7/25/2019 Case Digest Kintanar

1/3

Kintanar, Marie Caitlin C.

EH302

Constitutional LawJudge Alma Singco

CASE 1: Festejo VS FernandoFacts Fernando, w!o is t!e "irector o# t!e $ureau o# %u&lic 'ords, too( Feste)o*s

+arcels o# land wit!out aut!orit or getting a rig!t o# wa. Feste)o wants to sue t!e

director o# "%'H.-ssue Can Fernando ino(e immunit #rom suit as a +u&lic o##icial/

Held o. Fernando ma &e a goernment wor(er &ut !e too( t!e +arcel o# land wit!out

getting a rig!t o# wa, t!ere#ore t!is was &eong !is aut!orit as a +u&lic o##icial suing

Fernando will +ros+er.

CASE 2: Calub VS Court of Appeals

Facts Calu& 1#rom "E a++re!ended two e!icles carring lum&er t!at was illegall

o&tained. 4!e owners wanted to get t!eir e!icles &ac( and #iled #or re+lein to get it&ac(. 4!e court awarded t!e owners &ecause Calu& did not act wit!in t!e law. Calu& #iles

#or a +etition and sas t!e re+lein is a suit against t!e state.-ssue 'as t!e re+lein a suit against t!e state/

Held. 5es it is. Calu& was wit!in !is aut!orit w!en !e con#iscated t!e two truc(s.

4!ere#ore, t!e re+lein was a suit against t!e state w!ic! will not +ros+er.

CASE 3: Sayson VS Singson

Facts es+ondent Singson cause o# action is a mone claim against t!e goernment #or

t!e +ament o# t!e alleged &alance o# t!e cost o# s+are +arts o# a &ulldo6er. 4!e "istrictEngineer said t!at !e was selling t!e +arts at a reasona&le +rice &ut it wasn*t. 4!e +arts

were su++ose to &e onl %2,728 &ut was sold to Sing(ier Motor Serice #or %93,730.-ssue 'ill t!e mone claim & Singson +ros+er/Held. o, it will not. -t is not a claim against t!e State, rat!er, it is an ordinar action #or

s+eci#ic +er#ormance. 4!e suit is disguised as one #or Mandamus to a++roe t!e ouc!ers

#or +ament

CASE 4: Department of Agriulture VS !C"C

Facts "A entered into an agreement wit! Sultan Securit Agenc w!erein t!e latter

+roided securit guards to t!e "A. Howeer, t!e securit guard #iled com+laintsregarding t!eir under+ament and ot!er com+laints. 4!e La&or Ar&iter rendered a

decision #inding "A and t!e Securit Agenc lia&le and issued a writ o# e:ecution against

t!e +ro+ert o# t!e "A and Securit Agenc.-ssue 'it! t!e "A &eing a goernment entit, is it sua&le/

Held 5es. 4!e claims o# t!e securit guards constitute mone claims. Act 30;3 gies t!e

consent o# t!e State to &e sued u+on an moneed claim inoling lia&ilit arising #romcontracts.

CASE #: $erritt VS %o&ernment

Facts Merritt was a constructor w!o was !it & a goernment am&ulance. He can no

7/25/2019 Case Digest Kintanar

2/3

longer wor(. He sued t!e drier in !is +ersonal ca+acit and t!e driers was #ound to &e

negligent. Merritt wanted to sue t!e State under Act 297. He was dismissed a#ter 20 ears o# serice

and !e soug!t to &e reinstated &ecause t!e dismissal #or !im was un)ust. He wanted to sueJ@SMA> &ut t!e latter claims it is immune #rom suit.

-ssue -s J@SMA> immune #rom suit/

Held 5es t!e are. Sacramento was !ired as a securit +ersonnel w!ic! is one o# t!eneeded constituent #unctions in J@SMA> as stated in t!e Militar Assistance Agreement.

4!ere#ore, Sacramento*s case against J@SMA> cannot +ros+er.

CASE ,: (S VS %uinto

Facts 4!e Air Force in Clar( Air $ase conducted a &idding #or &ar&ers!o+ serices.

4!ree tried to &id &ut "i6on won t!e &idding een t!oug! !e was alread &idding #or a

total o# #our #acilities. 4!e t!ree &idders are suing t!e @SAF o##icers to com+el t!em tocancel t!e award to "i6on and to conduct a re&idding. @SAF wanted to dismiss t!e case

saing it is immune #rom suit

-ssue Are t!e @SAF o##icers immune/Held -n t!is case, t!e are not. 4!e @SAF !ae entered into a +ro+rietar contract and

deemed to !ae waie its immunit. 4!ere#ore t!e can &e sued.

CASE -: $along VS .!"

Facts 4!e Malong s+ouses were suing % #or t!e deat! o# t!eir son w!o #ell o## t!e

train &etween 4arlac and Ca+as. 4!e S> moed to dismiss t!e case claiming % is a

goernment agenc and immune #rom suit. 4!e trial court dismissed it, !ence an a++eal#rom Malong s+ouses.

-ssue -s t!e % immune #rom suit/

Held o, t!e are not. 4!e % is not immune #rom suit &ecause it did not remoe itsel##rom t!e o+eration o# Art. B

7/25/2019 Case Digest Kintanar

3/3

CASE 1/: Santos VS Santos

Facts A +arcel o# land was &eing rented & t!e @S Arm and was &oug!t & t!e

Administrator o# t!e Ciil Aeronautics Administration. 4!e +art owners o# t!e land neeragreed to t!e sale and wanted t!e owners!i+ restored &ac( to t!em. 4!e CAA, moed to

dismiss t!e suit claiming immunit #rom suit.

-ssue -s t!e CAA immune #rom suit/Held. 4!e CAA cannot legall +reent a +art or +arties #rom en#orcing t!eir +ro+riet

rig!ts under t!e cloa( o# lac( o# )uridical +ersonalit, &ecause it too( oer all t!e +owers

and assumed all t!e o&ligations o# t!e de#unct cor+oration w!ic! !ad entered into t!econtract in Duestion. State immunit does not a++l to it.