CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 US VS GUINTO
February 26, 1990 FACTS:
These cases are consolidated because they all involve the doctrine of state immunity.
1) US VS GUINTO (GR No. 76607) The private respondents are suing several officers of the US Air Force in Clark Air Base in connection with the bidding conducted by them for contracts for barber services in the said base which was won by a certain Dizon. The respondents wanted to cancel cancel the award to the bid winner because they claimed that Dizon had included in his bid an area not included in the invitation to bid, and subsequently, to conduct a re bidding. 2} US VS RODRIGO (GR No 79470) Genove, employed as a cook in the Main Club at John Hay Station, was dismissed after it had been ascertained in an investigation that he poured urine urine in the soup stock. Genove filed a complaint for damages against the club manager who was also an officer of USAF. 2) US VS CEBALLOS (GR No 80018) Luis Bautista, a barracks boy in Camp ODonnel, was arrested following a buy-bust operation conducted by petitioners who were USAF officers and special agents of the Air Force Office. A trial ensued where petitioners testified against against respondent Bautista. As a result of the charge, Bautista was dismissed from his employment. He then filed for damages against petitioners claiming claiming that because of the latters acts, he was removed from his job. 3) US VS ALARCON VERGARA (GR No 80258) Complaint for damages was filed by private respondents against individual petitioners for injuries allegedly sustained by handcuffing handcuffing and unleashing dogs on them by the latter. The individual individual petitioners, US military officers, deny this stressing that the private respondents were arrested for theft but resisted arrest, thus incurring the injuries. In all these cases, the individual petitioners claimed they were just exercising their official functions. The USA was not impleaded in the complaints but has moved to dismiss on the ground that they are in effect suits against it to which it has not consented. ISSUE:
Is the doctrine of state immunity applicable in the cases at bar? HELD:
A state may not be sued without its consent. This doctrine is not absolute and does not say the state may not be sued under any circumstance. circumstance. The rule says that the state may not be sued without its consent, which clearly imports that it may be s ued if it consents. The consent of the state to be sued may be manifested expressly or impliedly. impliedly. Express consent may be embodied in a general general law or a special law. Consent is implied when when the sate enters into a contract or it itself commences commences litigation. When the government enters into a contract, contract, it is deemed to have descended to the level of the other contracting party and divested itself of its sovereign immunity from suit with its implied consent. consent. Waiver is also implied when the the government files a complaint, complaint, thus opening itself to a counterclaim. The USA, like any other state, will be deemed to have impliedly waived its non-suability if it has entered into a contract in its proprietary or private capacity. nelynbotes-frinal1-08-2009
1) US VS GUINTO (GR No 76607) The court finds the barbershops subject to the concessions granted by the US government to be commercial enterprises operated by private persons. The petitioners cannot plead any immunity from the complaint, the contract in question being decidedly commercial. Thus, the petition is DISMISSED and the lower court directed to proceed with the hearing and decision of the case. 2) US VS RODRIGO (GR No 79470) The restaurant services offered at the John Hay Station operated for profit as a commercial and not a government activity. The petitioners cannot invoke the doctrine of self immunity to justify the dismissal of the damage suit filed by Genove. Not even the US government can claim such immunity because by entering into the employment contract with Geneove in the discharge of its proprietary functions, it impliedly divested itself of its sovereign immunity from suit. Still, the court holds that the complaint against petitioners in the lower court be dismissed. There was nothing arbitrary about the proceedings in the dismissal of Genove, the petitioner acted quite properly in terminating the private respondents employment for his unbelievably nauseating act of polluting the soup stock with urine. 3) US VS CEBALLOS (GR No 80018) It was clear that the individually-named petitioners were acting in the exercise of their official functions when they conducted the buy-bust operation and thereafter testified against the complainant. For discharging their duties as agents of the United States, thay cannot be directly impleaded for acts imputable to their principal, which has not given its consent to be sued. The conclusion of the trial court that the answer filed by the special counsel of Clark Air Base was a submission of the US government to its jurisdiction is rejected. Express waiver cannot be made by a mere counsel of the government but must be effected through a duly-enacted statute. Neither does it come under the implied form of consent. Thus, the petition is granted and the civil case filed in the lower court dismissed. 4) US VS ALARCON VERGARA (GR No 80258) The contradictory factual allegations in this case need a closer study of what actually happened. The record were too meager to indicate that the defendants were really discharging their official duties or had actually exceeded their authority when the incident occurred. Only after the lower court shall have determined in what capacity the petitioners were acting will the court determine, if still necessary, if the doctrine of state immunity is applicable.
nelynbotes-frinal1-08-2009
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 NHA VS HEIRS OF GUIVELONDO
June 19, 2003 FACTS: In a complaint for eminent domain filed by the NHA against the heirs of Guivelondo as owners of lands that were within an urban center intended by the petitioner for socialized housing project, the RTC, in an expropriation proceeding, fixed the just compensation for the lands. Petitioner assailed the amount of compensation up to the SC but did not succeed. Later, it filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for eminent domain alleging that the socialized housing project was rendered impossible by the unconscionable value of the land sought to be expropriated. Meanwhile, a notice of garnishment was issued against petitioners Land Bank deposits. Subsequently, a levy was imposed on the funds and personal properties of NHA. ISSUE: Whether or not the funds and assets of the petitioner NHA are exempt from levy and garnishment.
HELD: Generally, funds and properties of the government cannot be object of garnishment proceedings even if the consent to be sued had been previously granted and the state liability adjudged. However, if the funds belong to a public corporation or a government owned or controlled corporation which is clothed with a personality of its own, separate and distinct from that of the government, then the funds are not exempt from garnishment. This is so because when the government enters into commercial business, it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation. Petition for review is DENIED. Prayer for injunctive relief against the levy and garnishment is DENIED.
nelynbotes-frinal1-08-2009
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 EPG CONSTRUCTION VS VIGILAR
March 16, 2001 FACTS: (1983) The herein petitioners-contractors, under contracts with DPWH, constructed 145 housing units but coverage of construction and funding under the said contracts was only for 2/3 of each housing unit. Through the verbal request and assurance of then DPWH Undersecretary Canlas, they undertook additional constructions for the completion of the project, but said additional constructions were not issued payment by DPWH. With a favorable recommendation from the DPWH Asst. Secretary for Legal Affairs, the petitioners sent a demend letter to the DPWH Secretary. The DPWH Auditor did not object to the payment subject to whatever action COA may adopt. (1992) Through the request of then DPWH Secretary De Jesus, the DBM released the amount for payment but (1996) respondent DPWH Secreatry Vigilar denied the money claims prompting petitioners to file a petition for mandamus before the RTC which said trial court denied. Hence, this petition. Among others, respondent-secretary argues that the state may not be sued invoking the constitutional doctrine of Non-suability of the State also known as the Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty. ISSUE: Whether or not the Principle of State Immunity is applicable in the case at bar.
HELD: The principle of state immunity finds no application in this case. Under the circumstances, respondent may not validly invoke the Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty and hide under the states cloak of invincibility against suit. Considering that this principle yields to certain settled exceptions. The rule is not absolute for it does not say that the state may not be sued under any circumstance. The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. It is just as important that there be fidelity to legal norms on the part of officialdom if the rule of law is to be maintained. The ends of justice would be subverted if we were to uphold, in this instance, the states immunity from suit. This court - as the staunch guardian of the citizens rights and welfare- cannot sanction an injustice so patent on its face, and allow itself to be an instrument of perpetration thereof. Justice and equity sternly demand that the states cloak of invincibility against suit be shred in this particular instance and that petitioners-contractors be duly compensated , on the basis of quantum meruit, for construction done on the public works housing project Petition GRANTED.
nelynbotes-frinal1-08-2009
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 REPUBLIC VS UNIMEX MICRO-ELECTRONICS
March 9, 2007 FACTS: The Bureau of Customs (BOC) seized and forfeited the shipment owned by UNIMEX MicroElectronics. When the latter filed a petition for review in the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), the forfeiture decree was reversed and the court ordered the release of the goods. However, respondents counsel failed to secure a writ of execution to enforce the CTA decision. When respondent asked for release of its shipment, BOC could no longer find subject shipment in its warehouses. The CTA ordered the BOC to pay UNIMEX the commercial value of the goods with interest. The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the BOC Commissioner, assailed the decision of the CTA in the SC. One of its grounds was that the government funds cannot be charged with respondents claim without a corresponding appropriation and cannot be decreed by mere judicial order. ISSUE: Can the government be held for actual damages?
HELD: Although the satisfaction of respondents demand will ultimately fall on the government, and that under the political doctrine of state immunity, it cannot be held liable for governmental acts (jus imperil), the court still holds that petitioner cannot escape its liability. The circumstances of the case warrant its exclusion from the purview of the state immunity doctrine. The court cannot turn a blind eye to BOCs ineptitude and gross negligence in the safekeeping of respondents goods. The situation does not allow us to reject respondents claim on the mere invocation of the doctrine of state immunity. The doctrine must be fairly observed and the State should not avail itself of this prerogative to take undue advantage of parties that may have legitimate claims against it. The SC, as the staunch guardian of the peoples rights and welfare, cannot sanction an injustice so patent in its face, and allow itself to be an instrument in the perpetration thereof. Courts have recognized with almost pedantic adherence that what is inconvenient and contrary to reason is not allowed in law. Justice and equity now demand that the States cloak of invincibility against suit and liability be shredded. Assailed decision of the CTA is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
nelynbotes-frinal1-08-2009
