
t
he
doctrine of state immunity.
Romualdez, Jr. issued Administrative Order

Respondent
filed
its
(A.O.) No. 27,[3] Series of 1998, outlining the
comment/oppositioncontending,
in
the
main,
guidelines and procedures on the
that the doctrine of state immunity is not
accreditation of government suppliers for
applicable considering that individual
pharmaceutical products.
petitioners are being sued both in their
A.O. No. 27 was later amended by A.O.
official and personal capacities, hence, they,
No. 10,[4] Series of 2000, providing for
not the state, would be liable for damages.
additional guidelines for accreditation of drug

suppliers aimed at ensuring that only
RTC denied petitioners motion to dismiss.
qualified bidders can transact business with
CA: upheld the TC denial for Motion To
petitioner DOH
Dismiss
Only products accredited by the

Committee shall be allowed to be procured
Issue:
by the DOH and all other entities under its
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in
jurisdiction.[5] (Underscoring supplied)
upholding the denial of petitioners motion to
Respondent submitted to petitioner
dismiss.
DOH a request for the inclusion of additional

items in its list of accredited drug products,
Ruling:
including the antibiotic Penicillin G
No. The ability to be sued of a
Benzathine.
government official depends on whether the
Petitioner DOH, issued an Invitation
official concerned was acting within his
for Bids[9] for the procurement of 1.2 million
official or jurisdictional capacity, and whether
units vials of Penicillin G Benzathine
the acts done in the performance of official
(Penicillin G Benzathine contract).
Respondent submitted its bid for the
functions will result in a charge or financial
Penicillin G Benzathine contract. Only two
liability against the government.
companies participated, with respondent
In the present case, suing individual
submitting the lower bid at however, of the
petitioners in their personal capacities for
non-accreditation of respondents Penicillin G
damages in connection with their alleged act
Benzathine product, the contract was
of illegal[ly] abus[ing] their official positions
awarded to YSS. (another competitor)
to make sure that plaintiff Pharmawealth
Respondent
thus
filed
a
complaintwith the RTC to nullify the award
would not be awarded the Benzathine
of the Penicillin G Benzathine contract to YSS
3.

5



contract [which act was] done in bad faith
satisfaction of the judgment against the
and with full knowledge of the limits and
officials will require the state itself to perform
breadth of their powers given by law is
a positive act, such as the appropriation of the
permissible, in consonance with the foregoing
amount necessary to pay the damages
principles.
awarded against them.
For an officer who exceeds the power
Shauf v. Court of Appeals elucidates:
conferred on him by law cannot hide behind
Inasmuch as the State authorizes only legal
the plea of sovereign immunity and must bear
acts by its officers, unauthorized acts of
the liability personally.
government officials or officers are not acts of
While the doctrine of state immunity
the State, and an action against the officials or
appears to prohibit only suits against the
officers by one whose rights have been
state without its consent, it is also applicable
invaded or violated by such acts, for the
to complaints filed against officials of the
protection of his rights, is not a suit against
state for acts allegedly performed by them in
the State within the rule of immunity of the
the discharge of their duties. The suit is
State from suit. In the same tenor, it has been
regarded as one against the state where
said that an action at law or suit in equity
satisfaction of the judgment against the
against a State officer or the director of a
officials will require the state itself to perform
State department on the ground that, while
a positive act, such as the appropriation of the
claiming to act for the State, he violates or
amount necessary to pay the damages
invades the personal and property rights of
awarded against them.
the plaintiff, under an unconstitutional act or
DOH, the defense of immunity from
under an assumption of authority which he
suit will not avail despite its being an
does not have, is not a suit against the State
unincorporated agency of the government,
within the constitutional provision that the
for the only causes of action directed against
State may not be sued without its consent.
it are preliminary injunction and mandamus.
The rationale for this ruling is that the
The defense of state immunity from
doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as
suit does not apply in causes of action which
an instrument for perpetrating an injustice.
do not seek to impose a charge or financial
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
liability against the State.
The rule does not apply where the
As regards individual petitioners
public official is charged in his official
suability for damages, the following
capacity for acts that are unauthorized or
discussion on the applicability of the defense
unlawful and injurious to the rights of others.
of state immunity from suit is relevant.
Neither does it apply where the public official
While the doctrine of state immunity
is clearly being sued not in his official
appears to prohibit only suits against the
capacity but in his personal capacity,
state without its consent, it is also applicable
although the acts complained of may have
to complaints filed against officials of the
been committed while he occupied a public
state for acts allegedly performed by them in
position.
the discharge of their duties. The suit is

regarded as one against the state where

6



exerted earnest efforts to search and recover
Vicente CHUIDIAN V.
properties and assets suspected as having
been illegally acquired by the Marcoses, their
SANDIGANBAYAN and the
relatives and cronies. Chuidian was among
Republic
those whose assets were sequestered by the
G.R. No. 1339941 | JANUARY 19, 2001
PCGG. The PNB was directed to place the
letters of credit under its custody, in behalf of
Facts:
the PCGG.
In September 1980, Chuidian
In the meantime, Philguarantee filed a
allegedly a dummy of Ferdinand and Imelda
motion before the Superior Court of
Marcos, was able to obtain, allegedly under
California, seeking to vacate the stipulated
false pretenses, a loan guarantee from
judgment containing the settlement between
Philguarantee Corp., the BOI and the Central
Philguarantee and Chuidian on the grounds
Bank, in favor of the Asian Reliability Co. Inc.
that: (a) Philguarantee was compelled by the
(ARCI). ARCI, 98% of which was allegedly
Marcos administration to agree to the terms
owned by Chuidian, was granted a loan
of the settlement; (b) Chuidian blackmailed
guarantee of US $25M for the establishment
Marcos into pursuing the settlement
of 5 inter-related projects in the country.
agreement by threatening to expose the fact
However, Chuidian used the same in
that the Marcoses made investments in
investing in corporations operating in the
Chuidians American enterprises; and (c) the
US. ARCI then defaulted in the payments of
Aquino
administration
had
ordered
the loan, compelling Philguarantee to
Philguarantee not to make further payments
undertake
payments
for
the
on the L/C to Chuidian. However, the
same. Philguarantee sued Chuidian before a
Californian
court
concluded
that
Californian court, charging him of violating
Philguarantee was not able to sufficiently
the terms of the loan, defaulting in payments
show that the settlement should be set
and misusing the proceeds for his personal
aside. On appeal, the CA of the State of
benefit. Chuidian claimed that he himself was
California affirmed the judgment of the
a victim of the systematic plunder
Superior Court denying Philguarantees
perpetrated by the Marcoses.
motion.
On November 1985, Philguarantee
Chuidian filed before the California
entered into a compromise agreement with
Central District Court, an action against PNB
Chuidian whereby Chuidian shall assign and
seeking to compel the latter to pay the
surrender title to all his companies in favor of
proceeds of the L/C. Philguarantee
the Phil. Govt. In return, Philguarantee shall
intervened in said action, raising the same
absolve Chuidian from all civil and criminal
issues and arguments it had earlier raised in
liability
concerning
the
payments
the action before the Santa Clara Superior
Philguarantee had made on Chuidians
Court, alleging that PNB was excused from
defaulted loans. It was further stipulated that
making payments on the L/C since the
the Phil. government shall pay Chuidian the
settlement was void due to illegality, duress
amount of US $5.3M. Chuidian received the 1st
and fraud.
two installments of the payment. The
The Federal Court rendered judgment
remaining balance of US $4.6M was to be paid
ruling: (1) in favor of PNB excusing the said
through an irrevocable Letter of Credit (L/C)
bank from making payment on the L/C; and
from which Chuidian would draw US $100k
(2) in Chuidians favor by denying intervenor
monthly.
Philguarantees action to set aside the
With the advent of the Aquino
settlement agreement.
administration, the newly-established PCGG
4.

7



Meanwhile a Deed of Transfer was
ask the said foreign court to compel the PNB
executed between then Sec. of Finance and
Los Angeles branch to pay the proceeds of the
then PNB President Edgardo Espiritu, to
L/C. Eventually, Philguarantee will be made
facilitate the rehabilitation of PNB. Thus, the
to shoulder the expense resulting in further
govt assumed all liabilities of PNB including
damage to the government. Thus, there was
the L/C listed in favor of Chuidian in the
an urgent need for the writ of attachment to
amount of US $4.4M
place the L/C under the custody of the

Sandiganbayan so the same may be preserved
On July 1987, the govt filed before the
as security for the satisfaction of judgment in
Sandiganbayan a civil case against the Marcos
the case before said court.
spouses, several govt officials, and a number
Chuidian opposed the motion for
of individuals known to be cronies of the
issuance of the writ of attachment,
Marcoses, including Chuidian, seeking the
contending that:
reconveyance, accounting and restitution of
(1) The plaintiffs affidavit appended to the
all forms of wealth allegedly procured
motion was in form and substance fatally
illegally by the defendants.
defective;
While the case was pending, the
(2) Section 1(b) of Rule 57 does not apply since
Republic filed a motion for issuance of a writ
there was no fiduciary relationship between
of attachment over the L/C in the name of
the plaintiff and Chuidian;
Chuidian, citing as grounds therefor the
(3) While Chuidian does not admit fraud on his
following:
part, if ever there was breach of contract,

such fraud must be present at the time the
(1) Chuidian embezzled or fraudulently
contract is entered into;
misapplied the funds of ARCI acting in a
(4) Chuidian has not removed or disposed of his
fiduciary capacity, justifying issuance of the
property in the absence of any intent to
writ under Section 1(b), Rule 57 of the Rules
defraud plaintiff;
of Court;
(5) Chuidians absence from the country does
(2) The writ is justified under Section 1(d) of the
not necessarily make him a non-resident; and
same rule as Chuidian is guilty of fraud in
(6) Service of summons by publication cannot be
contracting the debt or incurring the
used to justify the issuance of the writ since
obligation upon which the action was
Chuidian had already submitted to the
brought, or that he concealed or disposed of
jurisdiction of the Court by way of a motion to
the property that is the subject of the action;
lift the freeze order filed through his counsel.
(3) Chuidian has removed or disposed of his
On July 1993, the Sandiganbayan
property with the intent of defrauding the
ordered the issuance of a writ of attachment
plaintiff as justified under Section 1(c) of Rule
against the L/C as security for the satisfaction
57; and
of judgment. The Sandiganbayan ruled:
(4) Chuidian is residing out of the country or one
1) Although there was no separate was
on whom summons may be served by
attached to the motion, the motion itself
publication, which justifies the writ of
contained all the requisites of an affidavit,
attachment prayed for under Section 1(e) of
and the verification thereof is deemed a
the same rule.
substantial compliance of Rule 57, Section 3.
The Republic also averred that should
2) Fiduciary relationship exists between
the action brought by Chuidian before the U.S.
Chuidian and ARCI but not with the Republic.
District Court of California to compel
Hence, the Republic cannot invoke Sec. 1(b)
payment of the L/C prosper, inspite of the
of Rule 57.
sequestration of the said L/C, Chuidian can

8



3) There was a prima facie case of fraud
already been sold by the Republic and cannot
committed by Chuidian, justifying the
be returned to Chuidian should the
issuance of the writ of attachment.
government succeed in depriving him of the
4) The Sandiganbayan also adopted the
proceeds of the L/C.
Republics position that since it was
7) Finally, throughout the 4 years that
compelled to pay, through Philguarantee, the
the preliminary attachment had been in
bank loans taken out by Chuidian, the
effect, the govt had not set the case for
proceeds of which were fraudulently
hearing. The case itself should be dismissed
diverted, it is entitled to the issuance of the
for laches owing to the Republics failure to
writ of attachment to protect its rights as
prosecute its action for an unreasonable
creditor.
length of time. Accordingly, the preliminary
5) Chuidians absence from the country
attachment, being only a temporary or
was considered by the Sandiganbayan to be
ancillary remedy, must be lifted and the PNB
the most compelling ground for the issuance
ordered to immediately pay the proceeds of
of the writ.
the L/C to Chuidian.
Almost four (4) years after the issuance

of the order of attachment, Chuidian filed a
The Republic opposed the motion and
motion to lift the attachment based on the
contended that allowing the foreign judgment
following grounds:
as a basis for the lifting of the attachment
1) He had returned to the Philippines,
would essentially amount to an abdication of
and considering that his absence was the
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to hear
most compelling ground for the issuance of
and decide the ill gotten wealth cases lodged
the writ, the latter should be lifted.
before it in deference to the judgment of
2) There was no evidence at all of initial
foreign courts.
fraud or subsequent concealment except for
The Sandiganbayan denied petitioners
the affidavit submitted by the PCGG Chairman
motion and also the latters subsequent MR.
whose statement is hearsay since he was not

a witness to the litigated incidents, was never
Issue:
presented as a witness by the Republic and
Whether the writ of preliminary
thus was not subject to cross-examination.
attachment should be lifted as a result of
3) He denies that he ever disposed of his
petitioners return to the country and his
assets to defraud the Republic, and there is
averments that there was no fraud in
nothing in the records that support the
incurring the obligation
Sandiganbayans erroneous conclusion on the

matter.
Held:
4) He was never a defendant in any other
No. Preliminary attachment issued
pending criminal action.
upon a ground which is at the same time
5) He was not guilty of fraud in
the applicants cause of action. When the
contracting the debt or incurring the
preliminary attachment is issued upon a
obligation. L/C was not a product of
ground which is at the same time the
fraudulent transactions but the result of
applicants cause of action, the defendant is
court-approved settlement.
not allowed to file a motion to dissolve the
6) Should the attachment be allowed to
attachment under Section 13 of Rule 57 by
continue, he will be deprived of his property
offering to show the falsity of the factual
without due process. The L/C was payment
averments in the plaintiffs application and
to Chuidian in exchange for the assets he
affidavits on which the writ was based and
turned over to the Republic. Said assets had
consequently that the writ based thereon had

9



been improperly or irregularly issued the
identification polyvinyl (PVC) cards to
reason being that the hearing on such a
trainees who have passed the certification
motion for dissolution of the writ would be
process.
tantamount to a trial of the merits of the
On December 29, 1999, TESDA and
action. In other words, the merits of the
PROVI signed and executed their Contract
action would be ventilated at a mere hearing
Agreement Project: PVC ID Card Issuance for
of a motion, instead of at the regular trial.
the provision of goods and services in the
The merits of the action in which a
writ of preliminary attachment has been
printing and encoding of PVC cards. In return,
issued are not triable on a motion for
TESDA would pay PROVI the amount of (P39,
dissolution of the attachment; otherwise an
475,000) within fifteen (15) days after
applicant for the lifting of the writ could force
TESDAs acceptance of the contracted goods
a trial of the merits of the case on a mere
and services.
motion.
TESDA in turn undertook to pay
There are only two ways of
PROVI thirty percent (30%) of the total cost
quashing a writ of attachment: (a) by filing
a counterbound immediately; or (b) by
of the supplies within thirty (30) days after
moving to quash on the ground of improper
receipt and acceptance of the contracted
and irregular issuance. These grounds for the
supplies, with the balance payable within
dissolution of an attachment are fixed in Rule
thirty (30) days after the initial payment.
57 of the Rules of Court and the power of the
PROVI further alleged that out of TESDAs
Court to dissolve an attachment is
liability of P39, 475,000.00, TESDA paid
circumscribed by the grounds specified
therein. Petitioners motion to lift attachment
PROVI only P3,739,500.00, leaving an
failed to demonstrate any infirmity or defect
outstanding
balance
of
in the issuance of the writ of attachment;
P35,735,500.00.Despite the two demand
neither did he file a counterbond.
letters that PROVI sent TESDA the

outstanding balance remained unpaid.
. PROFESSIONAL VIDEO, INC., vs.
On July 11, 2001, PROVI filed with
the RTC a complaint for sum of money with
TESDA
damages against TESDA. PROVI additionally
G.R. No. 155504
prayed for the issuance of a writ of
Facts:
preliminary attachment/garnishment against
PROVI is an entity engaged in the sale
TESDA. The RTC granted PROVIs prayer and
of high technology equipment, information
issued a writ of preliminary attachment
technology products and broadcast devices,
against the properties of TESDA not exempt
including the supply of plastic card printing
from execution in the amount of
and security facilities. TESDA is an
P35,000,000.00.
instrumentality
of
the
government
TESDA responded on July 24, 2001
established under R.A.) No. 7796 and attached
by filing a Motion to Discharge/Quash the
to the (DOLE) to develop and establish a
Writ of Attachment, arguing mainly that
national system of skills standardization,
public funds cannot be the subject of
testing, and certification in the country. To
garnishment.
fulfill this mandate, it sought to issue
RTC denied TESDAs motion, and
security-printed
certification
and/or

10



subsequently ordered the manager of the
TESDA is an instrumentality of the
Land Bank of the Philippines to produce
government undertaking governmental
TESDAs bank statement for the garnishment
functions.
of the covered amount. Faced with these

R.A. No. 7796 created the Technical
rulings, TESDA filed a Petition for Certiorari
Education and Skills Development Authority or
with the CA to question the RTC orders,
TESDA under the declared policy of the State
imputing grave abuse of discretion
to provide relevant, accessible, high quality
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
and efficient technical education and skills
the trial court for issuing a writ of
development in support of the development
preliminary attachment against TESDAs
of high quality Filipino middle-level
public funds.
manpower responsive to and in accordance

CA set aside the RTCs orders after
with Philippine development goals and
finding that: (a) TESDAs funds are public in
priorities. TESDA replaced and absorbed the
nature and, therefore, exempt from
National Manpower and Youth Council, the
garnishment; and (b) TESDAs purchase of
Bureau of Technical and Vocational Education
the PVC cards was a necessary incident of its
and the personnel and functions pertaining to
governmental function; consequently, it ruled
technical-vocational education in the regional
that there was no legal basis for the issuance
offices of the Department of Education,
of
a
writ
of
preliminary
Culture and Sports and the apprenticeship
attachment/garnishment.
The
CA
program of the Bureau of Local Employment
subsequently denied PROVIs motion for
of the DOLE. Thus, TESDA is an

reconsideration; hence, the present petition.
unincorporated instrumentality of the

government operating under its own charter.

All these measures are undertaken
Issue:
pursuant to the constitutional command that
Whether or not the writ of attachment
The State affirms labor as a primary social
against TESDA and its funds, to cover PROVIs
economic force, and shall protect the rights
claim against TESDA, is valid. The issue
of workers and promote their welfare; that
involves a pure question of law and requires
The State shall protect and promote the right
us to determine whether the CA was correct
of all citizens to quality education at all levels,
in ruling that the RTC gravely abused its
and shall take appropriate steps to make such
discretion in issuing a writ of attachment
education accessible to all; in order to
against TESDA.
afford protection to labor and promote full

employment and equality of employment
Ruling:
opportunities for all.
We find, as the CA did, that the
Under
these
terms,
both
RTCs questioned order involved a gross
constitutional and statutory, we do not
misreading of the law and jurisprudence
believe that the role and status of TESDA can
amounting to action in excess of its
seriously be contested: it is an
jurisdiction. Hence, we resolve to DENY
unincorporated instrumentality of the
PROVIs petition for lack of merit.
government, directly attached to the DOLE

11



through the participation of the Secretary of
governmental functions; and a suit that on its
Labor as its Chairman, for the performance of
face is against a government officer, but
governmental functions i.e., the handling of
where the ultimate liability will fall on the
formal and non-formal education and
government. In the present case, the writ of
training, and skills development. As an
attachment was issued against a government
unincorporated instrumentality operating
agency covered by its own charter. As
under a specific charter, it is equipped with
discussed
above,
TESDA
performs
both express and implied powers, and all
governmental functions, and the issuance of
State immunities fully apply to it.
certifications is a task within its function of

developing and establishing a system of skills
TESDA, as an agency of the State, cannot be
standardization, testing, and certification in
sued without its consent.
the country. From the perspective of this

function, the core reason for the existence of
The rule that a state may not be
state immunity applies i.e., the public policy
sued without its consent is embodied in
reason that the performance of governmental
Section 3, Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution
function cannot be hindered or delayed by
and has been an established principle that
suits, nor can these suits control the use and
antedates this Constitution. It is as well a
disposition of the means for the performance
universally
recognized
principle
of
of governmental functions.
international law that exempts a state and its
PROVI argues that TESDA can be
organs from the jurisdiction of another
sued because it has effectively waived its
state.The principle is based on the very
immunity when it entered into a contract
essence of sovereignty, and on the practical
with PROVI for a commercial purpose.
ground that there can be no legal right as
According to PROVI, since the purpose of its
against the authority that makes the law on
contract with TESDA is to provide
which the right depends. It also rests on
identification PVC cards with security seal,
reasons of public policy that public service
which TESDA will thereafter sell to TESDA
would be hindered, and the public
trainees, TESDA thereby engages in
endangered, if the sovereign authority could
commercial transactions not incidental to its
be subjected to law suits at the instance of
governmental functions.
every citizen and, consequently, controlled in
TESDAs response to this position
the uses and dispositions of the means
is to point out that it is not engaged in
required for the proper administration of the
business, and there is nothing in the records
government.
to show that its purchase of the PVC cards
The proscribed suit that the state
from PROVI is for a business purpose. While
immunity principle covers takes on various
TESDA admits that it will charge the trainees
forms, namely: a suit against the Republic by
with a fee for the PVC cards, it claims that this
name; a suit against an unincorporated
fee is only to recover their costs and is not
government agency; a suit against a
intended for profit.
government agency covered by a charter with
We agree with TESDA. As the
respect to the agencys performance of
appellate court found, the PVC cards

12



purchased by TESDA from PROVI are meant
both dictated by logic and sound sense, from
to properly identify the trainees who passed
such a basic concept, is that public funds
TESDAs National Skills Certification Program
cannot be the object of garnishment
the program that immediately serves
proceedings even if the consent to be sued
TESDAs mandated function of developing
had been previously granted and the state
and establishing a national system of skills
liability adjudged. Thus in the recent case of
standardization, testing, and certification in
Commissioner of Public Highways vs. San
the country.
Diego, such a well-settled doctrine was
That TESDA sells the PVC cards to
restated in the opinion of Justice Teehankee:
its trainees for a fee does not characterize the
The universal rule that where the
transaction as industrial or business; the sale,
State gives its consent to be sued by private
expressly authorized by the TESDA Act,
parties either by general or special law, it
cannot be considered separately from
may limit claimant's action 'only up to the
TESDAs general governmental functions, as
completion of proceedings anterior to the
they are undertaken in the discharge of these
stage of execution' and that the power of the
functions.
Courts ends when the judgment is rendered,

since government funds and properties may
TESDAs funds are public in character,
not be seized under writs of execution or
hence exempt from attachment or
garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is
garnishment.
based on obvious considerations of public

policy. Disbursements of public funds must
Even assuming that TESDA entered into
be covered by the corresponding
a proprietary contract with PROVI and
appropriation as required by law. The
thereby gave its implied consent to be sued,
functions and public services rendered by
TESDAs funds are still public in nature and,
the State cannot be allowed to be
thus, cannot be the valid subject of a writ of
paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of
garnishment or attachment. Under Section
public funds from their legitimate and
33 of the TESDA Act, the TESDA budget for
specific objects, as appropriated by law.
the implementation of the Act shall be
For all these reasons, we support
included in the annual General Appropriation
the appellate courts conclusion that no valid
Act; hence, TESDA funds, being sourced from
ground exists to support the grant of the writ
the Treasury, are moneys belonging to the
of attachment against TESDA. The CAs
government, or any of its departments, in the
annulment and setting aside of the Orders of
hands of public officials. We specifically spoke
the RTC were therefore fully in order.
of the limits in dealing with this fund in
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we
Republic v. Villasor when we said:
hereby DENY the petition filed by petitioner
This
fundamental
postulate
Professional Video, Inc., and AFFIRM the
underlying the 1935 Constitution is now
Court of Appeals Decision.
made explicit in the revised charter. It is

therein expressly provided, The State may

not be sued without its consent. A corollary,

13



that their principal, the Ministry, being a
. ATCI OVERSEAS
foreign government agency, is immune from
CORPORATION, AMALIA G. IKDAL
suit and, as such, the immunity extended to
them; and that respondent was validly
and MINISTRY OF PUBLIC
dismissed for her failure to meet the
HEALTH-KUWAIT vs. MA. JOSEFA
performance rating within the one-year
ECHIN,
period as required under Kuwaits Civil
G.R. No. 178551
Service Laws. Petitioners further contended
Facts:
that Ikdal should not be liable as an officer of
Josefina Echin was hired by ATCI
petitioner ATCI but the CA affirmed the NLRC
Overseas Corporation in behalf of its
Resolution.
principal-co-petitioner, the Ministry of Public
In brushing aside petitioners
Health of Kuwait for the position of medical
contention that they only acted as agent of
technologist under a two-year contract,
the Ministry and that they cannot be held
denominated as (MOA), with a monthly salary
jointly and solidarily liable with it, the
of US$1,200.00.
appellate court noted that under the law, a
Respondent was deployed on
private employment agency shall assume all
February 17, 2000 but was terminated from
responsibilities for the implementation of the
employment on February 11, 2001, she not
contract of employment of an overseas
having allegedly passed the probationary
worker, hence, it can be sued jointly and
period. As the Ministry denied respondents
severally with the foreign principal for any
request for reconsideration, she returned to
violation of the recruitment agreement or
the Philippines on March 17, 2001,
contract of employment.
shouldering her own air fare.
As to Ikdals liability, the appellate
On July 27, 2001, respondent filed
court held that under Sec. 10 of Republic Act
with the NLRC a complaint for illegal
No. 8042, the Migrant and Overseas
dismissal against petitioner ATCI as the local
Filipinos Act of 1995, corporate officers,
recruitment agency, represented by
directors and partners of a recruitment
petitioner, Amalia Ikdal (Ikdal), and the
agency may themselves be jointly and
Ministry, as the foreign principal.
solidarily liable with the recruitment agency
The Labor Arbiter, finding that
for money claims and damages awarded to
petitioners neither showed that there was
overseas workers.
just cause to warrant respondents dismissal

nor that she failed to qualify as a regular
Issue:
employee, held that respondent was illegally

Whether ATCI Overseas Corporation
dismissed
and
accordingly
ordered
can be sued jointly and severally with the
petitioners to pay her US$3,600.00,
foreign principal for any violation of the
representing her salary for the three months
contract of employment.
unexpired portion of her contract.

On appeal of petitioners ATCI and
Ruling:
Ikdal, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiters
Petitioner ATCI, as a private
decision. They appealed to the CA, contending

14



recruitment
agency,
cannot
evade
determination of the foreign principals
responsibility for the money claims of
liability before petitioner can be held liable
Overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) which it
renders the law on joint and solidary liability
deploys abroad by the mere expediency of
inutile.
claiming that its foreign principal is a
Respecting Ikdals joint and solidary
government agency clothed with immunity
liability as a corporate officer, the same is in
from suit, or that such foreign principals
order too following the express provision of
liability must first be established before it, as
R.A. 8042 on money claims, viz:
agent, can be held jointly and solidarily
SEC.
10.
Money
Claims.
liable.
Notwithstanding any provision of law to the
In providing for the joint and
contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National
solidary liability of private recruitment
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall
agencies with their foreign principals,
have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to
Republic Act No. 8042 precisely affords the
hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar
OFWs with recourse and assures them of
days after the filing of the complaint, the
immediate and sufficient payment of what is
claims arising out of an employer-employee
due them. Skippers United Pacific v.
relationship or by virtue of any law or
Maguadexplains:
contract involving Filipino workers for
. . . [T]he obligations covenanted in the
overseas deployment including claims for
recruitment agreement entered into by
actual moral, exemplary and other forms of
and between the local agent and its
damages.
foreign principal are not coterminous with
The
liability
of
the
the term of such agreement so that if either
principal/employer
and
the
or both of the parties decide to end the
recruitment/placement agency for any and all
agreement, the responsibilities of such
claims under this section shall be joint and
parties towards the contracted employees
several. This provision shall be incorporated
under the agreement do not at all end, but the
in the contract for overseas employment and
same extends up to and until the expiration of
shall be a condition precedent for its
the employment contracts of the employees
approval. The performance bond to be filed
recruited and employed pursuant to the said
by the recruitment/placement agency, as
recruitment agreement. Otherwise, this will
provided by law, shall be answerable for all
render nugatory the very purpose for
money claims or damages that may be
which the law governing the employment
awarded to the workers. If the
of workers for foreign jobs abroad was
recruitment/placement agency is a
enacted.
juridical being, the corporate officers and
The imposition of joint and solidary
directors and partners as the case may be,
liability is in line with the policy of the state
shall themselves be jointly and solidarily
to protect and alleviate the plight of the
liable with the corporation or partnership
working class. Verily, to allow petitioners to
for the aforesaid claims and damages.
simply invoke the immunity from suit of its

foreign principal or to wait for the judicial
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

15



PCGG for them to officially advise the Swiss
GUNIGUNDO vs. SB
Federal Office for Police Matters to unfreeze

Officecos assets. The PCGG required Officeco
Facts:
to present countervailing evidence to support
On 7 April 1986, in connection with
its request.
criminal proceedings initiated in the
Instead of complying with the PCGG
Philippines to locate, sequester and seek
requirement for it to submit countervailing
restitution of alleged ill-gotten wealth
evidence, on 12 September 1994, Officeco
amassed by the Marcoses and other accused
filed the complaint, which was docketed as
from the Philippine Government, the Office of
Civil Case No. 0164 of the Sandiganbayan. The
the Solicitor General (OSG) wrote the Federal
complaint prayed for the PCGG and the OSG
Office for Police Matters in Berne,
to officially advise the Swiss government to
Switzerland, requesting assistance for the
exclude from the freeze or sequestration
latter office to: (a) ascertain and provide the
order the account of Officeco with BTAG and
OSG with information as to where and in
to unconditionally release the said account to
which cantons the ill-gotten fortune of the
Officeco. SB accordingly moved to dismiss the
Marcoses and other accused are located, the
case but was denied
names of the depositors and the banks and
Thus this case where PCGG alleges the
the amounts involved; and (b) take necessary
that the case shoukd be dismissed on the
precautionary
measures,
such
as
following grounds: (1) res judicata; (2) lack of
sequestration, to freeze the assets in order to
jurisdiction on account of the act of state
preserve their existing value and prevent any
doctrine; (3) lack of cause of action for being
further transfer thereof (herein referred to as
premature
for
failure
to
exhaust
the IMAC request.
administrative remedies; and (4) lack of
On 29 May 1986, the Office of the
cause of action for the reason that mandamus
District Attorney in Zurich, pursuant to the
does not lie to compel performance of a
OSGs request, issued an Order directing the
discretionary act, there being no showing of
Swiss Banks in Zurich to freeze the accounts
grave abuse of discretion on the part of
of the accused in PCGG I.S. No. 1 and in the
petitioners.
List of Companies and Foundations. In

compliance with said Order, Bankers Trust
Issue:
A.G. (BTAG) of Zurich froze the accounts of
Whether or not there is a lack of
Officeco Holdings, N.V. (Officeco).
jurisdiction in the account of the doctrine of
Officeco appealed the Order of the
the "act of state."
District Attorney to the Attorney General of

the Canton of Zurich. The Attorney General
Ruling:
affirmed the Order of the District Attorney.
Every sovereign state is bound to
Officeco further appealed to the Swiss Federal
respect the independence of every other
Court, which likewise dismissed the appeal
state, and the courts of one country will not
on 31 May 1989.

sit in judgment on the acts of the government
Thereafter, in late 1992, Officeco
of another, done within its territory. Redress
made representations with the OSG and the
7.

16



of grievances by reason of such acts must be
with respect to Officecos accounts with BTAG
obtained through the means open to be
for the purpose of further determining the
availed of by sovereign powers as between
propriety of issuing a writ against the PCGG
themselves.
and the OSG. Everything considered, the act of
It is petitioners contention that the
state doctrine finds no application in this case
Sandiganbayan could not grant or deny the
and petitioners resort to it is utterly mislaid.
prayers in [Officecos] complaint without first

examining and scrutinizing the freeze order
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
of the Swiss officials in the light of the
instant petition is DISMISSED.
evidence, which however is in the possession

of said officials and that it would therefore
MUNICHER vs. CA
sit in judgment on the acts of the

government of another country. We
Facts:
disagree.
Khosrow Minucher is the Labor
The parameters of the use of the act of
Attach of the Embassy of Iran in the Phil.
state doctrine were clarified in Banco
Arthur Scalzo, then connected with the
Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino. There, the U.S.
American Embassy in Manila, was introduced
Supreme Court held that international law
to him by Jose Inigo (an informer belonging to
does not require the application of this
the military intelligence community).
doctrine nor does it forbid the application of
Accdg. to Inigo, Scalzo was interested
the rule even if it is claimed that the act of
in buying Iranian products like caviar and
state in question violated international law.
carpets. Minucher complained to Scalzo about
Moreover, due to the doctrines peculiar
his problems with the American Embassy
nation-to-nation character, in practice the
regarding the expired visas of his wife, Abbas
usual method for an individual to seek relief
Torabian. Offering help, Scalzo gave Minucher
is to exhaust local remedies and then repair
a calling card showing that the former is an
to the executive authorities of his own state
agent
of
the
Drug
Enforcement
to persuade them to champion his claim in
Administration
(DEA)
assigned
to the
diplomacy or before an international tribunal.
American Embassy in Manila. As a result,
Even assuming that international law
Scalzo expressed his intent to buy caviar and
requires the application of the act of state
further promised to arrange the renewal of
doctrine, it bears stressing that the
the visas.
Sandiganbayan will not examine and review
Scalzo went to Minucher's residence
the freeze orders of the concerned Swiss
and asked to be entrusted with Persian silk
officials in Civil Case No. 0164. The
carpets, for which he had a buyer. The next
Sandiganbayan will not require the Swiss
day, Scalzo returned and claimed that he had
officials to submit to its adjudication nor will
already made arrangements with his contacts
it settle a dispute involving said officials. In
concerning the visas and asked for $2,000.
fact, as prayed for in the complaint, the
It turned out that Scalzo prepared a
Sandiganbayan will only review and examine
plan to frame-up a Minucher and wife for
the propriety of maintaining PCGGs position
alleged heroin trafficking. Both were falsely
8.

17



arrested and charged with violations of the
liable for his acts. Further, Scalzo did not
Dangerous Drugs Act.
come forward with evidence to, prove that he
Minucher prays for actual and
acted in his official capacity.
compensatory damages. However, counsel for

Scalzo filed a motion to quash summons
THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA, HIS
alleging that the defendant is beyond the
EXCELLENCY AMBASSADOR
processes of the Philippine court for the
SOERATMIN, and MINISTER
action for damages is a personal action and
COUNSELLOR AZHARI KASIM, vs.
that Scalzo is outside the Philippines.
TC denied the motion. CA dismissed
JAMES VINZON, doing business under
the motion for lack of merit on the basis of
the name and style of VINZON TRADE
the erroneous assumption that because of the
AND SERVICES
Diplomatic Note (advising the DFA that Scalzo
G.R. No. 154705. June 26, 2003
is a member of the US diplomatic mission

investigating Minucher for drug trafficking),
Facts:
Scalzo is clothed with diplomatic immunity.
Petitioner, Republic of Indonesia,

entered into a Maintenance Agreement in
Issue:
August 1995 with respondent James Vinzon,
Whether or not a complaint for
sole proprietor of Vinzon Trade and Services.
damages be dismissed in the sole basis of a
The Maintenance Agreement stated that
statement complained in a Diplomatic Note.
respondent shall, for a consideration,

maintain specified equipment at the Embassy
Ruling:
Main Building, Embassy Annex Building and
No. Jurisdiction over the person of the
the Wisma Duta, the official residence of
defendant is acquired by either voluntary
petitioner Ambassador Soeratmin. It covered
appearance or by the service of summons. In
air conditioning units, generator sets,
the case, Scalzo's counsel filed a motion to
electrical facilities, water heaters, and water
quash, which, in effect already waived any
motor pumps. It is likewise stated therein
defect in the service of summons by earlier
that the agreement shall be effective for a
asking an extension to file time to file an
period of four years and will renew itself
Answer and filing an Answer with
automatically unless cancelled by either party
Counterclaim.
by giving thirty days prior written notice
The complaint for damages cannot be
from the date of expiry.
dismissed. Said complaint contains sufficient
Petitioners before the expiration of
allegations which indicate that Scalzo
the term of the agreement informed the
committed imputed acts in his personal
respondent that the renwal of their
capacity and outside the scope of his official
agreement shall be the discretion of the
duties and functions. The TC gave credit to
incoming Chief of Administration, Minister
Minucher's theory that he was a victim of
counsellor Azhari Kasim. The latter allegedly
frame-up hence, there is a prima facie
found respondents work and services
showing that Scalzo could be held personally
unsatisfactory and not in compliance with the
9.

18



standards set in the Maintenance Agreement.
The rule that a State may not be sued
Hence, the Indonesian Embassy terminated
without its consent is a necessary
the agreement in a letter dated August 31,
consequence
of
the
principles
of
2000.
independence and equality of States. As

enunciated in Sanders v. Veridiano II, the
Respondent claimed that the termination was
practical justification for the doctrine of
arbitrary which caused to them to file a
sovereign immunity is that there can be no
complaint against the petitioner in court. The
legal right against the authority that makes
petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the
the law on which the right depends. In the
ground that the Republic of Indonesia, as a
case of foreign States, the rule is derived from
foreign sovereign State, has sovereign
the principle of the sovereign equality of
immunity from suit and cannot be sued as a
States, as expressed in the maxim par in
party-defendant in the Philippines. However,
parem non habet imperium. A contrary
respondent filed an Opposition alleging that
attitude would unduly vex the peace of
the State had waived its immunity as
nations.
provided in the provision of the agreement
The restrictive theory, holds that the
that "Any legal action arising out of this
immunity of the sovereign is recognized only
Maintenance Agreement shall be settled
with regard to public acts or acts jure imperii,
according to the laws of the Philippines and
but not with regard to private acts or acts jure
by the proper court of Makati City".
gestionis.
The trial court denied herein
The mere entering into a contract by a
petitioners Motion to Dismiss. It likewise
foreign State with a private party cannot be
denied the Motion for Reconsideration
construed as the ultimate test of whether or
subsequently filed.
not it is an act jure imperii or jure gestionis.
The Court of Appeals rendered its
Such act is only the start of the inquiry. Is the
assailed decision denying the petition for lack
foreign State engaged in the regular conduct
of merit. It denied herein petitioners motion
of a business? If the foreign State is not
for reconsideration.
engaged regularly in a business or

commercial activity, and in this case it has not
Issue:
been shown to be so engaged, the particular

act or transaction must then be tested by its
Whether or not the Court of Appeals
nature. If the act is in pursuit of a sovereign
erred in sustaining the trial courts decision
activity, or an incident thereof, then it is an
that petitioners have waived their immunity
act jure imperii.
from suit by using as its basis the
Hence, the existence alone of a
abovementioned
provision
in
the
paragraph in a contract stating that any legal
Maintenance Agreement.
action arising out of the agreement shall be

settled according to the laws of the
Ruling:
Philippines and by a specified court of the

Philippines is not necessarily a waiver of
The petition is impressed with merit.
sovereign immunity from suit. The aforesaid

19



provision contains language not necessarily
which states:
inconsistent with sovereign immunity. On
"The Government of the Republic of
the other hand, such provision may also be
the Philippines and the Government of the
meant to apply where the sovereign party
United States of America agree that, in
elects to sue in the local courts, or otherwise
accordance with the Visiting Forces
waives its immunity by any subsequent act.
Agreement signed between our two nations,
The applicability of Philippine laws must be
Lance Corporal Daniel J. Smith, United States
deemed to include Philippine laws in its
Marine Corps, be returned to U.S. military
totality, including the principle recognizing
custody at the U.S. Embassy in Manila" and
sovereign immunity. Hence, the proper court
the Romulo-Kenney Agreement of December
may have no proper action, by way of settling
22, 2006 which states:
the case, except to dismiss it. We find no such
"The Department of Foreign Affairs of
waiver in this case.
the Republic of the Philippines and the
Embassy of the United States of America

agree that, in accordance with the Visiting
NICOLAS vs ROMULO
Forces Agreement signed between the two
GR No. 175888
nations, upon transfer of Lance Corporal

Daniel J. Smith, United States Marine Corps,
Facts:
from the Makati City Jail, he will be detained
Respondent Lance Corporal (L/CPL)
at the first floor, Rowe (JUSMAG) Building,
Daniel Smith is a member of the United States
U.S. Embassy Compound in a room of
Armed Forces based in the Philippines
approximately 10 x 12 square feet. He will be
pursuant to the Visisting Forces Agreement
guarded round the clock by U.S. military
(VFA). He was charged with the crime of rape
personnel. The Philippine police and jail
committed against a Filipina, petitioner
authorities, under the direct supervision of
Suzette Nicolas who was popularly known as
the Philippine Department of Interior and
Nicole.
Local Government (DILG) will have access to
After series of trials, the court found
the place of detention to ensure the United
Smith guilty of the rape and acquitted five
States is in compliance with the terms of the
others. As a result, the Makati court ordered
VFA".
Smith detained at the Makati jail until further
The matter what brought to the CA but was
orders. However, defendant Smith was taken
dismissed for having become moot.
out of the Makati jail by a contingent of

Philippine
law
enforcement
agents,
Issue:
purportedly acting under orders of the
Whether Philippines should have
Department of the Interior and Local
custody of defendant Smith because the VFA
Government, and brought to a facility for
is void and unconstitutional considering that
detention under the control of the United
it was not submiited for advice and consent of
States government, provided for under new
the United States Senate thus, thus does not
agreements between the Philippines and the
justify its presence.
United States referred to as the Romulo-

Kenney Agreement of December 19, 2006
10.

20



Ruling:
VFA to the US Senate for advice and consent,

but merely to the US Congress under the
The Court resolved in favor of the
CaseZablocki Act within 60 days of its
constitutionality of the VFA for two reasons.
ratification. It is for this reason that the US
First, the VFA was duly concurred in
has certified that it recognizes the VFA as a
by the Philippine Senate and has been
binding international agreement, i.e., a treaty,
recognized as a treaty by the United States as
and this substantially complies with the
attested and certified by the duly authorized
requirements of Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 of our
representative of the United States
Constitution which states:
government. The fact that the VFA was not
Sec. 25. After the expiration in 1991
submitted for advice and consent of the
of the Agreement between the Philippines
United States Senate does not detract from its
and the United States of America concerning
status as a binding international agreement
Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops,
or treaty recognized by the said State. Notice
or facilities shall not be allowed in the
can be taken of the internationally known
Philippines except under a treaty duly
practice by the United States of submitting to
concurred in by the Senate and, when the
its Senate for advice and consent agreements
Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of
that are policymaking in nature, whereas
the votes cast by the people in a national
those that carry out or further implement
referendum held for that purpose, and
these policymaking agreements are merely
recognized as a treaty by the other
submitted to Congress, under the provisions
contracting State.
of the so-called CaseZablocki Act, within
The provision of Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 of
sixty days from ratification.
the Constitution, is complied with by virtue of
Second, it has to do with the relation
the fact that the presence of the US Armed
between the VFA and the RP-US Mutual
Forces through the VFA is a presence
Defense Treaty of August 30, 1951. This
allowed under the RP-US Mutual Defense
earlier agreement was signed and duly
Treaty. Since the RP-US Mutual Defense
ratified with the concurrence of both the
Treaty itself has been ratified and concurred
Philippine Senate and the United States
in by both the Philippine Senate and the US
Senate. The purpose of the joint RP-US
Senate, there is no violation of the
military exercises is for the development of
Constitutional provision resulting from such
the capability to resist an armed attack fall
presence. The VFA being a valid and binding
squarely under the provisions of the RP-US
agreement, the parties are required as a
Mutual Defense Treaty. The VFA, which is the
matter of international law to abide by its
instrument agreed upon to provide for the
terms and provisions. Criminal jurisdiction of
joint RP-US military exercises, is simply an
the VFA states:
implementing agreement to the main RP-US
Sec. 10. The confinement or detention
Military Defense Treaty.
by Philippine authorities of United States
Accordingly, as an implementing
personnel shall be carried out in facilities
agreement of the RP-US Mutual Defense
agreed on by appropriate Philippines and
Treaty, it was not necessary to submit the
United States authorities. United States

21



personnel serving sentences in the
that term is defined in Medellin itself, because
Philippines shall have the right to visits and
the parties intend its provisions to be
material assistance.
enforceable , precisely because the
It is clear that the parties to the VFA
Agreement is intended to carry out
recognized the difference between custody
obligations and undertakings under the RP-
during the trial and detention after
US Mutual Defense Treaty. As a matter of
conviction, because they provided for a
fact, the VFA has been implemented and
specific arrangement to cover detention. And
executed, with the US faithfully complying
this specific arrangement clearly states not
with its obligation to produce L/CPL Smith
only that the detention shall be carried out in
before the court during the trial.
facilities agreed on by authorities of both
VFA is covered by implementing
parties, but also that the detention shall be
legislation, namely, the Case-Zablocki Act,
by Philippine authorities. Therefore, the
USC Sec. 112(b) , inasmuch as it is the very
Romulo-Kenney Agreements of December 19
purpose and intent of the US Congress that
and 22, 2006, which are agreements on the
executive agreements registered under this
detention of the accused in the United States
Act within 60 days from their ratification be
Embassy, are not in accord with the VFA itself
immediately implemented. The parties to
because such detention is not by Philippine
these present cases do not question the fact
authorities.
that the VFA has been registered under the
WHEREFORE, the petitions are
CaseZablocki Act. In sum, therefore, the VFA
PARTLY GRANTED, and the Court of Appeals
differs from the Vienna Convention on
Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 97212 dated
Consular Relations and the Avena decision of
January 2, 2007 is MODIFIED. The Visiting
the International Court of Justice (ICJ), subject
Forces Agreement (VFA) between the
matter of the Medellin decision. The
Republic of the Philippines and the United
Convention and the ICJ decision are not self-
States, entered into on February 10, 1998, is
executing and are not registrable under the
UPHELD as constitutional, but the Romulo-
Case-Zablocki Act, and thus lack legislative
Kenney Agreements of December 19 and 22,
implementing authority.
2006 are DECLARED not in accordance with

the VFA, and respondent Secretary of Foreign
-Exclusive: For Scintilla Only-
Affairs is hereby ordered to forthwith

negotiate
with
the
United
States

representatives
for
the
appropriate

agreement on detention facilities under
Philippine authorities as provided in Art. V,
Sec. 10 of the VFA, pending which the status
quo shall be maintained until further orders
by this Court.

NOTE:
VFA is a self-executing Agreement , as

PIL - Immunity Cases

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul 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

PIL - Immunity Cases

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

1

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW CASES 2014-2015 | ATTY. BATULA

Anda mungkin juga menyukai