Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Issue: RULING:
When the government takes away property from a private
Whether or not the government is legally liable for the
landowner for public use without going through the legal
damages resulting from the collision caused by the
process of expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved
negligence committed by an agent or employee of the party may properly maintain a suit against the government
government. without thereby violating the doctrine of governmental
immunity from suit without its consent.
Held:
No, the Supreme Court is not the one to determine Considering that no annotation in favor of the government
whether the government intend itself legally liable for the appears at the back of her certificate of title and that she has
amount of damages because of the negligence of one of the not executed any deed of conveyance of any portion of her lot
to the government, the appellant remains the owner of the
agents or employees. It shall be determined by legislative
whole lot.
enactment.
In determining the purpose and scope of Act 2457, However, since restoration of possession of said portion by the
government is neither convenient nor feasible at this time
the supreme court of the Philippines seeks the aid of the U.S
because it is now and has been used for road purposes, the only
decisions where it is modeled. It is a rule in the U.S that the relief available is for the government to make due
state is not liable for the torts committed by its officers or compensation which it could and should have done years ago.
agents whom it employs except when expressly made so by The plaintiff is entitled thereto in the form of legal interest on
legislative enactment. the price of the land from the time it was taken up to the time
that payment is made by the government.
In addition, it is also mentioned that the state by
consenting to be sued simply waives its immunity, it does not
thereby concede its liability to the plaintiff.
REPUBLIC V. FELICIANO (Register of Deeds) by Dr. Pablo Feliciano," without the
submission of proof that the alleged duplicate was authentic
FACTS: or that the original thereof was lost. Reconstitution can be
Petitioner seeks the review of the decision of the validly made only in case of loss of the original. These
Intermediate Appellate Court dated April 30, 1985, which circumstances raise grave doubts as to the authenticity and
dismissed the complaint of respondent Pablo Feliciano for validity of the "informacion posesoria" relied upon by
recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land respondent Feliciano. Adding to the dubiousness of said
on the ground of non-suability of the State. On January document is the fact that "possessory information calls for
22, 1970, Feliciano filed a complaint with then Court of an area of only 100 hectares," whereas the land claimed
First Instance of Camarines Sur against the RP, represented by respondent Feliciano comprises 1,364.4177 hectares, later
by the Land Authority, for the recovery of ownership and reduced to 7019064 hectares.
possession of a parcel of land, consisting of four (4) lots
with an aggregate area of 1,364.4177 hectares, situated in RAYO VS. CFI OF BULACAN, G.R. NO. L-55273-83
the Barrio of Salvacion, Municipality of Tinambac, Camarines
Sur. Feliciano alleged that he bought the property in Topic: Doctrine of State Immunity
question from Victor Gardiola by virtue of a Contract of Case Doctrine: GOCCs have a personality of their own and
Sale dated May 31, 1952, followed by a Deed of Absolute distinct from the
Sale on October 30, 1954; that Gardiola had acquired the government
property by purchase from the heirs of Francisco Abrazado
whose title to the Administration (NARRA), a tract of Facts:
land situated in the Municipalities of Tinambac and Siruma, Respondent corporation, National Power Corporation, acting
Camarines Sur, after which the NARRA and its successor through its superintendent, Benjamin Chavez simultaneously
agency, the Land Authority, started sub-dividing and opened all three flood gates of the Angat Dam during the
distributing the land to the settlers; that the property in typhoon “Kading” leading to several towns of Bulacan being
question, while located within the reservation established inundated and in Norzagaray, hundreds of residents died and
under Proclamation No. 90, was the private property of properties worth millions were destroyed. Petitioners, who
Feliciano and should therefore be excluded therefrom. were among the victims, filed 11 complaints, with similar cause
Feliciano prayed that he be declared the rightful and true of action, for damages against respondent corporation and
owner of the property in question consisting of 1,364.4177 Benjamin Chavez. Respondent corporation invoked its defense
hectares; that his title of ownership based on informacion of “performing a purely governmental function in the
posesoria of his predecessor-ininterest be declared legally operation of Angat Dam, thus they cannot be sued without the
valid and subsisting and that defendant be ordered to cancel express consent of the State”. Petitioners contended that
and nullify all awards to the settlers. respondent corporation was performing its proprietary
functions and stated under Section 3 (d) of R.A. No. 6395, it
ISSUE: Whether or not the State can be sued for recovery can be sue and be sued in any court.
The Court of First
and possession of a parcel of land Instance of Bulacan dismissed all the petitioners’ complaints
and even their motion for reconsideration. Hence, the
HELD:
petitioners filed for review on certiorari.
The decision in this
said property was evidenced by an informacion posesoria
case is without the memorandum of the Solicitor General.
that upon his purchase of the property, he took actual
possession of the same, introduced various improvements
Issue:
therein and caused it to be surveyed in July 1952, which
(1) Whether or not corporation respondent performed a
survey was approved by the Director of Lands on October
governmental function in the management and operation of
24,1954. On November 1, 1954, President Ramon
the Angat Dam
Magsaysay issued Proclamation No. 90 reserving for
(2) Whether or not the corporation respondent’s power to sue
settlement purposes, under the administration of the
and be sued under its organic acts, R.A. No. 6395, includes the
National Resettlement and Rehabilitation A suit against the
power to be sued for tort
State, under settled jurisprudence is not permitted, except
upon a showing that the State has consented to be sued,
Held:
either expressly or by implication through the use of
It is unnecessary to determine if NPC performed its
statutory language too plain to be misinterpreted. It may
governmental function, it is sufficient that the government
be invoked by the courts sua sponte at any stage of the
organized a private corporation and has allowed it to sue and
proceedings. Waiver of immunity, being a derogation of
be sued under its charter. Further, a Government Owned and
sovereignty, will not be inferred lightly, but must be
Controlled Corporation has a personality of its own, distinct
construed instrictissimi juris (of strictest right). Moreover,
from the government. Finally, the provision allowing the
the Proclamation is not a legislative act. The consent of
private corporation to sue and be sued is without qualification
the State to be sued must emanate from statutory
on the cause of action and
authority. Waiver of State immunity can only be made by
it can include a tort claim.
an act of the legislative body. Also, it is noteworthy, that
as pointed out by the Solicitor General, that the
informacion posesoria registered in the Office of the
Register of Deed of Camarines Sur on September 23, 1952
was a "reconstituted" possessory information; it was
"reconstituted from the duplicate presented to this office
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VS. RUIZ BUREAU OF PRINTING v BUREAU OF PRINTING
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
Facts:
This is a petition to review, set aside certain orders and FACTS:
restrain perpetually the proceedings done by Hon. Ruiz for Respondents filed a complaint by an acting prosecutor of the
lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court. Industrial Court against petitioner, Bureau of Printing. The
complaint alleged that Serafin Salvador and Mariano Ledesma
The United States of America had a naval base in Subic, have been engaging in unfair labor practices. Petitioners
Zambales. The base was one of those provided in the Military denied the charges of unfair labor practice attributed to them.
Bases Agreement between the Philippines and the United Before the case could be heard, petitioners filed an Omnibus
States. Sometime in May, 1972, the United States invited the Motion asking for a preliminary hearing on the question of
submission of bids for a couple of repair projects. Eligio de jurisdiction raised by them in their answer and for suspension
Guzman land Co., Inc. responded to the invitation and of the trial of the case. The motion was granted, but after
submitted bids. Subsequent thereto, the company received hearing, the trial judge of the Industrial Court sustained that
from the US two telegrams requesting it to confirm its price the functions of Bureau of Printing are exclusively proprietary
proposals and for the name of its bonding company. The in nature and, consequently, denied the prayer for dismissal.
company construed this as an acceptance of its offer so they Reconsideration of this order having been denied by the court
complied with the requests. The company received a letter in banc, the petitioners brought the case to this Court through
which was signed by William I. Collins of Department of the this petition for certiorari and prohibition.
Navy of the United States, also one of the petitioners herein
informing that the company did not qualify to receive an award ISSUE:
for the projects because of its previous unsatisfactory Whether or not Bureau of Printing has no juridical personality
performance rating in repairs, and that the projects were to be sued
awarded to third parties. For this reason, a suit for specific
performance was filed by him against the US. RULING:
YES. According to the 1987 Constitution and jurisprudence,
The traditional role of the state immunity exempts a state from the rule is settled that the Government cannot be sued without
being sued in the courts of another state without its consent or its consent, much less over its objection. In the present case,
waiver. This rule is necessary consequence of the principle of the Bureau of Printing is an office of the Government created
independence and equality of states. However, the rules of by the Administrative Code of 1916. As such instrumentality
international law are not petrified; they are continually and of the Government, it operates under the direct supervision of
evolving and because the activities of states have multiplied. It the Executive Secretary, Office of the President and is charged
has been necessary to distinguish them between sovereign and with the execution of all printing and binding, including work
governmental acts (jure imperii) and private, commercial and incidental to those processes, required by the National
proprietary acts (juregestionis). The result is that State Government and such other work of the same character as said
immunity now extends only to acts jure imperil. The Bureau may, by law or by order of the Executive Secretary, be
restrictive application of State immunity is now the rule in the authorized to undertake. It has no corporate existence and its
United States, the United Kingdom and other states in western appropriations are provided for in the General Appropriations
Europe. Act. Indeed as an office of the Government, without any
corporate or juridical personality, the Bureau of Printing
Issue: cannot be sued. Any suit, action, or proceeding against it, if it
Whether or not the US naval base in bidding for said contracts were to produce any effect, would actually be a suit, action or
exercise governmental functions to be able to invoke state proceeding against the Government itself.
immunity.
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the contract relates to the
exercise of its sovereign functions. In this case the projects are
an integral part of the naval base which is devoted to the
defense of both the United States and the Philippines,
indisputably a function of the government of the highest order,
they are not utilized for nor dedicated to commercial or
business purposes.
The restrictive application of state immunity is proper only
when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of
the foreign sovereign. Its commercial activities of economic
affairs. A state may be descended to 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.
CIVIL AERONAUTICS ADMINISTRATION, petitioner,
MOBIL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION, INC., vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ERNEST E. SIMKE,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE
SERVICE AND BUREAU OF CUSTOMS FACTS:
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEE
Private respondent is a naturalized Filipino citizen and at the
Topic: State Immunity time of the incident was the Honorary Consul General of Israel
Doctrine: Performance by Non-Corporate Government in the Philippines. One afternoon, private respondent with
Entity of Proprietary Functions Does not Make it Suable several other persons went to the Manila International Airport
to meet his future son-in-law. In order to get a better view of
FACTS: the incoming passengers, he and his group proceeded to the
Consigned to Mobil Philippines Exploration Inc., four cases of viewing deck or terrace of the airport. While walking on the
rotary drill parts were shipped from abroad to Manila. After a terrace, then filled with other people, private respondent
few months, the shipment arrived in the port of Manila and slipped over an elevation about four (4) inches high at the far
was received by Customs Arrastre Service, a unit under Bureau end of the terrace. As a result, private respondent fell on his
of Customs in charge of handling arrastre operations. The said back and broke his thigh bone.
government unit then delivered the shipment to the broker of
Mobil Philippines Exploration Inc. However, only three cases Private respondent then filed an action for damages based on
of the rotary drill were delivered to the broker. quasi-delict with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch
VII against petitioner Civil Aeronautics Administration or
In the hopes of recovering the amount of the undelivered case, CAA as the entity empowered "to administer, operate, manage,
Mobile Philippines Exploration Inc. filed a case in the Court of control, maintain and develop the Manila International
First Instance of Manila against the Customs Arrastre Service Airport. . . ." [Sec. 32 (24), R.A. 776].
and Bureau of Customs. Customs Arrastre Service and Bureau
of Customs argued that they cannot be sued be- cause they are Judgment was rendered in private respondent's favor
not a person under the law. On the same grounds, the lower prompting petitioner to appeal to the Court of Appeals. The
court dismissed the case. latter affirmed the trial court's decision. Petitioner then filed
with the same court a Motion for Reconsideration but this was
Mobile Philippines Exploration Inc., appealed to the Supreme denied.
Court contending that not all gov- ernment entities are
immune from suit. Bureau of Customs, being an operator of ISSUE:
arrastre was performing proprietary functions and therefor Whether or not the present suit against the CAA is really a
may be sued. suit against the Republic of the Philippines which cannot be
sued without its consent.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Bureau of Customs is immune from suit.
HELD:
Invoking the rule that the State cannot be sued without its
HELD: consent, petitioner contends that being an agency of the
Yes, the Bureau of Customs is immune from suit. A non- government, it cannot be made a party defendant in this case.
corporate government entity performing a proprietary This Court has already held otherwise in the case of National
function does not necessarily result in it being suable. If the Airports Corporation v. Teodoro, Sr. 191 Phil. 203 (1952).]
said non-governmental func- tion is undertaken as an incident Third, it has already been settled in the Teodoro case that the
to its governmental function, waiver of immunity from suit did CAA as an agency is not immune from suit, it being engaged
not ex- tend to such government entity. In this case, the in functions pertaining to a private entity. The Civil
Bureau of Customs, a part of the Department of Fi- nance had Aeronautics Administration comes under the category of a
a primary governmental function. It was to assess and collect private entity. Although not a body corporate it was created,
lawful revenues from imported articles and all other tariff and like the National Airports Corporation, not to maintain a
customs duties, fees, charges, fines, and penalties. The said necessary function of government, but to run what is
duties cannot be assessed and collected without customs essentially a business, even if revenues be not its prime
authorities and officers checking and making sure that the objective but rather the promotion of travel and the
declaration tallied with the actual merchandise that landed. convenience of the travelling public. It is engaged in an
This process of checking up required that the landed enterprise which, far from being the exclusive prerogative of
merchandise be hauled from the ship's side to a suitable place state, may, more than the construction of public roads, be
in the customs premises. For cus- toms officers to perform it, undertaken by private concerns.
an arrastre operation is required. Although said arrastre
function may be deemed proprietary, it was a necessary
incident of the primary and governmental function of the
Bureau of Customs. Engaging in the same does not necessarily
render said Bureau liable to suit. Instead, Mobil Philippines
Inc. should have filed its claim with the General Auditing
Office, under which money claims against the Government
may be filed.
CASE DIGEST: AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE v. maintain a necessary function of government, but to run what
SPOUSES DAVID & ELISEA RAMOS is essentially a business, even if revenues be not its prime
objective but rather the promotion of travel and the
FACTS: convenience of the travelling public. It is engaged in an
Respondent Spouses discovered that a portion of their enterprise which, far from being the exclusive prerogative of
registered land in Baguio City was being used as part of the state, may, more than the construction of public roads, be
runway and running shoulder of the Loakan Airport being undertaken by private concerns. National Airports Corp. v.
operated by petitioner Air Transportation Office (ATO). The Teodoro, 91 Phil. 203 (1952)
respondents agreed after negotiations to convey the affected
portion by deed of sale to the ATO in consideration of the The CA thereby correctly appreciated the juridical character
amount of P778, 150.00. However, the ATO failed to pay of the ATO as an agency of the Government not performing a
despite repeated verbal and written demands. purely governmental or sovereign function, but was instead
Thus, the respondents filed an action for collection against the involved in the management and maintenance of the Loakan
ATO and some of its officials in the RTC. In their answer, the Airport, an activity that was not the exclusive prerogative of
ATO and its co-defendants invoked as an affirmative defense the State in its sovereign capacity. Hence, the ATO had no
the issuance of Proclamation No. 1358, whereby President claim to the States immunity from suit. We uphold the CAs
Marcos had reserved certain parcels of land that included the aforequoted holding.
respondents affected portion for use of the Loakan Airport.
They asserted that the RTC had no jurisdiction to entertain The doctrine of sovereign immunity cannot be successfully
the action without the States consent considering that the deed invoked to defeat a valid claim for compensation arising from
of sale had been entered into in the performance of the taking without just compensation and without the proper
governmental functions. expropriation proceedings being first resorted to of the
plaintiffs property Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 90478,
The RTC held in favor of the Spouses, ordering the ATO to Nov. 2, 1991. DENIED.
pay the plaintiffs Spouses the amount of P778,150.00 being the
value of the parcel of land appropriated by the defendant ATO
as embodied in the Deed of Sale, plus an annual interest of 12%
from August 11, 1995, the date of the Deed of Sale until fully
paid; (2) The amount of P150,000.00 by way of moral damages
and P150,000.00 as exemplary damages; (3) the amount of
P50,000.00 by way of attorneys fees plus P15,000.00
representing the 10, more or less, court appearances of
plaintiffs counsel; (4) The costs of this suit.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTCs decision
withmodification deleting the awarded cost, and reducing the
moral and exemplary damage to P30,000.00 each, and
attorneys fees is lowered to P10,000.00.
ISSUE:
Could ATO be sued without the State's consent?
HELD:
An unincorporated government agency without any separate
juridical personality of its own enjoys immunity from suit
because it is invested with an inherent power of sovereignty.
Accordingly, a claim for damages against the agency cannot
prosper; otherwise, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is
violated. However, the need to distinguish between an
unincorporated government agency performing governmental
function and one performing proprietary functions has arisen.
The immunity has been upheld in favor of the former because
its function is governmental or incidental to such function; it
has not been upheld in favor of the latter whose function was
not in pursuit of a necessary function of government but was
essentially a business. National Airports Corporation v.
Teodoro, Sr. and Phil. Airlines Inc., 91 Phil. 203 (1952)
Civil Aeronautics Administration vs. Court of Appeals (167
SCRA 28 [1988]),the Supreme Court, reiterating the
pronouncements laid down in Teodoro, declared that the CAA
(predecessor of ATO) is an agency not immune from suit, it
being engaged in functions pertaining to a private entity.
The Civil Aeronautics Administration comes under the
category of a private entity. Although not a body corporate it
was created, like the National Airports Corporation, not to