Republic v. Feliciano

TOPICS: Waiver of state immunity can only be made by an act of the legislative body; Waiver of immunity should be strictly construed against the state. 

FACTS:

Feliciano filed a complaint against the Republic for the recovery of ownership and possession of a parcels of land which were reserved for settlement purposes under the administration of the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA) per Proclamation No. 90.

The intervenors filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the Republic cannot be sued without its consent 

ISSUE:

WON the government has waived its immunity from suit.  

RULING:

No.

Waiver of state immunity can only be made by an act of the legislative body. Waiver of immunity, being a derogation of sovereignty, will not be inferred lightly, but must be construed in strictissimi juris.

In this case, Proclamation No. 90 can not be construed as a waiver of the immunity of the State from suit. A Proclamation is not a legislative act. Hence, the state has not given its consent to be sued. 

Therefore, there was no consent given by the state for it be liable. [the complaint was dismissed as the possessory information under the Spanish Mortgage Law he presented cannot establish proof of ownership or exclusion of the land in the NARRA].

Republic v. Sandoval

TOPICS: Doctrine of Immunity from Suit; A suit against the state is proper when the [1] republic is sued by name, [2] the suit is against an unincorporated government agency, and [3] when the suit is on its face against the government officer but the ultimate liability will belong not to the officer but to the government. 

FACTS:

The heirs of the deceased during the Mendiola Massacre on January 22, 1987 filed a case for damages against the Republic of the Philippines, together with the military officers and personnel involved in the incident. 

The petitioners argued that the State waived its immunity from suit on the basis of the report issued by the Citizens’ Mendiola Commission organized by Pres. Aquino. 

The Commission recommended the government to indemnify the heirs and the victims of the Mendiola incident. 

ISSUE:

WON the case qualifies as a suit against the state. 

RULING:

No, the case is not a suit against the state.

A suit against the state is proper when the Republic is sued by name, the suit is against an unincorporated government agency, and that the ultimate liability belongs to the government. 

In this case, the military officers and personnel exceeded their authority in the discharge of their official functions. They Committee report found that there was a lack of justification by the government forces in the use of firearms and there were unnecessary firing. Hence, the ultimate liability does not pertain to the government

Therefore, the case does not qualify as a suit against the estate. [the liability should fall on the named defendants in the lower court]

-------------- 

DISCUSSION:

The report of the Commission does not in any way mean that liability automatically attaches to the State. The findings only serve as the cause of action in the event any party decides to litigate his/her claim. The Commission, being a fact-finding body, is merely a preliminary venue. Whatever recommendation it makes cannot in any way bind the State immediately, such recommendation not having become final and executory.

US v. Guinto

TOPICS: Doctrine of Immunity from Suit or the Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty;  Doctrine of Incorporation; Express Consent is effected only by a statute; Implied consent exists when the government enters into a contract, but distinction has to be made between its sovereign and proprietary acts

FACTS:

The case is a consolidation of cases invoking the doctrine of state immunity. 

GR No. 76607 - petitioners are several officers of the U.S. Air Force stationed in Clark Air Base were sued in connection with the bidding for barbering services. The petitioner filed a motion to dims on the ground that the action was in effect a suit against the USA, which had not waived its nonsuability. 

GR No. 7940 - the defendant is an officer of the US Air Force at John Hay Air Station who was sued for allegedly effecting a dismissal against an employee, a cook in the Main Club, who had poured urine into the soup stock used in cooking the vegetables served to the club customers. 

GR No. 80018 - petitioners are officers of the US Air Force and special agents of the Air Force Office of the Special Investigators who arrested Luis Bautista, a barracks boy in Cam O’Donnell, for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act. 

GR No. 80258 - the plaintiff was allegedly beaten up, handcuffed, and bitten by unleashed dogs of the defendants who invoked immunity from suit

ISSUE:

WON the doctrine of state immunity may be invoked in the abovementioned cases.  

RULING:

I. For GR No. 76607

No, the officers of the U.S. Air Force cannot invoke immunity from suit. 

A state may be sued through its implied consent, such as when the state enters a contract involving proprietary acts of the government. 

In this case, the US government entered into barbershop concessionaires who, under the terms of their contracts, are required to remit to the United States government fixed commissions in consideration of the exclusive concessions granted to them in their respective areas. Hence, the contracts entered into are commercial and is proprietary act of the US government. 

However, the evidence of the alleged irregularity in the grant of the barbershop concessions is not before the Supreme Court. The case was remanded for the respondent court to receive evidence first, so it can later determine on the basis thereof if the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief they seek.

II. For GR No. 7940

No, the officer of the US Air Force cannot invoke the doctrine of immunity from suit. 

A state may be sued through its implied consent, such as when the state enters a contract involving proprietary acts of the government. 

In this case, the US government entered an employment contract with the cook in the discharge of its proprietary function such as the establishment of the Main Club. Hence, the US government divested itself of its sovereign immunity from suit. [However, it was found that the termination of the cook was valid]

Therefore, the officer of the US Air Force cannot invoke the doctrine of immunity from suit. 

III. For GR No. 80018

Yes, the officers of the US Air Force and special agents of the Air Force Office of the Special Investigators can invoke the doctrine of immunity from suit. 

The doctrine of immunity from suit is applicable to officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties.

In this case, the petitioners were charged precisely with the function of preventing the distribution, possession and use of prohibited drugs and prosecuting those guilty of such acts.

Therefore, the officers can invoke the doctrine of immunity from suit. 

IV. For GR 80258

The Court cannot decide yet if the defendants were really discharging their official duties or had actually exceeded their authority when the incident in question occurred. Hence, the case was remanded for trial.

-------------------------- 

DISCUSSIONS:

A state may not be sued without its consent. 

BASES: 

[1] Express provision in Article XVI, Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution

[2] It is a generally accepted principle in the international law

[3] Even if there was no express provision, it is deemed incorporated in the law of every civilized state as a condition and consequence of its membership in the society of nations based on the doctrine of incorporation

[4] There can be no legal rights against the authority which makes the law on which the right depends.

[5] All states are sovereign equals and cannot asserts jurisdiction over one another. 

APPLICATION:

While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state, it is also applicable to complaints filed against the officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. 

TYPES OF CONSENT:

Express Consent - it is effected only through a duly enacted statute

Implied Consent - it is effected when the government enters a contract involving proprietary acts of the government.

Sanders v. Veridiano

TOPIC: Doctrine of Immunity from Suit; 

FACTS:

Petitioner Sanders was the special services director of the US Naval Station (NAVSTA) in Olongapo City, while Petitioner Moreau was the commanding officer of the Subic Naval Base.   

The private respondents are gameroom attendants in the special services department of NAVSTA. Their employment was converted from permanent full-time to permanent part-time. The hearing officer ruled for their reinstatement plus backwages. However, Petitioners disagreed with the hearing officer’s report and were allegedly accused of issuing libelous imputations against the private respondents. Hence, they were sued in their personal capacities. 

ISSUE:

WON the Petitioners may be sued.

RULING:

No.

A government functionary is being sued in his personal capacity will not automatically remove him from the protection of the law of public officers. Conversely, a mere invocation of official character will not suffice to insulate him from suability and liability for an act imputed to him as a personal tort committed without or in excess of his authority.

In this case, the fact that the petitioners were sued in their personal capacities does not automatically remove them from the protection of the law. Moreover, Petitioner Sanders, as director of the special services department of NAVSTA, undoubtedly had supervision over its personnel, including the private respondents. Moreover, Petitioner Moreau was the immediate superior of Sanders and directly answerable to Naval Personnel in matters involving the special services department of NAVSTA. Hence, petitioners were, legally speaking, being sued as officers of the United States government, who acted within the scope of their authority. 

Moreover, a state cannot be sued without its consent. In this case, the government of the United States has not given its consent to be sued for the official acts of the petitioners. 

Therefore, the Petitioners cannot be sued as the United States government has not decided to give its consent to be sued in our courts. 

Festejo v. Fernando

TOPIC: Doctrine of Immunity from Suit

FACTS:

Petitioner Festejo accused the Defendant Director of Public Works for constructing an irrigation canal on her 3 parcels of land. 

ISSUE:

WON the Defendant may be sued being the Director of Public Works

RULING:

I.

Yes.

Under the law, officer or employee may be sued as any other citizen if an officer, even while acting under color of his office, exceeds the power conferred on him by law. 

In this case, the Director of Public Works went outside the boundaries of the right of way upon plaintiff's land and damaged it or destroyed its former condition and usefulness. Hence, the Director of Public Works must be held to have designedly departed from the duties imposed on him by law.

Therefore, the Defendant may be sued.