Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
PROCESS:
Montoya filed complaint with RTC-Cavite for
damages due to the oppressive and discriminatory
acts committed by the latter in excess of her
authority as store manager
Bradford filed two (2) motions for extension of
time to file her Answer which were both granted
by the trial court, but instead of answering, she,
together with USA, filed Motion to Dismiss on ff.
grounds:
o
2
-
Second Division
Doctrine: official v. personal capacity
Keywords: void for overbreadth
Date: November 27, 1990
Ponente: Justice Regalado
FACTS:
Loida Shauf, a Filipino by origin and married to an
American who is a member of the US Air Force, was
rejected for a position of Guidance Counselor in the
Base Education Office at Clark Air Base, for which she
is eminently qualified.
RATIO:
They state that the doctrine of immunity from suit will
not apply and may not be invoked where the public
official is being sued in his private and personal
capacity as an ordinary citizen.
The cloak of
protection afforded the officers and agents of the
government is removed the moment they are sued in
their individual capacity. This situation usually arises
where the public official acts without authority or in
excess of the powers vested in him.
It is a well-settled principle of law that a public official
may be liable in his personal private capacity for
whatever damage he may have caused by his act
done with malice and in bad faith, or beyond the
scope of his authority or jurisdiction
3
Director of the Bureau of Telecommunications vs.
Aligaen Inasmuch as the State authorizes only legal
acts by its officers, unauthorized acts of government
officials or officers are not acts of the State, and an
action against the officials or officers by one whose
rights have been invaded or violated by such acts, for
the protection of his rights, is not a suit against the
State within the rule of immunity of the State from
suit. In the same tenor, it has been said that an
action at law or suit in equity against a State officer or
the director of a State department on the ground that,
while claiming to act for the State, he violates or
invades the personal and property rights of the
plaintiff, under an unconstitutional act or under an
assumption of authority which he does not have, is
not a suit against the State within the constitutional
provision that the State may not be sued without its
consent."The rationale for this ruling is that the
doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an
instrument for perpetrating an injustice
FACTS:
At about 7am of December 16, 1965, a collision
occurred involving a passenger jeepney driven by
Bernardo Balagot (owned by the Estate of Macario
Nieveras), a gravel and sand truck driven by Jose
Manandeg (owned by Tanquilino Velasquez), and a
dump truck of the Municipality of San Fernando, La
Union and driven by Alfredo Bislig. Due to the impact,
several passengers of the jeepney including Laureano
Bania Sr. died as a result of the injuries they
sustained and four others suffered varying degrees of
physical injuries.
4
truck and the driver worked at the time of the
accident are admittedly governmental activities."
5
name of Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC). The land
was donated by the Archdiocese of Manila to the
Papal Nuncio, which represents the Holy See, who
exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City, Rome,
Italy, for his residence.
FACTS:
The United States of America had a naval base
in Subic, Zambales. The base was one of those
provided in the Military Bases Agreement between the
Philippines and the United States.
Sometime in May, 1972, the United States
invited the submission of bids for a couple of repair
projects. Eligio de Guzman land Co., Inc. responded to
the invitation and submitted bids. Subsequent
thereto, the company received from the US two
telegrams requesting it to confirm its price proposals
and for the name of its bonding company. The
company construed this as an acceptance of its offer
so they complied with the requests. The company
received a letter which was signed by William I. Collins
of Department of the Navy of the United States, also
one of the petitioners herein informing that the
company did not qualify to receive an award for the
projects because of its previous unsatisfactory
performance rating in repairs, and that the projects
were awarded to third parties. The company filed a
complaint against the defendants herein demanding
specific performance that the company be allowed to
perform the work on the projects and, in the event
that specific performance was no longer possible, to
order the defendants to pay damages.
6
defense of both the United States and the Philippines,
indisputably a function of the government of the
highest order, they are not utilized for nor dedicated
to commercial or business purposes.
NOTE:
1. A STATE MAY BE SAID TO HAVE DESCENDED TO
THE LEVEL OF AN INDIVIDUAL AND CAN THUS BE
DEEMED TO HAVE TACITLY GIVEN ITS CONSENT TO BE
SUED ONLY WHEN IT ENTERS INTO BUSINESS
CONTRACTS.
En Banc
Campos, Jr., March 19, 1993
Topic: Sovereignty - Suit not against the State Beyond the Scope of Authority
Facts:
The heirs of the deceased of the January 22,
1987 Mendiola massacre (background: Wiki),
together with those injured (Caylao group),
instituted the petition, seeking the reversal
and setting aside of the orders of respondent
Judge Sandoval (May 31 and Aug 8, 1988) in
"Erlinda Caylao, et al. vs. Republic of the
Philippines, et al." which dismissed the case
against the Republic of the Philippines
May 31 order: Because the impleaded
military officers are being charged in
their personal and official capacity,
holding them liable, if at all, would not
result in financial responsibility of the
government
Aug 8 order: denied the motions filed
by both parties for reconsideration
In
January
1987,
farmers
and
their
sympathizers presented their demands for
what they called "genuine agrarian reform"
The Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP),
led by Jaime Tadeo, presented their problems
and demands such as:
giving lands for free to farmers
zero retention of lands by landlords
they
were
prepositioned
incorrectly
Issues:
1. Whether or not the State has waived its
immunity from suit (i.e. Whether or not this is
a suit against the State with its consent)
Petitioners
argue
that
by
the
recommendation
made
by
the
Commission for the government to
indemnify the heirs and victims, and by
public addresses made by President
Aquino, the State has consented to be
sued
2. Whether or not the case qualifies as a suit
against the State
Holding:
1. No.
This is not a suit against the State with
its consent.
2. No.
Ratio:
1.
Art. XIV, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution: The State
may not be sued without its consent
The
recommendations
by
the
Commission does not in any way mean that
liability automatically attaches to the State
The Commission was simply a factfinding body; its findings shall serve only as
cause of action for litigation; it does not bind
the State immediately
President
Aquino's
speeches
are
likewise not binding on the State; they are not
tantamount to a waiver by the State
2.
Some instances when a suit against the State
is proper:
When
the
suit
is
against
an
unincorporated government agency