Francisco, Juna Aimee C.EH302Constitutional LawJudge Alma Singco

CASE 1: Syquia VS Almeda-Lopez Facts: Brother Syquia leased their apartments to several US Army officers for the duration of WWII. But when the war was officially declared over, the US officers still continued to occupy the apartments. The brothers wanted the apartment back but was refused, hence the action against the officers. Issue: Is this a suit against the US? Held: Yes, it was found out that the interested party in this case is the US government since it is paying for the lease of the apartment, therefore the suit cannot prosper. CASE 2: Froilan VS Pan Shipping Facts: Froilan bought a boat but the shipping commission took it because he could not pay for it and the boat was given to Pan Oriental Shipping Company. The Cabinet restored the possession of the boat to Froilan when he appealed. The Pan Shipping Cp. Demanded the boat back and the RP intervened to make Froilan give it back. RP moved for the dismissal of the counterclaim of Pan Shipping Co. that they should give the boat to the Co. Issue: Is the RP immune from suit in this case? Held: No, because when it filed its complaint intervention, the government waived its immunity.

CASE 3: Municipality of San Fernando La Union vs. Firme

FACTS:- petitioner: Municipality of San Fernando - respondent: Honorable Judge Romeo Firme, presiding judge of case- private respondents: relatives of dead Laureano Banina Sr.- On December 16, 1965, there was a collision between a jeepney driven by Balagot, a gavel and sand truck driven by Manendeg (owned by Velasquez) and a dump truck driven by Bislig (owned by the Municipality of San Fernando). Several passengers died, including Laureano; others sustained physical injuries.- The relatives of Laureano filed a suit to recover damages against the jeepney driver (Balagot). Balagot transferred the blame to the Municipality of San Fernando and the driver of their dumptruck (Bislig). Private Respondents agreed with Balagot. The case was now against Bislig and the Municipality of San Fernando.- Judge Firme ruled in favor of the respondents and private respondents, holding Bislig and the Municiplity of San Fernando liable for the damages done during collision. He rendered this decision despite petitioner’s defense of “immunity of state from suit”.- Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, thus the current petition.

ISSUE:- Was Judge Firme wrong in declaring the respondents liable for the damages of the collision?

HELD:- Judge Firme was wrong, for he failed to recognize the petitioner’s right to immunity from suit. - Municipalites are immune from suit so long as they are performing governmental functions. At the current case, it was discovered that Bislig, driving the dump truck, was on his way to recover sand and gavel to be used in repairing the roads of San Fernando. He was performing a governmental function, so he shall be immune from suit. He should not be held liable for his actions.- Note, one can not be held liable if one can not be sued. Judge Firm held respondents guilty and liable for the damages without considering first their immunity from suit, therefore he made a mistake.

CASE 4: Republic of the Philippines vs. Purisima

FACTS:- Yellow Ball Freight Lines sues Rice and Corn Administration on grounds of breach of contract. On Sept 7, 1972, a motion to dismiss the said case was filed by the defendant, Rice and Corn Administration. - Judge Amante Purisima from the Court of First Instance of Manila, who was handling the case, approved the motion to dismiss the case stating that Rice and Corn Administration, as a government office, is given the privilege of “state’s immunity from suit”.- This present case (asking for certiorari for earlier case) arose claiming that Judge Purisimafailed in applying “immunity from suit”.

ISSUE:- Was the application of Judge Purisima of “state’s immunity from suit” erroneous?

HELD:- Judge Purisima erred in using “State’s immunity from suit in this case”. In this case, Rice and Corn Administration’s contract with the petitioner had no binding effect on the government. They were treated as a separate corporate entity upon entering such contract.- Certiorari was granted; the motion to dismiss filed by Rice and Corn Administration nullified.

CASE 5: Republic of the Philippines vs. Pablo Feliciano

FACTS:- Land Authority (representing The Republic of the Philippines) was sued by Pablo Feliciano for recovery of ownership and possession of parcels of land which were taken and utilized by the governemnt to give to settlers. After proceedings, it was declared that the portions of land claimed by Feliciano is indeed privately owned by him.

- Settlers who have been staying in such land for about two decades asked for the above decision to be set aside, for they claim to own the land (because they have been staying there). The court holding jurisdiction over such case ruled in favor of Feliciano, sticking to their old decision.- Determined to keep their land, the settlers then stated that Feliciano’s suit against Land Authority is not valid, for it violates the constitution’s provision on state’s immunity from suit. Feliciano sued the state to claim the land, so such case should be dismissed. The case was dismissed.- Feliciano goes to the Intermediate Appellate Court, pleading for the dismissal of the case to be reviewed. The Intermediate Appellate Court grants the certiorari. Settlers file for dismissal once again, reiterating once more that Feliciano can not sue the state.

ISSUE:- Can Feliciano sue the state so he can recover the land taken away from him?

HELD:- No, Feliciano can not sue the state. An action for recovery of land is “action in personam” (action against parties involved) and not “action in rem” (action against property). Which means that Feliciano’s case was clearly against the state, and not the property. According to our constitution, the state is immune from suit (unless it gives consent), making Feliciano’s suit erroneous.- The complaint of Feliciano was once again dismissed.

CASE 6: Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Industrial Relations, Gabriel V. Manansala, and Gilbert P. Lorenzo, in his official capacity as authorized Deputy Sheriff

FACTS:- petitioner: PNB- respondents: CIR, Gilbert Lorenzo (authorized sheriff)- Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) hires Lorenzo to serve as deputy sheriff, assigned to issue a writ of execution ( a court order asking local sheriff to take possession of a debtor) against People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation (the unincorporated government agency in this case, who was the debtor). The money issued to be collected from PH&HC was deposited in PNB.- PNB moved to quash notice of garnishment (dismiss case, avoid collection of money). CIR denied PNB’s petition.- PNB petitions for certiorari, stating in defense that PH&HC, as an unincorporated agency of the government, hold funds which are “public funds”. This means that such funds can not be subject to garnishment, due to state’s immunity from suit, and such garnishment would lead to disbursement of public funds contrary to our constitution.

ISSUE:

- Was PNB correct in claiming that the funds deposited in their bank are “public funds” and can not be touched for such funds come from an unincorporated agency of the government, making them immune from suit?

HELD:- PNB’s motion for certiorari was denied.- PH&HC was considered to have stooped down to the level of an ordinary citizen when they entered into a proprietary business. Therefore they have waived their right to be immune from suit. The funds in the issue are not “public funds”.

CASE 7: Wenceslao Tan vs. Director of Forestry (Rivera) and The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (Feliciano)

FACTS:- On April 1961, the Bureau of Forestry advertised that there will be a public bidding for a portion of public forest land located in Olongapo, Zambales. On May 1961, Tan and other applicants submitted their applications for ownership of such property. Tan won such property, which he inteded to use for timber purposes. His timber license was signed by the Director of Forestry.- Concerned parties believe that granting such privilege to Tan will endanger the land, which led them to filing a motion for consideration to The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (Feliciano). Feliciano sides with the concerned parties, and believes that the grant of property to Tan was erroneous, for a new law was passed stating that a timber license may only be issued upon the signature of both the Director of Forestry and the Sec. Of AgRiverari and Natural Resources. He did not sign such license, making Tan’s license void ab initio.- Tan sues Feliciano and , stating that he had the right to own the land because his license was valid.

ISSUE:- Will Tan’s petition prosper, considering that Feliciano and Rivera are both acting government officials, which would give them the right to state’s immunity from suit?

HELD:- Appeal from Tan dismissed. He can not sue Feliciano and Rivera. - Feliciano (acting Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources) and Rivera (acting Director of Forestry) were only practicing their governmental functions as officials, when they tried to take back the land from Tan (stating that the license was invalid. A license can only be issued by a government official, and not by a private employee). They were taking back the property for such land, if not used properly, might lead to the government losing a substantial part of its timber resources.

CASE 8: Hon. Ramon J. Farolan (Commissioner of Customs) vs. Court of Tax Appeals and Bagong Buhay Trading

FACTS:- A vessel named “Pacific Hawk” arrives in Manila, carrying bales of screen net which were to be received by Bagong Buhay Trading (BBT). BBT paid the taxes that came along with the transaction. Apparantly, it was discovered that the declared number bales of screen net was less than what was really transported. Because of this, the Commissioner of Customs (Farolan) forfeited the nets in favor of the government.- BBT appeals to the Court of Tax Appeals. CTA reverses decision of Farolan, and states that the nets should be given back to BBT. When they retrieved the nets, BBT noticed that some of the nets were not in good condition. BBT files damages against Farolan (representing the Bureau of Customs).

ISSUE:- Can BBT file damages against the Bureau of Customs (an unincorporated agency of the govt)?

HELD:- Farolan and Bureau of Customs NOT liable for damages. BBT suing them violates state’s immunity from suit.

CASE 9: Veterans Manpower & Protective Services, Inc. (VMPSI) vs. The Court of Appeals, the Chief of Philippine Constabulary and Philippine Constabulary Supervisory Unit for Security and Investigation Agencies (PC-SUSIA)

FACTS:- RA 5487 (Private Security Agency Law) was passed, with a provision requiring all security agencies to become members of the Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Services, Inc. (PADPAO). VMPSI declares such law unconstitutional, for it violates laws which prohibit unfair competition. VMPSI claims that this law will bring advantage to PADMAO.- PADPAO refused to accept VMPSI as a member, since the latter was found guilty of engaging in cut- throat competition (lowering the charges of their services, which deprives other agencies of fair competition). Because of this, VMPSI sues PADPAO.

ISSUE: - Is VMPSI’s suit against PADPAO violative of state’s immunity from suit?

HELD:- Yes, VMPSI’s suit is violative of state’s immunity from suit. VMPSI cannot sue PADPAO, because PADPAO is a government agency; and in the mentioned facts above, they were merely practicing their duties.

CASE 10: Francisco I. Chavez (solicitor general) vs. The Hon. Sandiganbayan (First Division) and Juan Ponce Enrile

FACTS:

-Enrile was accused of participating in illegal practices of the late President Marcos. Chavez and PCGG commissioners sue Enrile. After investigation, it was found that accusations against Enrile were false, dropping all complaints against him. However, Chavez and the PCGG members sued him still, despite knowledge that Enrile’s name was no longer tied to illegal practices during Marcos’ reign.- Enrile moved to implead Chavez and the PCGG officials. Sandiganbayan grants it. (damages against the petitioners were filed as well)- Chavez and PCGG officials claim that they are immune from suit, therefore they are also not liable for damages charged by Enrile.

ISSUE:- WON Chavez and PCGG can use “immunity from suit” to save them from the damages filed against them.

HELD:- Though Chavez and PCGG are both linked to the government and may be immune from suit, they were still held liable for damages.- Immunity from suit applied to government officials is only applicable if they were performing their governmental duties in good faith. In this case, it was declared that PCGG and Chavez were acting in bad faith in suing Enrile, especially after continuing their accusations against Enrile despite knowledge that Enrile had no connections to Marcos’ wrong doings.