case digest political
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
1/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
PRELIMINARYCONSIDERATIONS
A.M. No. 93-7-696-0 February 2!99"
I# Re $OA%&IN T. 'ORROMEO! E(Re). Cebu C*+y C,a+er o +,e
I#+e/ra+e 'ar o +,e P,*)**#e1.HELD:
Joaquin Borromeo was declared guilty
of constructive contempt of court for
repetitiously disrespecting the decisions and
resolutions issued by the courts, and even by
issuing a circular containing libelous and
offending accusations li!e whimsical,
capricious, and tyrannical" against the
#upreme $ourt %ustices and its employees& Heeven delivered a letter accusing lawyers of
defamatory comments and insults& 'his is due
to his series of dismissed complaints and
appeals against ( ban!s namely 'raders )oyal
Ban!, *nited $oconut +lanters Ban!, and
#ecurity Ban! and 'rust $o& from which he
obtained loans with unfulfilled mortgages& n
relation to this, he filed cases against the
lawyers of these ban!s and even against the
cler!s of court who signed the minute
resolutions of these cases& 'he actions reached
the alarming number of -. cases varying fromcivil, criminal, to administrative cases&
n response, the court answered all his
false alleged accusations through a resolution
along with declaring him guilty of contempt of
court&
A.M. MT$-9-7 $u)y 2! 99$ES&S S. COND&CTO vs.
$&D4E IL&MINADO C. MON5ON
/0$'#:0 complaint was filed by petitioner
$onducto with the #angguniang +anlungsod of
#an +ablo $ity against Ben%amin 1aghirang,
the barangay chairman of Barangay 2E of
#an +ablo $ity, for abuse of authority, serious
irregularity and violation of law in that, among
other things for appointing his sister2in2law to
the position of barangay secretary which
violates the law& 0 case was filed against
1aghirang for violating 0rt 344 *nlawful
0ppointment" under the )+$& +etitioner see!s
that 1aghirang be suspended from his office
but it was denied by the respondent %udge
holding that the requirement for such action is
a simultaneous e5istence of administrative andcriminal cases as against the accused, which
according to him is not present in this case,
and that the reelection of the Barangay
$hairman is a condonation of his mista!es
during his prior term& Hence, petitioner filed a
case against the respondent %udge for
ignorance of the law&
##*E: 678 respondent %udge is guilty of
ignorance of the law&
HELD: 9E#&'he claim of respondent Judge that a
local official who is criminally charged can be
preventively suspended only if there is an
administrative case filed against him is without
basis& t is well settled that #ection ( of )0
(.; ma!es it mandatory for the
#andiganbayan or the $ourt" to suspend any
public officer against whom a valid information
charging violation of this law, Boo! , 'itle < of
the )+$, or any offense involving fraud upon
government or public funds or property is filed
in court& Barangay $hairman Ben%amin1aghirang was charged with *nlawful
0ppointment, punishable under 0rticle 344,
'itle
-
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
2/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
A.M. No. 33-$ May 3! 92'ERNARDITA R. MACARIOLA1. ONORA'LE ELIAS '.
AS&NCION! $u/e o +,e Cour+ oF*r1+ I#1+a#8e o Ley+e
/0$'#:
'his is a complaint of petitioner against
respondent %udge of Aacts unbecoming of a
%udge regarding an act following the
unfavorable decision rendered by the
respondent %udge against the former
concerning disputed properties of her deceased
father which were being claimed by the latter>s
children from a subsequent marriage& t turned
out that respondent %udge purchased one of
the lots in the case decided by him and
transferred it to the fishing corporation where
he is a stoc!holder and a ran!ing officer& 0long
with this, other misdeeds were also e5posed
such as that his involvement in the mentioned
business corporation while he is sitting as a
%udge is in violation of the law, his alleged
coddling of and close relations with an
impostor, Dominador 'an, who misrepresents
himself as a practicing attorney, and other
disregard for ethics&
##*E: 678 respondent %udge should be held
guilty of Aacts unbecoming of a %udge&
HELD: 87&
)espondent Judge cannot be held liable
for involving himself in a business because
there is no showing that respondent
participated or intervened in his
official capacity in the business or transactions
of the 'raders 1anufacturing and /ishing
ndustries, nc& n the case at bar, the business
of the corporation in which respondent
participated has obviously no relation or
connection with his %udicial office& t does notappear also from the records that the aforesaid
corporation gained any undue advantage in its
business operations by reason of respondentCs
financial involvement in it, or that the
corporation benefited in one way or another in
any case filed by or against it in court& 8o
provision in both the ;(- and ;
-
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
3/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
4.R. No. "2" $u)y "! 2003REP&'LIC OF TE PILIPPINES
1. ONORA'LESANDI4AN'AYAN SPECIAL
FIRST DI:ISION;! Fer*#a# E.Mar8o1 rere1e#+e by ,*1
e1+a+ee)a R. Mar8o1!Mar*a I>e)a ?I>ee@ Mar8o1-
Ma#o+o8! Fer*#a# R. Mar8o1! $r.a# Ire#e Mar8o1-Ara#e+a; a#
I>e)a Ro>ua)e Mar8o1
/0$'#:
+etitioner )epublic, through the
+residential $ommission on Food Fovernment
+$FF", represented by the 7ffice of the#olicitor Feneral 7#F", filed a petition for
forfeiture before the #andiganbayan& +etitioner
sought the declaration of the aggregate
amount of *#G(- million now estimated to
be more than *#G- million inclusive of
interest" deposited in escrow in the +8B, as ill2
gotten wealth& 'he funds were previously held
by the following five account groups, using
various foreign foundations in certain #wiss
ban!s& n addition, the petition sought the
forfeiture of *#G3- million and *#G- million in
treasury notes which e5ceeded the 1arcoscouple>s salaries, other lawful income as well
as income from legitimately acquired property&
'he treasury notes are fro=en at the
$entral Ban! of the +hilippines by virtue of the
free=e order issued by the +$FF& Before the
case was set for pre2trial, a Feneral 0greement
and the #upplemental 0greement dated
December 3, ;;( were e5ecuted by the
1arcos children and then +$FF $hairman
1agtanggol Funigundo for a global settlement
of the assets of the 1arcos family to identify,
collate, cause the inventory of and distributeall assets presumed to be owned by the 1arcos
family under the conditions contained therein&
##*E: 678 the #wiss funds can be forfeited
in favor of the )epublic, on the basis of the
1arcoses> lawful income&
HELD: 87&
)0 (
-
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
4/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
TE STATE
4.R. No. L-26379 De8e>ber 27!969
BILLIAM C. REA4AN! ET. AL 1.COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
RE:EN&E
/0$'#:
+etitioner )eagan, a civilian employee
of an 0merican corporation providing technical
assistance to the *# 0ir /orce in the
+hilippines, questioned the payment of the
income ta5 assessed on him by respondent $)
on an amount reali=ed by him on a sale of his
automobile to a member of the *# 1arine
$orps, the transaction having ta!en place at
the $lar! /ield 0ir Base at +ampanga& t is his
contention, that in legal contemplation the sale
was made outside +hilippine territory and
therefore beyond our %urisdictional power to
ta5& He see!s that an amount of +3,;
-
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
5/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
concurred in by the #enate and, when
the $ongress so requires, ratified by a
ma%ority of the votes cast by the
people in a national referendum held
for that purpose, and recogni=ed as a
treaty by the other contracting #tate&
'he provision of 0rt& MK, #ec& 3- of the$onstitution, is complied with by virtue of the
fact that the presence of the *# 0rmed /orces
through the K/0 is a presence Aallowed under
the )+2*# 1utual Defense 'reaty& #ince the
)+2*# 1utual Defense 'reaty itself has been
ratified and concurred in by both the +hilippine
#enate and the *# #enate, there is no
violation of the $onstitutional provision
resulting from such presence&
'he K/0 being a valid and binding
agreement, the parties are required as a
matter of international law to abide by itsterms and provisions&
0pplying, however, the provisions of
K/0, the $ourt finds that there is a different
treatment when it comes to detention as
against custody& Art. V, Sec. 10. The
confinement or detention by Philiine
a!thorities of "nited States ersonnel shall be
carried o!t in facilities agreed on by
aroriate Philiines and "S a!thorities.#
'herefore, the )omulo2enney
0greements of December ; and 33, 3..,
which are agreements on the detention of theaccused in the United States Embassy, are
not in accord with the K/0 itself because such
detention is not Aby +hilippine
authorities& )espondents should therefore
comply with the K/0 and negotiate with
representatives of the *nited #tates towards
an agreement on detention facilities under
+hilippine authorities as mandated by 0rt& K,
#ec& . of the K/0&
4.R. No. L-96"7. Noe>ber 29!9"6LEOPOLDO T. 'ACANI a# MATEO
A. MATOTO 1. NATIONALCOCON&T CORPORATION! ET AL.!
NATIONAL COCON&TCORPORATION a# 'OARD OF
LI%&IDATORS
/0$'#:
+laintiffs herein are court
stenographers assigned in Branch K of the
$ourt of /irst nstance of 1anila& During the
pendency of $ivil $ase 8o& 33;( of said court,entitled /rancisco #ycip vs& 8ational $oconut
$orporation, 0ssistant $orporate $ounsel
/ederico 0li!pala, counsel for Defendant,
requested said stenographers for copies of the
transcript of the stenographic notes ta!en by
them during the hearing& +laintiffs complied
with the request by delivering to $ounsel
0li!pala the needed transcript containing
-
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
6/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
acquire the status of a government entity for
the simple reason that they do not come under
the classification of municipal or public
corporation& 80$7$7 is a F7$$& 'hus, not
part of the government&
4.R. No. L-2 Noe>ber29! 969
TE A4RIC<&RAL CREDITAND COOPERATI:E FINANCIN4ADMINISTRATION ACCFA; 1.
CONFEDERATION OF &NIONS IN4O:ERNMENT CORPORATIONSAND OFFICES C&4CO;! e+. a).
/0$'#:
'he 0gricultural $redit and $ooperative
/inancing 0dministration 0$$/0" was a
government agency created under )epublic 0ct
8o& 3, as amended& ts administrative
machinery was reorgani=ed and its name
changed to 0gricultural $redit 0dministration
0$0" under the Land )eform $ode )epublic
0ct 8o& (44"&
7n #eptember 4, ; a collective
bargaining agreement, which was to beeffective for a period of one " year was
entered into by and between the *nions and
the 0$$/0& 0 few months thereafter, the
*nions started protesting against alleged
violations and non2implementation of said
agreement& 'hereafter *nions declared a
strike, which was ended when the stri!ers
voluntarily returned to wor!& 'he *nions,
together with its mother union, the
$onfederation of *nions in Fovernment
$orporations and 7ffices $*F$7", filed a
complaint with the $ourt of ndustrial )elations
against the 0$$/0 for having allegedly
committed acts of unfair labor practice&
##*E: 678 the *nions and $*F$7 had the
right to commence a $B0 with 0$0, formerly
0$$/0&
HELD: 87&
6e hold that the respondent *nions
are not entitled to the certification election
sought in the $ourt below& #uch certification is
admittedly for purposes of bargaining in behalf
of the employees with respect to terms and
conditions of employment, including the right
to stri!e as a coercive economic weapon, as infact the said unions did stri!e in ;3 against
the 0$$/0& 'his is contrary to #ection of
)epublic 0ct 8o&
-
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
7/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
Lepanto $onsolidated 1ining $ompany&
*n!nown to the latest owner, the $) of La
*nion issued an 7rder in Land )egistration
$ase 8o& 82( declaring the deed of sale
between Falve= and 1amaril, et& al& 7$' 8o&
.2(" null and void, and ordered the
cancellation thereof&Lepanto $onsolidated 1ining $ompany
sold to herein petitioner #hipside nc& Lots 8o&
and 4&
'wenty2four years after, the lots have
never been e5ecuted& $onsequently, a
complaint for revival of %udgment and
cancellation of titles was filed by the 7#F&
##*E: 678 Republic of the hilippines can
maintain the action fo! !e"i"al of judgment he!ein
despite the issue of p!esc!iption.
HELD: 87&
6hile it is true that prescription does not
run against the #tate, the same may not be
invo!ed by the government in this case since it
is no longer interested in the sub%ect matter&
1oreover, to recogni=e the Fovernment as
a proper party to sue in this case would set a
bad precedent as it would allow the )epublic to
prosecute, on behalf of government2owned or
controlled corporations, causes of action which
have already prescribed, on the prete5t that
the Fovernment is the real party in interestagainst whom prescription does not run, said
corporations having been created merely as
agents for the reali=ation of government
programs&
+arenthetically, petitioner was not a party
to the original suit for cancellation of title
commenced by the )epublic twenty2seven
years for which it is now being made to
answer, nay, being made to suffer financial
losses&
t should also be noted that petitioner is
unquestionably a buyer in good faith and for
value, having acquired the property in ;(, or
- years after the issuance of the original
certificate of title, as a third transferee& f only
not to do violence and to give some measure
of respect to the 'orrens #ystem, petitioner
must be afforded some measure of protection&
STATE IMM&NITY
ACT NO. 303AN ACT DEFININ4 TE
CONDITIONS &NDER BICTE 4O:ERNMENT OF TE
PILIPPINE ISLANDS MAY 'ES&ED
Section 1. Complaint against Government&
N #ub%ect to the provisions of this 0ct, the
Fovernment of the +hilippine slands hereby
consents and submits to be sued upon any
moneyed claim involving liability arising from
contract, e5pressed or implied, which could
serve as a basis of civil action between private
parties&
Sec. 2& 0 person desiring to avail himself of
the privilege herein conferred must show that
he has presented his claim to the nsular
0uditor and that the latter did not decide the
same within two months from the date of its
presentation&
Sec. 3. Venue. 7riginal actions brought
pursuant to the authority conferred in this 0ct
shall be instituted in the $ourt of /irst nstance
of the $ity of 1anila or of the province werethe claimant resides, at the option of the latter,
upon which court e5clusive original %urisdiction
is hereby conferred to hear and determine
such actions&
Sec. !. 0ctions instituted as aforesaid shall be
governed by the same rules of procedure, both
original and appellate, as if the litigants were
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST LawIts not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
-
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
8/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
private parties&
Sec. ". 6hen the Fovernment of the +hilippine
sland is plaintiff in an action instituted in any
court of original %urisdiction, the defendant
shall have the right to assert therein, by way of
set2off or counterclaim in a similar actionbetween private parties&
Sec. #. +rocess in actions brought against the
Fovernment of the +hilippine slands pursuant
to the authority granted in this 0ct shall be
served upon the 0ttorney2Feneral 3 whose
duty it shall be to appear and ma!e defense,
either himself or through delegates&
Sec. $. E%ecution. 8o e5ecution shall issue
upon any %udgment rendered by any court
against the Fovernment of the +hilippineslands under the provisions of this 0ct but a
copy thereof duly certified by the cler! of the
$ourt in which %udgment is rendered shall be
transmitted by such cler! to the Fovernor2
Feneral, ( within five days after the same
becomes final&
Sec. &. 'ransmittal o( )ecision. 'he
Fovernor2Feneral, 4 at the commencement of
each regular session of the Legislature, - shall
transmit to that body for appropriate action all
decisions so received by him, and if said bodydetermine that payment should be made, it
shall appropriate the sum which the
Fovernment has been sentenced to pay,
including the same in the appropriations for
the ensuing year&
Sec. *. 'his 0ct shall ta!e effect on its
approval&
Aroved$ %arch 1&, 1'().
COMMONBEALT ACT NO. 327AN ACT FIIN4 TE TIME
BITIN BIC TE A&DITOR4ENERAL SALL RENDER ISDECISIONS AND PRESCRI'IN4
TE MANNER OF APPEALTEREFROM
Section 1. n all cases involving the
settlement of accounts or claims, other than
those of accountable officers, the 0uditor
Feneral shall act and decide the same within
si5ty days, e5clusive of #undays and holidays,
after their presentation& f said accounts orclaims need reference to other persons, office
or offices, or to a party interested, the period
aforesaid shall be counted from the time the
last comment necessary to a proper decision is
received by him& 6ith respect to the accounts
of accountable officers, the 0uditor Feneral
shall act on the same within one hundred days
after their submission, #undays and holidays
e5cepted&
n case of accounts or claims already
submitted to but still pending decision by the0uditor Feneral on or before the approval of
this 0ct, the periods provided in this section
shall commence from the date of such
approval&
Section 2. 'he party aggrieved by the final
decision of the 0uditor Feneral in the
settlement of an account for claim may, within
thirty days from receipt of the decision, ta!e
an appeal in writing:
+a, 'o the +resident of the *nited #tates,pending the final and complete withdrawal of
her sovereignty over the +hilippines, or
+b, 'o the +resident of the +hilippines, or
+c, 'o the #upreme $ourt of the +hilippines if
the appellant is a private person or entity&
f there are more than one appellant, all
appeals shall be ta!en to the same authority
resorted to by the first appellant&
/rom a decision adversely affecting the
interests of the Fovernment, the appeal may
be ta!en by the proper head of the department
or in case of local governments by the head of
the office or branch of the Fovernment
immediately concerned&
'he appeal shall specifically set forth the
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST LawIts not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
-
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
9/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
particular action of the 0uditor Feneral to
which e5ception is ta!en with the reasons and
authorities relied on for reversing such
decision&
Section 3. 'his 0ct shall ta!e effect upon its
approval&
Aroved$ *!ne 1+. 1')+.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 07PRESCRI'IN4 TE PROCED&REBERE'Y TE REP&'LIC OFTE PILIPPINES MAY BAI:ESO:EREI4N IMM&NITY FROM
S&IT AND OTER LE4ALPROCEEDIN4 BIT RESPECT TO
ITSELF OR ITS PROPERTY INCONNECTION BIT FOREI4N
O'LI4ATIONS CONTRACTED 'YIT P&RS&ANT TO LAB
6HE)E0#, in the pursuit of economic growthand development, it has become imperative forthe )epublic of the +hilippines to enter intocontracts or transactions with international
ban!ing, financial and other foreignenterprises
6HE)E0#, recogni=ing this need, e5istinglegislation e5pressly authori=e the )epublic ofthe +hilippines to contract foreign obligations,including borrowings in foreign currency, andto guarantee foreign obligations of corporationsand other entities owned or controlled by theFovernment of the +hilippines
6HE)E0#, circumstances in the internationalmar!et may require that sovereign statesentering into contracts or transactions ma!e
e5press waivers of sovereign immunity inconnection with such contracts or transactions
6HE)E0#, it is in the national interest that aprocedure be prescribed with respect to thewaiver of sovereign immunity of the )epublicof the +hilippines in respect of internationalcontracts or transactions entered into by it
876, 'HE)E/7)E, , /E)D808D E& 10)$7#,+resident of the )epublic of the +hilippines, byvirtue of the powers vested in me by the$onstitution, do hereby order and decree:
Section 1.Proced!re for, and onditions of,-aiver of Sovereign Imm!nity.n instances where the law e5presslyauthori=es the )epublic of the +hilippines tocontract or incur a foreign obligation, it mayconsent to be sued in connection therewith&'he +resident of the +hilippines or his dulydesignated representative may, in behalf of the)epublic of the +hilippines, contractually agreeto waive any claim to sovereign immunity fromsuit or legal proceedings and from set2off,attachment or e5ecutive with respect to itsproperty, and to be sued in any appropriate
%urisdiction in regard to such foreign obligation&/or purposes of this decree, a foreignobligation means any direct, indirect, orcontingent obligation or liability capable ofpecuniary estimation and payable in a currencyother than +hilippine currency&
Section 2.Validity of eisting -aivers.8othing in this Decree shall be construed torevo!e or repeal any waiver of sovereignimmunity from suit or legal proceedings orfrom set2off, attachment or e5ecution grantedunder or pursuant to other provisions of law&
Section 3./ffectivity.'his Decree shall ta!eeffect immediately&
ARTICLE 20 NCC;555
'he #tate is responsible in li!e manner when it
acts through a special agent but not when the
damage has been caused by the official to
whom the tas! done properly pertains, in
which case what is provided in 0rticle 3
-
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
10/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
$ounsel for the plaintiff insists that the
trial court erred " Iin limiting the general
damages which the plaintiff suffered to +-,...,
instead of +3-,... as claimed in the
complaint,I and 3" Iin limiting the time when
plaintiff was entirely disabled to two months
and twenty2one days and fi5ing the damageaccordingly in the sum of +3,, instead of
+,... as claimed by plaintiff in his complaint&I
'he 0ttorney2Feneral on behalf of the
defendant urges that the trial court erred: a"
in finding that the collision between the
plaintiffCs motorcycle and the ambulance of the
Feneral Hospital was due to the negligence of
the chauffeur, who is an alleged agent or
employee of the Fovernment b" in holding
that the Fovernment of the +hilippine slands
is liable for the damages sustained by the
plaintiff as a result of the collision, even if it betrue that the collision was due to the
negligence of the chauffeur and c" in
rendering %udgment against the defendant for
the sum of +4,
-
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
11/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
company filed a complaint against the
defendants herein demanding specific
performance that the company be allowed to
perform the wor! on the pro%ects and, in the
event that specific performance was no longer
possible, to order the defendants to pay
damages&
##*E: 678 the *# is immune from suit
having dealt with a private corporation&
HELD: 9E#&
0 #tate may be said to have descended
the the level of an individual and can thus be
deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be
sued only when it enters into business
contracts& t does not apply where the contract
relates to the e5ercise of its sovereign
functions& n this case the pro%ects are anintegral part of the naval base which is devoted
to the defense of both the *nited #tates and
the +hilippines, indisputably a function of the
government of the highest order, they are not
utili=ed for nor dedicated to commercial or
business purposes&
4.R. No. 2906 Mar8, 6!2006
REP&'LIC OF TE PILIPPINESrere1e#+e by +,ePRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON4OOD 4O:ERNMENT PC44;1.
SANDI4AN'AYAN SECONDDI:ISION; a# RO'ERTO S.
'ENEDICTO.
/0$'#:
'he +$FF issued writs placing under
sequestration all business enterprises, entities
and other properties, real and personal, ownedor registered in the name of private respondent
Benedicto, or of corporations in which he
appeared to have controlling or ma%ority
interest due to his involvement in cases of ill2
gotten wealth& 0mong the properties thus
sequestered and ta!en over by +$FF fiscal
agents were the 33< shares in 87F$$ owned
by and registered under the name of private
respondent& 0s sequester of the 33< shares
formerly owned by Benedicto, +$FF did not
pay the monthly membership fee& Later on, the
shares were declared to be delinquent to be
put into an auction sale& Despite filing a writ of
in%unction, it was nevertheless dismissed& #o
petitioner )epublic and private respondentBenedicto entered into a $ompromise
0greement which contains a general release
clause where petitioner agreed and bound itself
to lift the sequestration on the 33< 87F$$
shares ac!nowledging that it was within private
respondent>s capacity to acquire the same
shares out of his income from business and the
e5ercise of his profession& mplied in this
underta!ing is the recognition by petitioner
that the sub%ect shares of stoc! could not have
been ill2gotten
Benedicto filed a 1otion for )eleasefrom #equestration and )eturn of #equestered
#haresDividends praying, inter alia, that his
87F$$ shares of stoc! be specifically released
from sequestration and returned, delivered or
paid to him as part of the parties> $ompromise
0greement in that case& t was granted but the
shares were ordered to be put under the
custody of the $ler! of $ourt& 0long with this,
+$FF was ordered to deliver the shares to the
$ler! of $ourt which it failed to comply with
without any %ustifiable grounds&
n a last2ditch attempt to escapeliability, petitioner )epublic, through the
+$FF, invo!es state immunity from suit&
##*E: 678 the )epublic can invo!e state
immunity&
HELD: 87&
n fact, by entering into a $ompromise
0greement with private respondent Benedicto,
petitioner )epublic thereby stripped itself of its
immunity from suit and placed itself in the
same level of its adversary& 6hen the #tate
enters into contract, through its officers or
agents, in furtherance of a legitimate aim and
purpose and pursuant to constitutional
legislative authority, whereby mutual or
reciprocal benefits accrue and rights and
obligations arise therefrom, the #tate may be
sued even without its e5press consent,
precisely because by entering into a contract
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST LawIts not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
-
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
12/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
the sovereign descends to the level of the
citi=en& ts consent to be sued is implied from
the very act of entering into such contract,
breach of which on its part gives the
corresponding right to the other party to the
agreement&
4.R. No. L-2339 De8e>ber 7!966
MO'IL PILIPPINESEPLORATION! INC.1.
C&STOMS ARRASTRE SER:ICEa# '&REA& o C&STOMS
/0$'#:
/our cases of rotary drill parts were
shipped from abroad on #& ILeovilleIconsigned to 1obil +hilippines E5ploration, nc&,
1anila& t was discharged to the custody of the
$ustoms 0rrastre #ervice, the unit of the
Bureau of $ustoms then handling arrastre
operations therein& 'he $ustoms 0rrastre
#ervice later delivered to the bro!er of the
consignee three cases only& +etitioner filed suit
in the $ourt of /irst nstance of 1anila against
the $ustoms 0rrastre #ervice and the Bureau
of $ustoms to recover the value of the
undelivered case plus other damages& 'he
respondents filed a motion to dismiss on theground that not being persons under the law,
they cannot be sued&
##*E: 678 the defendants can invo!e state
immunity&
HELD: 9E#&
8ow, the fact that a non2corporate
government entity performs a function
proprietary in nature does not necessarily
result in its being suable& f said non2
governmental function is underta!en as anincident to its governmental function, there is
no waiver thereby of the sovereign immunity
from suit e5tended to such government entity&
'he Bureau of $ustoms, to repeat, is
part of the Department of /inance with no
personality of its own apart from that of the
national government& ts primary function is
governmental, that of assessing and collecting
lawful revenues from imported articles and all
other tariff and customs duties, fees, charges,
fines and penalties& 'o this function, arrastre
service is a necessary incident&
4.R. No. L-332 $u#e "! 97PILIPPINE NATIONAL 'AN1.ON. $&D4E $A:IER PA'ALAN!
$u/e o +,e Cour+ o F*r1+I#1+a#8e! 'ra#8, III! La *o#!A4OO TO'ACCO PLANTERS
ASSOCIATION! INC.! PILIPPINE:IR4INIA TO'ACCO
ADMINISTRATION! a# PANFILOP. $IMENE5! Deu+y S,er*! La
*o#
/0$'#:
'he reliance of petitioner +hilippine 8ational
Ban! against respondent Judge Javier +abalan
who issued a writ of e5ecution, followed
thereafter by a notice of garnishment of the
funds of respondent +hilippine Kirginia 'obacco
0dministration, deposited with it, is on the
fundamental constitutional law doctrine of non2
suability of a state, it being alleged that such
funds are public in character&
##*E: 678 the funds are public in character,
thus immune from suit&
HELD: 87&
t is to be admitted that under the
present $onstitution, what was formerly
implicit as a fundamental doctrine in
constitutional law has been set forth in e5press
terms: I'he #tate may not be sued without its
consent&I f the funds appertained to one of
the regular departments or offices in the
government, then, certainly, such a provision
would be a bar to garnishment& #uch is not the
case here&
t is well2settled that when the
government enters into commercial business, it
abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be
treated li!e any other corporation& By engaging
in a particular business thru the
instrumentality of a corporation, the
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST LawIts not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
-
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
13/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
government divests itselfro hac viceof its
sovereign character, so as to render the
corporation sub%ect to the rules of law
governing private corporations&
4.R. No. L-363" Au/u1+ 3! 97AN4EL MINISTERIO a#AS&NCION SADAYA 1.
TE CO&RT OF FIRST INSTANCEOF CE'&! Four+, 'ra#8,! Pre1*eby +,e o#orab)e! $u/e $OSE C.
'ORROMEO! TE P&'LICI4BAY COMMISSIONER! a#
TE A&DITOR 4ENERAL
/0$'#:
+etitioners sought the payment of %ust
compensation for a registered lot alleging that
in ;3< the 8ational Fovernment through its
authori=ed representatives too! physical and
material possession of it and used it for the
widening of a national road, without paying
%ust compensation and without any agreement,
either written or verbal& 'here was an
allegation of repeated demands for the
payment of its price or return of its possession,
but defendants +ublic Highway $ommissioner
and the 0uditor Feneral refused to restore its
possession&
##*E: 678 the defendants are immune from
suit&
HELD: 87&
6here the %udgment in such a case
would result not only in the recovery of
possession of the property in favor of said
citi=en but also in a charge against or financial
liability to the Fovernment, then the suit
should be regarded as one against the
government itself, and, consequently, it cannotprosper or be validly entertained by the courts
e5cept with the consent of said Fovernment&
nasmuch as the #tate authori=es only
legal acts by its officers, unauthori-ed acts
o( government o((icials or o((icers are not
acts o( the State, and an action against the
officials or officers by one whose rights have
been invaded or violated by such acts, for the
protection of his rights, is not a suit against the
#tate within the rule of immunity of the #tate
from suit&
4.R. No. 6930 Mar8,
3! 2007TE DEPARTMENT OF EALT!SECRETARY MAN&EL M. DAYRIT!&SEC. MA. MAR4ARITA 4ALON
a# &SEC. ANTONIO M.LOPE5!1.
PIL. PARMABEALT! INC.
/0$'#:
)espondent +hil& +harmawealth, nc& is
a domestic corporation engaged in the
business of manufacturing and supplying
pharmaceutical products to government
hospitals in the +hilippines& 'hen #ecretary of
Health 0lberto F& )omualde=, Jr& issued
0dministrative 7rder 0&7&" 8o& 3< outlining
the guidelines and procedures on the
accreditation of government suppliers for
pharmaceutical products& 0&7& 8o& 3< was later
amended by providing for additional
guidelines (or accreditation of drug
suppliers aimed at ensuring that only qualified
bidders can transact business with petitioner&
)espondent submitted to petitioner
D7H a request for the inclusion of additional
items in its list of accredited drug products,
including the antibiotic I+enicillin F
Ben=athine&I D7H issued an nvitation for Bids
for the procurement of &3 million units vials of
+enicillin F Ben=athine& Despite the lac! of
response from petitioner D7H regarding
respondent>s request for inclusion of additional
items in its list of accredited products,
respondent submitted its bid for the +enicillin F
Ben=athine contract& 7nly two companies
participated, the respondent being the lowerbidder& n view, however, of the non
accreditation of respondent>s +enicillin F
Ben=athine product, the contract was awarded
to the other company& Hence, respondent filed
a complaint in%unction, mandamus and
damages against D7H&
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST LawIts not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
-
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
14/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
##*E: 678 D7H can invo!e immunity from
suit&
HELD: 87&
'he suability of a government official
depends on whether the official concerned was
acting within his official or %urisdictionalcapacity, and whether the acts done in the
performance of official functions will result in a
charge or financial liability against the
government& n the first case, the $onstitution
itself assures the availability of %udicial
review, and it is the official concerned who
should be impleaded as the proper party& 0s
regards petitioner D7H, the defense of
immunity from suit will not avail despite its
being an unincorporated agency of the
government, for the only causes of action
directed against it are preliminary in%unctionand mandamus&
4.R. No. 3". Mar8, 6! 200
EP4 CONSTR&CTION CO.! ET. AL.vs. ONORA'LE 4RE4ORIO R.:I4ILAR! I# *1 Caa8*+y a1Se8re+ary o Pub)*8 BorG1 a#
*/,Hay1
/0$'#:
'he 1inistry of Human #ettlement,
through the BL## Development $orporation,
initiated a housing pro%ect on a government
property along the east ban! of the
1anggahan /loodway in +asig $ity& /or thispurpose, the 1inistry of Human #ettlement
entered into a 1emorandum of 0greement
170" with the 1inistry of +ublic 6or!s and
Highways, where the latter undertoo! to
develop the housing site and construct thereon
4- housing units& By virtue of the 170, the
1inistry of +ublic 6or!s and Highways forged
individual contracts with herein petitioners E+F
$onstruction $o&, et& al& for the construction of
the housing units&
By reason of the verbal request and
assurance of then D+6H that additional funds
would be available and forthcoming, petitioners
agreed to underta!e and perform Aadditional
constructions for the completion of thehousing units, despite the absence of
appropriations and written contracts to cover
subsequent e5penses for the Aadditional
constructions& +etitioners then received
payment for the construction wor! duly
covered by the individual written contracts,
thereby leaving an unpaid balance
representing the Aadditional constructions&
+etitioners sent a demand letter to the
D+6H #ecretary and submitted that their claim
for payment was favorably recommended by
D+6H 0ssistant #ecretary for Legal #erviceswho recogni=ed the e5istence of implied
contractscovering the additional
constructions&
)espondent argues that the #tate may not
be sued in the instant case, invo!ing the
constitutional doctrine of /onsuability o( the
State, otherwise !nown as the 0oyal
rerogative o( )ishonesty.
##*E: 678 D+6H can invo!e state immunity&
HELD: 87&*nder these circumstances, respondent
may not validly invo!e the 0oyal rerogative
o( )ishonestyand conveniently hide under
the States cloa2 of invincibility against
s!it,considering that this principle yields to
certain settled e5ceptions& 'rue enough, the
rule, in any case, is not absolute for it does not
say that the state may not be sued under any
circumstance& 'he doctrine of governmental
immunity from suit cannot serve as an
instrument for perpetrating an in%ustice on a
citi=en&'o be sure, this $ourt P as the staunch
guardian of the citi=ens> rights and welfare P
cannot sanction an in%ustice so patent on its
face, and allow itself to be an instrument in the
perpetration thereof& Justice and equity sternly
demand that the #tate>s cloa! of invincibility
against suit be shred in this particular instance,
and that petitionersPcontractors be duly
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST LawIts not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
-
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
15/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
compensated P on the basis of quantum
meruitP for construction done on the public
wor!s housing pro%ect&
4.R. No. L-2 De8e>ber 9!
97ILDEFONSO SANTIA4O!rere1e#+e by ,*1 A++or#ey-*#-
Fa8+! ALFREDO T. SANTIA4O 1.REP&'LIC OF TE PILIPPINES
/0$'#:
#antiago>s plea was for the revocation of a
deed of donation e5ecuted by him and his
spouse with the Bureau of +lant ndustry as
the donee& 0s alleged in such complaint, such
Bureau, contrary to the terms of the donation,failed to Iinstall lighting facilities and water
system on the property donated and to build
an office building and par!ing ?lot@ thereon
which should have been constructed and ready
for occupancy& 'hat led him to conclude that
under the circumstances, he was e5empt from
compliance with such an e5plicit constitutional
command&
##*E: 678 the Bureau is immune from suit&
HELD: 9E#&
f an order of dismissal would suffice,
then the element of unfairness enters, the
facts alleged being hypothetically admitted& t
is the considered opinion of this $ourt then
that to conform to the high dictates of equity
and %ustice, the presumption of consent could
be indulged in safely& 'hat would serve to
accord to petitioner as plaintiff, at the very
least, the right to be heard&
'he doctrine of governmental immunity
from suit cannot serve as an instrument for
perpetrating an in%ustice on a citi=en&
*nder the circumstances, the
fundamental postulate of non2suability cannot
stand in the way& t is made to accommodate
itself to the demands of procedural due
process, which is the negation of arbitrariness
and inequity& 'he government, in the final
analysis, is the beneficiary& t thereby
manifests its adherence to the highest ethical
standards, which can only be ignored at the
ris! of losing the confidence of the people, the
repository of the sovereign power&
4.R. No. L-29993 O8+ober 23! 97LA&DENCIO TORIO! ET. AL. 1.
ROSALINA! AN4ELINA!LEONARDO! ED&ARDO! ARTEMIO!
AN4ELITA! ANITA! ERNESTO!NORMA! :IR4INIA! REMEDIOS
a# RO'ERTO! a)) 1ur#a>eFONTANILLA! a# TE
ONORA'LE CO&RT OF APPEALS
/0$'#:'he 1unicipal $ouncil of 1alasiqui,
+angasinan, passed a resolution whereby Iit
resolved to manage the ;-; 1alasiqui town
fiesta celebration& 0nother resolution was also
passed creating the I;-; 1alasiqui C'own
/iesta E5ecutive $ommitteeI which in turn
organi=ed a sub2committee on entertainment
and stage& 'he council appropriated an amount
for the construction of 3 stages, one for the
I=ar=uelaI and another for the cancionan Jose
1acaraeg supervised the construction of the
stage& 'he I=ar=uelaI then began but before
the dramatic part of the play was reached, the
stage collapsed and Kicente /ontanilla who was
at the rear of the stage was pinned
underneath& /ontanilia was ta!en to the
hospital where he died in the afternoon of the
following day&
'he heirs of Kicente /ontanilia filed a
complaint against 1unicipality& 0nswering thecomplaint defendant municipality invo!ed inter
alia the principal defense that as a legally and
duly organi=ed public corporation it performs
sovereign functions and the holding of a town
fiesta was an e5ercise of its governmental
functions from which no liability can arise to
answer for the negligence of any of its agents&
##*E: 678 the defendant 1unicipality was
performing sovereign functions therefore
immune from suit&
HELD: 87&
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST LawIts not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
-
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
16/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
Holding a fiesta even if the purpose is
to commemorate a religious or historical event
of the town is in essence an act for the special
benefit of the community and not for the
general welfare of the public performed in
pursuance of a policy of the state& 'he mere
fact that the celebration, as claimed was not tosecure profit or gain but merely to provide
entertainment to the town inhabitants is not a
conclusive test& /or instance, the maintenance
of par!s is not a source of income for the
nonetheless it is private underta!ing as
distinguished from the maintenance of public
schools, %ails, and the li!e which are for public
service&
'here can be no hard and fast rule for
purposes of determining the true nature of an
underta!ing or function of a municipality the
surrounding circumstances of a particular caseare to be considered and will be decisive& 'he
basic element, however beneficial to the public
the underta!ing may be, is that it is
governmental in essence, otherwise& the
function becomes private or proprietary in
character& Easily, no governmental or public
policy of the state is involved in the celebration
of a town fiesta&
4.R. No. L-"279 Ar*) ! 99M&NICIPALITY OF SANFERNANDO! LA &NION1.
ON. $&D4E ROMEO N. FIRME!ET. AL.
/0$'#:
0t about
-
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
17/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
/0$'#:
n the petition filed by the )epublic of
the +hilippines, a summary of facts was set
forth thus:
0 decision was rendered in favor of
respondents +& J& iener $o&, Ltd&, Favino*nchuan, and nternational $onstruction
$orporation, and against the petitioner herein,
confirming the arbitration award in the
amount of +,
-
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
18/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
'he functions and public services
rendered by the #tate cannot be allowed to
paraly=ed or disrupted by the diversion of
public funds from their legitimate and specific
ob%ects, as appropriated by law
4.R. No1. 99-99 O8+ober !990
M&NICIPALITY OF MAATI 1.TE ONORA'LE CO&RT OF
APPEALS! ON. SAL:ADOR P. DE4&5MAN! $R.! a1 $u/e RTC o
MaGa+*! 'ra#8, CLII ADMIRALFINANCE CREDITORS
CONSORTI&M! INC.! a#
SERIFF SIL:INO R. PASTRANA
/0$'#:
'he present petition for review is an
off2shoot of e5propriation proceedings initiated
by petitioner 1unicipality of 1a!ati against
private respondent 0dmiral /inance $reditors
$onsortium, nc&, Home Building #ystem S
)ealty $orporation and one 0rceli +& Jo,
involving a parcel of land and improvements
and registered in the name of the latter&
t was certified that a ban! account
had been opened with the +8B Buendia Branchunder petitionerCs name made pursuant to the
provisions of +res& Decree 8o& 43& 0fter due
hearing where the parties presented their
respective appraisal reports regarding the
value of the property, respondent )'$ %udge
rendered a decision fi5ing the appraised value
of the property at +-,3;,&.., and ordering
petitioner to pay this amount minus the
advanced payment which was earlier released
to private respondent&
+etitioner however refused to comply
with the garnishment despite its having twoban! accounts in +8B& 'he first one was
dedicated for e5propriation proceedings while
the other was for public funds& 'he first ban!
account cannot cover the remaining amount
due, while the other account had more than
enough to satisfy the amount due& +etitioner
reasoned out that its funds at the +8B Buendia
Branch could neither be garnished nor levied
upon e5ecution, for to do so would result in the
disbursement of public funds without the
proper appropriation required under the law&
##*E: 678 the 1unicipality of 1a!ati is
e5empt from paying %ust compensation&
HELD: 87&
/or three years now, petitioner has
en%oyed possession and use of the sub%ect
property notwithstanding its ine5cusable failure
to comply with its legal obligation to pay %ust
compensation& Just compensation means not
only the correct determination of the amount
to be paid to the owner of the land but also the
payment of the land within a reasonable time
from its ta!ing& 6ithout prompt payment,
compensation cannot be considered I%ustI for
the property owner is made to suffer theconsequence of being immediately deprived of
his land while being made to wait for a long
period&
'he #tateCs power of eminent domain
should be e5ercised within the bounds of fair
play and %ustice& n the case at bar, considering
that valuable property has been ta!en, the
compensation to be paid fi5ed and the
municipality is in full possession and utili=ing
the property for public purpose, for three ("
years, the $ourt finds that the municipality has
had more than reasonable time to pay fullcompensation&
4.R. No. 622 O8+ober 2! 200"TERESITA M. Y&$&ICO 1.
ON. $OSE L. ATIEN5A! ET. AL.
/0$'#:
7n December ;;-, the $ity $ouncil
of 1anila enacted an ordinance authori=ing the
$ity 1ayor to acquire by negotiation or
e5propriation certain parcels of land for
utili=ation as a site for the /rancisco Benite=
Elementary #chool& /ailing to acquire the land
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST LawIts not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
-
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
19/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
by negotiation, the $ity filed a case for
eminent domain against petitioner as owner of
the property&
t is the $ity #chool Board which has
the authority to pass a resolution allocating
funds for the full satisfaction of the %ust
compensation fi5ed, the said body is herebygiven thirty (." days from receipt to pass the
necessary resolution for the payments of the
remaining balance due to 9u%uico& However,
despite petitioner demanding compliance from
the $#B after (. days, the latter still did not
ta!e action&
##*E: 678 respondent is %ustified in not
paying the petitioner her %ust compensation&
HELD: 87&
6hile this $ourt recogni=es the powerof LF* to e5propriate private property for
public use, it will not stand idly by while the
e5propriating authority maneuvers to evade
the payment of %ust compensation of property
already in its possession&
'he notion of e5propriation is hard
enough to ta!e for a private owner& He is
compelled to give up his property for the
common weal& But to give it up and wait in
vain for the %ust compensation decreed by the
courts is too much to bear& n cases li!e these,
courts will not hesitate to step in to ensurethat %ustice and fair play are served&
4.R. No. 7776" Au/u1+ "! 9SE'ASTIAN COSC&LL&ELA 1.
TE ONORA'LE CO&RT OFAPPEALS a# +,e REP&'LIC OFTE PILIPPINES! rere1e#+e by
NATIONAL IRRI4ATIONADMINISTRATION
/0$'#:
'he )epublic of the +hilippines filed a
complaint with the $ourt of /irst nstance of
loilo to e5propriate two parcels of land in the
municipality of Barotac, loilo owned by
petitioner #ebastian $osculluela and one 1ita
Lumampao, for the construction of the canal
networ! of the Barotac rrigation +ro%ect&'he trial court rendered a decision
granting the e5propriation and ordered the
public respondent to pay Lumampao, the sum
of +3.,... and $osculluela, the sum of
+3..,...&..&
'he )epublic contends that the funds
of the 8ational rrigation 0uthority 80" are
government funds and therefore, cannot be
disbursed without a government appropriation&
##*E: 678 the )epublic is e5empt from
paying the %ust compensation demanded bythe petitioner in view of non2disbursement of
funds without prior public appropriation&
HELD: 87&
7ne of the basic principles enshrined in
our $onstitution is that no person shall be
deprived of his private property without due
process of law and in e5propriation cases, an
essential element of due process is that there
must be %ust compensation whenever private
property is ta!en for public use&
Just compensation means not only thecorrect determination of the amount to be paid
to the owner of the land but also the payment
of the land within a reasonable time from its
ta!ing&
4.R. No. 099 De8e>ber !99TE OLY SEE 1.
TE ON. ERI'ERTO &.ROSARIO! $R.! a1 Pre1**#/ $u/e
o +,e Re/*o#a) Tr*a) Cour+ oMaGa+*! 'ra#8, 6 a#
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST LawIts not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
-
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
20/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
STAR'RI4T SALESENTERPRISES! INC.
/0$'#:
'his petition arose from a controversy
over a parcel of land, Lot -20, located in the
1unicipality of +araQaque, 1etro 1anila and
registered in the name of petitioner& #aid Lot
-20 is contiguous to Lots -2B and -2D
registered in the name of the +hilippine )ealty
$orporation +)$"& 'he three lots were sold to
)amon Licup, through 1sgr& Domingo 0&
$irilos, Jr&, acting as agent to the sellers& Later,
Licup assigned his rights to the sale to private
respondent, #tarbright Enterprises&
'he squatters refused to vacate the
lots sold to private respondent so a dispute
arose as to who of the parties has the
responsibility of evicting and clearing the land
of squatters occurred& $omplicating the
relations of the parties was the sale by
petitioner of Lot -20 to 'ropicana +roperties
and Development $orporation 'ropicana"&
+rivate respondent filed a complaint for
annulment of the sale of the three parcels of
land, and specific performance and damages
against petitioner, represented by the +apal
8uncio, and three other defendants: namely,
1sgr& Domingo 0& $irilos, Jr&, the +)$ and
'ropicana&
##*E: 678 the petitioner Holy #ee is immune
from suit&
HELD: 9E#&
'he logical question is whether the
foreign state is engaged in the activity in the
regular course of business& f the foreign state
is not engaged regularly in a business or trade,
the particular act or transaction must then be
tested by its nature& f the act is in pursuit of a
sovereign activity, or an incident thereof, then
it is an act5!re imerii, especially when it isnot underta!en for gain or profit&
Lot -20 was acquired by petitioner as a
donation from the 0rchdiocese of 1anila& 'he
donation was made not for commercial
purpose, but for the use of petitioner to
construct thereon the official place of residence
of the +apal 8uncio& 'he right of a foreign
sovereign to acquire property, real or personal,
in a receiving state, necessary for the creation
and maintenance of its diplomatic mission, is
recogni=ed in the ; Kienna $onvention on
Diplomatic )elations&
n 0rticle (a" of the $onvention, a
diplomatic envoy is granted immunity from the
civil and administrative %urisdiction of thereceiving state over any real action relating to
private immovable property situated in the
territory of the receiving state which the envoy
holds on behalf of the sending state for the
purposes of the mission& f this immunity is
provided for a diplomatic envoy, with all the
more reason should immunity be recogni=ed as
regards the sovereign itself, which in this case
is the Holy #ee&
4.R. No. "70". $u#e 26! 2003TE REP&'LIC OF INDONESIA!IS ECELLENCY AM'ASSADOR
SOERATMIN! a# MINISTERCO&NSELLOR A5ARI ASIM vs.$AMES :IN5ON! o*#/ bu1*#e11
u#er +,e #a>e a# 1+y)e o:IN5ON TRADE AND SER:ICES
/0$'#:
+etitioner, )epublic of ndonesia,
represented by its $ounsellor entered into a
1aintenance 0greement with respondentJames Kin=on, owner of Kin=on 'rade and
#ervices& 'he 1aintenance 0greement stated
that respondent shall, for a consideration,
maintain specified equipment at the Embassy
1ain Building, Embassy 0nne5 Building and the
6isma Duta, the official residence of petitioner
0mbassador #oeratmin& 'he equipment
covered by the 1aintenance 0greement are air
conditioning units, generator sets, electrical
facilities, water heaters, and water motor
pumps& t is li!ewise stated therein that the
agreement shall be effective for a period offour years and will renew itself automatically
unless cancelled by either party by giving thirty
days prior written notice from the date of
e5piry&
+etitioners claim that sometime prior tothe date of e5piration of the said agreement,or before 0ugust ;;;, they informedrespondent that the renewal of the agreementshall be at the discretion of the incoming $hief
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST LawIts not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
-
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
21/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
of 0dministration& 6hen the $hief of0dministration assumed his position, heallegedly found respondent>s wor! and servicesunsatisfactory and not in compliance with thestandards in the 0greement& Hence, thendonesian Embassy terminated theagreement& +etitioners claim, that they had
earlier verbally informed respondent of theirdecision to terminate the agreement&
7n the other hand, respondent claims thatthe aforesaid termination was arbitrary andunlawful& Hence, he filed a complaint againstthe petitioners which opposed by invo!ingimmunity from suit&
##*E: 678 the )epublic of ndonesia cansuccessfully invo!e state immunity from suit&
HELD: 9E#&'here is no dispute that the
establishment of a diplomatic mission is an
act5!re imerii& 0 sovereign #tate does notmerely establish a diplomatic mission andleave it at that the establishment of adiplomatic mission encompasses itsmaintenance and up!eep& Hence, the #tatemay enter into contracts with private entitiesto maintain the premises, furnishings andequipment of the embassy and the livingquarters of its agents and officials& t istherefore clear that petitioner )epublic ofndonesia was acting in pursuit of a sovereignactivity when it entered into a contract withrespondent for the up!eep or maintenance&
'he #olicitor Feneral, in his $omment,
submits the view that, Athe 1aintenance0greement was entered into by the )epublic ofndonesia in the discharge of its governmentalfunctions& n such a case, it cannot be deemedto have waived its immunity from suit&
4.R. No. 2396. February !2003
OSROB MIN&CER vs. ON.CO&RT OF APPEALS a# ART&R
SCAL5O
/0$'#:
#ometime in 1ay ;, an nformation for
violation of #ection 4 of )epublic 0ct 8o& 43-,
otherwise also !nown as the ADangerous Drugs
0ct of ;
-
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
22/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
4.R. No. 2772 Au/u1+! 2007
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON4OOD 4O:ERNMENT a#
MA4TAN44OL C. 4&NI4&NDO! *#
,*1 8aa8*+y a1 CAIRMAN +,ereo1.
SANDI4AN'AYAN a# OFFICECOOLDIN4S! N.:.
/0$'#:
7n < 0pril ;, in connection with criminal
proceedings initiated in the +hilippines to
locate, sequester and see! restitution of
alleged ill2gotten wealth amassed by the
1arcoses and other accused from the
+hilippine Fovernment,the 7ffice of the
#olicitor Feneral 7#F" wrote the /ederal
7ffice for +olice 1atters in Berne, #wit=erland,
requesting assistance for the latter office to:
a" ascertain and provide the 7#F with
information as to where and in which cantons
the ill2gotten fortune of the 1arcoses and other
accused are located, the names of the
depositors and the ban!s and the amounts
involved and b" ta!e necessary precautionary
measures, such as sequestration, to free=e the
assets in order to preserve their e5isting value
and prevent any further transfer thereof
herein referred to as the 10$ request"& 'he
7ffice of the District 0ttorney in Ourich,
pursuant to the 7#F>s request, issued an 7rder
directing the #wiss Ban!s in Ourich to free=e
the accounts of the accused&
##*E: 678 the #wiss officials can invo!e
state immunity from suit&
HELD: 87&
'he act of state doctrine is one of the
methods by which #tates prevent their national
courts from deciding disputes which relate tothe internal affairs of another #tate, the other
two being immunity and non2%usticiability& t is
an avoidance technique that is directly related
to a #tate>s obligation to respect the
independence and equality of other #tates by
not requiring them to submit to ad%udication in
a national court or to settlement of their
disputes without their consent& t requires the
forum court to e5ercise restraint in the
ad%udication of disputes relating to legislative
or other governmental acts which a foreign
#tate has performed within its territorial limits&
t is petitioners> contention that the
#andiganbayan Icould not grant or deny the
prayers in ?7fficeco>s@ complaint without firste5amining and scrutini=ing the free=e order of
the #wiss officials in the light of the evidence,
which however is in the possession of said
officialsI and that it would therefore Isit in
%udgment on the acts of the government of
another country&I 6e disagree&
'he parameters of the use of the act of
state doctrine were clarified in 6anco 3acional
de !ba v. Sabbatino.'here, the *& #upreme
$ourt held that international law does not
require the application of this doctrine nor does
it forbid the application of the rule even if it isclaimed that the act of state in question
violated international law& 1oreover, due to the
doctrine>s peculiar nation2to2nation character,
in practice the usual method for an individual
to see! relief is to e5haust local remedies and
then repair to the e5ecutive authorities of his
own state to persuade them to champion his
claim in diplomacy or before an international
tribunal&
4.R. No. 2"6". $a#uary 2! 200$EFFREY LIAN4 &EFEN4;1.PEOPLE OF TE PILIPPINES
/0$'#:
+etitioner is an economist wor!ing with
the 0sian Development Ban! 0DB"& #ometime
in ;;4, for allegedly uttering defamatory
words against fellow 0DB wor!er Joyce $abal,
he was charged before the 1etropolitan 'rial
$ourt 1e'$" of 1andaluyong $ity with two
counts of grave oral defamation&
+etitioner was arrested by virtue of awarrant issued by the 1e'$& 0fter fi5ing
petitioner>s bail, the 1e'$ released him to the
custody of the #ecurity 7fficer of 0DB& 'he
ne5t day, the 1e'$ %udge received an Ioffice of
protocolI from the D/0 stating that petitioner
is covered by immunity from legal process
under #ection 4- of the 0greement between
the 0DB and the +hilippine Fovernment
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST LawIts not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_124772_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_124772_2007.html#fnt1 -
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
23/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
regarding the Headquarters of the 0DB
hereinafter 0greement" in the country& Based
on the said protocol communication that
petitioner is immune from suit, the 1e'$ %udge
without notice to the prosecution dismissed the
two criminal cases&
##*E: 678 petitioner Liang is immune from
suit&
HELD: 87&
#landering a person could not possibly
be covered by the immunity agreement
because our laws do not allow the commission
of a crime, such as defamation, in the name of
official duty& t is well2settled principle of law
that a public official may be liable in his
personal private capacity for whatever damage
he may have caused by his act done withmalice or in bad faith or beyond the scope of
his authority or %urisdiction&
#E+0)0'E $78$*))8F 7+878 7/ J*#'$E
+*87:
The Charter of the ADBp!o"ides unde! #!ticle
$$%i& that office!s and employees of the ban' shall
be immune f!om legal p!ocess with !espect to acts
pe!fo!med by them in thei! official capacity e(cept
when the )an' wai"es immunity. Section *$ %a& of
the #D) +eadua!te!s #g!eement acco!ds the
same immunity to the office!s and staff of theban'. There can be no dispute that international
officials are entitled to immunity only with
respect to acts performed in their official
capacity, unlike international organizations
which enjoy absolute immunity
Clea!ly, the most impo!tant immunity to an
inte!national official, in the discha!ge of his
inte!national functions, is immunity f!om local
ju!isdiction. The!e is no a!gument in doct!ine o!
p!actice with the p!inciple that an inte!national
official is independent of the ju!isdiction of the local
autho!ities fo! his official acts. Those acts a!e nothis, but a!e imputed to the o!gani-ation, and without
wai"e! the local cou!ts cannot hold him liable fo!
them. In strict law, it would seem that een the
organization itself could hae no right to waie
an official!s immunity for his official acts" This
permits local authorities to assume jurisdiction
oer and indiidual for an act which is not, in
the wider sense of the term, his act at all" It is
the organization itself, as a juristic person,
which should waie its own immunity and
appear in court, not the indiidual, e#cept
insofar as he appears in the name of the
organization"
+isto!ically, inte!national officials we!e g!anted
diplomatic p!i"ileges and immunities and we!e thus
conside!ed immune fo! both p!i"ate and official
acts. n p!actice, this wide g!ant of diplomatic
p!e!ogati"es was cu!tailed because of p!actical
necessity and because the p!ope! functioning of the
o!gani-ation did not !eui!e such e(tensi"e
immunity fo! its officials. Thus, the current status
of the law does not maintain that states grant
jurisdictional immunity to international officials
for acts of their priate lies"
Unde! the /ienna Con"ention on Diplomatic
Relations, a diplomatic en"oy is immune f!om
c!iminal ju!isdiction of the !ecei"ing State fo! all
acts, whethe! p!i"ate o! official, and hence he
cannot be a!!ested, p!osecuted and punished fo!
any offense he may commit, unless his diplomatic
immunity is wai"ed.0 1n the othe! hand, officials
of international organizations enjoy $functional%
immunities, that is, only those necessary for the
e#ercise of the functions of the organization
and the fulfillment of its purposes . This is the
!eason why the ADB Charter and &ead'uarters
Agreemente(plicitly g!ant immunity f!om legal
p!ocess to ban' office!s and employees onlywith
!espect to acts pe!fo!med by them in thei! official
capacity, e(cept when the )an' wai"es
immunity. In other words, officials and
employees of the ADB are subject to the
jurisdiction of the local courts for their priate
acts, notwithstanding the absence of a waier
of immunity"
Conside!ing that ban' officials and employees a!e
co"e!ed by immunity only fo! thei! official acts, the
necessa!y infe!ence is that the authority of the
Department of Affairs, or een of the ADB for
that matter, to certify that they are entitled to
immunity is limited only to acts done in their
official capacity. Stated othe!wise, it is not within
the powe! of the D2#, as the agency in cha!ge of
the e(ecuti"e depa!tment3s fo!eign !elations, no!
the #D), as the inte!national o!gani-ation "ested
with the !ight to wai"e immunity, to in"o'e immunity
fo! p!i"ate acts of ban' official and employees,
since no such p!e!ogati"e e(ists in the fi!st place. f
the immunity does not e(ist, the!e is nothing to
ce!tify.
Digested and compiled by Monica S. Cajucom, UST LawIts not how good you are, its how good you want to be. Paul Arden
-
8/11/2019 Case Digest Political
24/24
POLITICAL LAW JURISPRUDENCE ATTY. GOROSPE
4.R. No. "23 Ar*) 6!2009
DE&TSCE 4ESELLSCAFT FRTECNISCE
5&SAMMENAR'EIT! ET. AL. 1.ON. CO&RT OF APPEALS! ET. AL.
/0$'#:
'he governments of the /ederal
)epublic of Fermany and the )epublic of the
+hilippines ratified an 0greement called #ocial
Health nsuranceN8etwor!ing and
Empowerment #H8E which was designed to
Ienable +hilippine familiesPespecially poor
onesPto maintain their health and secure
health care of sustainable quality&I +rivate
respondents were engaged as contractemployees hired by F'O to wor! for #H8E&
8icolay, a Belgian national, assumed
the post of #H8E +ro%ect 1anager&
Disagreements eventually arose between
8icolay and private respondents in matters
such as proposed salary ad%ustments, and the
course 8icolay was ta!ing in the
implementation of #H8E different from her
predecessors&
'he dispute culminated in a signed by
the private respondents, addressed to 8icolay,
and copies furnished officials of the D7H,+hilheath, and the director of the 1anila office
of F'O& 'he letter raised several issues which
private respondents claim had been brought up
several times in the past, but have not been
given appropriate response&
n response, 8icolay wrote each of the
private respondents a letter, all similarly
worded e5cept for their respective addressees&
#he informed private respondents that they
could no longer find any reason to stay with
the pro%ect unless 0LL of these issues be
addressed immediately and appropriately&*nder the foregoing premises and
circumstances, it is now imperative that am
to accept your resignation, which e5pect to
receive as soon as possible&
8egotiations ensued between private
respondents and 8icolay, but for naught& Each
of the private respondents received a letter
from 8icolay, informing them of the pre2
termination of their contracts of employment
on the grounds of Iserious and gross
insubordination, among others, resulting to
loss of confidence and trust&I
HELD: 87&
'his self2description of F'O in its ownofficial website gives further cause for pause in
adopting petitioners> argument that F'O is
entitled to immunity from suit because it is Ian
implementing agency&I 'he above2quoted
statement does not dispute the
characteri=ation of F'O as an Iimplementing
agency of the /ederal )epublic of Fermany,I
yet it bolsters the notion that as a company
organi=ed under private law, it has a legal
personality independent of that of the /ederal
)epublic of Fermany&
'he $ourt is thus holds and so rulesthat F'O consistently has been unable to
establish with satisfaction that it en%oys the
immunity from suit generally en%oyed by its
parent country, the /ederal )epublic of
Fermany&
Digested and compiled by Monica S Cajucom UST Law