GAUDENCIO RAYO vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN G.R. No.

L-55273-83
December 19, 1981
FACTS: At the height of the infamous typhoon "Kading", the respondent opened
simultaneously all the three floodgates of the Angat Dam which resulted in a sudden,
precipitate and simultaneous opening of said floodgates several towns in Bulacan were
inundated. The petitioners filed for damages against the respondent corporation.
contended that the respondent corporation is merely performing a propriety functions and
that under its own organic act, it can sue and be sued in court.
ISSUE: W/N the respondent performs governmental functions with respect to the
management and operation of the Angat Dam.
W/N the power of the respondent to sue and be sued under its organic charter includes the
power to be sued for tort.
HELD: The government has organized a private corporation, put money in it and has allowed it
to sue and be sued in any court under its charter.
As a government owned and controlled corporation, it has a personality of its own, distinct
and separate from that of the government. Moreover, the charter provision that it can sue and
be sued in any court.

PNB vs. Pabalan
83 SCRA 595 Political Law Constitutional Law Immunity of the State from Suit
On December 17, 1970, Judge Javier Pabalan issued a writ of execution followed thereafter by
a notice of garnishment on the funds of Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA) in
the sum of P12,724.66 deposited with the Philippine National Bank in La Union. PNB La Union
filed an administrative complaint against Pabalan for grave abuse of discretion, alleging that
the latter failed to recognize that the questioned funds are of public character and therefore
may not be garnished, attached, nor may be levied upon. The PNB La Union Branch invoked
the doctrine of non suability, putting a bar on the notice of garnishment.
ISSUE: Whether or not PNB may be sued.
HELD: Yes. Funds of public corporations which can sue and be sued are not exempt from
garnishment. PVTA is also a public corporation with the same attributes, a similar outcome is
attributed. The government has entered with them into a commercial business hence it has
abandoned its sovereign capacity and has stepped down to the level of a corporation.
Therefore, it is subject to rules governing ordinary corporations and in effect can be sued.
Therefore, the petition of PNB La Union is denied.

BUREAU OF PRINTING, SERAFIN SALVADOR and MARIANO LEDESMA, petitioners, vs. THE
BUREAU OF PRINTING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (NLU), et al. respondents.
G.R. No. L-15751 January 28, 1961
Facts:
The action in question wasupon complaint of the respondents Bureau of Printing Employees
Association (NLU) Pacifico Advincula, Roberto Mendoza, Ponciano Arganda and Teodulo
Toleranfiled by an acting prosecutor of the Industrial Court against herein petitioner Bureau
of Printing, Serafin Salvador, the Acting Secretary of the Department of General Services, and
Mariano Ledesma the Director of the Bureau of Printing. The complaint alleged that Serafin
Salvador and Mariano Ledesma have been engaging in unfair labor practices by interfering
with, or coercing the employees of the Bureau of Printing particularly the members of the
complaining association petition, in the exercise of their right to self-organization an
discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of their employment in order to discourage them
from pursuing the union activities.
The petitioners Bureau of Printing, Serafin Salvador and Mariano Ledesma denied the charges
of unfair labor practices attributed to the and, by way of affirmative defenses, alleged, among
other things, that respondents Pacifico Advincula, Roberto Mendoza Ponciano Arganda and
Teodulo Toleran were suspended pending result of an administrative investigation against
them for breach of Civil Service rules and regulations petitions; that the Bureau of Printing has
no juridical personality to sue and be sued; that said Bureau of Printing is not an industrial
concern engaged for the purpose of gain but is an agency of the Republic performing
government functions. For relief, they prayed that the case be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. Thereafter, before the case could be heard, petitioners filed an "Omnibus Motion"
asking for a preliminary hearing on the question of jurisdiction raised by them in their answer
and for suspension of the trial of the case on the merits pending the determination of such
jurisdictional question. The motion was granted, but after hearing, the trial judge of the
Industrial Court in an order dated January 27, 1959 sustained the jurisdiction of the court on
the theory that the functions of the Bureau of Printing are "exclusively proprietary in nature,"
and, consequently, denied the prayer for dismissal.
Note: The Bureau of Printing is an office of the Government created by the Administrative Code
of 1916 (Act No. 2657). As such instrumentality of the Government, it operates under the direct
supervision of the Executive Secretary, Office of the President, and is "charged with the
execution of all printing and binding, including work incidental to those processes, required by
the National Government and such other work of the same character as said Bureau may, by
law or by order of the (Secretary of Finance)Executive Secretary, be authorized to undertake . .
.." (See. 1644, Rev. Adm. Code). It has no corporate existence, and its appropriations are
provided for in the General Appropriations Act. Designed to meet the printing needs of the
Government, it is primarily a service bureau and obviously, not engaged in business or
occupation for pecuniary profit.
Issue: whether or not Bureau of Printing can be sued.
Ruling: No. Indeed, as an office of the Government, without any corporate or juridical
personality, the Bureau of Printing cannot be sued. Any suit, action or proceeding against it, if
it were to produce any effect, would actually be a suit, action or proceeding against the
Government itself, and the rule is settled that the Government cannot be sued without its
consent, much less over its objection. It is true that the Bureau of Printing receives outside
jobs and that many of its employees are paid for overtime work on regular working days and
on holidays, but these facts do not justify the conclusion that its functions are "exclusively
proprietary in nature." Overtime work in the Bureau of Printing is done only when the interest
of the service so requires. As a matter of administrative policy, the overtime compensation
may be paid, but such payment is discretionary with the head of the Bureau depending upon
its current appropriations, so that it cannot be the basis for holding that the functions of said
Bureau are wholly proprietary in character. Clearly, while the Bureau of Printing is allowed to
undertake private printing jobs, it cannot be pretended that it is thereby an industrial or
business concern. The additional work it executes for private parties is merely incidental to its
function, and although such work may be deemed proprietary in character, there is no
showing that the employees performing said proprietary function are separate and distinct
from those employed in its general governmental functions.

KHOSROW MINUCHER, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ARTHUR SCALZO,
respondents
FACTS:
Khosrow Minucher, an Iranian national and a Labor Attach for the Iranian Embassies in
Tokyo, Japan and Manila came to the country to study in 1974 and continued to stay as head
of the Iranian National Resistance Movement.
In May 1986, Minucher was charged with an Information for violation of Republic Act No.
6425, Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The criminal charge followed a buy-bust operation
conducted by the Philippine police narcotic agents in his house where a quantity of heroin was
said to have been seized. The narcotic agents were accompanied by private respondent Arthur
Scalzo who became one of the principal witnesses for the prosecution.
In August 1988, Minucher filed Civil Case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for damages on
the trumped-up charges of drug trafficking made by Arthur Scalzo.
ISSUE:
WON private respondent Arthur Scalzo can be sued provided his alleged diplomatic immunity
conformably with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
RULING:
The SC DENIED the petition. Conformably with the Vienna Convention, the functions of the
diplomatic mission involve, the representation of the interests of the sending state and
promoting friendly relations with the receiving state. Only diplomatic agents, are vested
with blanket diplomatic immunity from civil and criminal suits. Indeed, the main yardstick in
ascertaining whether a person is a diplomat entitled to immunity is the determination of
whether or not he performs duties of diplomatic nature. Being an Attache, Scalzos main
function is to observe, analyze and interpret trends and developments in their respective fields
in the host country and submit reports to their own ministries or departments in the home
government. He is not generally regarded as a member of the diplomatic mission. On the basis
of an erroneous assumption that simply because of the diplomatic note, divesting the trial
court of jurisdiction over his person, his diplomatic immunity is contentious.