Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GOROSPE
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
A.M. No. 93-7-696-0 February 21, 1995 In Re JOAQUIN T. BORROMEO, Ex Rel. Cebu City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
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 (like whimsical, capricious, and tyrannical) against the Supreme Court justices and its employees. He even delivered a letter accusing lawyers of defamatory comments and insults. This is due to his series of dismissed complaints and appeals against 3 banks namely Traders Royal Bank, United Coconut Planters Bank, and Security Bank and Trust Co. from which he obtained loans with unfulfilled mortgages. In relation to this, he filed cases against the lawyers of these banks and even against the clerks of court who signed the minute resolutions of these cases. The actions reached the alarming number of 50 cases varying from civil, criminal, to administrative cases. In response, the court answered all his false alleged accusations through a resolution along with declaring him guilty of contempt of court.
violates the law. A case was filed against Maghirang for violating Art 244 (Unlawful Appointment) under the RPC. Petitioner seeks that Maghirang be suspended from his office but it was denied by the respondent judge holding that the requirement for such action is a simultaneous existence 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 Chairman is a condonation of his mistakes during his prior term. Hence, petitioner filed a case against the respondent judge for ignorance of the law. ISSUE: WON respondent judge is guilty of ignorance of the law. HELD: YES. The 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. It is well settled that Section 13 of RA 3019 makes it mandatory for the Sandiganbayan (or the Court) to suspend any public officer against whom a valid information charging violation of this law, Book II, Title 7 of the RPC, or any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property is filed in court. Barangay Chairman Benjamin Maghirang was charged with Unlawful Appointment, punishable under Article 244, Title 7, Book II of the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, it was mandatory on Judge Monzons part, considering the Motion filed, to order the suspension of Maghirang. Also, In Ingco v. Sanchez,[17] this Court explicitly ruled that the re-election of a public official extinguishes 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 lack of malicious intent cannot completely free respondent from liability.
A.M. MTJ-98-1147 July 2, 1998 JESUS S. CONDUCTO vs. JUDGE ILUMINADO C. MONZON
FACTS: A complaint was filed by petitioner Conducto with the Sangguniang Panlungsod of San Pablo City against Benjamin Maghirang, the barangay chairman of Barangay III-E of San Pablo City, for abuse of authority, serious irregularity and violation of law in that, among other things for appointing his sister-in-law 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
A.M. No. 133-J May 31, 1982 BERNARDITA R. MACARIOLA vs. HONORABLE ELIAS B. ASUNCION, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte
FACTS: This is a complaint of petitioner against respondent judge of acts unbecoming of a judge regarding an act following the unfavorable decision rendered by the respondent judge against the former concerning disputed properties of her deceased father which were being claimed by the latters children from a subsequent marriage. It turned out that respondent judge purchased one of the lots in the case decided by him and transferred it to the fishing corporation where he is a stockholder and a ranking officer. Along with this, other misdeeds were also exposed such as that his involvement in the mentioned business corporation while he is sitting as a judge is in violation of the law, his alleged coddling of and close relations with an impostor, Dominador Tan, who misrepresents himself as a practicing attorney, and other disregard for ethics. ISSUE: WON respondent judge should be held guilty of acts unbecoming of a judge. HELD: NO. Respondent 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 Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc. In the case at bar, the business of the corporation in which respondent participated has obviously no relation or connection with his judicial office. It does not appear also from the records that the aforesaid corporation gained any undue advantage in its business operations by reason of respondent's financial involvement in it, or that the corporation benefited in one way or another in any case filed by or against it in court. No provision in both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions of the Philippines, nor is there an
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
G.R. No. 152154 July 15, 2003 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION), Ferdinand E. Marcos (represented by his estate/heirs: Imelda R. Marcos, Maria Imelda [Imee] Marcos-Manotoc, Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. and Irene MarcosAraneta) and Imelda Romualdez Marcos
FACTS: Petitioner Republic, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a petition for forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner sought the declaration of the aggregate amount of US$356 million (now estimated to be more than US$658 million inclusive of interest) deposited in escrow in the PNB, as illgotten wealth. The funds were previously held by the following five account groups, using various foreign foundations in certain Swiss banks. In addition, the petition sought the forfeiture of US$25 million and US$5 million in treasury notes which exceeded the Marcos couples salaries, other lawful income as well as income from legitimately acquired property. The treasury notes are frozen at the Central Bank of the Philippines by virtue of the freeze order issued by the PCGG. Before the case was set for pre-trial, a General Agreement and the Supplemental Agreement dated December 28, 1993 were executed by the Marcos children and then PCGG Chairman Magtanggol Gunigundo for a global settlement of the assets of the Marcos family to identify, collate, cause the inventory of and distribute all assets presumed to be owned by the Marcos family under the conditions contained therein. ISSUE: WON the Swiss funds can be forfeited in favor of the Republic, on the basis of the Marcoses lawful income.
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
THE STATE
G.R. No. L-26379 December 27, 1969 WILLIAM C. REAGAN, ET. AL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
FACTS: Petitioner Reagan, a civilian employee of an American corporation providing technical assistance to the US Air Force in the Philippines, questioned the payment of the income tax assessed on him by respondent CIR on an amount realized by him on a sale of his automobile to a member of the US Marine Corps, the transaction having taken place at the Clark Field Air Base at Pampanga. It is his contention, that in legal contemplation the sale was made outside Philippine territory and therefore beyond our jurisdictional power to tax. He seeks that an amount of P2,979.00 as the income tax paid by him be refunded. ISSUE: WON the Clark Field Air Base is a foreign property therefore excluded from the power of Philippine taxation. HELD: NO. By the [Military Bases] Agreement, it should be noted, the Philippine Government merely consents that the United States exercise jurisdiction in certain cases. The consent was given purely as a matter of comity, courtesy, or expediency over the bases as part of the Philippine territory or divested itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed therein. This provision is not and can not on principle or authority be construed as a limitation upon the rights of the Philippine Government. The State is not precluded from allowing another power to participate in the exercise of jurisdictional right over certain
HELD: NO. Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 states: Sec. 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Philippines and the United States of America concerning Military Bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
G.R. No. L-9657. November 29, 1956 LEOPOLDO T. BACANI and MATEO A. MATOTO vs. NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION, ET AL., NATIONAL COCONUT
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
G.R. No. L-21484 November 29, 1969 THE AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AND COOPERATIVE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION (ACCFA) vs. CONFEDERATION OF UNIONS IN GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS AND OFFICES (CUGCO), et. al.
FACTS: The Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration (ACCFA) was a government agency created under Republic Act No. 821, as amended. Its administrative machinery was reorganized and its name changed to Agricultural Credit Administration (ACA) under the Land Reform Code (Republic Act No. 3844). On September 4, 1961 a collective bargaining agreement, which was to be effective for a period of one (1) year was entered into by and between the Unions and the ACCFA. A few months thereafter, the Unions started protesting against alleged violations and non-implementation of said agreement. Thereafter Unions declared a strike, which was ended when the strikers voluntarily returned to work. The Unions, together with its mother union, the Confederation of Unions in Government Corporations and Offices (CUGCO), filed a complaint with the Court of Industrial Relations against the ACCFA for having allegedly committed acts of unfair labor practice. ISSUE: WON the Unions and CUGCO had the right to commence a CBA with ACA, formerly ACCFA.
HELD: NO. We hold that the respondent Unions are not entitled to the certification election sought in the Court below. Such certification is admittedly for purposes of bargaining in behalf of the employees with respect to terms and conditions of employment, including the right to strike as a coercive economic weapon, as in fact the said unions did strike in 1962 against the ACCFA. This is contrary to Section 11 of Republic Act No. 875, which provides for the prohibition against to strike in the government. With the reorganization of the ACCFA and its conversion into the ACA under the Land Reform Code and in view of our ruling as to the governmental character of the functions of the ACA, the decision of the respondent Court dated March 25, 1963, and the resolution en banc affirming it, in the unfair labor practice case filed by the ACCFA, which decision is the subject of the present review in G. R. No. L21484, has become moot and academic, particularly insofar as the order to bargain collectively with the respondent Unions is concerned. The respondent Unions 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. 143377. February 20, 2001 SHIPSIDE INCORPORATED vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26 (San Fernando City, La Union) & The REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS: October 29, 1958, Original Certificate of Title was issued in favor of Rafael Galvez, over four parcels of land. Lots No. 1 and 4 were conveyed by Rafael Galvez in favor of Filipina Mamaril, Cleopatra Llana, Regina Bustos, and Erlinda Balatbat in a deed of sale.
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
STATE IMMUNITY
ACT NO. 3083 AN ACT DEFINING THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS MAY BE SUED
Section 1. Complaint against Government. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Government of the Philippine Islands hereby consents and submits to be sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract, expressed or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil action between private parties. Sec. 2. A person desiring to avail himself of the privilege herein conferred must show that he has presented his claim to the Insular Auditor 1 and that the latter did not decide the same within two months from the date of its presentation. Sec. 3. Venue. Original actions brought pursuant to the authority conferred in this Act shall be instituted in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila or of the province were the claimant resides, at the option of the latter, upon which court exclusive original jurisdiction is hereby conferred to hear and determine such actions. Sec. 4. Actions instituted as aforesaid shall be governed by the same rules of procedure, both original and appellate, as if the litigants were
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 327 AN ACT FIXING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH THE AUDITOR GENERAL SHALL RENDER HIS DECISIONS AND PRESCRIBING THE MANNER OF APPEAL THEREFROM
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1807 PRESCRIBING THE PROCEDURE WHEREBY THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES MAY WAIVE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FROM SUIT AND OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDING WITH RESPECT TO ITSELF OR ITS PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH FOREIGN OBLIGATIONS CONTRACTED BY IT PURSUANT TO LAW
WHEREAS, in the pursuit of economic growth and development, it has become imperative for the Republic of the Philippines to enter into contracts or transactions with international banking, financial and other foreign enterprises; WHEREAS, recognizing this need, existing legislation expressly authorize the Republic of the Philippines to contract foreign obligations, including borrowings in foreign currency, and to guarantee foreign obligations of corporations and other entities owned or controlled by the Government of the Philippines; WHEREAS, circumstances in the international market may require that sovereign states entering into contracts or transactions make express waivers of sovereign immunity in connection with such contracts or transactions; WHEREAS, it is in the national interest that a procedure be prescribed with respect to the waiver of sovereign immunity of the Republic of the Philippines in respect of international contracts or transactions entered into by it;
G.R. No. L-11154 March 21, 1916 E. MERRITT vs. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
FACTS:
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
GRN L-35645 May 22, 1985. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CAPT. JAMES B. GALLOWAY, WILLIAM I. COLLINS and ROBERT GOHIER vs. HON. V. M. RUIZ, Presiding Judge of Branch XV, Court of First Instance of Rizal and ELIGIO DE GUZMAN & CO., INC.
FACTS: The United States of America had a naval base in Subic, Zambales. The base was one of those provided in the Military Bases Agreement between the Philippines and the United States. Sometime in May, 1972, the United States invited the submission of bids for a couple of repair projects. Eligio de Guzman land Co., Inc. responded to the invitation and submitted bids. Subsequent thereto, the company received from the US two telegrams requesting it to confirm its price proposals and for the name of its bonding company. The company construed this as an acceptance of its offer so they complied with the requests. The company received a letter which was signed by William I. Collins of Department of the Navy of the United States, also one of the petitioners herein informing that the company did not qualify to receive an award for the projects because of its previous unsatisfactory performance rating in repairs, and that the projects were awarded to third parties. The company filed a complaint against the
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
G.R. No. 129406 March 6, 2006 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG) vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION) and ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO.
FACTS: The PCGG 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 majority interest due to his involvement in cases of ill-gotten wealth. Among the properties thus sequestered and taken over by PCGG fiscal agents were the 227 shares in NOGCCI owned by and registered under the name of private respondent. As sequester of
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
G.R. No. L-23139 December 17, 1966 MOBIL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION, INC. vs. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE and BUREAU of CUSTOMS
FACTS: Four cases of rotary drill parts were shipped from abroad on S.S. "Leoville" consigned to Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc., Manila. It was discharged to the custody of the Customs Arrastre Service, the unit of the Bureau of Customs then handling arrastre operations therein. The Customs Arrastre Service later delivered to the broker of the consignee three cases only. Petitioner filed suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Customs Arrastre Service and the Bureau of Customs to recover the value of the undelivered case plus other damages. The respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that not being persons under the law, they cannot be sued. ISSUE: WON the defendants can invoke state immunity. HELD: YES. Now, the fact that a non-corporate government entity performs a function proprietary in nature does not necessarily result in its being suable. If said nongovernmental function is undertaken as an incident to its governmental function, there is no waiver thereby of the sovereign immunity from suit extended to such government entity. The Bureau of Customs, to repeat, is part of the Department of Finance with no personality of its own apart from that of the national government. Its primary function is governmental, that of assessing and collecting lawful revenues from imported articles and all
G.R. No. L-33112 June 15, 1978 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. HON. JUDGE JAVIER PABALAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance, Branch III, La Union, AGOO TOBACCO PLANTERS ASSOCIATION, INC., PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION, and PANFILO P. JIMENEZ, Deputy Sheriff, La Union
FACTS: The reliance of petitioner Philippine National Bank against respondent Judge Javier Pabalan who issued a writ of execution, followed thereafter by a notice of garnishment of the funds of respondent Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration, deposited with it, is on the fundamental constitutional law doctrine of nonsuability of a state, it being alleged that such funds are public in character. ISSUE: WON the funds are public in character, thus immune from suit. HELD: NO. It is to be admitted that under the present Constitution, what was formerly implicit as a fundamental doctrine in constitutional law has been set forth in express terms: "The State may not be sued without its consent." If 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. Such is not the case here. It is well-settled that when the government enters into commercial business, it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation. By engaging in a particular business thru the instrumentality of a corporation, the government divests itself pro hac vice of its sovereign character, so as to render the
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
G.R. No. L-31635 August 31, 1971 ANGEL MINISTERIO and ASUNCION SADAYA vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, Fourth Branch, Presided by the Honorable, Judge JOSE C. BORROMEO, THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY COMMISSIONER, and THE AUDITOR GENERAL
FACTS: Petitioners sought the payment of just compensation for a registered lot alleging that in 1927 the National Government through its authorized representatives took physical and material possession of it and used it for the widening of a national road, without paying just compensation and without any agreement, either written or verbal. There was an allegation of repeated demands for the payment of its price or return of its possession, but defendants Public Highway Commissioner and the Auditor General refused to restore its possession. ISSUE: WON the defendants are immune from suit. HELD: NO. Where the judgment in such a case would result not only in the recovery of possession of the property in favor of said citizen but also in a charge against or financial liability to the Government, then the suit should be regarded as one against the government itself, and, consequently, it cannot prosper or be validly entertained by the courts except with the consent of said Government. Inasmuch as the State authorizes only legal acts by its officers, unauthorized acts of government officials or officers are not acts of 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. 169304 March 13, 2007 THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, SECRETARY MANUEL M. DAYRIT, USEC. MA. MARGARITA GALON and USEC. ANTONIO M. LOPEZ, vs. PHIL. PHARMAWEALTH, INC.
FACTS: Respondent Phil. Pharmawealth, Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying pharmaceutical products to government hospitals in the Philippines. Then Secretary of Health Alberto G. Romualdez, Jr. issued Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 27 outlining the guidelines and procedures on the accreditation of government suppliers for pharmaceutical products. A.O. No. 27 was later amended by providing for additional guidelines for accreditation of drug suppliers aimed at ensuring that only qualified bidders can transact business with petitioner. Respondent submitted to petitioner DOH a request for the inclusion of additional items in its list of accredited drug products, including the antibiotic "Penicillin G Benzathine." DOH issued an Invitation for Bids for the procurement of 1.2 million units vials of Penicillin G Benzathine. Despite the lack of response from petitioner DOH regarding respondents request for inclusion of additional items in its list of accredited products, respondent submitted its bid for the Penicillin G Benzathine contract. Only two companies participated, the respondent being the lower bidder. In view, however, of the nonaccreditation of respondents Penicillin G Benzathine product, the contract was awarded to the other company. Hence, respondent filed a complaint injunction, mandamus and damages against DOH. ISSUE: WON DOH can invoke immunity from suit.
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
G.R. No. 131544. March 16, 2001 EPG CONSTRUCTION CO., ET. AL. vs. HONORABLE GREGORIO R. VIGILAR, In His Capacity as Secretary of Public Works and Highways
FACTS: The Ministry of Human Settlement, through the BLISS Development Corporation, initiated a housing project on a government property along the east bank of the Manggahan Floodway in Pasig City. For this purpose, the Ministry of Human Settlement entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Ministry of Public Works and Highways, where the latter undertook to develop the housing site and construct thereon 145 housing units. By virtue of the MOA, the Ministry of Public Works and Highways forged individual contracts with herein petitioners EPG Construction Co., et. al. for the construction of the housing units.
HELD: NO. Under these circumstances, respondent may not validly invoke the Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty and conveniently hide under the States cloak of invincibility against suit, considering that this principle yields to certain settled exceptions. True enough, the rule, in any case, is not absolute for it does not say that the state may not be sued under any circumstance. The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. To be sure, this Court as the staunch guardian of the citizens rights and welfare cannot sanction an injustice so patent on its face, and allow itself to be an instrument in the perpetration thereof. Justice and equity sternly demand that the States cloak of invincibility against suit be shred in this particular instance, and that petitioners contractors be duly compensated on the
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
G.R. No. L-48214 December 19, 1978 ILDEFONSO SANTIAGO, represented by his Attorney-inFact, ALFREDO T. SANTIAGO vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS: Santiagos plea was for the revocation of a deed of donation executed by him and his spouse with the Bureau of Plant Industry as the donee. As alleged in such complaint, such Bureau, contrary to the terms of the donation, failed to "install lighting facilities and water system on the property donated and to build an office building and parking [lot] thereon which should have been constructed and ready for occupancy. That led him to conclude that under the circumstances, he was exempt from compliance with such an explicit constitutional command.
G.R. No. L-29993 October 23, 1978 LAUDENCIO TORIO, ET. AL. vs. ROSALINA, ANGELINA, LEONARDO, EDUARDO, ARTEMIO, ANGELITA, ANITA, ERNESTO, NORMA, VIRGINIA, REMEDIOS and ROBERTO, all surnamed FONTANILLA, and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS: The Municipal Council of Malasiqui, Pangasinan, passed a resolution whereby "it resolved to manage the 1959 Malasiqui town fiesta celebration. Another resolution was also passed creating the "1959 Malasiqui 'Town Fiesta Executive Committee" which in turn organized a sub-committee on entertainment and stage. The council appropriated an amount for the construction of 2 stages, one for the "zarzuela" and another for the cancionan Jose Macaraeg supervised the construction of the stage. The "zarzuela" then began but before the dramatic part of the play was reached, the stage collapsed and Vicente Fontanilla who was at the rear of the stage was pinned underneath. Fontanilia was taken to the hospital where he died in the afternoon of the following day. The heirs of Vicente Fontanilia filed a complaint against Municipality. Answering the complaint defendant municipality invoked inter alia the principal defense that as a legally and duly organized public corporation it performs sovereign functions and the holding of a town fiesta was an exercise of its governmental functions from which no liability can arise to answer for the negligence of any of its agents. ISSUE: WON the defendant Municipality was performing sovereign functions therefore immune from suit. HELD: NO.
ISSUE: WON the Bureau is immune from suit. HELD: YES. If an order of dismissal would suffice, then the element of unfairness enters, the facts alleged being hypothetically admitted. It is the considered opinion of this Court then that to conform to the high dictates of equity and justice, the presumption of consent could be indulged in safely. That would serve to accord to petitioner as plaintiff, at the very least, the right to be heard. The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. Under the circumstances, the fundamental postulate of non-suability cannot stand in the way. It is made to accommodate itself to the demands of procedural due process, which is the negation of arbitrariness and inequity. The government, in the final analysis, is the beneficiary. It thereby manifests its adherence to the highest ethical
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
G.R. No. L-52179 April 8, 1991 MUNICIPALITY OF SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION vs. HON. JUDGE ROMEO N. FIRME, ET. AL.
FACTS: At about 7am of December 16, 1965, a collision occurred involving a passenger jeepney driven by Bernardo Balagot (owned by the Estate of Macario Nieveras), a gravel and sand truck driven by Jose Manandeg (owned by Tanquilino Velasquez), and a dump truck of the Municipality of San Fernando, La Union and driven by Alfredo Bislig. Due to the impact, several passengers of the jeepney including Laureano Bania Sr. died as a result of the injuries they sustained and four others suffered varying degrees of physical injuries.
G.R. No. L-30671 November 28, 1973 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. GUILLERMO P. VILLASOR, ET. AL.
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1959 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JUDGE VICENTE A. HIDALGO, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 37
FACTS: Tarcila Laperal Mendoza filed an action for the annulment or declaration of nullity of the title and deed of sale, reconveyance and/or recovery of ownership and possession a property against the Republic of the Philippinesin the RTC of Manila. It is also known as the Arlegui Residence which housed two Philippine presidents and which now holds the Office of the Press Secretary and the News Information Bureau. The case was initially dismissed by the presiding Judge of the Manila RTC (Branch 35) on the ground of state immunity. The case was re-raffled to the Manila RTC (Branch 37), with respondent Vicente A. Hidalgo as presiding Judge. In an Order, Judge Hidalgo declared the Republic in default for failure of Solicitor Gabriel Francisco Ramirez, the handling solicitor, to file the required Answer within the period prayed for in his motion for extension. It is contended that the respondent Judge violated the Constitution and the fundamental rule that government funds are exempt from execution or garnishment when he caused the issuance of the writ of execution against the Republic. ISSUE: WON the Republic can invoke immunity from suit. HELD: It is settled that when the State gives its consent to be sued, it does not thereby necessarily consent to an unrestrained execution against it. Tersely put, when the State 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. The functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
G.R. Nos. 89898-99 October 1, 1990 MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR., as Judge RTC of Makati, Branch CXLII ADMIRAL FINANCE CREDITORS CONSORTIUM, INC., and SHERIFF SILVINO R. PASTRANA
FACTS: The present petition for review is an off-shoot of expropriation proceedings initiated by petitioner Municipality of Makati against private respondent Admiral Finance Creditors Consortium, Inc., Home Building System & Realty Corporation and one Arceli P. Jo, involving a parcel of land and improvements and registered in the name of the latter. It was certified that a bank account had been opened with the PNB Buendia Branch under petitioner's name made pursuant to the provisions of Pres. Decree No. 42. After due hearing where the parties presented their respective appraisal reports regarding the value of the property, respondent RTC judge rendered a decision fixing the appraised value of the property at P5,291,666.00, and ordering petitioner to pay this amount minus the advanced payment which was earlier released to private respondent. Petitioner however refused to comply with the garnishment despite its having two bank accounts in PNB. The first one was dedicated for expropriation proceedings while the other was for public funds. The first bank account cannot cover the remaining amount due, while the other account had more than enough to satisfy the amount due. Petitioner reasoned out that its funds at the PNB Buendia Branch could neither be garnished nor levied upon execution, for to do so would result in the
HELD: NO. For three years now, petitioner has enjoyed possession and use of the subject property notwithstanding its inexcusable failure to comply with its legal obligation to pay just 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 taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered "just" 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. The State's power of eminent domain should be exercised within the bounds of fair play and justice. In the case at bar, considering that valuable property has been taken, the compensation to be paid fixed and the municipality is in full possession and utilizing the property for public purpose, for three (3) years, the Court finds that the municipality has had more than reasonable time to pay full compensation.
G.R. No. 164282 October 12, 2005 TERESITA M. YUJUICO vs. HON. JOSE L. ATIENZA, ET. AL.
FACTS: On 8 December 1995, the City Council of Manila enacted an ordinance authorizing the City Mayor to acquire by negotiation or expropriation certain parcels of land for utilization as a site for the Francisco Benitez Elementary School. Failing to acquire the land by negotiation, the City filed a case for
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
G.R. No. 77765 August 15, 1988 SEBASTIAN COSCULLUELA vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION
FACTS: The Republic of the Philippines filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of
G.R. No. 101949 December 1, 1994 THE HOLY SEE vs. THE HON. ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, JR., as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 61 and STARBRIGHT SALES ENTERPRISES, INC.
FACTS:
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
G.R. No. 154705. June 26, 2003 THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA, HIS EXCELLENCY AMBASSADOR SOERATMIN, and MINISTER COUNSELLOR AZHARI KASIM vs. JAMES VINZON, doing business under the name and style of VINZON TRADE AND SERVICES
FACTS: Petitioner, Republic of Indonesia, represented by its Counsellor entered into a Maintenance Agreement with respondent James Vinzon, owner of Vinzon Trade and Services. The Maintenance Agreement stated that respondent shall, for a consideration, maintain specified equipment at the Embassy Main Building, Embassy Annex Building and the Wisma Duta, the official residence of petitioner Ambassador Soeratmin. The equipment covered by the Maintenance Agreement are air conditioning units, generator sets, electrical facilities, water heaters, and water motor pumps. It is likewise 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 expiry. Petitioners claim that sometime prior to the date of expiration of the said agreement, or before August 1999, they informed respondent that the renewal of the agreement shall be at the discretion of the incoming Chief of Administration. When the Chief of Administration assumed his position, he allegedly found respondents work and services unsatisfactory and not in compliance with the
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
G.R. No. 142396. February 11, 2003 KHOSROW MINUCHER vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ARTHUR SCALZO
FACTS: Sometime in May 1986, an Information for violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise also known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, was filed against petitioner Khosrow Minucher and one Abbas Torabian. The criminal charge followed a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine police narcotic agents in the house of Minucher, an Iranian national, where a quantity of heroin, a prohibited drug, was said to have been
August
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
G.R. No. 125865. January 28, 200 JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG) vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
FACTS: Petitioner is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Sometime in 1994, for allegedly uttering defamatory words against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal, he was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Mandaluyong City with two counts of grave oral defamation. Petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the MeTC. After fixing petitioners bail, the MeTC released him to the custody of the Security Officer of ADB. The next day, the MeTC judge received an "office of protocol" from the DFA stating that petitioner is covered by immunity from legal process under Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government regarding the Headquarters of the ADB (hereinafter Agreement) in the country. Based
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
Historically,
international officials were granted diplomatic privileges and immunities and were thus considered immune for both private and official acts. In practice, this wide grant of diplomatic prerogatives was curtailed because of practical necessity and because the proper functioning of the organization did not require such extensive immunity for its officials. Thus, the current status of the law does not maintain that states grant jurisdictional immunity to international officials for acts of their private lives. the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic envoy is immune from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State for all acts, whether private or official, and hence he cannot be arrested, prosecuted and punished for any offense he may commit, unless his diplomatic immunity is waived.[ On the other hand, officials of international organizations enjoy functional immunities, that is, only those necessary for the exercise of the functions of the organization and the fulfillment of its purposes. This is the reason why the ADB Charter and Headquarters Agreement explicitly grant immunity from legal process to bank officers and employees only with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity, except when the Bank waives immunity. In other words, officials and employees of the ADB are subject to the jurisdiction of the local courts for their private acts, notwithstanding the absence of a waiver of immunity. that bank officials and employees are covered by immunity only for their official acts, the necessary inference is that the authority of the Department of Affairs, or even 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 otherwise, it is not within the power of the DFA, as the agency in charge of the executive departments foreign relations, nor the ADB, as the international organization vested with the right to waive immunity, to invoke immunity for private acts of bank official and employees, since no such prerogative exists in the first place. If the immunity does not exist, there is nothing to certify.
Under
The Charter
of the ADB provides under Article 55(i) that officers and employees of the bank shall be immune from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except when the Bank waives immunity. Section 45 (a) of the ADB Headquarters Agreement accords the same immunity to the officers and staff of the bank. 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 the most important immunity to an international official, in the discharge of his international functions, is immunity from local jurisdiction. There is no argument in doctrine or practice with the principle that an international official is independent of the jurisdiction of the local authorities for his official acts. Those acts are not his, but are imputed to the organization, and without waiver the local courts cannot hold him liable for them. In strict law, it would seem that even the organization itself could have no right to waive an officials immunity for his official acts. This permits local authorities to assume jurisdiction over and individual 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 waive its own immunity and
Clearly,
Considering
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST Law Its not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden