case digest consti 2nd batch (1)

8/19/2019 Case Digest Consti 2nd Batch (1)

1/43

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 – CASE DIGEST BATCH 2

1. AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE VS SPOUSES DAVID AND ELISEA RAMOSGR. NO. 159402

FACTS:Spouses David and Elisea Ramos (respondents) discovered that a portion of

their land registered under Transfer Certicate of Title No. T-!!"# of

the $aguio Cit% land records &ith an area of "! s'uare meters more or less &as eing

used as part of the run&a% and running shoulder of the *oa+an ,irport eing operated

% petitioner ,ir Transportation ce (,T). n ,ugust // /"" the respondents

agreed after negotiations to conve% the a0ected portion % deed of sale to the ,T in

consideration of the amount of122!/3.33. 4o&ever the ,T failed to pa% despite

repeated veral and &ritten demands.

Thus on ,pril 5" /""! the respondents led an action for collection against the

,T and some of its ocials in the RTC (doc+eted as Civil Case No. #3/2-R and entitled

Spouses David and Elisea Ramos v. Air Transportation Ofce, Capt. PanloVillaruel, Gen.

Carlos Tanea, and !r. Cesar de "esus).

6n their ans&er the ,T and its co-defendants invo+ed as an armative defense

the issuance of 1roclamation No. /7! &here% 1resident 8arcos had reserved certain

parcels of land that included the respondents a0ected portion for use ofthe *oa+an ,irport. The% asserted that the RTC had no 9urisdiction to entertain the

action &ithout the States consent considering that the deed of sale had een entered

into in the performance of governmental functions.

n Novemer /3 /""! the RTC denied the ,Ts motion for a preliminar%

hearing of the armative defense.

Suse'uentl% :eruar% 5/ 533/ the RTC rendered its decision on the merits

;#4ERE:RE the 9udgment is rendered RDER6N? the defendant ,ir Transportation ce to pa% the plainti0s D,@6D and E*6SE, R,8S thefollo&ing= (/) The amount of 122!/3.33 eing the value of the parcel ofland appropriated % the defendant ,T as emodied in the Deed of Saleplus an annual interest of /5A from ,ugust // /"" the date of the Deedof Sale until full% paidB (5) The amount of 1/3333.33 % &a% of moraldamages and 1/3333.33 as eemplar% damagesB (7) the amountof 13333.33 % &a% of attorne%s fees plus 1/333.33 representing the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/159402.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/159402.htm#_ftn7


2/43

/3 more or less court appearances of plainti0s counselB (#) The costs ofthis suit.

6n due course the ,T appealed to the C, &hich armed the RTCs decision on 8a% /#

5337B

6N @6E> : ,** T4E :RE?6N? the appealed decision is

here% ,::6R8ED &ith 8D6:6C,T6N that the a&arded cost thereinis deleted &hile that of moral and eemplar% damages is reducedto 173333.33 each and attorne%s fees is lo&ered to 1/3333.33.

No cost.S RDERED.

4ence this appeal % petition for revie& on certiorari.

ISSUE:#$et$er or not t$e Air Transportation Ofce can %e sued &it$out t$e State's

consent.

S$ould t$e doctrine o( sovereint) immunit) or non*sua%ilit) o( t$e State %e e+tended

to t$e ATO

HELD:6n our vie& the C, there% correctl% appreciated the 9uridical character of the,T as an agenc% of the ?overnment not per(ormin a purel) overnmental orsoverein (unction ut &as instead involved in the management and maintenance ofthe *oa+an ,irport an activit% that &as not the eclusive prerogative of the State in its

sovereign capacit%. 4ence the ,T had no claim to the States immunit% from suit.

>e further oserve the doctrine of sovereign immunit% cannot e successfull% invo+edto defeat a valid claim for compensation arising from the ta+ing &ithout 9ustcompensation and &ithout the proper epropriation proceedings eing rst resorted toof the plainti0s propert%

*astl% the issue of &hether or not the ,T could e sued &ithout the States

consent has een rendered moot % the passage of Repulic ,ct No. "#"2, other&ise

+no&n as the Civil Aviation Aut$orit) Act o( -/. nder its Transitor% 1rovisions R.,.

No. "#"2 estalished in place of the ,T the Civil ,viation ,uthorit% of the 1hilippines

(C,,1) &hich there% assumed all of the ,Ts po&ers duties and rights assets real

and personal properties funds and revenues.

WHEREFORE, the Court denies the petition for revie& on certiorari, and arms

the decision promulgated % the Court of ,ppeals.


3/43

2. MUNICIPALIT OF SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION, petitionervs.HON. !UDGE ROMEO N. FIRME, !UANA RIMANDO"BANI#A, IAUREANO BANI#A, !R., SOR MARIETA BANI#A, MONTANO BANI#A, OR!A BANI#A, AND LDIA R.BANI#A, respondents.

FACTS:n Decemer / /" a collision occurred involving a passenger 9eepne% driven %$alagot and o&ned % the Estate of 8acarioNieveras a gravel and sand truc+ driven %

Fose 8anandeg and o&ned % Tan'uilino @elas'ueG and a dump truc+ of the 8unicipalit%of San :ernando *a nion and driven % ,lfredo $islig. Several passengers of the

9eepne% including *aureano$aniHa Sr. died as a result of the in9uries the% sustainedand # others su0ered var%ing degrees of ph%sical in9uries. The heirs of $aniHa Sr. led a complaint for damages against the Estate of Nieveras and$alagot. 4o&ever the aforesaid defendants led a Third 1art% Complaint against thepetitioner and the driver of a dump truc+ of petitioner. The case &as transferredto ranch presided % Fudge :irme. The heirs of $aniHa Sr. amended the complaint&herein the petitioner and its regular emplo%ee $islig &ere impleaded asdefendants.

Fudge :irme in its decision rendered the 8unicipalit% of San :ernandoand$islig 9ointl%and severall% liale to pa funeral epenses lot epected earnings moral damages andattorne%Is fees.

ISSUE:>hether or notBJ The respondent court committed grave ause of discretion &hen it deferred andfailed to resolve the defense of non-suailit% of the State amounting to lac+ of

9urisdiction in a motion to dismissJThe petitioner &as liale.

RULING:

The petitioner cannot e held liale % virtue of the non-suailit% of the State.

The general rule 6s that the State ma% not e sued ecept &hen it gives consent to e

sued (,rticle K@6 Sec. 7 of the Constitution.) Epress consent ma% e emodied in a

general la& or a special la&. The standing consent of the State to e sued in case of

mone% claims involving liailit% arising from contracts is found in ,ct No. 73!7. Consent

is implied &hen the government enters into usiness contracts and also &hen the State

les a complaint. 8unicipal corporations are agencies of the State &hen the% are

engaged in governmental functions and therefore should en9o% the sovereign immunit%

from suit. Nevertheless the% are su9ect to suit even in the performance of such

functions ecause their charter provided that the% can sue and e sued. 4o&ever the

circumstance that a state is suale does not necessaril% mean that it is lialeB on the

other hand it can never e held liale if it does not rst consent to e sued. *iailit% is

not conceded % the mere fact that the state has allo&ed itself to e sued. >hen the

state does &aive its sovereign immunit% it is onl% giving the plainti0 the chance to


4/43

prove if it can the defendant is liale.

8unicipal corporations are suale ecause their charters grant them the competence to

sue and e sued. Nevertheless the% are generall% not liale for torts committed %them in the disc$are o( overnmental (unctions and can %e $eld ans&era%le onl) i( it

can %e s$o&n t$at t$e) &ere actin in a proprietar) capacit) . 4ere the driver of

the dump truc+ of the municipalit% insisted that L$e &as on $is &a) to t$e

0auilianriver to et a load o( sand and ravel (or t$e repair o( San 1ernando's

municipal streets.M 6n the asence of an% evidence to the contrar% the regularit% of the

performance of ocial dut% is presumed pursuant to Section 7(m) of Rule /7/ of the

Revised Rules of Court.

4ence the SC held that the driver of the dump truc+ &as performing duties or tas+s

pertaining to his oce. 8unicipalit% cannot e held liale for the torts committed % its

regular emplo%ee &ho &as then engaged in the discharge of governmental functions.

$. M%&.'( S)& M*+%- F/&)& G.R. N'. L"3144, !%& 25, 1946

8N6C61,*6T : S,N 86?E* $*,C,N petitionervs.4NR,$*E SC,R C.

:ERN,NDEO in his capacit% as the 1residing Fudge $ranch 6@ $aliuag $ulacan The

1R@6NC6,* S4ER6:: of $ulacan 8,R?,R6T, D. @D,. DE 681ER6 ,DR,C6N 681ER6

RD*: 681ER6 CNR,D 681ER6 ERNEST 681ER6 ,*:RED 681ER6 C,R*S

681ER6 FR. F,N 681ER6 and S1SES 8,RCE* 16NED, and *C6*, 1N?C

respondents

1rior 1roceedings =1etitioner led a 8otion to Puash the &rit of eecution of the trial

court.

Theories=

1etioner= the municipalit%Qs propert% or funds are all pulic funds and eempt from

eecution.

Respondent= petioner has more than enough funds to meet its oligation.


5/43

9ectives=

1etioner= to annul the &rit of eecution

Respondent= to su9ect pulic funds to lev% and eecution

F)78

6n Civil Case entitled 8argarita D. @da. de 6mperio et al. vs. 8unicipal

?overnment of San 8iguel $ulacan et al. the then Court of :irst 6nstance of $ulacan

rendered 9udgment holding herein petitioner municipalit% liale to private

respondents .Thereafter herein private respondents moved for issuance of a &rit of

eecution for the satisfaction of the 9udgment. Respondent 9udge issued an order for

&rit of eecution. 1etitioner led a 8otion to 'uash the &rit of eecution on the ground

that the municipalit%Qs propert% or funds are all pulic fundseempt from eecution. The

said motion to 'uash &as ho&ever denied % the respondent 9udge. 1etitioner no&

comes to SC to annul trial courts &rit of eecution.

I%: >hether the funds of the municipalit% are pulic funds &hich are eempt fromeecution.

(>hether the funds of the 8unicipalit% of San 8iguel $ulacan in the hands of the

provincial and municipal treasurers of $ulacan and San 8iguel respectivel% are pulic

funds &hich are eempt from eecution for the satisfaction of the mone% 9udgment in

Civil Case No. 3#-$.)

H'-*&+: es.The funds are eempt from eecution.

>ell settled is the rule that pulic funds are not su9ect to lev% and eecution.

The reason for this &as eplained in that the% are held in trust for the people intended

and used for the accomplishment of the purposes for &hich municipal corporations are

created and that to su9ect said properties and pulic funds to eecution &ould

materiall% impede even defeat and in some instances destro% said purpose. 6t is the

settled doctrine of the la& that not onl% the pulic propert% ut also the taes and

pulic revenues of such corporations. Cannot e seiGed under eecution against them

either in the treasur% or &hen in transit to it. Fudgments rendered for taes and the

proceeds of such 9udgments in the hands of ocers of the la& are not su9ect to

eecution unless so declared % statute. Thus it is clear that all the funds of petitioner

municipalit% in the possession of the 8unicipal Treasurer of San 8iguel as &ell as those

in the possession of the 1rovincial Treasurer of $ulacan are also pulic funds and as

such the% are eempt from eecution. $esides 1residential Decree No. #22 +no&n as

The Decree on *ocal :iscal ,dministration

Section 5 (a) provides=SEC. 5. :undamental 1rinciples. *ocal government nancial

a0airs transactions and operations shall e governed % the fundamental principles set

forth hereunder=(a) No mone% shall e paid out of the treasur% ecept in pursuance of a

la&ful appropriation or other specic statutor% authorit%.


6/43

Disposition= The order of respondent 9udge granting issuance of a &rit of eecution are

SET ,S6DEB and respondents are here% en9oined from implementing the &rit of

eecution.

4. M%&*7*)-*8; '( M) 7'//'&*&+ *?%/=&8 '(=%&*7*)- (%& 8>/('/.


7/43

6n the case at ar the validit% of the RTC decision dated Fune # /"!2 is not disputed %petitioner. No appeal &as ta+en therefrom. :or three %ears no& petitioner has en9o%edpossession and use of the su9ect propert% not&ithstanding its inecusale failure tocompl% &ith its legal oligation to pa% 9ust compensation. 1etitioner has eneted fromits possession of the propert% since the same has een the site of 8a+ati >est 4ighSchool since the school %ear /"!-/"!2. This Court &ill not condone petitionerQs latant

refusal to settle its legal oligation arising from epropriation proceedings it had in factinitiated. 6t cannot e over-emphasiGed that &ithin the contet of the StateQs inherentpo&er of eminent domain

. . . ;9ithout prompt pa%ment compensation cannot e considered 9ust forthe propert% o&ner is made to su0er the conse'uence of eing immediatel% deprived of his land &hile eing made to &ait for a decade or more efore actuall% receiving theamount necessar% to cope &ith his loss ;Cosculluela v. The 4onorale Court of ,ppeals?.R. No. 222 ,ugust / /"!! /# SCR, 7"7 #33. See also 1rovincial ?overnmentof Sorsogon v. @da. de@illaro%a ?.R. No. #372 ,ugust 52 /"!2 /7 SCR, 5"/ S8)8@ '/ '( =*&&8 '=)*& >'%- ? /7* *8>*& 8> ?'%&'( ()*/ -); )& %8*7. I& 8> 7) )8 ?)/, 7'&*/*&+ 8>)8 )-%)?- /'/8;>) ?& 8) 7'=&)8*'& 8' ? )* )& 8> =%&*7*)-*8; * *&(%-- '*'& )& %8*-**&+ 8> /'/8; ('/ %?-*7 %/', ('/ 8>/ $6;)/, 8> C'%/8 & 8>)8 8> =%&*7*)-*8; >) >) ='/ 8>)& /)'&)?-8*= 8' ); (%-- 7'=&)8*'&.

>4ERE:RE the Court Resolved to RDER petitioner 8unicipalit% of 8a+ati toimmediatel% pa% 1hilippine Savings $an+ 6nc. and private respondent the amount of1#"73.#. 1etitioner is here% re'uired to sumit to this Court a report of itscompliance &ith the foregoing order &ithin a non-etendile period of S6KT (3) D,Sfrom the date of receipt of this resolution.

5. DALE SANDERS, AND A.S. MOREAU, !R, petitionersvs.HON. REGINO T. VERIDIANO II, ) P/**&+ !%+, B/)&7> I, C'%/8 '( F*/8I&8)&7 '( )=?)-, O-'&+)' C*8;, ANTHON M. ROSSI )& RALPH L.WERS, respondents.FACTS OF THE CASE:

1etitioner Sanders &as at the time the incident in 'uestion occurred the specialservices director of the .S. Naval Station (N,@ST,) in longapo Cit%. 1 1etitioner8oreau &as the commanding ocer of the Suic Naval $ase &hich includes the saidstation. 2 1rivate respondent Rossi is an ,merican citiGen &ith permanent residence inthe 1hilippines $ as so &as private respondent >%er &ho died t&o %ears ago. 4 The%

&ere oth emplo%ed as gameroom attendants in the special services department of theN,@ST, the former having een hired in /"2/ and the latter in /"". 5

n ctoer 7 /"2 the private respondents &ere advised that their emplo%ment hadeen converted from permanent full-time to permanent part-time e0ective ctoer /!/"2. 3 Their reaction &as to protest this conversion and to institute grievanceproceedings conformal% to the pertinent rules and regulations of the .S. Departmentof Defense. The result &as a recommendation from the hearing ocer &ho conductedthe proceedings for the reinstatement of the private respondents to permanent full-time


8/43

status plus ac+&ages. The report on the hearing contained the oservation thatSpecial Services management practices an autocratic form of supervision.

6n a letter addressed to petitioner 8oreau on 8a% /2 /"2 (,nne , of thecomplaint) Sanders disagreed &ith the hearing ocerQs report and as+ed for there9ection of the aovestated recommendation. The letter contained the statements that=

a ) 8r. Rossi tends to alienate most co-&or+ers and supervisorsB ) 8essrs. Rossi and>%ers have proven according to their immediate supervisors to e dicult emplo%eesto superviseB and c) even though the grievants &ere under oath not to discuss thecase &ith an%one (the%) placed the records in pulic places &here others not involvedin the case could hear.

n Novemer 2 /"2 efore the start of the grievance hearings a-letter (,nne $ ofthe complaint) purportedl% corning from petitioner 8oreau as the commanding generalof the .S. Naval Station in Suic $a% &as sent to the Chief of Naval 1ersonneleplaining the change of the private respondentQs emplo%ment status and re'uestingconcurrence there&ith. The letter did not carr% his signature ut &as signed % >.$.8oore Fr. % direction presumal% of 8oreau.

n the asis of these antecedent facts the private respondent led in the Court of :irst6nstance of longapo Cit% a for damages against the herein petitioners on Novemer !/"2. The plainti0s claimed that the letters contained lielous imputations that hadeposed them to ridicule and caused them mental anguish and that the pre9udgment ofthe grievance proceedings &as an invasion of their personal and proprietar% rights.

The private respondents made it clear that the petitioners &ere eing sued in theirprivate or personal capacit%. 4o&ever in a motion to dismiss led under a specialappearance the petitioners argued that the acts complained of &ere performed %them in the discharge of their ocial duties and that conse'uentl% the court had no

9urisdiction over them under the doctrine of state immunit%.

ISSUE: WON THE COURTS HAVE !URISDICTION OVER THE CASE" ASACCOMPANIED B THE PRINCIPLE OF STATE IMMUNIT.

HELD: There should e no 'uestion % no& that such complaint cannot prosper unlessthe government sought to e held ultimatel% liale has given its consent toQ e sued. So&e have ruled not onl% in $aer ut in man% other decisions &here &e upheld thedoctrine of state immunit% as applicale not onl% to our o&n government ut also toforeign states sought to e su9ected to the 9urisdiction of our courts. 15

The practical 9ustication for the doctrine as H'-= %8 *8, * 8>)8 8>/ 7)& ? &'-+)- /*+>8 )+)*&8 8> )%8>'/*8; >*7> =) -) '& >*7> 8> /*+>8&. 13 6n the case of foreign states the rule is derived from the principle of thesovereign e'ualit% of states &hich &isel% admonishes that par in parem non $a%etimperium and that a contrar% attitude &ould undul% ve the peace of nations. 1 uradherence to this precept is formall% epressed in ,rticle 66 Section 5 of ourConstitution &here &e reiterate from our previous charters that the 1hilippines adoptsthe generall% accepted principles of international la& as part of the la& of the land.

The case at ar to repeat comes under the rule and not under an% of the recogniGedeceptions. T> +'/&=&8 '( 8> U&*8 S8)8 >) &'8 +*& *8 7'&&8 8'


9/43

? % ('/ 8> '7*)- )78 '( 8> 8*8*'&/, >' 7)&&'8 )8*(; )&; %+=&8 8>)8 =); ? /&/ )+)*&8 8>=. ,s it is the ,merican governmentitself that &ill have to perform the armative act of appropriating the amount that ma%e ad9udged for the private respondents 8> 7'=-)*&8 =%8 ? *=* ('/ -)7<'( %/**78*'&.>e appreciate the assistance foreign decisions o0er us and not onl% from the nited

States ut also from Spain and other countries from &hich &e have derived some if notmost of our o&n la&s. $ut &e should not place undue and fa&ning reliance upon themand regard them as indispensale mental crutches &ithout &hich &e cannot come toour o&n decisions through the emplo%ment of our o&n endo&ments. W -* *& )*/&8 )=?*&7 )& =%8 7* '%/ '& /'?-= *& 8> -*+>8 '( '%/ '&*&8/8 )& &, )& '( '%/ %)-*8* )& & **';&7/)* ) ) '-,)& )-); *8> '%/ '& 7'&78 '( -) )& %8*7.

The private respondents must if the% are still sominded pursue their claim against thepetitioners in accordance &ith the la&s of the nited States of &hich the% are allcitiGens and under &hose 9urisdiction the alleged o0enses &ere committed. Evenassuming that our o&n la&s are applicale the nited States government has not

decided to give its consent to e sued in our courts &hich therefore has not ac'uiredthe competence to act on the said claim.

3. M%&*7*)-*8; '( M)


10/43

government. >ell-settled is the rule that pulic funds are not su9ect to lev% andeecution unless other&ise provided for % statute. 8unicipal revenues derived fromtaes licenses and mar+et fees and &hich are intended primaril% and eclusivel% forthe purpose of nancing the governmental activities and functions of the municipalit%are eempt from eecution. Nevertheless this is not to sa% that ,dmiral :inance is left&ith no legal recourse. >here a municipalit% fails or refuses &ithout 9ustiale reason

to e0ect pa%ment of a nal mone% 9udgment rendered against it the claimant ma% availof the remed% of mandamus in order to compel the enactment and approval of thenecessar% appropriation ordinance and the corresponding disursement of municipalfunds therefor. I8 7)&&'8 ? '/"=>)* 8>)8, *8>*& 8> 7'&88 '( 8>S8)8@ *&>/&8 '/ '( =*&&8 '=)*&,. . . JK%8 7'=&)8*'& =)& &'8'&-; 8> 7'//78 8/=*&)8*'& '( 8> )='%&8 8' ? )* 8' 8> '&/ '( 8>-)& ?%8 )-' 8> );=&8 '( 8> -)& *8>*& ) /)'&)?- 8*= (/'= *88)ithout prompt pa%ment compensation cannot e considered 9ust for thepropert% o&ner is made to su0er the conse'uence of eing immediatel% deprived of hisland &hile eing made to &ait for a decade or more efore actuall% receiving theamount necessar% to cope &ith his loss. >4ERE:RE the Court Resolved to RDERpetitioner 8unicipalit% of 8a+ati to immediatel% pa% ,dmiral :inance the amount of1#"73.#.

. F8' F/&)&'F)78:

The defendant as Director of the $ureau of 1ulic >or+s &ithout authorit% otainedrst from the Court of :irst 6nstance of 6locos Sur &ithout otaining rst a right of &a%and &ithout the consent and +no&ledge of the plainti0 and against her epresso9ection unla&full% too+ possession of portions of the three parcels of land and causedan irrigation canal to e constructed on the portion of the three parcels of land on oraout the month of :eruar% /"/ the aggregate area eing 5#/2" s'uare meters tothe damage and pre9udice of the plainti0 I%:>hether or not this is a suit against the stateU

H-:No. 6t is not sue against the state. 6t is a general rule that an ocer-eecutiveadministrative 'uasi-9udicial ministerial or other&ise &ho acts outside the scope of his

9urisdiction and &ithout authoriGation of la& ma% there% render himself amenale topersonal liailit% in a civil suit. 6f he eceeds the po&er conferred on him % la& hecannot shelter himself % the plea that he is a pulic agent acting under his oce andnot personall%. 6n the e%e of the la& his acts then are &holl% &ithout authorit% andsolel% his acts alone. >ith regards to the damages the la& provides in El articulo 75 delCodigo Civil (itIsreall% Spanish). ,n% pulic ocer or emplo%ee or an% private individual &ho directl% orindirectl% ostructs defeats violates or in an% manner impedes or impairs an% of thefollo&ing rights and lierties of another person shall e liale to the latter for damages=

- to return or cause to e returned the possession of the portions of land unla&full%

occupied and appropriated in the aggregate area of 5#/2" s'uare meters and to

return the land to its former condition under the epenses of the defendant- 6n the remote event that the portions of land unla&full% occupied and

appropriated cannot e returned to the plainti0 then to order the defendant to

pa% to the plainti0 the sum of 1/"7#7.53 as value of the portions totalling an

area of 5#/2" s'uare meters

DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY


11/43

MOBIL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION, INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs.

CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE and BUREAU of CUSTOMS, defendants-appellees.

- Fact!Four cases of rotary drill parts were shipped from abroad on S.S. "Leoville"sometime in November of 19!, consined to #obil $hilippines %&ploration, 'nc.,

#anila. (he shipment arrived at the $ort of #anila on )pril 1*, 19+, and wasdischared to the custody of the ustoms )rrastre Service, the unit of the ureau of

ustoms then handlin arrastre operations therein. (he ustoms )rrastre Service laterdelivered to the broer of the consinee three cases only of the shipment.

- /n )pril 0, 190 #obil $hilippines %&ploration, 'nc., filed suit in the ourt of First

'nstance of #anila aainst the ustoms )rrastre Service and the ureau of ustoms torecover the value of the undelivered case in the amount of $1,09+.+2 plus other

damaes.

- I"#!

- $%#t%#& t%#ustoms )rrastre Service nor the ureau of ustoms is suable3

- H#'d!- Y#, defendant ureau of ustoms as operator of the arrastre service at the $ort of

#anila, is discharin proprietary functions and as such, can be sued by privateindividuals.

- (he 4ules of ourt, in Section 1, 4ule +, provide5

- S%('/N 1. 6ho may be parties.7/nly natural or 8uridical persons or entities

authoried by law may be parties in a civil action.

- )ccordinly, a defendant in a civil suit must be :1; a natural person< :!; a 8uridical person

or :+; an entity authoried by law to be sued. Neither the ureau of ustoms nor :a

fortiori; its function unit, the ustoms )rrastre Service, is a person. (hey are merely partsof the machinery of =overnment. (he ureau of ustoms is a bureau under the>epartment of Finance :Sec. 1, 4evised )dministrative ode;< and as stated, the

ustoms )rrastre Service is a unit of the ureau of ustom, set up under ustoms

)dministrative /rder No. -! of November 9, 19! :)nne& ")" to #otion to >ismiss, pp. 1+-1?, 4ecord an )ppeal;. 't follows that the defendants herein cannot he sued under

the first two abovementioned cateories of natural or 8uridical persons.

- Nonetheless it is ured that by authoriin the ureau of ustoms to enae in arrastre

service, the law there by impliedly authories it to be sued as arrastre operator, for thereason that the nature of this function :arrastre service; is proprietary, not overnmental.

(hus, insofar as arrastre operation is concerned, appellant would put defendants under the

third cateory of "entities authoried by law" to be sued. Stated differently, it is aruedthat while there is no law e&pressly authoriin the ureau of ustoms to sue or be sued,

still its capacity to be sued is implied from its very power to render arrastre service at the

$ort of #anila, which it is alleed, amounts to the transaction of a private business.


12/43

- B"a" of P&(nt(n) * B"a" of P&(nt(n) E+'o## Aoc(at(on- .R. No. L-/010/ 2an"a& 34, /56/

- Fact!- (he action in @uestion wasupon complaint of the respondents ureau of $rintin

%mployees )ssociation :NLA;$acifico)dvincula, 4oberto #endoa, $onciano)randa

and (eodulo(oleranfiled by an actin prosecutor of the'ndustrial ourt aainst herein petitioner ureau of $rintin, Serafin Salvador, the )ctin Secretary of the >epartment

of =eneral Services, and #ariano Ledesma the >irector of the ureau of $rintin. (he

complaint alleed that SerafinSalvador and #ariano Ledesma have been enain inunfair labor practices by interferin with, or coercin theemployees of the ureau of

$rintin particularly the members of the complainin association petition, in the e&ercise

of their riht to self-oraniation an discriminatin in reard to hire and tenure of their

employment in order to discouraethem from pursuin the union activities.(he petitioners ureau of $rintin, Serafin Salvador and #ariano Ledesma denied the chares

of unfair labor practicesattributed to the and, by way of affirmative defenses, alleed,

amon other thins, that respondents $acifico)dvincula,4oberto #endoa

$onciano)randa and (eodulo(oleran were suspended pendin result of anadministrativeinvestiation aainst them for breach of ivil Service rules and reulations

petitions< that the ureau of $rintin has no 8uridical personality to sue and be sued< thatsaid ureau of $rintin is not an industrial concern enaed for the purposeof ain but is

an aency of the 4epublic performin overnment functions. For relief, they prayed that

the case bedismissed for lac of 8urisdiction. (hereafter, before the case could be heard, petitioners filed an "/mnibus #otion"asin for a preliminary hearin on the @uestion of

8urisdiction raised by them in their answer and for suspension of thetrial of the case on

the merits pendin the determination of such 8urisdictional @uestion. (he motion was

ranted, butafter hearin, the trial 8ude of the 'ndustrial ourt in an order dated Banuary!2, 19?9 sustained the 8urisdiction of thecourt on the theory that the functions of the

ureau of $rintin are "e&clusively proprietary in nature," and,conse@uently, denied the

prayer for dismissal. 4econsideration of this order havin been also denied by the courtinbanc.

- Note5 (he ureau of $rintin is an office of the =overnment created by the

)dministrative ode of 191 :)ct No. !?2;. )s suchinstrumentality of the =overnment,it operates under the direct supervision of the %&ecutive Secretary, /ffice of the

$resident, and is"chared with the e&ecution of all printin and bindin, includin wor

incidental to those processes, re@uired by the National =overnment and such other wor

of the same character as said ureau may, by law or by order of the :Secretary ofFinance;%&ecutive Secretary, be authoried to undertae . . .." :See. 100, 4ev. )dm.

ode;. 't has no corporate e&istence, and itsappropriations are provided for in the =eneral

)ppropriations )ct. >esined to meet the printin needs of the =overnment, itis primarily a service bureau and obviously, not enaed in business or occupation for

pecuniary profit.

- I"#!- whether or not ureau of $rintin can be sued.

- R"'(n)!- No. 'ndeed, as an office of the =overnment, without any corporate or 8uridical

personality, the ureau of $rintincannotbe sued. )ny suit, action or proceedin aainst


13/43

it, if it were to produce any effect, would actually be a suit, actionor proceedin aainst

the =overnment itself, and the rule is settled that the =overnment cannot be sued without

itsconsent, much less over its ob8ection.'t is true that the ureau of $rintin receivesoutside 8obs and that many of its employees are paid for overtime wor onreular

worin days and on holidays, but these facts do not 8ustify the conclusion that its

functions are "e&clusivelyproprietary in nature." /vertime wor in the ureau of $rintinis done only when the interest of the service so re@uires.)s a matter of administrative

policy, the overtime compensation may be paid, but such payment is discretionary

withthe head of the ureau dependin upon its current appropriations, so that it cannot bethe basis for holdin that thefunctions of said ureau are wholly proprietary in character.

learly, while the ureau of $rintin is allowed toundertae private printin 8obs, it

cannot be pretended that it is thereby an industrial or business concern. (headditional

wor it e&ecutes for private parties is merely incidental to its function, and althouh suchwor may bedeemed proprietary in character, there is no showin that the employees

performin said proprietary function areseparate and distinct from those employed in its

eneral overnmental functions.

- RAYO VS CFI of BULACAN

- .R. No. L-00317-47

-

- F)(S5

- )t about midniht on /ctober !, 192, durin the heiht of that infamoustyphoon "C)>'N=" the respondent corporation, actin throuh its plant superintendent,

en8amin have, opened or caused to be opened simultaneously all the three floodates

of the )nat >am. )nd as a direct and immediate result of the sudden, precipitate and

simultaneous openin of said floodates several towns in ulacan were inundated.Dardest-hit was Noraaray. )bout a hundred of its residents died or were reported to

have died and properties worth million of pesos destroyed or washed away. (his flood

was unprecedented in Noraaray.- $etitioners, who were amon the many unfortunate victims of that man-caused flood,

filed with the respondent ourt eleven complaints for damaes aainst the respondent

corporation and the plant superintendent of )nat >am. /n motion of the respondentcorporation a preliminary hearin was held on its affirmative defense as thouh a motion

to dismiss were filed. $etitioners opposed the prayer for dismissal and contended that

respondent corporation is performin not overnmental but merely proprietary functions

and that under its own oranic act, Section + :d; of 4epublic )ct No. +9?, it can sue and be sued in any court. ...

- 'SSA%5

- 6hether or not the respondent performs overnmental functions with respect tothe manaement and operation of the )nat >am.

- 4AL'N=S5

- 't is not necessary to write an e&tended dissertation on whether or not the N$ performs a overnmental function with respect to the manaement and operation of the

)nat >am. 't is sufficient to say that the overnment has oranied a private

corporation, put money in it and has allowed it to sue and be sued in any court under its

charter. )s a overnment owned and controlled corporation, it has a personality of its


14/43

own, distinct and separate from that of the =overnment. #oreover, the charter provision

that the N$ can "sue and be sued in any court" is without @ualification on the cause of

action and accordinly it can include a tort claim such as the one instituted by the petitioners.

- P%('((n# Nat(ona' Ban8 * 2"d)# 2a*(#& Pa9a'an- FACTS5 /n >ecember 12, 192*, Bude Bavier $abalan issued a writ of e&ecution

followed thereafter by a notice of arnishment on the funds of $hilippine Eirinia

(obacco )dministration :$E(); in the sum of $1!,2!0. deposited with the $hilippine National an in La Anion. $N La Anion filed an administrative complaint aainst

$abalan for rave abuse of discretion, allein that the latter failed to reconie that the

@uestioned funds are of public character and therefore may not be arnished, attached,

nor may be levied upon. (he $N La Anion ranch invoed the doctrine of nonsuability, puttin a bar on the notice of arnishment.

- ISSUE! 6hether or not $N may be sued.

- HELD! es. Funds of public corporations which can sue and be sued are not e&empt

from arnishment. $E() is also a public corporation with the same attributes, a similaroutcome is attributed. (he overnment has entered with them into a commercial business

hence it has abandoned its soverein capacity and has stepped down to the level of acorporation. (herefore, it is sub8ect to rules overnin ordinary corporations and in effect

can be sued. (herefore, the petition of $N La Anion is denied.

DEPARTMENT OF ARICULTURE VS NLRC

- (he >epartment of )riculture and Sultan Security )ency entered into a contract for

security services to be provided by the latter to the said overnmental entity. Save for theincrease in the monthly rate of the uards, the same terms and conditions were also made

to apply to another contract, dated *1 #ay 199*, between the same parties. $ursuant to

their arranements, uards were deployed by Sultan )ency in the various premises ofthe petitioner.

- /n 1+ September 199*, several uards of the Sultan Security )ency filed a complaint

for underpayment of waes, non-payment of 1+th month pay, uniform allowances, niht

shift differential pay, holiday pay and overtime pay, as well as for damaes, aainst the>epartment of )riculture and Sultan Security )ency.

- (he %&ecutive Labor )rbiter rendered a decision on +1 #ay findin herein petitioner

and jointly and severally liable with Sultan Security )ency for the payment of money

claims of the complainant security uards. (he petitioner and Sultan Security )ency did

not appeal the decision of the Labor )rbiter. (hus, the decision became final ande&ecutory. (he Labor )rbiter issued a writ of e&ecution. 0 commandin the ity Sheriff to

enforce and e&ecute the 8udment aainst the property of the two respondents.

- ) petition for in8unction, prohibition and mandamus, with prayer for preliminary writ ofin8unction was filed by the petitioner with the National Labor 4elations ommission

:NL4;, aayan de /ro, allein, inter alia, that the writ issued was effected without

the Labor )rbiter havin duly ac@uired 8urisdiction over the petitioner, and that,


15/43

therefore, the decision of the Labor )rbiter was null and void and all actions pursuant

thereto should be deemed e@ually invalid and of no leal, effect. (he petitioner also

pointed out that the attachment or seiure of its property would hamper and 8eopardie petitionerGs overnmental functions to the pre8udice of the public ood. T%# #t(t(on#&a#&t, t%# NLRC %a d()a&d#d t%# ca&d(na' &"'# on t%# non-"a9('(t of t%#

Stat#. T%# &(*at# ond#nt, on t%# ot%#& %and, a&)"# t%at t%# #t(t(on#& %a(+'(#d' :a(*#d (t (++"n(t f&o+ "(t 9 conc'"d(n) a #&*(c# cont&act :(t%

S"'tan S#c"&(t A)#nc.

-

- ISSUE! $%#t%#& o& not t%# doct&(n# of non-"a9('(t of t%# Stat# a'(# (n t%# ca#

- (he basic postulate enshrined in the constitution that "the State may not be sued withoutits consent," 1 reflects nothin less than a reconition of the soverein character of the

State and an e&press affirmation of the unwritten rule effectively insulatin it from the

8urisdiction of courts.

4

't is based on the very essence of sovereinty.- T%# &"'#, (n an ca#, ( not a'' a9o'"t# fo& (t do# not a t%at t%# tat# +a not

9# "#d "nd#& an c(&c"+tanc#. On t%# cont&a&, a co&ct' %&a#d, t%#

doct&(n# on' con*#, ;t%# tat# +a not 9# "#d :(t%o"t (t con#nt


16/43

- /n Bune !0, 199, respondent Donorable =uillermo $. Eillasor, issued an /rder declarin

the aforestated decision of Buly +, 191 final and e&ecutory, directin the Sheriffs of 4ial

$rovince, Hueon ity Ias well asJ #anila to e&ecute the said decision. $ursuant to thesaid /rder, the correspondin )lias 6rit of %&ecution was issued. /n the strenth of the

afore-mentioned )lias 6rit of %&ecution, the respondent $rovincial Sheriff of 4ial

served notices of arnishment with several ans, specially on the Kmonies due the)rmed Forces of the $hilippines in the form of deposits, sufficient to cover the amount

mentioned in the said 6rit of %&ecution< the $hilippine Eeterans an received the same

notice of arnishment. (he funds of the )rmed Forces of the $hilippines on deposit withthe ans, particularly, with the $hilippine Eeterans an and the $hilippine National

anIorJ their branches are public funds duly appropriated and allocated for the payment

of pensions of retirees, pay and allowances of military and civilian personnel and for

maintenance and operations of the )rmed Forces of the $hilippines.- $etitioner then alleed that respondent Bude, Donorable =uillermo $. Eillasor, acted in

e&cess of 8urisdiction IorJ with rave abuse of discretion amountin to lac of 8urisdiction

in rantin the issuance of an alias writ of e&ecution aainst the properties of the )rmed

Forces of the $hilippines, hence, the )lias 6rit of %&ecution and noticesof arnishment issued pursuant thereto are null and void."

- 'n the answer filed by respondents, the facts set forth were admitted with the only@ualification bein that the total award was in the amount of $!,+2!,++1.0*.

- 'SSA%5

- 6hether or not the notices of arnishment are null and void.- D%L>5

- (he 4epublic of the $hilippines did riht in filin this certiorari and prohibition

proceedin. 6hat was done by respondent Bude is not in conformity with the dictates of

the onstitution.- 't is a fundamental postulate of constitutionalism flowin from the 8uristic concept of

sovereinty that the state as well as its overnment is immune from suit unless it ives its

consent. 't is readily understandable why it must be so. 'n the classic formulation ofDolmes5 ") soverein is e&empt from suit, not because of any formal conception or

obsolete theory, but on the loical and practical round that there can be no leal riht as

aainst the authority that maes the law on which the riht depends."Socioloical 8urisprudence supplies an answer not dissimilar.

- (his fundamental postulate underlyin the 19+? onstitution is now made e&plicit in the

revised charter. 't is therein e&pressly provided5 "(he State may not be sued without its

consent." ) corollary, both dictated by loic and sound sense from such a basic concept isthat public funds cannot be the ob8ect of a arnishmentproceedin even if the consent to

be sued had been previously ranted and the state liability ad8uded.

-

- THE HOLY SEE *. THE HON. ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, 2R., a P(d(n) 2"d)#

of t%# R#)(ona' T&(a' Co"&t of Ma8at(, B&anc% 6/ and STARBRIHT SALES

ENTERPRISES, INC.

.R. No. /@/5?5 D#c#+9#& /, /55?

-

- FACTS! $etitioner is the Doly See who e&ercises sovereinty over the Eatican ity in

4ome, 'taly, and is represented in the $hilippines by the $apal Nuncio< $rivate


17/43

respondent, Starbriht Sales %nterprises, 'nc., is a domestic corporation enaed in the

real estate business.

(his petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of land consistin of ,*** s@uaremeters located in the #unicipality of $arana@ue reistered in the name of petitioner. Said

lot was contiuous with two other lots reistered in the name of the $hilippine 4ealty

orporation :$4;.(he three lots were sold to 4amon Licup, throuh #sr. >omino ). irilos, Br., actin

as aent to the sellers. Later, Licup assined his rihts to the sale to private respondent.

'n view of the refusal of the s@uatters to vacate the lots sold to private respondent, adispute arose as to who of the parties has the responsibility of evictin and clearin the

land of s@uatters. omplicatin the relations of the parties was the sale by petitioner of

Lot ?-) to (ropicana $roperties and >evelopment orporation :(ropicana;.

private respondent filed a complaint with the 4eional (rial ourt, ranch 1, #aati,#etro #anila for annulment of the sale of the three parcels of land, and specific

performance and damaes aainst petitioner, represented by the $apal Nuncio, and three

other defendants5 namely, #sr. >omino ). irilos, Br., the $4 and (ropicana

petitioner and #sr. irilos separately moved to dismiss the complaint 7 petitioner forlac of 8urisdiction based on soverein immunity from suit, and #sr. irilos for bein

an improper party. )n opposition to the motion was filed by private respondent.the trial court issued an order denyin, amon others, petitioners motion to dismiss after

findin that petitioner Mshed off IitsJ soverein immunity by enterin into the business

contract in @uestion $etitioner forthwith elevated the matter to us. 'n its petition, petitioner invoes the privilee of soverein immunity only on its own behalf and on

behalf of its official representative, the $apal Nuncio.

- ISSUE!

6hether the Doly See is immune from suit insofar as its business relations reardinsellin a lot to a private entity

- RULIN!

(he 4epublic of the $hilippines has accorded the Doly See the status of a foreinsoverein. (he Doly See, throuh its )mbassador, the $apal Nuncio, has had diplomatic

representations with the $hilippine overnment since 19?2 :4ollo, p. 2;. (his appears to

be the universal practice in international relations.(here are two conflictin concepts of soverein immunity, each widely held and firmly

established. )ccordin to the classical or absolute theory, a soverein cannot, without its

consent, be made a respondent in the courts of another soverein. )ccordin to the newer

or restrictive theory, the immunity of the soverein is reconied only with reard to public acts or acts 8ure imperii of a state, but not with reard to private acts or acts 8ure

estionis

'f the act is in pursuit of a soverein activity, or an incident thereof, then it is an act 8ureimperii, especially when it is not undertaen for ain or profit.

'n the case at bench, if petitioner has bouht and sold lands in the ordinary course of a

real estate business, surely the said transaction can be cateoried as an act 8ure estionis.Dowever, petitioner has denied that the ac@uisition and subse@uent disposal of Lot ?-)

were made for profit but claimed that it ac@uired said property for the site of its mission

or the )postolic Nunciature in the $hilippines. $rivate respondent failed to dispute said

claim.


18/43

Lot ?-) was ac@uired by petitioner as a donation from the )rchdiocese of #anila. (he

donation was made not for commercial purpose, but for the use of petitioner to construct

thereon the official place of residence of the $apal Nuncio. (he riht of a foreinsoverein to ac@uire property, real or personal, in a receivin state, necessary for the

creation and maintenance of its diplomatic mission, is reconied in the 191 Eienna

onvention on >iplomatic 4elations :)rts. !*-!!;. (his treaty was concurred in by the$hilippine Senate and entered into force in the $hilippines on November 1?, 19?.

(he decision to transfer the property and the subse@uent disposal thereof are liewise

clothed with a overnmental character. $etitioner did not sell Lot ?-) for profit or ain. 'tmerely wanted to dispose off the same because the s@uatters livin thereon made it

almost impossible for petitioner to use it for the purpose of the donation. (he fact that

s@uatters have occupied and are still occupyin the lot, and that they stubbornly refuse to

leave the premises, has been admitted by private respondent in its complaint$rivate respondent is not left without any leal remedy for the redress of its rievances.

Ander both $ublic 'nternational Law and (ransnational Law, a person who feels

arieved by the acts of a forein soverein can as his own overnment to espouse his

cause throuh diplomatic channels.$rivate respondent can as the $hilippine overnment, throuh the Forein /ffice, to

espouse its claims aainst the Doly See. 'ts first tas is to persuade the $hilippineovernment to tae up with the Doly See the validity of its claims. /f course, the Forein

/ffice shall first mae a determination of the impact of its espousal on the relations

between the $hilippine overnment and the Doly See :oun, 4emedies of $rivatelaimants )ainst Forein States, Selected 4eadins on $rotection by Law of $rivate

Forein 'nvestments 9*?, 919 I190J;. /nce the $hilippine overnment decides to

espouse the claim, the latter ceases to be a private cause.

- 6D%4%F/4%, the petition for certiorari is =4)N(%> and the complaint in ivil ase No. 9*-1+ aainst petitioner is >'S#'SS%>.

- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CAPT. 2AMES E. ALLO$AY, $ILLIAM I.

COLLINS and ROBERT OHIER,#t(t(on#&, *.

HON. V. M. RUI, P(d(n) 2"d)# of B&anc% XV, Co"&t of F(&t Intanc# of R(a'

and ELIIO DE UMAN CO., INC., ond#nt.

- F)(S5

- )t times material to this case, the Anited States of )merica had a naval base in

Subic, Oambales. (he base was one of those provided in the #ilitary ases )reement

between the $hilippines and the Anited States.- Sometime in #ay, 192!, the Anited States invited the submission of bids for the

followin pro8ects

- 1. 4epair offender system, )lava 6harf at the A.S. Naval Station Subic ay, $hilippines.- !. 4epair typhoon damae to N)S ubi shoreline< repair typhoon damae to shoreline

revetment, N)E)S% Subic< and repair to Leyte 6harf approach, N)E)S% Subic

ay, $hilippines.- %liio de =uman P o., 'nc. responded to the invitation and submitted bids. Subse@uent

thereto, the company received from the Anited States two telerams re@uestin it to

confirm its price proposals and for the name of its bondin company. (he company

complied with the re@uests. I'n its complaint, the company allees that the Anited States


19/43

had accepted its bids because ") re@uest to confirm a price proposal confirms the

acceptance of a bid pursuant to defendant Anited StatesG biddin practices." :4ollo, p.

+*.; (he truth of this alleation has not been tested because the case has not reached thetrial stae.J

- 'n Bune, 192!, the company received a letter which was sined by 6ilham '. ollins,

>irector, ontracts >ivision, Naval Facilities %nineerin ommand, Southwest $acific,>epartment of the Navy of the Anited States, who is one of the petitioners herein. (he

letter said that the company did not @ualify to receive an award for the pro8ects because

of its previous unsatisfactory performance ratin on a repair contract for the sea wall atthe boat landins of the A.S. Naval Station in Subic ay. (he letter further said that the

pro8ects had been awarded to third parties. 'n the abovementioned ivil ase No. 229-#,

the company sued the Anited States of )merica and #essrs. Bames %. =alloway, 6illiam

'. ollins and 4obert =ohier all members of the %nineerin ommand of the A.S. Navy.(he complaint is to order the defendants to allow the plaintiff to perform the wor on the

pro8ects and, in the event that specific performance was no loner possible, to order the

defendants to pay damaes. (he company also ased for the issuance of a writ of

preliminary in8unction to restrain the defendants from enterin into contracts with third parties for wor on the pro8ects.

- (he defendants entered their special appearance for the purpose only of @uestionin the 8urisdiction of this court over the sub8ect matter of the complaint and the persons of

defendants, the sub8ect matter of the complaint bein acts and omissions of the individual

defendants as aents of defendant Anited States of )merica, a forein soverein whichhas not iven her consent to this suit or any other suit for the causes of action asserted in

the complaint." :4ollo, p. ?*.;

- Subse@uently the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which included an

opposition to the issuance of the writ of preliminary in8unction. (he company opposedthe motion. (he trial court denied the motion and issued the writ. (he defendants moved

twice to reconsider but to no avail.

- 'SSA%5 6hether the AS naval base in biddin for said contracts e&ercise overnmentalfunctions to be able to invoe state immunity.

Deld5'n sustainin the action of the lower court, this ourt said5- 't appearin in the complaint that appellant has not complied with the procedure laid

down in )rticle QQ' of the contract reardin the prosecution of its claim aainst the

Anited States =overnment, or, stated differently, it has failed to first e&haust its

administrative remedies aainst said =overnment, the lower court acted properly indismissin this case.:)t p. ?9.;

- 't can thus be seen that the statement in respect of the waiver of State immunity from suit

was purely ratuitous and, therefore, obiter so that it has no value as an imperativeauthority.

- (he restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedins arise

out of commercial transactions of the forein soverein, its commercial activities oreconomic affairs. Stated differently, a State may be said to have descended to the level of

an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly iven its consent to be sued only

when it enters into business contracts. 't does not apply where the contract relates to the

e&ercise of its soverein functions. 'n this case the pro8ects are an interal part of the


20/43

naval base which is devoted to the defense of both the Anited States and the $hilippines,

indisputably a function of the overnment of the hihest order< they are not utilied for

nor dedicated to commercial or business purposes.- (hat the correct test for the application of State immunity is not the conclusion of a

contract by a State but the leal nature of the act is shown in Syquia vs. Lopez, 0 $hil.

+1! :1909;. 'n that case the plaintiffs leased three apartment buildins to the AnitedStates of )merica for the use of its military officials. (he plaintiffs sued to recover

possession of the premises on the round that the term of the leases had e&pired. (hey

also ased for increased rentals until the apartments shall have been vacated.- (he defendants who were armed forces officers of the Anited States moved to dismiss the

suit for lac of 8urisdiction in the part of the court. (he #unicipal ourt of #anila

ranted the motion to dismiss< sustained by the ourt of First 'nstance, the plaintiffs went

to this ourt for review on certiorari. 'n denyin the petition, this ourt said5- /n the basis of the foreoin considerations we are of the belief and we hold that the real

party defendant in interest is the =overnment of the Anited States of )merica< that any

8udment for bac or 'ncreased rentals or damaes will have to be paid not by defendants

#oore and (illman and their 0 co-defendants but by the said A.S. =overnment. /n the basis of the rulin in the case of Land vs. >ollar already cited, and on what we have

already stated, the present action must be considered as one aainst the A.S. =overnment.'t is clear that the courts of the $hilippines includin the #unicipal ourt of #anila have

no 8urisdiction over the present case for unlawful detainer. (he @uestion of lac of

8urisdiction was raised and interposed at the very beinnin of the action. (he A.S.=overnment has not , iven its consent to the filin of this suit which is essentially

aainst her, thouh not in name. #oreover, this is not only a case of a citien filin a suit

aainst his own =overnment without the latterGs consent but it is of a citien filin an

action aainst a forein overnment without said overnmentGs consent, which rendersmore obvious the lac of 8urisdiction of the courts of his country. (he principles of law

behind this rule are so elementary and of such eneral acceptance that we deem it

unnecessary to cite authorities in support thereof. :)t p. +!+.;'n Syquia,the Anited Statesconcluded contracts with private individuals but the contracts notwithstandin the States

was not deemed to have iven or waived its consent to be sued for the reason that the

contracts were for jure imperii and not for jure gestionis. (hus, the petition is ranted< the@uestioned orders of the respondent 8ude are set aside.

- .R. No. 1@407 Ma&c% /3, /541

- REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, #t(t(on#&-a#''##, *.

- PABLO FELICIANO and INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ond#nt-

a#''ant.

- Fact!

- /n Banuary !!, 192*, respondent Feliciano filed a complaint with the then ourt of First

'nstance of amarines Sur aainst the 4epublic of the $hilippines, represented by theLand )uthority, for the recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land,

consistin of four :0; lots with an areate area of 1,+0.0122 hectares, situated in the

arrio of Salvacion, #unicipality of (inambac, amarines Sur.- $etitioner alleed that he bouht the property in @uestion from Eictor =ardiola on #ay

+1, 19?!< and that on November 1, 19?0 when $resident 4amon #asaysay issued

$roclamation No. 9* which reserves for settlement purposes, situated in the


21/43

municipalities of (inambac and Siruma, amarines Sur, his private property was included

in the division and distribution of land to the settlers.

- $laintiff prayed that he be declared the rihtful and true owner of the property in @uestionconsistin of 1,+0.0122 hectares. (he trial court then rendered a decision declarin that

Lot No. 1, with an area of 2*1.9*0 hectares, to be private property of Feliciano and that

the rest of the property reverted to the public domain. Dowever, the case was reopenedwhen settlers filed a motion to intervene allein that they had been the possessor of

the land for more than !* years. Feliciano then went to the 'ntermediate )ppellate ourt

on a petition for certiorari.

- I"#!

- 6hether or not the 4epublic of the $hilippines can be sue without its consent.

- H#'d!

- No. (he 4epublic of the $hilippines cannot be sued on the round that it is under thedoctrine of non-suability of the state. (he plaintiff has impleaded the 4epublic of the

$hilippines as defendant in an action for recovery of ownership and possession of a

parcel of land, brinin the State to court 8ust lie any private person who is claimed to

be usurpin a piece of property. ) suit for the recovery of property is not an action in rem, but an action in personam. 't is an action directed aainst a specific party or parties, and

any 8udment therein binds only such party or parties. (he complaint filed by plaintiff,the private respondent herein, is directed aainst the 4epublic of the $hilippines,

represented by the Land )uthority, a overnmental aency created by 4epublic )ct No.

+00.- y its caption and its alleation and prayer, the complaint is clearly a suit aainst the

State, which under settled 8urisprudence is not permitted, e&cept upon a showin that the

State has consented to be sued, either e&pressly or by implication throuh the use of

statutory lanuae too plain to be misinterpreted. (here is no such showin in the instantcase. 6orse, the complaint itself fails to allee the e&istence of such consent. (his is a

fatal defect, and on this basis alone, the complaint should have been dismissed

19. AMIGABLE VS. CUENCA?.R. No. *-5#33 :eruar% 5" /"25VICTORIA AMIGABLE,plainti0-appellantvs.NICOLAS CUENCA, ) C'==**'&/ '( P%?. H*+>); )& REP. OF THE PHIL,defendants-appellees.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of :irst 6nstance of Ceu dismissing theplainti0Qs complaint.FACTS:@ictoria ,migale is the registered o&ner of a lot in Ceu Cit%. >ithout priorepropriation or negotiated sale the government used a portion of said lot for the

construction of the 8ango and ?orordo ,venues. n 8arch 52 /"! ,migaleQs counsel&rote the 1resident of the 1hilippines re'uesting pa%ment of the portion of her lot&hich had een appropriated % the government. The claim &as indorsed to the ,uditor?eneral &ho disallo&ed it in his "th Endorsement. Thus ,migale led in the court a'uo a complaint against the Repulic of the 1hilippines and Nicolas Cuenca(Commissioner of 1ulic 4igh&a%s) for the recover% of o&nership and possession of herlot.

The defendants denied the plainti0Is allegations stating=


22/43

(/) that the action &as premature the claim not having een led rst &ith the ce of the ,uditor ?eneralB(5) that the right of action for the recover% had alread% prescriedB(7) that the action eing a suit against the ?overnment the claim for moral damagesattorne%Qs fees and costs had no valid asis since the ?overnment had not given itsconsent to e suedB and

(#) that inasmuch as it &as the province of Ceu that appropriated and used the areainvolved in the construction of 8ango ,venue plainti0 had no cause of action againstthe defendants. n Ful% 5" /"" the court rendered its decision holding that it had no

9urisdiction over the plainti0Qs cause of action for the recover% of possession ando&nership of the lot on the ground that the government cannot e sued &ithout itsconsentB that it had neither original nor appellate 9urisdiction to hear and decideplainti0Qs claim for compensator% damages eing a mone% claim against thegovernmentB and that it had long prescried nor did it have 9urisdiction over said claimecause the government had not given its consent to e sued. ,ccordingl% thecomplaint &as dismissed.ISSUE: >N the appellant ma% properl% sue the governmentRULING: es. Considering that no annotation in favor of the government appears at the ac+ ofher certicate of title and that she has not eecuted an% deed of conve%ance of an%portion of her lot to the government the appellant remains the o&ner of the &hole lot.,s registered o&ner she could ring an action to recover possession of the portion ofland in 'uestion at an%time ecause possession is one of the attriutes of o&nership.4o&ever since restoration of possession of said portion % the government is neitherconvenient nor feasile at this time ecause it is no& and has een used for roadpurposes the onl% relief availale is for the government to ma+e due compensation&hich it could and should have done %ears ago. To determine the due compensation forthe land the asis should e the price or value thereof at the time of the ta+ing.,s regards the claim for damages the plainti0 is entitled thereto in the form of legalinterest on the price of the land from the time it &as ta+en up to the time that pa%mentis made % the government.

6n addition the government should pa% for attorne%Qs fees the amount of &hich shoulde ed % the trial court after hearing. >4ERE:RE the decision appealed from ishere% set aside and the case remanded to the court a 'uo for the determination ofcompensation including attorne%Qs fees to &hich the appellant is entitled as aoveindicated.

20. A=*+)?- C%&7)4$ SCRA $30 G.R. N'. L"23400 29 F?. 1926

FACTS: @ictoria ,migale is the registered o&ner of a particular lot. ,t the ac+ of her Transfer Certicate of Title (/"5#) there &as no annotation in favor ofthe government of an% right or interest in the propert%. >ithout prior epropriation ornegotiated sale the government used a portion of the lot for the construction of the8ango and ?orordo ,venues. n /"! ,migaleIs counsel &rote the 1resident of the1hilippines re'uesting pa%ment of the portion of the said lot. 6t &as disallo&ed % the,uditor ?eneral in his "th Endorsement. 1etitioner then led in the court a 'uoa complaint against the Repulic of the 1hilippines and Nicolas Cuenca in his capacit%as Commissioner of 1ulic 4igh&a%s for the recover% of o&nership and possession ofthe lot. ,ccording to the defendants the action &as premature ecause it &as not ledrst at the ce of the ,uditor ?eneral. ,ccording to them the right of action forthe recover% of an% amount had alread% prescried that the ?overnment had not given

http://legalpurple.blogspot.com/2014/04/amigable-vs-cuenca-43-scra-360-gr-no-l.htmlhttp://legalpurple.blogspot.com/2014/04/amigable-vs-cuenca-43-scra-360-gr-no-l.htmlhttp://legalpurple.blogspot.com/2014/04/amigable-vs-cuenca-43-scra-360-gr-no-l.htmlhttp://legalpurple.blogspot.com/2014/04/amigable-vs-cuenca-43-scra-360-gr-no-l.html


23/43

its consent to e sued and that plainti0 had no cause of action against the defendants.ISSUE: >hether or Not under the facts of the case appellant ma% properl% suethe government.HELD:

6n the case of 8inisterio v. Court of :irst 6nstance of Ceu it &as held that &henthe government ta+es a&a% propert% from a private lando&ner for pulic use &ithout

going through the legal process of epropriation or negotiated sale the aggrieved part%ma% properl% maintain a suit against the government &ithout violating the doctrine ofgovernmental immunit% from suit &ithout its consent.

6n the case at ar since no annotation in favour of the government appears atthe ac+ of the certicate of title and plainti0 has not eecuted an% deedof conve%ance of an% portion of the lot to the government then she remains the o&nerof the lot. She could then ring an action to recover possession of the land an%timeecause possession is one of the attriutes of o&nership. 4o&ever since such action isnot feasile at this time since the lot has een used for other purposes the onl% reliefleft is for the government to ma+e due compensationprice or value of the lot at thetime of the ta+ing.

21. E. MERRITT, -)*&8*")--)&8, . GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINEISLANDS, (&)&8")--)&8. JG.R. N'. L"11154, M)/7> 21, 1913K

EN $,NCFACTS: 8errit involved in an accident &ith the ?eneral 4ospital ,mulance of &hichhe had sustained severe in9uries. That heIs not ale to return to &or+ for eingincapacitated. ,ct No. 5#2 e0ective :eruar% 7 /"/ enacted in his favor reads=,n ,ct authoriGing E. 8erritt to ring suit against the ?overnment of the 1hilippine6slands and authoriGing the ,ttorne%-?eneral of said 6slands to appear in said suit.>hereas a claim has een led against the ?overnment of the 1hilippine 6slands % 8r.E. 8erritt of 8anila for damages resulting from a collision et&een his motorc%cle andthe amulance of the ?eneral 4ospital on 8arch t&ent%-fth nineteen hundred andthirteenB

>hereas it is not +no&n &ho is responsile for the accident nor is it possile todetermine the amount of damages if an% to &hich the claimant is entitledB and>hereas the Director of 1ulic >or+s and the ,ttorne%-?eneral recommended that an,ct e passed % the *egislature authoriGing 8r. E. 8erritt to ring suit in the courtsagainst the ?overnment in order that said 'uestions ma% e decided= No& therefore2) aut$orit) o( t$e 3nited States, %e it enacted %) t$e P$ilippine 4eislature, t$at5SECT6N /. E. 8erritt is here% authoriGed to ring suit in the Court of :irst 6nstance ofthe cit% of 8anila against the ?overnment of the 1hilippine 6slands in order to theresponsiilit% for the collision et&een his motorc%cle and the amulance of the ?eneral4ospital and to determine the amount of the damages if an% to &hich 8r. E. 8erritt isentitled on account of said collision and the ,ttorne%-?eneral of the 1hilippine 6slands ishere% authoriGed and directed to appear at the trial on the ehalf of the ?overnment of

said 6slands to defendant said ?overnment at the same.SEC. 5. This ,ct shall ta+e e0ect on its passage.Enacted :eruar% 7 /"/.ISSUE= Did the defendant in enacting the aove 'uoted ,ct simpl% &aive its immunit%from suit or did it also concede its liailit% to the plainti0URESOLUTION= ,ct No. 5#2 does not operate to etend the ?overnmentQs liailit% toan% cause. 1aragraph of article /"37 of the Civil Code reads=


24/43

The state is liale in this sense &hen it acts through a special agent ut not &hen thedamage should have een caused % the ocial to &hom properl% it pertained to do theact performed in &hich case the provisions of the preceding article shall e applicale.

The supreme court of Spain in dening the scope of this paragraph said= That the oligation to indemnif% for damages &hich a third person causes to another %his fault or negligence is ased as is evidenced % the same *a& 7 Title / 1artida 2

on that the person oligated % his o&n fault or negligence ta+es part in the act oromission of the third part% &ho caused the damage. 6t follo&s therefrom that the state% virtue of such provisions of la& is not responsile for the damages su0ered %private individuals in conse'uence of acts performed % its emplo%ees in the dischargeof the functions pertaining to their oce ecause neither fault nor even negligence cane presumed on the part of the state in the organiGation of ranches of pulic serviceand in the appointment of its agentsB on the contrar% &e must presuppose all foresighthumanl% possile on its part in order that each ranch of service serves the general&elfare and that of private persons interested in its operation. $et&een these latter andthe state therefore no relations of a private nature governed % the civil la& can ariseecept in a case &here the state acts as a 9udicial person capale of ac'uiring rightsand contracting oligations. (Supreme Court of Spain Fanuar% 2 /!"!B !7 Fur.Civ. 5#.)

That although in some cases the state might % virtue of the general principle set forthin article /"35 respond for all the damage that is occasioned to private parties % ordersor resolutions &hich % fault or negligence are made % ranches of the centraladministration acting in the name and representation of the state itself and as aneternal epression of its sovereignt% in the eercise of its eecutive po&ers %et saidarticle is not applicale in the case of damages said to have een occasioned to thepetitioners %) an e+ecutive ofcial acting in the eercise of his po&ers in proceedingsto enforce the collections of certain propert% taes o&ing % the o&ner of the propert%&hich the% hold in sulease.

That the responsiilit% of the state is limited % article /"37 to the case &herein itacts t$rou$ a special aent (and a special agent in the sense in &hich these &ords areemplo%ed is one &ho receives a denite and ed order or commission foreign to theeercise of the duties of his oce if he is a special ocial) so that in representation of

the state and eing ound to act as an agent thereof he eecutes the trust conded tohim. This concept does not appl% to an% eecutive agent &ho is an emplo%ee of theacting administration and &ho on his o&n responsiilit% performs the functions &hichare inherent in and naturall% pertain to his oce and &hich are regulated % la& andthe regulations. (Supreme Court of Spain 8a% /! /"3#B "! Fur.Civ. 7!" 7"3.)

That according to paragraph of article /"37 of the Civil Code and the principle laiddo&n in a decision among others of the /!th of 8a% /"3# in a damage case theresponsiilit% of the state is limited to that &hich it contracts through a special agentdul% empo&ered % a denite order or commission to per(orm some act or c$ared &it$some denite purpose &$ic$ ives rise to t$e claim and not &here the claim is asedon acts or omissions imputale to a pulic ocial charged &ith some administrative ortechnical oce &ho can e held to the proper responsiilit% in the manner laid do&n %the la& of civil responsiilit%. Conse'uentl% the trial court in not so deciding and insentencing the said entit% to the pa%ment of damages caused % an ocial of thesecond class referred to has % erroneous interpretation infringed the provisions ofarticles /"35 and /"37 of the Civil Code. (Supreme Court of Spain Ful% 73 /"//B /55

Fur.Civ. /#.)6t is therefore evidence that the State (the ?overnment of the 1hilippine 6slands) isonl% liale according to the aove 'uoted decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain forthe acts of its agents ocers and emplo%ees &hen the% act as special agents &ithin


25/43

the meaning of paragraph of article /"37 supra and that the chau0eur of theamulance of the ?eneral 4ospital &as not such an agent.

SEPARATION OF POWERS22. IN RE: DESIGNATION OF !UDGE RODOLFO U. MANANO AS MEMBER OF THEILOCOS NORTE PROVINCIALCOMMITTEE ON !USTICE. A.M. N'. ""131"RTC

O78'?/ 5, 196F)78= Fudge 8anGano sent a letter to the SC stating that he &as through Eecutive rderR:-3# designated % ?ov. :arinas as a memer of the 6locos Norte 1rovincialCommittee on Fustice &hich &as created pursuant to 1residential Eecutive rder No.! and &as appointed as a memer of the Committee. >ith that he &as as+ing theCourt to authoriGe him to discharge the functions and duties of the oce and toconsider his memership in the Committee as part of the primar% functions of anEecutive Fudge. 4e alleged that his memership in the Committee as neither violativeof the 6ndependence of the Fudiciar% nor a violation of Section /5 ,rticle @666 or of thesecond paragraph of Section .2 ,rticle 6K ($)oth of the Constitution and &ill not inan% &a% amount to an aandonment of his present position as Eecutive Fudge of$ranch K6K Regional Trial Court :irst Fudicial Region and as a memer of the Fudiciar%.I%= The issue involved in this case is &here to dra& the line insofar as administrativefunctions are concerned. 6s the separation of po&er violatedUH-= ,n eamination of Eecutive rder No. ! as amended reveals that 1rovincialCit%Committees on Fustice are created to insure the speed% disposition of cases ofdetainees particularl% those involving the poor and indigent ones thus alleviating 9ailcongestion and improving local 9ail conditions. ,mong the functions of the Committeeare the follo&ing= 7.7 Receive complaints against an% apprehending ocer 9ail &arden nal or 9udge&ho ma% e found to have committed auses in the discharge of his duties and referthe same to proper authorit% for appropriate actionB

7. Recommend revision of an% la& or regulation &hich is elieved pre9udicial to theproper administration of criminal 9ustice. 6t is evident that such 1rovincialCit%Committees on Fustice perform administrative functions. ,dministrative functions arethose &hich involve the regulation and control over the conduct and a0airs ofindividuals forB their o&n &elfare and the promulgation of rules and regulations to ettercarr% out the polic% of the legislature or such as are devolved upon the administrativeagenc% % the organic la& of its eistence. :urthermore under Eecutive rder No. 75amending Eecutive rder No. ! it is provided that Section .Supervision.

The 1rovincialCit% Committees on Fustice shall e under the supervision of theSecretar% of 9ustice Puarterl% accomplishment reports shall e sumitted to the ceof the Secretar% of Fustice. nder the Constitution the memers of the Supreme Courtand other courts estalished % la& shall not e designated to an% agenc% performing'uasi- 9udicial or administrative functions (Section /5 ,rt. @666 Constitution).Consideringthat memership of Fudge 8anGano in the 6locos Norte 1rovincial Committee on Fustice&hich discharges a administrative functions &ill e in violation of the Constitution theCourt is constrained to den% his re'uest. :ormer Chief Fustice Enri'ue 8. :ernando in hisconcurring opinion in the case of ?arcia vs. 8acaraig al% sets forth=5. >hile the doctrine of separation of po&ers is a relative theor% not to e enforced &ithpedantic rigor the practical demands of government precluding its doctrinaireapplication it cannot 9ustif% a memer of the 9udiciar% eing re'uired to assume a


26/43

position or perform a dut% non- 9udicial in character. That is implicit in the principle.ther&ise there is a plain departure from its command. The essence of the trustreposed in him is to decide. nl% a higher court as &as emphasiGed % Fustice $arredocan pass on his actuation. 4e is not a suordinate of an eecutive or legislative ocialho&ever eminent. 6t is indispensale that there e no eception to the rigidit% of such anorm if he is as epected to e conned to the tas+ of ad9udication. :idelit% to his

s&orn responsiilit% no less than the maintenance of respect for the 9udiciar% can esatised &ith nothing less. This declaration does not mean that RTC Fudges should adoptan attitude of monastic insensiilit% or unecoming indi0erence to 1rovinceCit%Committee on Fustice. ,s incument RTC Fudges the% form part of the structure ofgovernment. Their integrit% and performance in the ad9udication of cases contriute tothe solidit% of such structure. ,s pulic ocials the% are trustees of an orderl% societ%.Even as non-memers of 1rovincialCit% Committees on Fustice RTC 9udges shouldrender assistance to said Committees to help promote the laudale purposes for &hichthe% eist ut onl% &hen such assistance ma% e reasonal% incidental to thefulllment of their 9udicial duties.

2$. !OSE A. ANGARA, petitioner vs. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION, PEDRO NSUA, MIGUEL CASTILLO, )& DIONISIO C. MAOR,respondents.:,CTS=

The petitioner Fose ,. ,ngara and the respondents 1edro nsua 8iguel Castilloand Dionisio 8a%or &ere candidates voted for the position of memer of the National,sseml% for the rst district of the 1rovince of Ta%aasBin the elections of Septemer/2 /"7

n ctoer 2 /"7 the provincial oard of canvassers proclaimed the petitioneras memer-elect of the National ,sseml% for the said district for having received themost numer of votes so that on Novemer / /"7 the petitioner too+ his oath ofoce.

n Dec 7 /"7 the N, in session assemled passed Resolution No. ! conrmingthe election of the memers of the National ,sseml% against &hom no protest hadthus far een led.

n Decemer ! /"7 the herein respondent 1edro nsua led efore theElectoral Commission a 8otion of 1rotest against the election of the herein petitioner

Fose ,. ,ngara pra%ing. The follo&ing da% Decemer " /"7 the Electoral Commission

adopted its o&n resolution providing that it &ill not consider an% election protest that

&as not sumitted on or efore Decemer " /"7.

n Decemer 53 /"7 the herein petitioner Fose ,. ,ngara led efore theElectoral Commission a 8otion to Dismiss the 1rotest alleging (a) that Resolution No.! of the National ,sseml% &as adopted in the legitimate eercise of its constitutionalprerogative to prescrie the period during &hich protests against the election of itsmemers should e presentedB (%) that the aforesaid resolution has for its o9ect and is

the accepted formula for the limitation of said periodB and (c) that the protest in'uestion &as led out of the prescried periodBn Decemer 52 /"7 the herein respondent 1edro nsua led an ,ns&er to

the 8otion of Dismissal alleging that there is no legal or constitutional provision arringthe presentation of a protest against the election of a memer of the National ,sseml%after conrmation.

n Fanuar% 57 /"7 the Electoral Commission promulgated a resolution den%ingherein Fose ,ngaraIs 8otion to Dismiss the 1rotest.


27/43

6SSES=/. >hether or not the Supreme Court has 9urisdiction over the Electoral Commission andthe su9ect matter of the controvers% upon the foregoing related facts5.. >hether the said Electoral Commission acted &ithout or in ecess of its 9urisdictionin assuming to the cogniGance of the protest led the election of the herein petitionernot&ithstanding the previous conrmation of such election % resolution of the National

,sseml%.

4E*D=

6n the case at ar here is then presented an actual controvers% involving as it

does a conVict of a grave constitutional nature et&een the National ,sseml% on one

hand and the Electoral Commission on the other. ,lthough the Electoral Commission

ma% not e interfered &ith &hen and &hile acting &ithin the limits of its authorit% it

does not follo& that it is e%ond the reach of the constitutional mechanism adopted %

the people and that it is not su9ect to constitutional restrictions.

The Electoral Commission is not a separate department of the government and even if

it &ere conVicting claims of authorit% under the fundamental la& et&een

departmental po&ers and agencies of the government are necessaril% determined %

the 9udiciar% in 9usticiale and appropriate cases.

/.The court has 9urisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the su9ect matter of the

present controvers% for the purpose of determining the character scope and etent of

the constitutional grant to the Electoral Commission as the sole 9udge of all contests

relating to the election returns and 'ualications of the memers of the National

,sseml%.

The Electoral Commission &as created to transfer in its totalit% all the po&erspreviousl% eercised % the legislature in matters pertaining to contested elections of its

memers to an independent and impartial triunal. The epress lodging of that po&er

in the Electoral Commission is an implied denial in the eercise of that po&er % the

National ,sseml%. ,nd thus it is as e0ective a restriction upon the legislative po&er as

an epress prohiition in the Constitution.

Therefore the incidental po&er to promulgate such rules necessar% for the proper

eercise of its eclusive po&er to 9udge all contests relating to the election returns and

'ualications of memers of the National ,sseml% must e deemed % necessar%

implication to have een lodged also in the Electoral Commission.

5. The Electoral Commission acted &ithin the legitimate eercise of its

constitutional prerogative in assuming to ta+e cogniGance of the protest led % the

respondent nsua against the election of the petitioner ,ngara and that the earlier

resolution of the National ,sseml% cannot in an% manner toll the time for ling election


28/43

protests against memers of the National ,sseml% nor prevent the ling of a protest

&ithin such time as the rules of the Electoral Commission might prescrie.

The grant of po&er to the Electoral Commission to 9udge all contests relating to

the election returns and 'ualications of memers of the National ,sseml% is

intended to e as complete and unimpaired as if it had remained originall% in the

legislature. The epress lodging of that po&er in the Electoral Commission is an implied

denial of the eercise of that po&er % the National ,sseml%.;Thether the issue involves a political 'uestion and therefore e%ond 9udicial

amit

Note= 1olitical 'uestion - The political 'uestion doctrine holds that some 'uestions in

their nature are fundamentall% political and not legal and if a 'uestion isfundamentall% political ... then the court &ill refuse to hear that case. 6t &ill claim that it

doesnQt have 9urisdiction. ,nd it &ill leave that 'uestion to some other aspect of the

political process to settle out.

H-:


29/43

No. Section " of ,rticle K@66 of the /"27 Constitution did not render moot and

academic pending election protest cases. The constitutional grant of privilege to

continue in oce made % the ne& Constitution for the enet of persons &ho &ere

incument ocials or emplo%ees of the ?overnment &hen the ne& Constitution too+

e0ect cannot e fairl% construed as indiscriminatel% encompassing ever% person &ho at

the time happened to e performing the duties of an elective oce aleit under protestor contestM and that Lsu9ect to the constraints specicall% mentioned in Section "

,rticle K@66 of the Transitor% 1rovisions it neither &as nor could have een the intention

of the framers of our ne& fundamental la& to disregard and shunt aside the statutor%

right of a candidate for elective position &ho &ithin the time-frame prescried in the

Election Code of /"2/ commenced proceedings eamed mainl% at the proper

determination in a 9udicial forum of a proclaimed candidate-electIs right to the

contested oce.

The right of the private respondents (protestees) to continue in oce indenitel%

arose not onl% % virtue of Section " of ,rticle K@66 of the Ne& Constitution ut

principall% from their having een proclaimed elected to their respective positions as a

result of the Novemer ! /"2/ elections. Therefore if in fact and in la& the% &ere not

dul% elected to their respective positions and conse'uentl% have no right to hold the

same perform their functions en9o% their privileges and emoluments then certainl%

the% should not e allo&ed to en9o% the indenite term of oce given to them % said

constitutional provision.

ntil a suse'uent la& or presidential decree provides other&ise the right of

respondent (protestee) to continue as ma%or rests on the legalit% of his election &hich

has een protested % herein petitioner. Should the court decide adversel% against him

the electoral protest respondent (protestee) &ould cease to e ma%or even efore a

la& or presidential decree terminates his tenure of oce pursuant to said Section " of

,rticle K@66 of the /"27 Constitution.

25. TANADA VS. CUENCO:,CTS= ,fter the /" national elections the memership in the Senate &asover&helmingl% occupied % the Nacionalista 1art%. The lone opposition senator &as*orenGo TaHada &ho elonged to the CitiGenIs 1art%. Diosdado8acapagal on the otherhand &as a senatorial candidate &ho lost the id ut &as contesting it efore theSenate Electoral Triunal (SET). $ut prior to a decision the SET &ould have to choose itsmemers. 6t is provided that the SET should e composed of " memers comprised ofthe follo&ing= 7 9ustices of the Supreme Court 7 senators from the ma9orit% part% and 7senators from the minorit% part%. $ut since there is onl% one minorit% senator the othert&o SET memers supposed to come from the minorit% &ere lled in % the N1.

TaHada assailed this process efore the Supreme Court. So did 8acapagal ecause hedeemed that if the SET &ould e dominated % N1 senators then he as a memer ofthe *ieralista 1art% &ill not have an% chance in his election contest. Senator 8arianoCuenco et al (memers of the N1) averred that the Supreme Court cannot ta+ecogniGance of the issue ecause it is a political 'uestion. Cuenco argued that the po&erto choose the memers of the SET is

case digest consti 2nd batch (1)

Documents