Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
IMPORTANT FACTS
— OFFICIAL FUNCTION EXCEPTTION: When criminal/tortious
act is committed The question, therefore, arises — are
American naval officers who commit a crime or tortious act
— IMPLIED CONSENT WHEN STATE INTERVENES IN A CASE
(me: even) while discharging official functions still covered
When the Republic of the Philippines intervenes in a case, it
by the principle of state immunity from suit? Pursuing the
is implied consent to be countersued. Where the State
question further, does the grant of rights, power, and
takes the initiative in an action against a private party by
authority to the United States under the RP-US Bases Treaty
filing a complaint in intervention, thereby surrendering its
cover immunity of its officers from crimes and torts? Our
privileged position and coming down to the level of the
answer is No. [CRIME AND TORTIOUS ACTS, ultimate
defendants.
exception even for official functions]
--------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
USA v. Guinto 1993 Nessia v. Fermin 1993
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
RATIO / RULINGS
IMPORTANT FACTS
— OTHER STATES: IMMUNE FOR GOVERNMENTAL ACTS but
NOT FOR PROPRIETARY ACTS There is no question that the — Nessia for recovery of damages and reimbursement of
United States of America, like any other state, will be expenses incurred in the performance of his official duties
deemed to have impliedly waived its non-suability if it has as the then Deputy Municipal Assessor of Victorias. The
entered into a contract in its proprietary or private complaint theorized that Fermin deliberately ignored and
capacity. It is only when the contract involves its sovereign caused the non-payment of the vouchers in question
or governmental capacity that no such waiver may be
implied. (jure gestionis)
---------------------------------------------------------
RATIO / RULINGS
— GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITIES SHOULD SATISFY
LIABILITY WHEN APPROPRIATE 1. It is apparent that public
Shauf v. CA 1990 officials are called upon to act expeditiously on matters
pending before them. For only in acting thereon either by
--------------------------------------------------------- signifying approval or disapproval may the plaintiff continue
on to the next step of the bureaucratic process. On the
RATIO / RULINGS
other hand, official inaction brings to a standstill the
administrative process and the plaintiff is left in the darkness
— OTHER STATE OFFICIAL: NOT IMMUNE: NON-OFFICIAL of uncertainty. In this regard, official "inaction" cannot be
FUNCTION, SUED IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY They state equated with "disapproval."
that the doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply and
may not be invoked where the public official is being sued - ME: There is no mention of “immunity” in this case.
in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. It is an example for bureaucrats to not always rely
The cloak of protection afforded the officers and agents of on the immunity rule and satisfy liability when it is
the government is removed the moment they are sued in due.
their individual capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Farolan v. CTA 1993
USA v. Reyes 1993 ---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
RATIO / RULINGS
RATIO / RULINGS — UNINCORPORATED GOVERNMENT AGENCY IMMUNE As
3