Francisco, Juna Aimee C.

EH302
Constitutional Law
Judge 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 states immunity from
suit.
- This present case (asking for certiorari for earlier case) arose claiming that Judge
Purisima
failed in applying immunity from suit.
ISSUE:
- Was the application of Judge Purisima of states immunity from suit erroneous?
HELD:
- Judge Purisima erred in using States immunity from suit in this case. In this case,
Rice and Corn Administrations 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 Felicianos suit against Land
Authority is not valid, for it violates the constitutions provision on states 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 Felicianos 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 Felicianos 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 Peoples 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 PNBs 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 states 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:
- PNBs 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
Tans 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 Tans petition prosper, considering that Feliciano and Rivera are both acting
government officials, which would give them the right to states 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
states 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 VMPSIs suit against PADPAO violative of states immunity from suit?
HELD:
- Yes, VMPSIs suit is violative of states 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 Enriles 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.