Kintanar, Marie Caitlin C.

EH302
Constitutional Law
Judge Alma Singco
CASE 1: Festejo VS Fernando
Facts: Fernando, who is the Director of the Bureau of Public Words, took Festejos
parcels of land without authority or getting a right of way. Festejo wants to sue the
director of DPWH.
Issue: Can Fernando invoke immunity from suit as a public official?
Held: No. Fernando may be a government worker but he took the parcel of land without
getting a right of way, therefore this was beyong his authority as a public official suing
Fernando will prosper.
CASE 2: Calub VS Court of Appeals
Facts: Calub (from DENR) apprehended two vehicles carrying lumber that was illegally
obtained. The owners wanted to get their vehicles back and filed for replevin to get it
back. The court awarded the owners because Calub did not act within the law. Calub files
for a petition and says the replevin is a suit against the state.
Issue: Was the replevin a suit against the state?
Held. Yes it is. Calub was within his authority when he confiscated the two trucks.
Therefore, the replevin was a suit against the state which will not prosper.
CASE 3: Sayson VS Singson
Facts: Respondent Singson cause of action is a money claim against the government for
the payment of the alleged balance of the cost of spare parts of a bulldozer. The District
Engineer said that he was selling the parts at a reasonable price but it wasnt. The parts
were suppose to be only P2,529 but was sold to Singkier Motor Service for P43,530.
Issue: Will the money claim by Singson prosper?
Held. No, it will not. It is not a claim against the State, rather, it is an ordinary action for
specific performance. The suit is disguised as one for Mandamus to approve the vouchers
for payment
CASE 4: Department of Agriculture VS NCRC
Facts: DA entered into an agreement with Sultan Security Agency wherein the latter
provided security guards to the DA. However, the security guard filed complaints
regarding their underpayment and other complaints. The Labor Arbiter rendered a
decision finding DA and the Security Agency liable and issued a writ of execution against
the property of the DA and Security Agency.
Issue: With the DA being a government entity, is it suable?
Held: Yes. The claims of the security guards constitute money claims. Act 3083 gives the
consent of the State to be sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from
contracts.
CASE 5: Merritt VS Government
Facts: Merritt was a constructor who was hit by a government ambulance. He can no

longer work. He sued the driver in his personal capacity and the drivers was found to be
negligent. Merritt wanted to sue the State under Act 2457.
Issue: Will Merritts case prosper?
Held. No, the state cannot be sued in this case. The Government does not undertake to
guarantee to any person the fidelity of the officers or agents when it employs, since that
would involve it in all its operations in endless embarrassments, difficulties and loses,
which would be subversive of the public interest.
CASE 6: US VS Ruiz
Facts: Ruiz won the bidding to build wharves in the US Naval Base in Subic. However,
the Naval Base awarded it wrongly to another group. Ruiz is suing the US.
Issue: Will his case prosper?
Held. No it will not. The US may have been sued if the contracts were purely proprietary.
However, the wharves involved are integral for its government function therefore the
contract is not commercial and Ruizs case will not prosper as they are immune from suit.
CASE 7: JUSMAG VS NCRC
Facts: Sacramento was a SASP for JUSMAG. He was dismissed after 20 years of service
and he sought to be reinstated because the dismissal for him was unjust. He wanted to sue
JUSMAG but the latter claims it is immune from suit.
Issue: Is JUSMAG immune from suit?
Held: Yes they are. Sacramento was hired as a security personnel which is one of the
needed constituent functions in JUSMAG as stated in the Military Assistance Agreement.
Therefore, Sacramentos case against JUSMAG cannot prosper.
CASE 8: US VS Guinto
Facts: The Air Force in Clark Air Base conducted a bidding for barbershop services.
Three tried to bid but Dizon won the bidding even though he was already bidding for a
total of four facilities. The three bidders are suing the USAF officers to compel them to
cancel the award to Dizon and to conduct a rebidding. USAF wanted to dismiss the case
saying it is immune from suit
Issue: Are the USAF officers immune?
Held: In this case, they are not. The USAF have entered into a proprietary contract and
deemed to have waive its immunity. Therefore they can be sued.
CASE 9: Malong VS PNR
Facts: The Malong spouses were suing PNR for the death of their son who fell off the
train between Tarlac and Capas. The OSG moved to dismiss the case claiming PNR is a
government agency and immune from suit. The trial court dismissed it, hence an appeal
from Malong spouses.
Issue: Is the PNR immune from suit?
Held: No, they are not. The PNR is not immune from suit because it did not remove itself
from the operation of Art. 1732 to 1766 CC on common carriers. Therefore, the case of
Malong may prosper.

CASE 10: Santos VS Santos

Facts: A parcel of land was being rented by the US Army and was bought by the
Administrator of the Civil Aeronautics Administration. The part owners of the land never
agreed to the sale and wanted the ownership restored back to them. The CAA, moved to
dismiss the suit claiming immunity from suit.
Issue: Is the CAA immune from suit?
Held. The CAA cannot legally prevent a party or parties from enforcing their propriety
rights under the cloak of lack of juridical personality, because it took over all the powers
and assumed all the obligations of the defunct corporation which had entered into the
contract in question. State immunity does not apply to it.