Anda di halaman 1dari 5

Case 58

USA vs. Rodrigo


G.R. No. 79470 | February 26, 1990

Facts:
-Fabian Genove: filed a complaint for damages against petitioners Anthony Lamachia, Wilfredo
Belsa, Rose Cartalla and Peter Orascion for his dismissal as cook in the U.S. Air Force
Recreation Center at the John Hay Air Station in Baguio City
-Aleggation: Genove had poured urine into the soup stock used in cooking the vegetables served
to the club customers.
-Anthony Lamachia: as club manager, suspended him and thereafter referred the case to a board
of arbitrators conformably to the collective bargaining agreement between the Center and its
employees. The board unanimously found him guilty and recommended his dismissal.
-March 13, 1987: Defendants, joined by the USA, moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging that
Lamachia, as an officer of the U.S. Air Force stationed at John Hay Air Station, was immune
from suit for the acts done by him in his official capacity. They argued that the suit was in effect
against the United States, which had not given its consent to be sued.

Held:
-Traditional rule of immunity exempts a State from being sued in the courts of another State
without its consent or waiver. This rule is a necessary consequence of the principles of
independence and equality of States.
-However, the rules of International Law are not petrified; they are constantly developing and
evolving. And because the activities of states have multiplied, it has been necessary to
distinguish them
— between sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) and private, commercial and
proprietary acts (jure gestionis).
-The result is that State immunity now extends only to acts jure imperii
- The restaurant services offered at the John Hay Air Station partake of the nature of a business
enterprise undertaken by the United States government in its proprietary capacity.
-Petitioners cannot invoke the doctrine of state immunity to justify the dismissal of the damage
suit against them by Genove. Such defense will not prosper even if it be established that they
were acting as agents of the United States when they investigated and later dismissed Genove.
-Not even the United States government itself can claim such immunity. The reason is that by
entering into the employment contract with Genove in the discharge of its proprietary functions,
it impliedly divested itself of its sovereign immunity from suit.
Case 45
Minucher vs. CA
G.R. No. 142396 | February 11, 2003

Facts:
- Khosrow Minucher: Iranian national; came to the Philippines to study in UP; In 1976, he was
appointed Labor Attaché for the Iranian Embassies in Tokyo and Manila; he then became a
refugee of the UN and continued to stay in the Philippines; he headed the Iranian National
Resistance Movement in the Philippines.
- Arthur Scalzo- working at the US Embassy in the Philippines, as a special agent of the Drug
Enforcement Administration, DOJ, of the US,
-May 1986: Information for violation of Sec. 4 of RA 6425, "Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,"
was filed against petitioner Khosrow Minucher and one Abbas Torabian
-buy-bust operation: conducted by the Philippine police narcotic agents in the house of
Minucher, where a quantity of heroin, a prohibited drug, have been seized.
-August 3, 1988: Minucher filed a civil case for damages on account of what he claimed to have
been trumped-up charges of drug trafficking made by Arthur Scalzo.
- Motion to dismiss the complaint: filed by Scalzo on the ground that, being a special agent of
the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, he was entitled to diplomatic immunity and
he acted in the discharge of his official duties. He attached to his motion Diplomatic Note of the
United States Embassy addressed to DOJ of the Philippines and a Certification of Vice Consul
Donna Woodward, certifying that the note is a true and faithful copy of its original.

Held:
-A foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked with immunity from suit as long as
it can be established that he is acting within the directives of the sending state.
-The consent or imprimatur of the Philippine government to the activities of the United States
Drug Enforcement Agency can be gleaned from the undisputed facts in the case.
• The official exchanges of communication between agencies of the government of the two
countries
• Certifications from officials of both the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs and the
United States Embassy
• Participation of members of the Philippine Narcotics Command in the “buy-bust
operation” conducted at the residence of Minucher at the behest of Scalzo
-These gave indication that the Philippine government has given its imprimatur, if not consent, to
the activities within Philippine territory of agent Scalzo of the United States Drug Enforcement
Agency.
-The job description of Scalzo has tasked him to conduct surveillance on suspected drug
suppliers and, after having ascertained the target, to inform local law enforcers who would then
be expected to make the arrest. In conducting surveillance activities on Minucher, Scalzo is
acting as the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation, and then becoming a principal witness
in the criminal case against Minucher, Scalzo didn’t act beyond the scope of his official function
or duties.
Case 49
Municipality of San Miguel vs. Fernandez
G.R. No. L-61744 | June 25, 1984

Facts:
-Civil Case No. 604-B: entitled "Margarita D. Vda. De Imperio, et al. v. Municipal Government
of San Miguel, Bulacan, et al." dated April 28, 1978, under presiding Judge Oscar C. Fernandez,
rendered judgement in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant Municipal Government
of San Miguel, Bulacan, represented by Mayor Mar Marcelo G. Aure and its Municipal
Treasurer.
-The court ordered the defendant municipality to pay the plaintiffs the sum of Php 64,440.00
corresponding to the rentals collected from the tenants from 1970 up to and including 1975 plus
interest thereon at the legal rate from January 1970 until fully paid. In addition to this, the
defendant municipality must pay the plaintiffs the sum of Php3,000.00 for attorney's fees and to
pay the cost of suit.
-The private respondents moved for issuance of the writ of execution for the satisfaction of the
said judgment,
-July 30, 1982: petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the writ of execution on the ground that the
municipality's property or funds are all public funds exempt from execution.

Held:
-All the funds of the municipality in the possession of the Municipal Treasurer of San Miguel
and of Bulacan, are public funds which are exempt from execution
-Presidential Decree No. 477: "The Decree on Local Fiscal Administration", Section 2, paragraph
(a): No money shall be paid out of the treasury except in pursuance of a lawful appropriation or
other specific statutory authority.
-Furthermore, there must be an ordinance duly passed by the Sangguniang Bayan containing the
corresponding appropriation for the funds before any money of the municipality may be paid out.
-Unlike the State, which has the immunity of not being sued without its consent, A municipal
corporation is an example of an incorporated agency which has a charter of its own that grants
them the competence to sue and be sued. However, municipal government is generally not liable
for torts committed during the discharge of its governmental functions. It can be held liable only
if it has been proven that they were acting in a proprietary function. Failing to do this, the
claimant cannot recover.
Case 47
Republic vs. Villasor
G.R. No. L-30671| November 28, 1973

Facts:
-Republic of the Philippines: filed the case requesting to nullify the ruling of The Court of First
Instance in Cebu in garnishing the public funds allocated for the Armed Forces of the
Philippines.
-July 7, 1969: decision was rendered in Special Proceedings in favor of respondents P. J. Kiener
Co., Ltd., Gavino Unchuan, and International Construction Corporation, and against the
petitioner herein, confirming the arbitration award in the amount of P1,712,396.40, subject of
Special Proceedings.
-Honorable Guillermo P. Villasor: respondent, issued an Order declaring the said decision final
and executory, directing the Sheriffs of Rizal Province, Quezon City and Manila to execute the
said decision.
-Alia Writ of Execution: was issued; the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal served Notices of
Garnishment with several Banks.
-Funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines: on deposit with Philippine Veterans Bank and
PNB 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
AFP.
- Republic of the Philippines: Petitioner, filed prohibition proceedings against respondent Judge
Villasor for acting in excess of jurisdiction with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction in granting the issuance of a Writ of Execution against the properties of the AFP

Held:
- It is the fundamental postulate of the sovereignty that the State as well as its government is
immune from suit unless it gives its consent.
-The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either by
general or special law, it may limit claimant’s action only up to the completion of proceedings
anterior to the stage of execution and that the power of the Courts end when the judgment is
rendered, since government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or
garnishment to satisfy such judgment.
-Disbursement of public funds must be covered by the corresponding appropriation as required
by law.
-General rule: whether the money is deposited by way of general or special deposit, they remain
government funds and are not subject to garnishment.
-Exception: a law or ordinance that has been enacted appropriating a specific amount to pay a
valid government obligation.
Case 36
Veterans Manpower vs. CA
G.R. No. 91359| September 25, 1992

Facts:
-VMPSI (Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc.) allegations:
 provisions of RA 5487(Private Security Agency Law) violate the provisions of the
Constitution against monopolies, unfair competition and combinations of restraint of
trade and tend to favor and institutionalize the PADPAO(Philippine Association of
Detective and Protective Services, Inc.)
 VMPSI also questions the provision on requiring all private security agencies or
company security forces to register as members of any PADPAO chapter organized
within the region.
-May 12, 1986: a Memorandum of Agreement was executed by PADPAO and the PC Chief,
which fixed the minimum monthly contract rate per guard for 8hours of security service per day
at P2,255.00 within Metro Manila and P2,215.00 outside of MetroManila.
-PADPAO found VMPSI guilty of cut-throat competition when it charged Metropolitan
Waterworks and Sewerage System lower than the standard minimum rates provided in the MOA.
-PADPAO refused to issue a clearance/certificate of membership to VMPSI.
-VMPSI filed a civil case against the PC chief and PC-SUSIA (Philippine Constabulary
Supervisory Unit for Security andI nvestigation Agencies).
-PC Chief and PC-SUSIA filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the case isa gainst the
State which had not given consent thereto.

Held:
-A public official may sometimes be held liable in his personal or private capacity if he acts in
bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction.
-Since the acts for which the PC Chief and PC-SUSIA are being called to account in this case,
were performed as part of their official duties, without malice, gross negligence, or bad faith, no
recovery may be had against them in their private capacities.
- The SC agrees with the CA that the Memorandum of Agreement dated May 12, 1986 does not
constitute an implied consent by the State to be sued.
-The consent of the State to be sued must emanate from statutory authority, hence, a legislative
act, not from a mere memorandum. Without such consent, the trial court did not acquired
jurisdiction over the public respondents.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai