Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

USA VS GUINTO

Facts:
The case involves the doctrine of state immunity. The United States of America was not impleaded in the case
at bar but has moved to dismiss on the ground that they are in effect suits against it to which it has not
consented.

The private respondents are suing several officers of the US Air Force in Clark Air Base in connection with the
bidding conducted by them for contracts for barber services in the said base. Among those who submitted their
bids were private respondents Roberto T. Valencia, Emerenciana C. Tanglao, and Pablo C. del Pilar.

The Bidding was won by Ramon Dizon over the objection of the private respondents who claimed that he had
made a bid for 4 facilities, including the Civil Engineering Area which was not included in the invitation to
bid.

The private respondents filed a complaint in the court below to compel Philippine Area Exchange (PHAX) and
the individual petitioners to cancel the award to Dizon, to conduct a rebidding for the barbershop concessions
and to allow the private respondents by a writ of preliminary injunction to continue operating the concessions
pending litigation.

The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss and opposition to the petition for preliminary injunction on the
ground that the action was in effect a suit against USA which had not waived its non-suability, but trial court
denied the application for a writ of preliminary injunction.
Meritt vs Gov of the philippines
Facts:
The case is an appeal by both parties from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila in
favor of the plaintiff for the sum of P14,741, together with the costs of the cause.

Prior to this appeal, Plaintiff E. Meritt, a contractor, had a collision with the General Hospital Ambulance
which turned suddenly and unexpectedly without having sounded any whistle or horn. Merrit was severely
injured. His condition had undergone depreciation and his efficiency as a contractor was affected. The plaintiff
is seeking a certain amount for permanent injuries and the loss of wages during he was incapacitated from
pursuing his occupation. In order for Merritt to recover damages, he sought to sue the government which later
authorized the plaintiff to bring suit against the GPI and authorizing the Attorney- General to appear in said
suit.

On this appeal, Counsel for the plaintiff insists that the trial court erred:

 “in limiting the general damages which the plaintiff suffered to P5,000, instead of P25,000 as claimed in
the complaint,” and
 “in limiting the time when plaintiff was entirely disabled to two months and twenty-one days and fixing
the damage accordingly in the sum of P2,666, instead of P6,000 as claimed by plaintiff in his complaint.”

On the other hand, the Attorney-General on behalf of the defendant urges that the trial court erred:

 in finding that the collision between the plaintiff’s motorcycle and the ambulance of the General Hospital
was due to the negligence of the chauffeur, who is an alleged agent or employee of the Government;
 in holding that the Government of the Philippine Islands is liable for the damages sustained by the plaintiff
as a result of the collision, even if it be true that the collision was due to the negligence of the chauffeur;
and
 in rendering judgment against the defendant for the sum of P14,741.

Issues:

 Whether or not the Government is legally liable to the plaintiff by allowing a lawsuit to commence against
it.
 Whether or not the ambulance driver is considered as an employee of the government.

Discussions:
The waiver of immunity of the State does not mean concession of its liability. When the State allows itself to
be sued, all it does in effect is to give the other party an opportunity to prove, if it can, that the State is liable.
Art. 1903, Par. 5 of the Civil Code reads that “The state is liable in this sense when it acts through a special
agent, but not when the damage should have been caused by the official to whom properly it pertained to do
the act performed, in which case the provisions of the preceding article shall be applicable. The responsibility
of the state is limited to that which it contracts through a special agent, duly empowered by a definite order or
commission to perform some act or charged with some definite purpose which gives rise to the claim.

Rulings:

 By consenting to be sued a state simply waives its immunity from suit. It does not thereby concede its
liability to plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his favor, or extend its liability to any cause not
previously recognized. It merely gives a remedy to enforce a pre-existing liability and submits itself to the
jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right to interpose any lawful defense.
 In the case at bar, the ambulance driver was not a special agent nor was a government officer acting as a
special agent. Hence, there can be no liability from the government. As stated by Justice Story of United
States “The Government does not undertake to guarantee to any person the fidelity of the officers or
agents whom it employs, since that would involve it in all its operations in endless embarrassments,
difficulties and losses, which would be subversive of the public interest.”

FLORENTINA A. GUILATCO,

petitioner, vs.

CITY OF DAGUPAN, and the HONORABLECOURT OF APPEALS,

respondent

GUILATCO was a Court Interpreter of CFI-Dagupan. While shewas about to board a motorized tricycle at
the sidewalk of Perez Blvd., she accidentallyfell into a manhole, thus causing her right leg to be
fractured. She was confined in 2hospitals for a period of more than 16 days. She suffered excruciating
pain; incurredhospitalization and medication expenses; had difficulty in locomotion; has not been ableto
report for duty as court interpreter, hence deprived of income.

The manhole on thesidewalk along Perez Blvd was partially covered by a concrete flower pot and left a
wide open hole about 2 ft. long by 1.5 feet wide.

Defendant government officialTANGCO, who took on the DUAL role of being (1) City Engineer of
Dagupan City (LOCALgovt capacity) and (2) Ex-officio Highway Engineer of Bureau of Public
Works(NATIONAL govt capacity), admitted the existence of said manhole.

CITY

SCONTENTION:

that Perez Boulevard is a national road that is not under the control orsupervision of the City of
Dagupan. Hence, no liability should attach to the city. It is theMinistry of Public Highways that has
control or supervision through the HighwayEngineer which, by mere coincidence, is held concurrently by
the same person who isalso the City Engineer of Dagupan.

ISSUE: WON the City of Dagupan exercises controlor supervision over a national road in effect binding
the city to answer fordamages in accordance with article 2189? YES. City of Dagupan is Liable.

Article 2189 of the Civil Code requires only that either control or supervision isexercised over the
defective road or street.

It is not even necessary for the defectiveroad or street to belong to (or be owned by) the province, city,
or municipality forliability to attach.

The article only requires that either control or supervision isexercised over the defective road or street.

The charter of Dagupan clearly indicates that the city indeed hassupervision and control over the
sidewalk where the open drainage hole is located.

In the case at bar, this control or supervision is provided for in the charter of Dagupan and is exercised
through the City Engineer. The same charter of Dagupan also provides that the laying out, construction
and improvement of streets, avenues and alleys and sidewalks, and regulation of the use thereof, may
be legislated by the Municipal Board. Thus the charter clearly indicates that the city indeed has
supervision and control over the sidewalk where the open drainage hole is located.Liability of the city to
the petitioner under Article 2189 of the Civil Code isclear. There is, therefore, no doubt that the City
Engineer exercises control orsupervision over the public works in question. Hence, the liability of the city
to thepetitioner under article 2189 of the Civil Code is clear.

City of Manila v Teotico (Concepcion, 1968)

Facts:

January 27, 1958, at about 8:00 p.m., Genaro N. Teotico fell inside an uncoveredand unlighted
catchbasin or manhole on P. Burgos Avenue as he was steppingdown from the curb to board a jeepney.

Due to the fall, he suffered injuries to his eyes, head and other parts of his body.His head hit the rim of
the manhole breaking his eyeglasses and causing brokenpieces to pierce his left eyelid. In addition to the
lacerated wound in his leftupper eyelid, he suffered contusions on different parts of his body.


Several persons came to his assistance. He was brought to the PhilippineGeneral Hospital.

The injuries and the allergic eruptions caused by anti-tetanus injectionsadministered to him in the
hospital required further medical treatment by aprivate practitioner.

At the time of the incident, he was a practicing public accountant, abusinessman and a professor at
University of the East. He also held positions invarious business firms and associations.

He filed with the CFI Manila a complaint for damages against the City of Manila,its mayor, city engineer,
city health officer, city treasurer and chief of police.

CFI Manila dismissed the complaint. CA affirmed this decision, except insofar asthe City of Manila is
concerned, which was sentenced to pay damages to Teotico.

Issues:

1.WON Section 4 of Republic Act No. 409 (Charter of the City of Manila) or Article2189 of the Civil Code
is applicable to the present case. Civil Code applies.2.WON City of Manila can be held liable to Teotico
for damages even if the roadwas a national road. Yes

Ratio:

1.Although RA No. 409 is a special law as to territorial application, Civil Codegoverns liability due to
defective streets in particular.

Section 4 of

Republic Act No. 409

reads: "The city shall not be liable or heldfor damages or injuries to persons or property arising from the
failure of theMayor, the Municipal Board, or any other city officer, to enforce the provisionsof this
chapter, or any other law or ordinance, or from negligence of saidMayor, Municipal Board, or other
officers while enforcing or attempting toenforce said provisions."

While Article 2189 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides: "Provinces,cities and municipalities shall
be liable for damages for the death of, orinjuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective
condition of roads,streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their controlor
supervision."


It is true that, insofar as its territorial application is concerned , RA No.409 is a special law and the Civil
Code a general legislation; but, asregards the subject- matter of the provisions above quoted, Section
4of Republic Act 409 establishes a general rule regulating the liability of the City of Manila for "damages
or injury to persons or property. Upon theother hand , Article 2189 of the Civil Code constitutes a
particular prescription making " provinces, cities and municipalities . . . liable for damages for the death
of, or injury suffered by, any person by reason" —specifically — "of the defective condition of roads,
streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision."

In other words, said section 4 refers to liability arising from negligence, in general, regardless of the
object thereof, whereas Article2189 governs liability due to "defective streets, "in particular. Since the
present action is based upon the alleged defective condition of a road, said Article 2189 is decisive
thereon.2.The allegation that the accident took place on a national highway was not made in the
Answer of the City. In effect, it admitted that P. Burgos Avenue was and is under its control and
supervision.

Moreover, this assertion was made, for the first time, in its MR of the decision of CA. That cannot be set
up for the first time on appeal.

At any rate, under Article 2189, it is not necessary for the liability there in established to attach that the
defective roads or streets belong to the province, city or municipality from which responsibility is
exacted.

What said article requires is that the province, city or municipality have either "control or supervision"
over said street or road. Even if P.Burgos avenue were, therefore, a national highway, this circumstance
would not necessarily detract from its "control or supervision" by the City of Manila, under Republic Act
No. 409

Also, the determination of whether or not P. Burgos Avenue is under the control or supervision of the
City of Manila and whether the latter is guilty of negligence , in connection with the maintenance of said
road, which were decided by the Court of Appeals in the affirmative, is one of fact , and the findings of
said Court , thereon are not subject to review by the Supreme Court.

Вам также может понравиться