1

respondents by a writ of preliminary

injunction to continue operating the
concessions
pending
litigation.
Respondent court directed the individual
petitioners to maintain the status quo
USA v. GUINTO
On July 22, 1986, the petitioners
182 SCRA 644
filed a motion to dismiss and opposition
to the petition for preliminary injunction
Facts:
In the 4 consolidated suits, the USAon the ground that the action was in
moves to dismiss the cases on the ground effect a suit against USA, which had not
that they are in effect suits against it waived its non-suability.
On July 22, 1986, trial court denied
which it has not consented
the application for a writ of preliminary
On the first suit:
On February 24, 1986, the Westerninjunction. On Oct. 10, 1988, trial court
Pacific Contracting Office, Okinawa Areadenied the petitioners' motion to dismiss
Exchange, US Air Force, solicited bids forOn the second suit:
Fabian Genove filed a complaint for
barber services contracts through its
contracting officer James F. Shaw. Amongdamages against petitioners Anthony
those who submitted their bids wereLamachia, Wilfredo Belsa, Rose Cartalla
private respondents Roberto T. Valencia,and Peter Orascion for his dismissal as
Emerenciana C. Tanglao, and Pablo C. del cook in the US Air Force Recreation
Center at the John Hay Air Station in
Pilar
Bidding was won by Ramon DizonBaguio City
It had been ascertained that
over the objection of the private
respondents who claimed that he had Genove had poured urine into the soup
made a bid for 4 facilities, including thestock used in cooking the vegetables
Civil Engineering Area which was notserved to the club customers. His
dismissal was effected on March 5, 1986
included in the invitation to bid.
The Philippine Area Exchangeby Col. David C. Kimball, Commander of
(PHAX), through its representativesthe 3rd Combat Support Group, PACAF
petitioners Yvonne Reeves and FredericClark Air Force Base.
Genove filed a complaint in the RTC
M. Smouse, upon the private respondents'
of
Baguio.
The defendants, joined by the
complaint, explained that the Civil
Engineering concession had not beenUnited States of America, moved to
awarded to Dizon. But Dizon was alreadydismiss the complaint, alleging that
operating this concession, then known asLamachia (the manager) as an officer of
the US Air Force was immune from suit for
the NCO club concession.
On June 30, 1986, the privatethe acts done by him in his official
respondents filed a complaint in the courtcapacity; they argued that the suit was in
below to compel PHAX and the individualeffect against USA, which had not given
petitioners to cancel the award to Dizon,its consent to be sued.
Motion was denied by respondent
to conduct a rebidding for the barbershop
concessions and to allow the private judge: although acting initially in their
official capacities, the defendants went

IMMUNITY FROM
JURISDICTION

1.

2
beyond what their functions called for;
USA and the defendants argued
this brought them out of the protective that the suit was in effect a suit against
mantle of whatever immunities they maythe United States which had not given its
have had in the beginning
consent to be sued; that they were also
On the third suit:
immune from suit under the RP-US Bases
Luis Bautisa, who was employed as a Treaty for acts done by them in the
barracks boy in Camp O'Donnell, anperformance of their official functions
extension of Clark Air Base, was arrested
Motion to dismiss was denied by the
following a buy-bust operation conductedtrial court: the acts cannot be considered
by the individual petitioners Tomi J. King, Acts of State, if they were ever admitted
Darrel D. Dye and Stephen F. Bostick, by the defendants.
officers of the US Air Force and special
agents of the Air Force of Special Issue:
Investigators
(AFOSI).
Bautista
was
1. Whether or not the suits above
dismissed from his employment as aare in effect suits against United States of
result of the filing of the charge. He then America without its consent.
filed a complaint for damages against the
2. In relation, whether or not the
individual petitioners, claiming that it was defendants are also immune from suit for
because of their acts that he was acting within their official functions.
removed. Defendants alleged that they
had only done their duty in theHeld:
enforcement of laws of the Philippines
inside the American bases, pursuant to
1st suit: No. The barbershops
the RP-US Military Bases Agreement. Theconcessions are commercial enterprises
counsel for the defense invoked that theoperated by private persons. They are not
defendants were acting in their official agencies of the US Armed forces.
capacity; that the complaint was in effectPetitioners cannot plead immunity. Case
a suit against the US without its consent. should be remanded to the lower court.
Motion was denied by respondent
judge: immunity under the Military Bases
2nd suit: No. The petitioners cannot
Agreement covered only criminal and not invoke the doctrine of state immunity. The
civil cases; moreover, the defendants had restaurants are commercial enterprises.
come under the jurisdiction of the courtBy entering into the employment contract
when they submitted their answer.
with Genove, it impliedly divested itself of
On the fourth suit:
its sovereign immunity from suit.
Complaint for damages was filed (However, the petitioners are only suable,
by private respondents against thenot liable.)
petitioners (except USA). According to the
plaintiffs, the defendants beat them up,
3rd suit: Yes. It is clear that the
handcuffed the, and unleashed dogs on petitioners were acting in the exercise of
them. Defendants deny this and claimtheir official functions. For discharging
that the plaintiffs were arrested for theft their duties as agents of the US, they
and were bitten by dogs because theycannot be directly impleaded for acts
were struggling and resisting arrest.

3
attributable to their principal, which has special services department of NAVSTA,
not given its consent to be sued.
undoubtedly had supervision over its
personnel,
including
the
private
4th suit: The contradictory factualrespondents. Given the official character
allegations deserve a closer study. Inquiry of the letters, the petitioners were being
must first be made by the lower court. sued as officers of the United States
Only after can it be known in what government because they have acted on
capacity the petitioners were acting atbehalf of that government and within the
the time of the incident.
scope of their authority. Thus, it is that
government and not the petitioners
personally that is responsible for their
acts.
Sanders v. Veridiano
It is stressed at the outset that the
GR No. L-46930; June 10, 1988
mere allegation that a government
Facts:
functionary is being sued in his personal
Petitioner Dale Sanders was the
capacity will not automatically remove
special services of the US Naval Station
him from the protection of the law of
(NAVSTA) in Olongapo City. Private
public officers and, if appropriate, the
respondents Anthony Rossi and Ralph
doctrine of state immunity. By the same
Wyers are American citizens permanently
token, the mere invocation of official
residing in the Philippines and who were
character will not suffice to insulate him
employed as game room attendants in
from suability and liability for an act
the special services department of
imputed to him as a personal tort
NAVSTA. On October 3, 1975, the
committed without or in excess of his
respondents were advised that their
authority. These well-settled principles are
employment had been converted from
applicable not only to the officers of the
permanent full-time to permanent partlocal state but also where the person
time. In a letter addressed to petitioner
sued in its courts pertains to the
Moreau, Sanders disagreed with the
government of a foreign state, as in the
hearing
officers
report
of
the
present case.
reinstatement of private respondents to
Assuming that the trial can proceed
permanent full-time status plus back
and it is proved that the claimants have a
wages. Respondents allege that the
right to the payment of damages, such
letters contained libelous imputations,
award will have to be satisfied not by the
which caused them to be ridiculed and
petitioners in their personal capacities but
thus
filed
for
damages
against
by the United States government as their
petitioners.
principal.
This
will
require
that
government to perform an affirmative act
Issue:
to satisfy the judgment, viz, the
Whether or not the petitioners
appropriation of the necessary amount to
were performing their official duties?
cover the damages awarded, thus making
the action a suit against that government
Held:
without its consent.
Yes. Sanders, as director of the

2.

4
however, of the non-accreditation of
respondents Penicillin G Benzathine
product, the contract was awarded to
YSS. (another competitor)
Respondent
thus
filed
a
complaintwith the RTC to nullify the
award of the Penicillin G Benzathine
DOH versus PHIL
contract to YSS Laboratories, Inc. and
PHARMAWEALTH
direct
defendant
DOH,
defendant
Romualdez,
defendant
Galon
and
defendant Lopez to declare plaintiff
Facts:
Pharmawealth
as the lowest complying
Phil.
Pharmawealth,
Inc.
responsible bidder for the Benzathine
(respondent) is a domestic corporation
contract, and that they accordingly award
engaged in the business of manufacturing the same to plaintiff company and
and supplying pharmaceutical products to adjudge defendants Romualdez, Galon
government hospitals in the Philippines. and Lopez liable, jointly and severally to
Secretary of Health Alberto G.plaintiff, for [the therein specified
Romualdez, Jr. issued Administrativedamages].
Petitioners
subsequently
filed
Order (A.O.) No. 27,[3] Series of 1998,
outlining the guidelines and proceduresMotion To Dismiss for dismissal of the
on the accreditation of governmentcomplaint based on the doctrine of state
immunity.
suppliers for pharmaceutical products.
Respondent
filed
its
A.O. No. 27 was later amended by
comment/oppositioncontending,
in
the
A.O. No. 10,[4] Series of 2000, providing
for additional guidelines for accreditation main, that the doctrine of state immunity
of drug suppliers aimed at ensuring that is not applicable considering that
only qualified bidders can transactindividual petitioners are being sued both
in their official and personal capacities,
business with petitioner DOH
Only products accredited by the hence, they, not the state, would be liable
Committee shall be allowed to be for damages.

3.

procured by the DOH and all other

RTC denied petitioners motion to
entities
under
its
jurisdiction.[5]
dismiss. CA: upheld the TC denial for
(Underscoring supplied)
Motion To Dismiss
Respondent submitted to petitioner
DOH a request for the inclusion of Issue:
additional items in its list of accredited
Whether the Court of Appeals erred
drug products, including the antibiotic in upholding the denial of petitioners
Penicillin G Benzathine.
motion to dismiss.
Petitioner DOH, issued an Invitation
for Bids[9] for the procurement of 1.2 Ruling:
million units vials of Penicillin G
No. The ability to be sued of a
Benzathine (Penicillin G Benzathine
government official depends on whether
contract).
Respondent submitted its bid forthe official concerned was acting within
the Penicillin G Benzathine contract. Onlyhis official or jurisdictional capacity, and
two
companies
participated,
withwhether the acts done in the performance
respondent submitting the lower bid at of official functions will result in a charge

5
or
financial
liability
against
thesuability for damages, the following
government.
discussion on the applicability of the
In
the
present
case,
suingdefense of state immunity from suit is
individual petitioners in their personal relevant.
capacities for damages in connection with
While the doctrine of state
their alleged act of illegal[ly] abus[ing]immunity appears to prohibit only suits
their official positions to make sure thatagainst the state without its consent, it is
plaintiff Pharmawealth would not be also applicable to complaints filed against
awarded the Benzathine contract [which officials of the state for acts allegedly
act was] done in bad faith and with full performed by them in the discharge of
knowledge of the limits and breadth oftheir duties. The suit is regarded as one
their powers given by law is permissible,against the state where satisfaction of the
in consonance with the foregoingjudgment against the officials will require
principles.
the state itself to perform a positive act,
For an officer who exceeds thesuch as the appropriation of the amount
power conferred on him by law cannot necessary to pay the damages awarded
hide behind the plea of sovereignagainst them.
immunity and must bear the liability
Shauf v. Court of Appeals
personally.
elucidates: Inasmuch as the State
While the doctrine of stateauthorizes only legal acts by its officers,
immunity appears to prohibit only suits unauthorized acts of government officials
against the state without its consent, it isor officers are not acts of the State, and
also applicable to complaints filed against an action against the officials or officers
officials of the state for acts allegedly by one whose rights have been invaded
performed by them in the discharge ofor violated by such acts, for the
their duties. The suit is regarded as oneprotection of his rights, is not a suit
against the state where satisfaction of the against the State within the rule of
judgment against the officials will require immunity of the State from suit. In the
the state itself to perform a positive act, same tenor, it has been said that an
such as the appropriation of the amount action at law or suit in equity against a
necessary to pay the damages awarded State officer or the director of a State
against them.
department on the ground that, while
DOH, the defense of immunity from claiming to act for the State, he violates
suit will not avail despite its being an or invades the personal and property
unincorporated
agency
of
therights of
the
plaintiff, under an
government, for the only causes of action unconstitutional
act
or
under
an
directed against it are preliminaryassumption of authority which he does
injunction and mandamus.
not have, is not a suit against the State
The defense of state immunitywithin the constitutional provision that
from suit does not apply in causes of the State may not be sued without its
action which do not seek to impose a consent. The rationale for this ruling is
charge or financial liability against the that the doctrine of state immunity
State.
cannot be used as an instrument for
As regards individual petitionersperpetrating an injustice. (Emphasis and

6
underscoring supplied)
assign and surrender title to all his
The rule does not apply where the companies in favor of the Phil. Govt. In
Philguarantee
shall
absolve
public official is charged in his official return,
Chuidian from all civil and criminal
capacity for acts that are unauthorized or
liability
concerning
the
payments
unlawful and injurious to the rights ofPhilguarantee had made on Chuidians
others. Neither does it apply where the defaulted loans. It was further stipulated
public official is clearly being sued not in that the Phil. government shall pay
his official capacity but in his personal Chuidian the amount of US $5.3M.
st
capacity, although the acts complained ofChuidian received the 1 two installments
may have been committed while heof the payment. The remaining balance of
US $4.6M was to be paid through an
occupied a public position.
irrevocable Letter of Credit (L/C) from
which Chuidian would draw US $100k
monthly.
With the advent of the Aquino
Vicente CHUIDIAN V.
administration,
the
newly-established
SANDIGANBAYAN and the PCGG exerted earnest efforts to search
and recover properties and assets
Republic
suspected as having been illegally
G.R. No. 1339941 | JANUARY 19, 2001
acquired by the Marcoses, their relatives
and cronies. Chuidian was among those
Facts:
whose assets were sequestered by the
In September 1980, ChuidianPCGG. The PNB was directed to place the
allegedly a dummy of Ferdinand and letters of credit under its custody, in
Imelda Marcos, was able to obtain,behalf of the PCGG.
allegedly under false pretenses, a loan
In the meantime, Philguarantee
guarantee from Philguarantee Corp., the filed a motion before the Superior Court
BOI and the Central Bank, in favor of the of California, seeking to vacate the
Asian Reliability Co. Inc. (ARCI). ARCI, 98% stipulated
judgment
containing
the
of which was allegedly owned bysettlement between Philguarantee and
Chuidian, was granted a loan guarantee Chuidian on the grounds that: (a)
of US $25M for the establishment of 5 Philguarantee was compelled by the
inter-related projects in the country.
Marcos administration to agree to the
However, Chuidian used the sameterms of the settlement; (b) Chuidian
in investing in corporations operating in blackmailed Marcos into pursuing the
the US. ARCI then defaulted in thesettlement agreement by threatening to
payments of the loan, compellingexpose the fact that the Marcoses made
Philguarantee to undertake payments forinvestments in Chuidians American
the same. Philguarantee sued Chuidianenterprises;
and
(c)
the
Aquino
before a Californian court, charging him ofadministration had ordered Philguarantee
violating the terms of the loan, defaultingnot to make further payments on the L/C
in payments and misusing the proceedsto Chuidian. However, the Californian
for his personal benefit. Chuidian claimedcourt concluded that Philguarantee was
that he himself was a victim of thenot able to sufficiently show that the
systematic plunder perpetrated by thesettlement should be set aside. On
Marcoses.
appeal, the CA of the State of California
On November 1985, Philguaranteeaffirmed the judgment of the Superior
entered into a compromise agreementCourt denying Philguarantees motion.
with Chuidian whereby Chuidian shall

4.

7
Chuidian filed before the Californiabrought, or that he concealed or disposed
Central District Court, an action againstof the property that is the subject of the
PNB seeking to compel the latter to payaction;
the proceeds of the L/C. Philguarantee
(3) Chuidian has removed or disposed of his
intervened in said action, raising the property with the intent of defrauding the
same issues and arguments it had earlier plaintiff as justified under Section 1(c) of
raised in the action before the Santa Rule 57; and
Clara Superior Court, alleging that PNB
(4) Chuidian is residing out of the country or
was excused from making payments onone on whom summons may be served
the L/C since the settlement was void dueby publication, which justifies the writ of
to illegality, duress and fraud.
attachment prayed for under Section 1(e)
The
Federal
Court
renderedof the same rule.
judgment ruling: (1) in favor of PNB
The Republic also averred that should
excusing the said bank from makingthe action brought by Chuidian before the
payment on the L/C; and (2) in Chuidians U.S. District Court of California to compel
favor
by
denying
intervenorpayment of the L/C prosper, inspite of the
Philguarantees action to set aside the sequestration of the said L/C, Chuidian
settlement agreement.
can ask the said foreign court to compel
Meanwhile a Deed of Transfer was the PNB Los Angeles branch to pay the
executed between then Sec. of Financeproceeds
of
the
L/C. Eventually,
and then PNB President Edgardo Espiritu,Philguarantee will be made to shoulder
to facilitate the rehabilitation of PNB. the expense resulting in further damage
Thus, the govt assumed all liabilities of to the government. Thus, there was an
PNB including the L/C listed in favor ofurgent need for the writ of attachment to
Chuidian in the amount of US $4.4M
place the L/C under the custody of the
Sandiganbayan so the same may be
On July 1987, the govt filed beforepreserved as security for the satisfaction
the Sandiganbayan a civil case againstof judgment in the case before said court.
the Marcos spouses, several govt
Chuidian opposed the motion for
officials, and a number of individuals issuance of the writ of attachment,
known to be cronies of the Marcoses, contending that:
including
Chuidian,
seeking
the
(1) The plaintiffs affidavit appended to the
reconveyance, accounting and restitutionmotion was in form and substance fatally
of all forms of wealth allegedly procureddefective;
illegally by the defendants.
(2) Section 1(b) of Rule 57 does not apply
While the case was pending, the since there was no fiduciary relationship
Republic filed a motion for issuance of abetween the plaintiff and Chuidian;
writ of attachment over the L/C in the
(3) While Chuidian does not admit fraud on
name of Chuidian, citing as grounds his part, if ever there was breach of
therefor the following:
contract, such fraud must be present at
the time the contract is entered into;
(1) Chuidian embezzled or fraudulently
(4) Chuidian has not removed or disposed of
misapplied the funds of ARCI acting in a his property in the absence of any intent
fiduciary capacity, justifying issuance of to defraud plaintiff;
the writ under Section 1(b), Rule 57 of the
(5) Chuidians absence from the country
Rules of Court;
does not necessarily make him a non(2) The writ is justified under Section 1(d) of resident; and
the same rule as Chuidian is guilty (6)
of Service of summons by publication
fraud in contracting the debt or incurring cannot be used to justify the issuance of
the obligation upon which the action wasthe writ since Chuidian had already

8
submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court
3) He denies that he ever disposed of
by way of a motion to lift the freeze order his assets to defraud the Republic, and
filed through his counsel.
there is nothing in the records that
On July 1993, the Sandiganbayansupport the Sandiganbayans erroneous
ordered the issuance of a writ ofconclusion on the matter.
attachment against the L/C as security for
4) He was never a defendant in any
the satisfaction of judgment. Theother pending criminal action.
Sandiganbayan ruled:
5) He was not guilty of fraud in
1) Although there was no separatecontracting the debt or incurring the
was attached to the motion, the motion obligation. L/C was not a product of
itself contained all the requisites of an fraudulent transactions but the result of
affidavit, and the verification thereof iscourt-approved settlement.
deemed a substantial compliance of Rule
6) Should the attachment be allowed
57, Section 3.
to continue, he will be deprived of his
2)
Fiduciary
relationship
existsproperty without due process. The L/C
between Chuidian and ARCI but not with was payment to Chuidian in exchange for
the Republic. Hence, the Republic cannotthe assets he turned over to the
invoke Sec. 1(b) of Rule 57.
Republic. Said assets had already been
3) There was a prima facie case ofsold by the Republic and cannot be
fraud committed by Chuidian, justifyingreturned
to
Chuidian
should
the
the issuance of the writ of attachment.
government succeed in depriving him of
4) The Sandiganbayan also adopted the proceeds of the L/C.
the Republics position that since it was
7) Finally, throughout the 4 years that
compelled to pay, through Philguarantee,the preliminary attachment had been in
the bank loans taken out by Chuidian, the effect, the govt had not set the case for
proceeds of which were fraudulentlyhearing. The case itself should be
diverted, it is entitled to the issuance ofdismissed for laches owing to the
the writ of attachment to protect its rights Republics failure to prosecute its action
as creditor.
for
an
unreasonable
length
of
5) Chuidians absence from thetime. Accordingly,
the
preliminary
country
was
considered
by
theattachment, being only a temporary or
Sandiganbayan to be the most compelling ancillary remedy, must be lifted and the
ground for the issuance of the writ.
PNB ordered to immediately pay the
Almost four (4) years after theproceeds of the L/C to Chuidian.
issuance of the order of attachment,
Chuidian filed a motion to lift the
The Republic opposed the motion and
attachment based on the followingcontended that allowing the foreign
grounds:
judgment as a basis for the lifting of the
1) He had returned to the Philippines,attachment would essentially amount to
and considering that his absence was thean abdication of the jurisdiction of the
most compelling ground for the issuanceSandiganbayan to hear and decide the ill
of the writ, the latter should be lifted.
gotten wealth cases lodged before it in
2) There was no evidence at all ofdeference to the judgment of foreign
initial fraud or subsequent concealmentcourts.
except for the affidavit submitted by the
The
Sandiganbayan
denied
PCGG Chairman whose statement ispetitioners motion and also the latters
hearsay since he was not a witness to thesubsequent MR.
litigated incidents, was never presented
as a witness by the Republic and thus was Issue:
not subject to cross-examination.

9
Whether the writ of preliminary
attachment should be lifted as a result of
petitioners return to the country and his
averments that there was no fraud in
incurring the obligation

5. PROFESSIONAL VIDEO,
INC., vs. TESDA
G.R. No. 155504

Facts:
PROVI is an entity engaged in the
No.
Preliminary
attachment
issued upon a ground which is at the sale of high technology equipment,
same time the applicants cause of information technology products and
action. When the preliminary attachmentbroadcast devices, including the supply of
is issued upon a ground which is at the plastic
card
printing
and
security
same time the applicants cause of
facilities. TESDA is an instrumentality of
action, the defendant is not allowed to file
a motion to dissolve the attachmentthe government established under R.A.)
under Section 13 of Rule 57 by offering to No. 7796 and attached to the (DOLE) to
show the falsity of the factual averments develop and establish a national system
in the plaintiffs application and affidavitsof skills standardization, testing, and
on which the writ was based andcertification in the country. To fulfill this
consequently that the writ based thereon mandate, it sought to issue securityhad been improperly or irregularly issued
printed certification and/or identification
the reason being that the hearing on
such a motion for dissolution of the writ polyvinyl (PVC) cards to trainees who
would be tantamount to a trial of thehave passed the certification process.
On December 29, 1999, TESDA
merits of the action. In other words, the
merits of the action would be ventilated and PROVI signed and executed their
at a mere hearing of a motion, instead of Contract Agreement Project: PVC ID Card
at the regular trial.
Issuance for the provision of goods and
The merits of the action in which a
services in the printing and encoding of
writ of preliminary attachment has been
issued are not triable on a motion for PVC cards. In return, TESDA would pay
dissolution of the attachment; otherwisePROVI the amount of (P39, 475,000)
an applicant for the lifting of the writ within fifteen (15) days after TESDAs
could force a trial of the merits of theacceptance of the contracted goods and
case on a mere motion.
services.
There are only two ways of
TESDA in turn undertook to pay
quashing a writ of attachment: (a) by
filing a counterbound immediately; or (b)PROVI thirty percent (30%) of the total
by moving to quash on the ground of cost of the supplies within thirty (30) days
improper and irregular issuance. These after receipt and acceptance of the
grounds for the dissolution of ancontracted supplies, with the balance
attachment are fixed in Rule 57 of the payable within thirty (30) days after the
Rules of Court and the power of the Court initial payment. PROVI further alleged
to
dissolve
an
attachment
is
that out of TESDAs liability of P39,
circumscribed by the grounds specified
therein. Petitioners motion to lift475,000.00, TESDA paid PROVI only
attachment failed to demonstrate anyP3,739,500.00, leaving an outstanding
infirmity or defect in the issuance of the balance of P35,735,500.00.Despite the
writ of attachment; neither did he file a two demand letters that PROVI sent
counterbond.
TESDA the outstanding balance remained
Held:

10
unpaid.

Issue:
On July 11, 2001, PROVI filed
Whether or not the writ of
with the RTC a complaint for sum of attachment against TESDA and its funds,
money with damages against TESDA.to cover PROVIs claim against TESDA, is
PROVI additionally prayed for thevalid. The issue involves a pure question
issuance of a writ of preliminaryof law and requires us to determine
attachment/garnishment against TESDA.whether the CA was correct in ruling that
The RTC granted PROVIs prayer andthe RTC gravely abused its discretion in
issued a writ of preliminary attachment issuing a writ of attachment against
against the properties of TESDA not TESDA.
exempt from execution in the amount of
P35,000,000.00.
Ruling:
TESDA responded on July 24,
We find, as the CA did, that the
2001
by
filing
a
Motion
toRTCs questioned order involved a
Discharge/Quash the Writ of Attachment,gross misreading of the law and
arguing mainly that public funds cannot jurisprudence amounting to action in
be the subject of garnishment.
excess of its jurisdiction. Hence, we
RTC denied TESDAs motion, andresolve to DENY PROVIs petition for
subsequently ordered the manager of thelack of merit.
Land Bank of the Philippines to produce TESDA is an instrumentality of the
TESDAs
bank
statement
for
thegovernment
undertaking
garnishment of the covered amount. governmental functions.
Faced with these rulings, TESDA filed a
R.A. No. 7796 created the Technical
Petition for Certiorari with the CA toEducation
and
Skills
Development
question the RTC orders, imputing grave Authority or TESDA under the declared
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or policy of the State to provide relevant,
excess of jurisdiction on the trial court for accessible, high quality and efficient
issuing a writ of preliminary attachment technical
education
and
skills
against TESDAs public funds.
development
in
support
of
the
CA set aside the RTCs ordersdevelopment of high quality Filipino
after finding that: (a) TESDAs funds are middle-level manpower responsive to and
public in nature and, therefore, exempt in
accordance
with
Philippine
from garnishment; and
(b) TESDAsdevelopment
goals
and
priorities.
purchase of the PVC cards was a TESDA replaced and absorbed the
necessary incident of its governmental National Manpower and Youth Council, the
function; consequently, it ruled that there Bureau of Technical and Vocational
was no legal basis for the issuance of a Education and the personnel and
writ
of
preliminaryfunctions
pertaining
to
technicalattachment/garnishment.
The
CAvocational education in the regional
subsequently denied PROVIs motion foroffices of the Department of Education,
reconsideration; hence, the presentCulture and Sports and the apprenticeship
petition.
program of the Bureau of Local
Employment of the DOLE. Thus, TESDA is
an unincorporated instrumentality of the

11
government operating under its ownis based on the very essence of
charter.
sovereignty, and on the practical ground
All
these
measures
arethat there can be no legal right as against
undertaken pursuant to the constitutional the authority that makes the law on which
command that The State affirms labor asthe right depends. It also rests on reasons
a primary social economic force, and of public policy that public service
shall protect the rights of workers andwould be hindered, and the public
promote their welfare; that The Stateendangered, if the sovereign authority
shall protect and promote the right of all could be subjected to law suits at the
citizens to quality education at all levels,instance
of
every
citizen
and,
and shall take appropriate steps to makeconsequently, controlled in the uses and
such education accessible to all; in orderdispositions of the means required for the
to afford protection to labor andproper administration of the government.
promote full employment and equality of
The proscribed suit that the state
employment opportunities for all.
immunity principle covers takes on
Under
these
terms,
bothvarious forms, namely: a suit against the
constitutional and statutory, we do not Republic by name; a suit against an
believe that the role and status of TESDAunincorporated government agency; a
can seriously be contested: it is an suit against a government agency
unincorporated instrumentality of thecovered by a charter with respect to the
government, directly attached to theagencys performance of governmental
DOLE through the participation of thefunctions; and a suit that on its face is
Secretary of Labor as its Chairman, for against a government officer, but where
the
performance
of
governmentalthe ultimate liability will fall on the
functions i.e., the handling of formal andgovernment. In the present case, the writ
non-formal education and training, andof attachment was issued against a
skills development. As an unincorporatedgovernment agency covered by its own
instrumentality operating under a specificcharter. As discussed above, TESDA
charter, it is equipped with both express performs governmental functions, and the
and implied powers, and all Stateissuance of certifications is a task within
immunities fully apply to it.
its
function
of
developing
and
establishing
a
system
of
skills
TESDA, as an agency of the State, standardization, testing, and certification
cannot be sued without its consent. in the country. From the perspective of
this function, the core reason for the
The rule that a state may not beexistence of state immunity applies i.e.,
sued without its consent is embodied inthe public policy reason that the
Section 3, Article XVI of the 1987performance of governmental function
Constitution and has been an established cannot be hindered or delayed by suits,
principle that antedates this Constitution.nor can these suits control the use and
It is as well a universally recognized disposition of the means for the
principle of international law thatperformance of governmental functions.
exempts a state and its organs from the
PROVI argues that TESDA can be
jurisdiction of another state.The principlesued because it has effectively waived its

12
immunity when it entered into a contractinto a proprietary contract with PROVI and
with PROVI for a commercial purpose. thereby gave its implied consent to be
According to PROVI, since the purpose of sued, TESDAs funds are still public in
its contract with TESDA is to providenature and, thus, cannot be the valid
identification PVC cards with security subject of a writ of garnishment or
seal, which TESDA will thereafter sell to attachment. Under Section 33 of the
TESDA trainees, TESDA thereby engagesTESDA Act, the TESDA budget for the
in commercial transactions not incidental implementation of the Act shall be
to its governmental functions.
included
in
the
annual
General
TESDAs response to thisAppropriation Act; hence, TESDA funds,
position is to point out that it is notbeing sourced from the Treasury, are
engaged in business, and there is nothing moneys belonging to the government, or
in the records to show that its purchase of any of its departments, in the hands of
the PVC cards from PROVI is for apublic officials. We specifically spoke of
business purpose. While TESDA admits the limits in dealing with this fund in
that it will charge the trainees with a fee Republic v. Villasor when we said:
for the PVC cards, it claims that this fee is
This
fundamental
postulate
only to recover their costs and is notunderlying the 1935 Constitution is now
intended for profit.
made explicit in the revised charter. It is
We agree with TESDA. As thetherein expressly provided, The State
appellate court found, the PVC cardsmay not be sued without its consent. A
purchased by TESDA from PROVI are corollary, both dictated by logic and
meant to properly identify the trainees sound sense, from such a basic concept,
who passed TESDAs National Skillsis that public funds cannot be the
Certification Program the program that object of garnishment proceedings
immediately serves TESDAs mandatedeven if the consent to be sued had
function of developing and establishing a been previously granted and the
national system of skills standardization,state liability adjudged. Thus in the
testing, and certification in the country.
recent case of Commissioner of Public
That TESDA sells the PVC cardsHighways vs. San Diego, such a wellto its trainees for a fee does not settled doctrine was restated in the
characterize the transaction as industrial opinion of Justice Teehankee:
or
business;
the
sale,
expressly
The universal rule that where the
authorized by the TESDA Act, cannot be State gives its consent to be sued by
considered separately from TESDAsprivate parties either by general or
general governmental functions, as they special law, it may limit claimant's action
are undertaken in the discharge of these 'only up to the completion of proceedings
functions.
anterior to the stage of execution' and
that the power of the Courts ends when
TESDAs
funds
are
public
in the
judgment
is
rendered,
since
character,
hence
exempt
from government funds and properties may not
attachment or garnishment.
be seized under writs of execution or
garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is
Even assuming that TESDA enteredbased on obvious considerations of public

13
policy. Disbursements of public fundsshe not having allegedly passed the
must
be
covered
by
theprobationary period. As the Ministry
corresponding
appropriation
asdenied
respondents
request
for
required by law. The functions andreconsideration, she returned to the
public services rendered by the State Philippines
on
March
17,
2001,
cannot be allowed to be paralyzed orshouldering her own air fare.
disrupted by the diversion of public
On July 27, 2001, respondent
funds from their legitimate andfiled with the NLRC a complaint for illegal
specific objects, as appropriated bydismissal against petitioner ATCI as the
law.
local recruitment agency, represented by
For all these reasons, we support petitioner, Amalia Ikdal (Ikdal), and the
the appellate courts conclusion that noMinistry, as the foreign principal.
valid ground exists to support the grant of
The Labor Arbiter, finding that
the writ of attachment against TESDA. petitioners neither showed that there was
The CAs annulment and setting aside ofjust cause to warrant respondents
the Orders of the RTC were therefore fullydismissal nor that she failed to qualify as
in order.
a regular employee, held that respondent
WHEREFORE,
premiseswas illegally dismissed and accordingly
considered, we hereby DENY the petitionordered
petitioners
to
pay
her
filed by petitioner Professional Video, Inc., US$3,600.00, representing her salary for
and AFFIRM the Court of Appealsthe three months unexpired portion of
Decision.
her contract.
On appeal of petitioners ATCI and
Ikdal, the NLRC affirmed the Labor
Arbiters decision. They appealed to the
CA, contending that their principal, the
. ATCI OVERSEAS
Ministry, being a foreign government
CORPORATION, AMALIA G. agency, is immune from suit and, as such,
the immunity extended to them; and that
IKDAL and MINISTRY OF
PUBLIC HEALTH-KUWAIT vs. respondent was validly dismissed for her
failure to meet the performance rating
MA. JOSEFA ECHIN,
within the one-year period as required
G.R. No. 178551
under Kuwaits Civil Service Laws.
Facts:
Petitioners further contended that Ikdal
Josefina Echin was hired by ATCIshould not be liable as an officer of
Overseas Corporation in behalf of its petitioner ATCI but the CA affirmed the
principal-co-petitioner, the Ministry ofNLRC Resolution.
Public Health of Kuwait for the position of
In brushing aside petitioners
medical technologist under a two-yearcontention that they only acted as agent
contract, denominated as (MOA), with a of the Ministry and that they cannot be
monthly salary of US$1,200.00.
held jointly and solidarily liable with it,
Respondent was deployed onthe appellate court noted that under the
February 17, 2000 but was terminatedlaw, a private employment agency shall
from employment on February 11, 2001, assume all responsibilities for the

14
implementation of the contract ofinto by and between the local agent
employment of an overseas worker,and its foreign principal are not
hence, it can be sued jointly and severally coterminous with the term of such
with the foreign principal for any violationagreement so that if either or both of
of the recruitment agreement or contractthe parties decide to end the agreement,
of employment.
the responsibilities of such parties
As to Ikdals liability, thetowards the contracted employees under
appellate court held that under Sec. 10 of the agreement do not at all end, but the
Republic Act No. 8042, the Migrant and same extends up to and until the
Overseas
Filipinos
Act
of
1995,expiration of the employment contracts of
corporate officers, directors and partnersthe employees recruited and employed
of a recruitment agency may themselvespursuant
to
the
said
recruitment
be jointly and solidarily liable with the agreement. Otherwise, this will render
recruitment agency for money claims and nugatory the very purpose for which
damages awarded to overseas workers. the law governing the employment
of workers for foreign jobs abroad
Issue:
was enacted.
Whether ATCI Overseas Corporation
The imposition of joint and solidary
can be sued jointly and severally with the liability is in line with the policy of the
foreign principal for any violation of the state to protect and alleviate the plight of
contract of employment.
the working class. Verily, to allow
petitioners to simply invoke the immunity
Ruling:
from suit of its foreign principal or to wait
Petitioner ATCI, as a privatefor the judicial determination of the
recruitment
agency,
cannot
evadeforeign
principals
liability
before
responsibility for the money claims of petitioner can be held liable renders the
Overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) which itlaw on joint and solidary liability inutile.
deploys abroad by the mere expediency Respecting Ikdals joint and solidary
of claiming that its foreign principal is a liability as a corporate officer, the same is
government
agency
clothed
within order too following the express
immunity from suit, or that such foreignprovision of R.A. 8042 on money claims,
principals
liability
must
first
be viz:
established before it, as agent, can be
SEC.
10.
Money
Claims.
held jointly and solidarily liable.
Notwithstanding any provision of law to
In providing for the joint andthe contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the
solidary liability of private recruitmentNational Labor Relations Commission
agencies with their foreign principals, (NLRC) shall have the original and
Republic Act No. 8042 precisely affordsexclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide,
the OFWs with recourse and assures them within ninety (90) calendar days after the
of immediate and sufficient payment offiling of the complaint, the claims arising
what is due them. Skippers United Pacific out of an employer-employee relationship
v. Maguadexplains:
or by virtue of any law or contract
. . . [T]he obligations covenanted ininvolving Filipino workers for overseas
the recruitment agreement entereddeployment including claims for actual

15
moral, exemplary and other forms oftake necessary precautionary measures,
damages.
such as sequestration, to freeze the
The
liability
of
theassets in order to preserve their existing
principal/employer
and
thevalue and prevent any further transfer
recruitment/placement agency for anythereof (herein referred to as the IMAC
and all claims under this section shall be request.
joint and several. This provision shall be
On 29 May 1986, the Office of the
incorporated in the contract for overseas District Attorney in Zurich, pursuant to
employment and shall be a conditionthe OSGs request, issued an Order
precedent
for
its
approval.
Thedirecting the Swiss Banks in Zurich to
performance bond to be filed by thefreeze the accounts of the accused in
recruitment/placement
agency,
asPCGG I.S. No. 1 and in the List of
provided by law, shall be answerable for Companies
and
Foundations.
In
all money claims or damages that may be compliance with said Order, Bankers Trust
awarded to the workers. If theA.G. (BTAG) of Zurich froze the accounts
recruitment/placement agency is aof Officeco Holdings, N.V. (Officeco).
juridical being, the corporate officers
Officeco appealed the Order of the
and directors and partners as theDistrict Attorney to the Attorney General
case may be, shall themselves beof the Canton of Zurich. The Attorney
jointly and solidarily liable with the General affirmed the Order of the District
corporation or partnership for theAttorney. Officeco further appealed to the
aforesaid claims and damages.
Swiss Federal Court, which likewise
dismissed the appeal on 31 May 1989.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
Thereafter, in late 1992, Officeco
made representations with the OSG and
GUNIGUNDO vs. SB
the PCGG for them to officially advise the
Swiss Federal Office for Police Matters to
Facts:
unfreeze Officecos assets. The PCGG
On 7 April 1986, in connection with required
Officeco
to
present
criminal proceedings initiated in thecountervailing evidence to support its
Philippines to locate, sequester and seek request.
restitution of alleged ill-gotten wealth
Instead of complying with the
amassed by the Marcoses and otherPCGG requirement for it to submit
accused from the Philippine Government,countervailing
evidence,
on
12
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)September 1994, Officeco filed the
wrote the Federal Office for Police Matters complaint, which was docketed as Civil
in
Berne,
Switzerland,
requestingCase No. 0164 of the Sandiganbayan. The
assistance for the latter office to: (a) complaint prayed for the PCGG and the
ascertain and provide the OSG withOSG to officially advise the Swiss
information as to where and in whichgovernment to exclude from the freeze or
cantons the ill-gotten fortune of the sequestration order the account of
Marcoses and other accused are located,Officeco with BTAG and to unconditionally
the names of the depositors and therelease the said account to Officeco. SB
banks and the amounts involved; and (b) accordingly moved to dismiss the case

7.

16
but was denied
held that international law does not
Thus this case where PCGG allegesrequire the application of this doctrine nor
the that the case shoukd be dismissed on does it forbid the application of the rule
the following grounds: (1) res judicata; (2) even if it is claimed that the act of state
lack of jurisdiction on account of the act in question violated international law.
of state doctrine; (3) lack of cause ofMoreover, due to the doctrines peculiar
action for being premature for failure to nation-to-nation character, in practice the
exhaust administrative remedies; and (4)usual method for an individual to seek
lack of cause of action for the reason that relief is to exhaust local remedies and
mandamus does not lie to compelthen repair to the executive authorities of
performance of a discretionary act, therehis own state to persuade them to
being no showing of grave abuse of champion his claim in diplomacy or
discretion on the part of petitioners.
before an international tribunal.
Even assuming that international
Issue:
law requires the application of the act of
Whether or not there is a lack ofstate doctrine, it bears stressing that the
jurisdiction in the account of the doctrineSandiganbayan will not examine and
of the "act of state."
review the freeze orders of the concerned
Swiss officials in Civil Case No. 0164. The
Ruling:
Sandiganbayan will not require the Swiss
Every sovereign state is bound toofficials to submit to its adjudication nor
respect the independence of every otherwill it settle a dispute involving said
state, and the courts of one country will officials. In fact, as prayed for in the
not sit in judgment on the acts of thecomplaint, the Sandiganbayan will only
government of another, done within its review and examine the propriety of
territory. Redress of grievances by reason maintaining PCGGs position with respect
of such acts must be obtained through to Officecos accounts with BTAG for the
the means open to be availed of by purpose of further determining the
sovereign
powers
as
betweenpropriety of issuing a writ against the
themselves.
PCGG
and
the
OSG.
Everything
It is petitioners contention that the considered, the act of state doctrine finds
Sandiganbayan could not grant or denyno
application
in
this
case
and
the prayers in [Officecos] complaintpetitioners resort to it is utterly mislaid.
without first examining and scrutinizing
the freeze order of the Swiss officials in WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
the light of the evidence, which however instant petition is DISMISSED.
is in the possession of said officials and
that it would therefore sit in judgment on
MUNICHER vs. CA
the acts of the government of another
country. We disagree.
The parameters of the use of theFacts:
Khosrow Minucher is the Labor
act of state doctrine were clarified in
Banco
Nacional
de
Cuba
v.Attach of the Embassy of Iran in the Phil.
Sabbatino. There, the U.S. Supreme Court Arthur Scalzo, then connected with the

8.

17
American Embassy in Manila, wasMinucher for drug trafficking), Scalzo is
introduced to him by Jose Inigo (an clothed with diplomatic immunity.
informer belonging to the military
intelligence community).
Issue:
Accdg. to Inigo, Scalzo was
Whether or not a complaint for
interested in buying Iranian products like damages be dismissed in the sole basis of
caviar and carpets. Minucher complaineda statement complained in a Diplomatic
to Scalzo about his problems with the Note.
American Embassy regarding the expired
visas of his wife, Abbas Torabian. Offering Ruling:
help, Scalzo gave Minucher a calling card
No. Jurisdiction over the person of
showing that the former is an agent of the the defendant is acquired by either
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)voluntary appearance or by the service of
assigned to the American Embassy in summons. In the case, Scalzo's counsel
Manila. As a result, Scalzo expressed hisfiled a motion to quash, which, in effect
intent to buy caviar and further promised already waived any defect in the service
to arrange the renewal of the visas.
of summons by earlier asking an
Scalzo
went
to
Minucher'sextension to file time to file an Answer
residence and asked to be entrusted with and filing an Answer with Counterclaim.
Persian silk carpets, for which he had a
The complaint for damages cannot
buyer. The next day, Scalzo returned and be dismissed. Said complaint contains
claimed that he had already madesufficient allegations which indicate that
arrangements
with
his
contactsScalzo committed imputed acts in his
concerning the visas and asked forpersonal capacity and outside the scope
$2,000.
of his official duties and functions. The TC
It turned out that Scalzo prepared agave credit to Minucher's theory that he
plan to frame-up a Minucher and wife forwas a victim of frame-up hence, there is a
alleged heroin trafficking. Both were prima facie showing that Scalzo could be
falsely arrested and charged withheld personally liable for his acts. Further,
violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
Scalzo did not come forward with
Minucher prays for actual andevidence to, prove that he acted in his
compensatory
damages.
However,official capacity.
counsel for Scalzo filed a motion to quash
summons alleging that the defendant is
THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA,
beyond the processes of the Philippine
court for the action for damages is a HIS EXCELLENCY AMBASSADOR
SOERATMIN, and MINISTER
personal action and that Scalzo is outside
COUNSELLOR AZHARI KASIM, vs.
the Philippines.
TC
denied
the
motion.
CA JAMES VINZON, doing business
dismissed the motion for lack of merit on
under the name and style of
the basis of the erroneous assumption VINZON TRADE AND SERVICES
that because of the Diplomatic Note
G.R. No. 154705. June 26, 2003
(advising the DFA that Scalzo is a member
of the US diplomatic mission investigating

9.

18
Facts:
an Opposition alleging that the State had
Petitioner, Republic of Indonesia,waived its immunity as provided in the
entered into a Maintenance Agreement in provision of the agreement that "Any
August 1995 with respondent Jameslegal
action
arising
out
of
this
Vinzon, sole proprietor of Vinzon TradeMaintenance Agreement shall be settled
and
Services.
The
Maintenanceaccording to the laws of the Philippines
Agreement stated that respondent shall, and by the proper court of Makati City".
for a consideration, maintain specified
The trial court denied herein
equipment at the Embassy Main Building,petitioners Motion to Dismiss. It likewise
Embassy Annex Building and the Wisma denied the Motion for Reconsideration
Duta, the official residence of petitioner subsequently filed.
Ambassador Soeratmin. It covered air
The Court of Appeals rendered its
conditioning
units,
generator
sets,assailed decision denying the petition for
electrical facilities, water heaters, andlack of merit. It denied herein petitioners
water motor pumps. It is likewise stated motion for reconsideration.
therein that the agreement shall be
effective for a period of four years andIssue:
will renew itself automatically unless
cancelled by either party by giving thirty
Whether or not the Court of
days prior written notice from the date of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial
expiry.
courts decision that petitioners have
Petitioners before the expiration ofwaived their immunity from suit by using
the term of the agreement informed theas its basis the abovementioned provision
respondent that the renwal of theirin the Maintenance Agreement.
agreement shall be the discretion of the
incoming Chief of Administration, MinisterRuling:
counsellor Azhari Kasim. The latter
allegedly found respondents work and The petition is impressed with merit.
services unsatisfactory and not in
The rule that a State may not be
compliance with the standards set in thesued without its consent is a necessary
Maintenance Agreement.
Hence, theconsequence
of
the
principles
of
Indonesian Embassy terminated theindependence and equality of States. As
agreement in a letter dated August 31,enunciated in Sanders v. Veridiano II, the
2000.
practical justification for the doctrine of
sovereign immunity is that there can be
Respondent claimed that the terminationno legal right against the authority that
was arbitrary which caused to them to file makes the law on which the right
a complaint against the petitioner independs. In the case of foreign States,
court. The petitioners filed a motion to the rule is derived from the principle of
dismiss on the ground that the Republic the sovereign equality of States, as
of Indonesia, as a foreign sovereign State, expressed in the maxim par in parem non
has sovereign immunity from suit andhabet imperium. A contrary attitude
cannot be sued as a party-defendant in would unduly vex the peace of nations.
the Philippines. However, respondent filed
The restrictive theory, holds that

19
the immunity of the sovereign is
NICOLAS vs ROMULO
recognized only with regard to public acts
GR No. 175888
or acts jure imperii, but not with regard to
private acts or acts jure gestionis.
The mere entering into a contract Facts:
Respondent Lance Corporal (L/CPL)
by a foreign State with a private party
Daniel
Smith is a member of the United
cannot be construed as the ultimate test
of whether or not it is an act jure imperii States Armed Forces based in the
or jure gestionis. Such act is only the start Philippines pursuant to the Visisting
of the inquiry. Is the foreign StateForces Agreement (VFA). He was charged
engaged in the regular conduct of awith the crime of rape committed against
business? If the foreign State is not a Filipina, petitioner Suzette Nicolas who
engaged regularly in a business or was popularly known as Nicole.
After series of trials, the court
commercial activity, and in this case it
has not been shown to be so engaged, found Smith guilty of the rape and
the particular act or transaction mustacquitted five others. As a result, the
then be tested by its nature. If the act isMakati court ordered Smith detained at
in pursuit of a sovereign activity, or anthe Makati jail until further orders.
incident thereof, then it is an act jureHowever, defendant Smith was taken out
of the Makati jail by a contingent of
imperii.
law
enforcement
agents,
Hence, the existence alone of aPhilippine
paragraph in a contract stating that anypurportedly acting under orders of the
legal action arising out of the agreementDepartment of the Interior and Local
shall be settled according to the laws of Government, and brought to a facility for
the Philippines and by a specified court ofdetention under the control of the United
the Philippines is not necessarily a waiver States government, provided for under
of sovereign immunity from suit. The new agreements between the Philippines
aforesaid provision contains language notand the United States referred to as the
necessarily inconsistent with sovereignRomulo-Kenney Agreement of December
immunity. On the other hand, such 19, 2006 which states:
"The Government of the Republic of
provision may also be meant to apply
the
Philippines
and the Government of
where the sovereign party elects to sue in
the local courts, or otherwise waives its the United States of America agree that,
immunity by any subsequent act. Thein accordance with the Visiting Forces
applicability of Philippine laws must beAgreement signed between our two
deemed to include Philippine laws in itsnations, Lance Corporal Daniel J. Smith,
totality,
including
the
principleUnited States Marine Corps, be returned
recognizing sovereign immunity. Hence,to U.S. military custody at the U.S.
the proper court may have no properEmbassy in Manila" and the Romuloaction, by way of settling the case, exceptKenney Agreement of December 22, 2006
to dismiss it. We find no such waiver in which states:
"The Department of Foreign Affairs
this case.
of the Republic of the Philippines and the
Embassy of the United States of America

10.

20
agree that, in accordance with the Visiting recognized by the said State. Notice can
Forces Agreement signed between thebe taken of the internationally known
two nations, upon transfer of Lancepractice by the United States of
Corporal Daniel J. Smith, United States submitting to its Senate for advice and
Marine Corps, from the Makati City Jail, heconsent
agreements
that
are
will be detained at the first floor, Rowepolicymaking in nature, whereas those
(JUSMAG)
Building,
U.S.
Embassythat carry out or further implement these
Compound in a room of approximately 10 policymaking agreements are merely
x 12 square feet. He will be guardedsubmitted to Congress, under the
round the clock by U.S. militaryprovisions of the so-called CaseZablocki
personnel. The Philippine police and jailAct, within sixty days from ratification.
authorities, under the direct supervision
Second, it has to do with the
of the Philippine Department of Interiorrelation between the VFA and the RP-US
and Local Government (DILG) will haveMutual Defense Treaty of August 30,
access to the place of detention to ensure 1951. This earlier agreement was signed
the United States is in compliance withand duly ratified with the concurrence of
the terms of the VFA".
both the Philippine Senate and the United
The matter what brought to the CA but States Senate. The purpose of the joint
was dismissed for having become moot. RP-US military exercises is for the
development of the capability to resist an
Issue:
armed attack fall squarely under the
Whether Philippines should haveprovisions of the RP-US Mutual Defense
custody of defendant Smith because the Treaty. The VFA, which is the instrument
VFA
is
void
and
unconstitutional agreed upon to provide for the joint RP-US
considering that it was not submiited formilitary
exercises,
is
simply
an
advice and consent of the United States implementing agreement to the main RPSenate thus, thus does not justify its US Military Defense Treaty.
presence.
Accordingly, as an implementing
agreement of the RP-US Mutual Defense
Ruling:
Treaty, it was not necessary to submit the
VFA to the US Senate for advice and
The Court resolved in favor of the consent, but merely to the US Congress
constitutionality of the VFA for twounder the CaseZablocki Act within 60
reasons.
days of its ratification. It is for this reason
First, the VFA was duly concurred inthat the US has certified that it recognizes
by the Philippine Senate and has been the VFA as a binding international
recognized as a treaty by the Unitedagreement, i.e., a treaty, and this
States as attested and certified by the substantially
complies
with
the
duly authorized representative of the requirements of Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 of our
United States government. The fact that Constitution which states:
the VFA was not submitted for advice and
Sec. 25. After the expiration in
consent of the United States Senate does 1991 of the Agreement between the
not detract from its status as a binding Philippines and the United States of
international
agreement
or
treatyAmerica
concerning
Military
Bases,

21
foreign military bases, troops, or facilities Kenney Agreements of December 19 and
shall not be allowed in the Philippines 22, 2006, which are agreements on the
except under a treaty duly concurred in detention of the accused in the United
by the Senate and, when the Congress so States Embassy, are not in accord with
requires, ratified by a majority of the the VFA itself because such detention is
votes cast by the people in a national not by Philippine authorities.
referendum held for that purpose, and
WHEREFORE, the petitions are
recognized as a treaty by the otherPARTLY GRANTED, and the Court of
contracting State.
Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. SP No.
The provision of Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 97212 dated January 2, 2007 is
of the Constitution, is complied with byMODIFIED. The Visiting Forces Agreement
virtue of the fact that the presence of the (VFA) between the Republic of the
US Armed Forces through the VFA is a Philippines and the United States, entered
presence allowed under the RP-USinto on February 10, 1998, is UPHELD as
Mutual Defense Treaty. Since the RP-USconstitutional, but the Romulo-Kenney
Mutual Defense Treaty itself has been Agreements of December 19 and 22,
ratified and concurred in by both the2006 are DECLARED not in accordance
Philippine Senate and the US Senate,with the VFA, and respondent Secretary of
there is no violation of the Constitutional Foreign Affairs is hereby ordered to
provision resulting from such presence.forthwith negotiate with the United States
The VFA being a valid and binding representatives
for
the
appropriate
agreement, the parties are required as aagreement on detention facilities under
matter of international law to abide by itsPhilippine authorities as provided in Art.
terms and provisions. Criminal jurisdiction V, Sec. 10 of the VFA, pending which the
of the VFA states:
status quo shall be maintained until
Sec. 10.
The confinement orfurther orders by this Court.
detention by Philippine authorities of
United States personnel shall be carriedNOTE:
out in facilities agreed on by appropriate
VFA is a self-executing Agreement ,
Philippines and United States authorities. as that term is defined in Medellin itself,
United
States
personnel
servingbecause the parties intend its provisions
sentences in the Philippines shall have to be enforceable , precisely because the
the right to visits and material assistance. Agreement is intended to carry out
It is clear that the parties to theobligations and undertakings under the
VFA recognized the difference between RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty. As a matter
custody during the trial and detention of fact, the VFA has been implemented
after conviction, because they providedand executed, with the US faithfully
for a specific arrangement to covercomplying with its obligation to produce
detention. And this specific arrangementL/CPL Smith before the court during the
clearly states not only that the detentiontrial.
shall be carried out in facilities agreed on
VFA is covered by implementing
by authorities of both parties, but alsolegislation, namely, the Case-Zablocki
that the detention shall be by Philippine Act, USC Sec. 112(b) , inasmuch as it is
authorities. Therefore, the Romulo- the very purpose and intent of the US

22
Congress that executive agreementsMedellin decision. The Convention and
registered under this Act within 60 days the ICJ decision are not self-executing and
from their ratification be immediatelyare not registrable under the Caseimplemented.
The parties to theseZablocki Act, and thus lack legislative
present cases do not question the fact implementing authority.
that the VFA has been registered under
the CaseZablocki Act. In sum, therefore,
-Exclusive: For Scintilla Onlythe VFA differs from the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations and the
Avena decision of the International Court
of Justice (ICJ), subject matter of the