lOMoARcPSD|6121317

Consti- Digests-1

BS Legal Management (San Beda University)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Harold Gardon (hqg90.mlqu.lms@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|6121317

Case No. 28
Merritt v Government of the Philippine Islands
GR No. 11154 March 21, 1916
Facts:

E. Merritt – struck by the General Hospital ambulance which failed to follow the prescribed
ordinance and Motor Vehicle Act. He was so severely injured that he lost the agility, energy, and
ability. Upon ruling of the Court of First Instance in favour of E. Merritt, he insisted that the
damages and the time he was entirely disabled be raised.

Attorney General – contests that the trial court erred (a) in finding that the collision was due to
the negligence of the chauffeur; (b) 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
collision was due to the negligence of the chauffeur; and (c) in rendering judgment against the
defendant.

Act No. 2457 (effective February 3, 1915) - an act authorizing E. Merritt to bring suit against the
Government of the Philippine Islands and authorizing the Attorney-General of said Islands to
appear in said suit

Held:

The consent of the Government to be sued by E. Merritt was entirely voluntary on its part. The
scope of legislative enactments permitting individuals to sue the state where the cause of action
arises out of either tort or contract, by consenting to be sued, a state simply waives its immunity
from suit.

Downloaded by Harold Gardon (hqg90.mlqu.lms@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|6121317

Case No. 29
Froilan V. Pan Oriental Shipping
GR No. L-6060 September 30, 1954
Facts:

Fernando Froilan – purchased from the Shipping Commission the vessel FS-197 on instalment
and executed a chattel mortgage of said vessel in favor of the Shipping Commission to secure the
payment, however, due to the non-payment of the installments, the Shipping Commission took
possession of the vessel and considered the contract of sale cancelled and chartered and delivered
said vessel to the Pan Oriental Shipping Co. subject to the approval of the President of the
Philippines

August 25, 1950 – Cabinet restored him to all his rights under his original contract with the
Shipping Commission

November 10, 1951 - Government of the Republic of the Philippines, led a complaint in
intervention and prayed that Froilan be declared to be without any rights on said vessel and that
pending the hearing on the merits, the said vessel be delivered to it

February 3, 1952 - the lower court held that the payment by Froilan to the Board of Liquidators
constituted a payment and a discharge of Froilan's obligation to the Government of the Republic
of the Philippines and ordered the dismissal of the latter's complaint in intervention

Held:

The counterclaim is not barred by prior judgment - if a counterclaim has been pleaded by a
defendant prior to the service upon him of the plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the action shall not
be dismissed against the defendant's objection unless the counterclaim can remain pending for
independent adjudication by the court

By taking the initiative in an action against a private party, the state surrenders its privileged
position and comes down to the level of the defendant - by filing its complaint in intervention,
the Government in effect waived its right of nonsuability

Downloaded by Harold Gardon (hqg90.mlqu.lms@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|6121317

Case No. 31
Republic v Sandiganbayan
GR No. 90478 November 21, 1991
Facts:

Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) – commenced a case in behalf of the

Republic of the Philippines for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages

Bienvenido R. Tantoco, Jr. and Dominador R. Santiago - after having been served with
summons, Tantoco, Jr. and Santiago, instead of filing their answer, jointly filed a "motion to
strike out some portions of the complaint and for bill of particulars of other portions”

Order of January 29, 1988 - Sandiganbayan, in order to expedite proceedings and accommodate
the defendants, gave the PCGG forty-five (45) days to expand its complaint to make more
specific certain allegations

July 4, 1988 –Sandiganbayan denied the motion to strike out, for bill of particulars, and for leave
to file interrogatories, holding them to be without legal and factual basis

August 2, 1989 – an “Amended Interrogatories to Plaintiff" as well as a Motion for Production

and Inspection of Documents were filed which the Sandiganbayan admitted and granted the
motion for production and inspection of documents, respectively

September 29, 1989 – the Sandiganbayan promulgated two Resolutions, the first, denying
reconsideration (of the Resolution allowing production of documents), and the second,
reiterating by implication the permission to serve the amended interrogatories on the plaintiff
(PCGG)

Held:

Field of inquiry that may be covered by depositions or interrogatories is as broad as when the
interrogated party is called as a witness to testify orally at trial. The inquiry extends to all facts
which are relevant, whether they be ultimate or evidentiary, excepting only those matters which
are privileged.

The consent of the State to be sued may be given expressly or impliedly. Express consent may be
manifested either through a general law or a special law. Implied consent is given when the State
itself commences litigation or when it enters into a contract - The PCGG cannot claim a superior
or preferred status to the State, even while assuming to represent or act for the State

Downloaded by Harold Gardon (hqg90.mlqu.lms@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|6121317

Case No. 50
City of Caloocan v Judge Allarde
GR No. 107271 September 10, 2003
Facts:

Ordinance No. 1749 - Mayor Marcial Samson of Caloocan abolished the position of Assistant
City Administrator and 17 other positions

The affected employees assailed the legality of the abolition. The CFI in 1973 declared abolition
illegal and ordered the reinstatement of all the dismissed employees and the payment of their
back-wages and other emoluments. The City Government appealed the decision but such was
dismissed.

In 1987 the City appropriated funds for Santiago’s unpaid back salaries (Supplemental Budget
#3) but the City refused to release the money to her. The City of Caloocan argued that she was
not entitled to back wages.

July 27, 1992 - Sheriff Castillo levied and sold at public auction one of the motor vehicles of the
City Government for P100,000 which was given to Santiago. The City Government questioned
the validity of the motor vehicle; properties of the municipality were exempt from execution.

October 5, 1993 - the City Council passed Ordinance No. 0134 which included the back-wages
of Santiago, plus interest. Judge Allarde issued an order to the City Treasurer to release the check
but the City Treasurer can’t do so because the Mayor refuses to sign the check.

May 7, 1993 - Judge Allarde ordered the Sheriff to immediately garnish the funds of the City
Government corresponding to the claim of Santiago. Notice of garnishment was forwarded to the
PNB but the City Treasurer sent an advice letter to PNB that the garnishment was illegal and that
it would hold PNB liable for any damages which may be caused by the withholding the funds of
the city.

Held:

The rule is and has always been that all government funds deposited in the PNB or any other
official depositary of the Philippine Government by any of its agencies or instrumentalities,
whether by general or special deposit, remain government funds and may not be subject to
garnishment or levy, in the absence of a corresponding appropriation as required by law. Even
though the rule as to immunity of a state from suit is relaxed, the power of the courts ends when
the judgment is rendered.

Downloaded by Harold Gardon (hqg90.mlqu.lms@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|6121317

Case No. 52
Merritt v Government of the Philippine Islands
GR No. 11154 March 21, 1916
Facts:

E. Merritt – struck by the General Hospital ambulance which failed to follow the prescribed
ordinance and Motor Vehicle Act. He was so severely injured that he lost the agility, energy, and
ability that he had constantly displayed before the accident. Upon ruling of the Court of First
Instance in favour of E. Merritt, he insisted that the damages and the time he was entirely
disabled be raised.

Attorney General – contests that the trial court erred (a) in finding that the collision was due to
the negligence of the chauffeur; (b) 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
collision was due to the negligence of the chauffeur; and (c) in rendering judgment against the
defendant.

Act No. 2457 (effective February 3, 1915) - an act authorizing E. Merritt to bring suit against the
Government of the Philippine Islands and authorizing the Attorney-General of said Islands to
appear in said suit

Held:

The state is not liable for the torts committed by its officers or agents whom it employs, except
when expressly made so by legislative enactment - The consent of the Government to be sued by
E. Merritt was entirely voluntary on its part. The scope of legislative enactments permitting
individuals to sue the state where the cause of action arises out of either tort or contract, 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 preexisting liability and
submits itself to the jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right to interpose any lawful defense.

Downloaded by Harold Gardon (hqg90.mlqu.lms@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|6121317

Case No. 55
Syquia v. Almeda Lopez
GR No. L-1648 August 17, 1949
Facts:

Pedro Syquia, Gonzalo Syquia, and Leopoldo Syquia – plaintiffs, undivided joint owners of three
apartment buildings who executed three lease contracts, one for each of the three apartments, in
favor of the United States of America.

George F. Moore – Commanding General of the US Army who had control over the occupancy
of the said apartment houses and had authority in the name of the US Government to assign
officers of the US Army to said apartments or to order said officers to vacate the same

Erland F. Tillman – Chief, Real Estate Division, Office of the District Engineers of the U.S.
Army who, under the command of defendant Moore was in direct charge and control of the lease
and occupancy of said three apartment buildings

February 17, 1947 - served formal notice upon defendants Moore and Tillman and 64 other army
officers or members of the US Armed Forces who were then occupying apartments, demanding
cancellation of said leases, increase in rentals, and execution of new leases for a definite term,
otherwise, release of said apartment buildings within 30 days of said notice in the event of the
failure to comply with the foregoing demands

April 29, 1947 - acting upon a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction
over the defendants and over the subject matter of the action, the municipal court of Manila
found that the war had not yet terminated and, consequently, the period or term of the three
leases had not yet expired

Held:

The real party in interest as defendant in the original case is the United States of America; that
any judgment for back or increased rentals or damages will have to be paid not by defendants
Moore and Tillman and their 64 co-defendants but by the said U.S. Government - It is clear that
the courts of the Philippines including the Municipal Court of Manila have no jurisdiction over
the case for unlawful detainer. The question of lack of jurisdiction was raised and interposed at
the very beginning of the action. The U.S. Government has not given its consent to the filing of
this suit which is essentially against her, though not in name.

Downloaded by Harold Gardon (hqg90.mlqu.lms@gmail.com)