CASE TITLE: Municipality of San Fernando La Union v.
Firme
KEY TAKE-AWAY: Suability is not equal to liability. A
municipality can only be liable for a quasi-delict committed
by one of its regular employees when such employee is
engaged in a proprietary function. If he/she was engaged in
a governmental function, the municipality cannot be held
liable.
DATE/GR NO/SCRA: April 8, 1991/ G.R. No. L-52179
PONENTE: MEDIALDEA, J
PETITIONER: MUNICIPALITY OF SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION
RESPONDENT: HON. JUDGE ROMEO N. FIRME, JUANA
RIMANDO-BANIA, IAUREANO BANIA, JR., SOR MARIETA
BANIA, MONTANO BANIA, ORJA BANIA, AND LYDIA R.
BANIA
NAME OF PERSON WHO MADE DIGEST: OWDYLYN LEE
FACTS:
Petition: certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction seeking the nullification or
modification of the proceedings and the orders issued by
the respondent Judge Romeo N. Firme
Factual Antecedents:
A passenger jeepney, a sand truck and a dump truck of the
Municipality of San Fernando, La Union collided. Due to the
impact, several passengers of the jeepney including
Laureano Bania Sr. died. The heirs of Bania filed a
complaint for damages against the owner and driver of the
jeepney, who, in turn, filed a Third Party Complaint against
the Municipality and its dump truck driver, Alfredo Bislig.
Municipality filed its answer and raised the defense of non-
suability of the State. After trial, the court ruled in favor of
the plaintiffs and ordered Municipality and Bislig to pay
jointly and severally the heirs of Bania.
ISSUES:
1. W/N the respondent court committed GAD when it
deferred and failed to resolve the defense of non-suability of
the State amounting to lack of jurisdiction in a motion to
dismiss.
2. W/N the respondent court committed GAD when he held
that the municipality is liable for the quasi-delict committed
by its regular employee.
HELD:
1. No.
The doctrine of non-suability of the state is expressly
provided in Aticle 16, Section3 of the Constitution, The
State may not be sued without its consent." Thus, the
general rule is that they cant be sued without its express or
implied consent. Such consent can be found in the general
or special law. Unfortunately for the municipality, it is
written under their charter that they can sue and be sued.
2. Yes.
The question of whether or not the municipality can be held
liable for torts committed by its employee depends on
whether or not the driver is performing governmental or
proprietary functions. If the employee was committing a
governmental function, they (the municipality) are generally
not liable for torts committed by such employee; but if the
employee was acting in a proprietary capacity, the
municipality shall be liable for the tort committed. It has
been held in a different case that the construction or
maintenance of roads is considered governmental activities.
In the case at bar, the driver was on his way to get a load of
sand and gravel for the repair of the municipality street,
which is an act of exercising a governmental function. Thus,
the municipality cannot be held liable for torts committed by
its regular employee.