MERRIT v PHIL.

GOV’T

The Government of the Philippine is not liable to suit except by its express
consent, an act abrogating that immunity will be strictly construed. An act
permitting a suit against the state gives rise to no liability not previously existing
unless it is clearly expressed in the act.

The Government of the Philippine Islands in only liable for the

negligent acts of its officers, agents, and employees when they are
acting as special agents within the meaning of paragraph 5 of article
1903 of the Civil code, and a chauffeur of the General Hospital is not

TRENT, J.:

Factual Overview

 Plaintiff, Merrit was riding on a motorcycle at 10-12 mph towards Calle

Padre Faura was struck by General hospital ambulance which didn’t sound
any whistle or horn pursuant to a local ordinance and the Motor Vehicle
Act.

 The collision SEVERELY injured the plaintiff as per Dr. Saleeby’s

examination. The injuries he suffered made him inefficient in his work as a
contractor which resulted to the dissolution of his partnership with Engr.
Wilson.

 The trial court found that the collision was due solely to the negligence of
the chauffer and awarded Php 14, 741 to the injured party. Meritt however,
question why only Php 5,000 was awarded as permanent judgement instead
of the Php 25,000 amount claimed and Php 2,666 instead of the php 6,000
amount claimed. The trial court in coming-up with this amount by limiting
it to the time the plaintiff was actually confined in the hospital -of 2 months
and 21 days.

 The Supreme Court reversed the findings and awarded the plaintiff the
amount of damages for the whole time of his recovery which is sex months
(yan yung nasa case mismo), which included the time he spent at home – Php 18, 075

Can Merritt sue the Government?

 Did the Government expressly waived its immunity by enacting Act.

No. 2457. The Supreme Court proceeded to look carefully on the the terms
of consent, which was voluntary given by the Government to be sued by
Merritt since this was a clear exemption from the general rule on immunity
against suit.

N. Saquilabon
H. Menor
  The Supreme Court based its decision on the following:

o The US Government’s (in which our government was modeled) well settled rule
states that “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 government does not doesn’t guarantee
any person of the fidelity of its officers since that would involve
endless embarassments and difficulties subversive to public interest.

 If Government intends to make itself legally liable for the amount of

damages above set forth, which the plaintiff has sustained reason of the
negligent acts of one of its employees, by legislative enactment and by
appropriating sufFcient funds therefor, we are not called upon to
determine. This matter rests solely with the Legislature and not with the
courts.

 According to the supreme court Act No. 2457:

o Similar to the case of Murdock Grate Co. vs Commonwealth where the

SC declared that: "The statute we are discussing discloses no
intention to create against the state a new and heretofore
unrecognized class of liabilities, but only an intention to provide a
judicial tribunal where well recognized existing liabilities can be
adjudicated."

o It being quite clear that Act No. 2457 does not operate to extend the
Government's liability to any cause not previously recognized, we will
now examine the substantive law touching the defendant's liability for
the negligent acts of its officers, agents, and employees.

N. Saquilabon
H. Menor