PART 4 - Philippine As A State

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Part IV (The Philippine as a State)
Case Digests Page 1 of 30

IV. The Philippine as a State
CIR v. CAMPOS RUEDA
42 SCRA 23
FACTS:
Antonio Campos Rueda, administrator of the estate of the deceased Doa Maria de la Estrella Soriano Vda. de Cerdeira,
as held lia!le !" the CIR for deficienc" state and inheritance ta#es for the properties left !" the decedent in the
Philippines. It must !e noted that Dona Maria as a resident of Tan$iers, Monaco at the time of her death. Campos
Rueda claimed e#emption under Sec %&&, 'IRC from the pa"ment of the said ta#es. The CIR denied the re(uest on the
$rounds that the la of Tan$iers is not reciprocal to Sec %&& and that Tan$iers as a mere principalit" and not a forei$n
countr". )n appeal, the CTA ruled that *the e#pression +forei$n countr"+, used in the last pro,iso of Section %&& of the
'ational Internal Re,enue Code, refers to a $o,ernment of that forei$n poer hich, althou$h not an international person
in the sense of international la, does not impose transfer or death ta#es upon intan$i!le personal properties of our
citi-ens not residin$ therein, or hose la allos a similar e#emption from such ta#es. It is, therefore, not necessar" that
Tan$ier should ha,e !een reco$ni-ed !" our .o,ernment in order to entitle the petitioner to the e#emption !enefits of the
last pro,iso of Section %&& of our Ta# Code./
ISSUE:
Is the ac(uisition of internal personalit" a condition sine (ua non to Tan$ier !ein$ considered a /forei$n countr"0 ithin the
pur,ie of Sec %&&, 'IRC1
HELD:
NO. It does not admit of dou!t that if a foreign o!n"r# i$ "o %e i&en"ifie& 'i"( a $"a"e) i" i$ re*!ire& in line ith
Pound+s formulation that i" %e a +o,i"ia,,# organi-e& $overeign o..!ni"# in&e+en&en" of o!"$i&e on"ro, %o!n&
%# "ie$ of na"ion(oo&) ,ega,,# $!+re.e 'i"(in i"$ "erri"or#) a"ing "(ro!g( a govern.en" f!n"ioning !n&er a
regi.e of ,a'. It is thus a $overeign +er$on 'i"( "(e +eo+,e o.+o$ing i" vie'e& a$ an organi-e& or+ora"e
$oie"# !n&er a govern.en" 'i"( "(e ,ega, o.+e"ene "o e/a" o%e&iene i"$ o..an&$. It has !een referred to
as a %o&#0+o,i"i organi-e& %# o..on on$en" for .!"!a, &efen$e an& .!"!a, $afe"# an& "o +ro.o"e "(e genera,
'e,fare. Correctl" has it !een descri!ed !" Esmein as /the 2uridical personification of the nation./ This is to ,ie it in
the li$ht its historical de,elopment. The stress is on its !ein$ a nation, its people occup"in$ a definite territor", politicall"
or$ani-ed, e#ercisin$ !" means of its $o,ernment its so,erei$n ill o,er the indi,iduals ithin it and maintainin$ its
separate international personalit". 3as4i could spea4 of it then as a territorial societ" di,ided into $o,ernment and
su!2ects, claimin$ ithin its allotted area a supremac" o,er all other institutions. McI,er similarl" ould point to the poer
entrusted to its $o,ernment to maintain ithin its territor" the conditions of a le$al order and to enter into international
relations. 5ith the latter re(uisites satisfied, international la does not e#act independence as a condition of statehood.
N.1. The court ruled as such !ased on the rulin$ in CIR ,. De 3ara, here it reco$ni-ed that the estate of a decedent ho
resided in the State of California, ma" claim the e#emptions pro,ided in Sec %&&, 'IRC on the $round that althou$h
lac4in$ the alle$ed international personalit" is a forei$n countr" ithin the pur,ie of the said pro,ision. 22.."$2344
ROMUALDE506AP v$. CI7IL SER7ICE COMMISSION
228 SCRA 298) A!g!$" 42) 4::3
Padilla, J:
To+i: T(e one+" of .ini$"ran" f!n"ion$ an& .anage.en" +reroga"ive !$e& a$ a va,i& %a$i$ for reorgani-a"ion.
Si$"er of I.e,&a Maro$ $a#$ i" 'a$ in %a& fai"( an& !$e& reorgani-a"ion "o o!$" (er o!" of offie "(!$ %eing
$e+ara"ion 'i"(o!" ;!$" a!$e)
FACTS:
An"ee&en"$:
Petitioner Conchita Romualde-67ap 8note9 sister of Imelda Marcos: as or4in$ ith the Philippine 'ational ;an4 from
%<=& ith se,eral promotions up to the "ear %<>=. In %<>?, hile she as on lea,e, E#ecuti,e )rder 'o. >@ 8Re,ised
Charter of the P';: as appro,ed. Said e#ecuti,e order authori-ed the restructureAreor$ani-ation and reha!ilitation of
P';. Pursuant to the reor$ani-ation plan, the Bund Transfer Department as a!olished and its functions transferred to
the International Department. Conse(uentl", petitioner as notified of her separation from the ser,ice in a letter dated C@
Danuar" %<>=. Petitioner (uestioned her separation !ut the then CSC Chairman Samilo ;arlon$a" upheld the ,alidit" of
her separation from the ser,ice
*antonio|arrellano|calvan|cayaban|federio|quinto|quintos|salendab|santos|sta.ana|tecson|valencia|villanueva|zulueta*
T(e a$e9
Petitioner contends that her separation as in !ad faith due to ,amon$ others, !ein$ politicall" moti,ated she !ein$ the
sister of Imelda Marcos. She claims the separation as ille$al !ecause it too4 effect on Be!ruar" %?, %<>? 8as ritten in
her separation letter: !efore the promul$ation of E) >@ on Decem!er C, %<>?. 8'ote that in this issue, the court found that
it as a t"po$raphical error.:
Also, she contends that there as !ad faith in the reor$ani-ation of the P'; !ecause her department 8the BTD that as
a!olished: as re,i,ed after four "ears and hence it as a plot to ease her out of her office !" puttin$ another officer in
her position and thus the separation from her office ,iolated her securit" of tenure.
ISSUE:
%. 5as there %a& fai"( in the reorgani-a"ion of the Philippine 'ational ;an4 resultin$ in the separation from the ser,ice
of petitioner1 6 ')'E.
&. 5as the reor$ani-ation done in goo& fai"( a$ "e$"e& %# "(e Dario v Mi$on Doctrine16 7ES .
C.5as the petitioner correct assailin$ this case is one fore $e+ara"ion 'i"(o!" ;!$" a!$e and hence ould !e !ound !"
the four "ear prescripti,e period rule1 )r is she !ound !" the 8%: "ear prescripti,e period for (uo arranto proceedin$s16
EF) 5ARRA'T).
RULIN<:
%. P';Gs reor$ani-ation as !" ,irtue of a va,i& ,a'. At the time of reor$ani-ation, due to the critical financial situation of
the !an4, departments, positions and functions ere a!olished or mer$ed. The a!olition of the BTD as &ee.e&
nee$$ar# and hence in $ood faith. This as a mana$ement prero$ati,e e#ercised pursuant to a %!$ine$$ ;!&g.en".
At this point, the Court declared that a distinction can be made on the validity of the reorganization between a
government bureau or office performing constituent functions (like ureau of Customs! and a "#CC performing
ministrant function (like the P$!% Commercial or universal banking is, ideally not governmental, but a private sector
endeavor% &t is an optional function of government%
'eorganization is always sub(ect to the common test of good faith which is determined on a case to case basis%
Hence, there as ') EIISTE'CE )B ;AD BAITH C)'SISTI'. )B TA'.I;3E ;FREAFCRATICAMA'A.EME'T
PRESSFRES EIERTED T) EASE HER )FT )B )BBICE.
&. Re(uirement of $ood faith in the reor$ani-ation of a $o,ernment !ureau herein offices are a!olished. It sa"s9
. . . Reor$ani-ations in this 2urisdiction ha,e !een re$arded as ,alid pro,ided the" are pursued in $ood
faith. As a $eneral rule, a reor$ani-ation is carried out in /$ood faith/ if it is for the purpose of econom" or
to ma4e !ureaucrac" more efficient. In that e,ent, no dismissal 8in case of dismissal: or separation
actuall" occurs !ecause the position itself ceases to e#ist. And in that case, securit" of tenure ould not
!e a Chinese all. ;e that as it ma", if the /a!olition,/ hich is nothin$ else !ut a separation or remo,al,
is done for political reasons or purposel" to defeat securit" of tenure, or otherise not in $ood faith, no
,alid /a!olition/ ta4es place and hate,er /a!olition/ is done, is ,oid a! initio. There is an in,alid
/a!olition/ as here there is merel" a chan$e of nomenclature of positions, or here claims of econom"
are !elied !" the e#istence of ample funds.
.ood faith, as a component of a reor$ani-ation under a constitutional re$ime, is 2ud$ed from the facts of
each case.
Issues % and & $o to$ether as to $ood faith in the ,alidit" of reor$ani-ation of a .)CC performin$ ministrant functions
C. The case s(uarel" fall under a *!o 'arran"o proceedin$, not an ille$al termination case. A person claimin$ to !e
entitled to a pu!lic office or position usurped or unlafull" held or e#ercised !" another ma" !rin$ an action for (uo
arranto. The separation here as due to an a!olition of office in implementation of a ,alid reor$ani-ation !ased on a
reha!ilitation plan. Petitioner slept on her ri$hts.
No"e: Ma$no case9 Vi$ilanti!us, nin dormienti!us 2ura su!,ient 83as come to the assistance of the ,i$ilant, not of the
sleepin$.:
SHIPSIDE INCORPORATED v. COURT OF APPEALS
<.R. No. 4433== Fe%r!ar# 23) 2334
BACTS9
)n )cto!er &<, %<J>, )ri$inal Certificate of Title 'o. @6C>% as issued in fa,or of Rafael .al,e-, o,er four
parcels of land 6 3ot % ith ?,J=% s(uare metersK 3ot &, ith %?,=== s(uare metersK 3ot C ith %,J>C s(uare metersK and
3ot L, ith J@> s(uare meters.
)n April %%, %<?@, 3ots 'o. % and L ere con,e"ed !" Rafael .al,e- in fa,or of Bilipina Mamaril, Cleopatra 3lana,
Re$ina ;ustos, and Erlinda ;alat!at in a deed of sale. Conse(uentl", Transfer Certificate 'o. T6LC@L as issued in fa,or
of the !u"ers co,erin$ 3ots 'o. % and L.
)n Au$ust %?, %<?@, Mamaril, et al. sold 3ots 'o. % and L to 3epanto Consolidated Minin$ Compan".
Su!se(uentl", Transfer Certificate 'o. T6LC%L as issued in the name of 3epanto Consolidated Minin$ Compan" as
oner of 3ots 'o. % and L.
)n Be!ruar" %, %<?C, un4non to 3epanto Consolidated Minin$ Compan", the Court of Birst Instance of 3a Fnion,
Second Dudicial District, issued an )rder in 3and Re$istration Case 'o. '6 C?% declarin$ the re$istration issued in the
name of Rafael .al,e-, null and ,oid, and ordered the cancellation thereof.
)n )cto!er &>, %<?C, 3epanto Consolidated Minin$ Compan" sold to herein petitioner 3ots 'o. % and L to herein
petitioner hich startin$ since then e#ercised proprietar" ri$hts o,er 3ots 'o. % and L.
In the meantime, Rafael .al,e- filed his motion for reconsideration a$ainst the order issued !" the CBI of 3a
Fnion. The motion as denied on Danuar" &J, %<?J. )n appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled in fa,or of the Repu!lic of the
Philippines in a Resolution promul$ated on Au$ust %L, %<=C.%n)t
Thereafter, the Court of Appeals issued an Entr" of Dud$ment, certif"in$ that its decision dated Au$ust %L, %<=C
!ecame final and e#ecutor" on )cto!er &C, %<=C. The rit of e#ecution as ser,ed on the Re$ister of Deeds, San
Bernando, 3a Fnion on April &<, %<=L.
Tent" four lon$ "ears, thereafter, on Danuar" %L, %<<<, the )ffice of the Solicitor .eneral recei,ed a letter dated
Danuar" %%, %<<< from Mr. Victor .. Bloresca, Vice6President, Dohn Ha" Poro Point De,elopment Corporation, statin$ that
the aforementioned orders and decision of the trial court ha,e not !een e#ecuted !" the Re$ister of Deeds, San
Bernando, 3a Fnion despite receipt of the rit of e#ecution.
)n April &%, %<<<, the )ffice of the Solicitor .eneral filed a complaint for re,i,al of 2ud$ment and cancellation of
titles !efore the RTC San Bernando, 3a Fnion.
)n Dul" &&, %<<<, petitioner Shipside, Inc. filed its Motion to Dismiss, !ased on the folloin$ $rounds9 8%: the
complaint stated no cause of action !ecause onl" final and e#ecutor" 2ud$ments ma" !e su!2ect of an action for re,i,al of
2ud$mentK 8&: .the plaintiff is not the real part"6in6interest !ecause the real propert" co,ered !" the Torrens titles sou$ht to
!e cancelled, alle$edl" part of Camp 5allace 85allace Air Station:, ere under the onership and administration of the
;ases Con,ersion De,elopment Authorit" 8;CDA: under Repu!lic Act 'o. =&&=K 8C: plaintiff+s cause of action is !arred !"
prescriptionK ML: tent"6fi,e "ears ha,in$ lapsed since the issuance of the rit of e#ecution, no action for re,i,al of
2ud$ment ma" !e instituted !ecause under Para$raph C of Article %%LL of the Ci,il Code, such action ma" !e !rou$ht onl"
ithin ten 8%@: "ears from the time the 2ud$ment had !een rendered.
An opposition to the motion to dismiss as filed !" the Solicitor .eneral on Au$ust &C, %<<<, alle$in$ amon$
others, that9 8%: the real part"6in6interest is the Repu!lic of the PhilippinesK and 8&: prescription does not run a$ainst the
State.
)n Au$ust C%, %<<<, the trial court denied petitioner+s motion to dismiss and on )cto!er %L, %<<<, its motion for
reconsideration as li4eise turned don.
)n )cto!er &%, %<<<, petitioner instituted a petition for certiorari and prohi!ition ith the Court of Appeals on the
$round that the orders of the trial court den"in$ its motion to dismiss and its su!se(uent motion for reconsideration ere
issued in e#cess of 2urisdiction.
)n 'o,em!er L, %<<<, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on the $round that the ,erification and
certification in the petition, tinder the si$nature of 3oren-o ;al!in, Dr., as made ithout authorit", there !ein$ no proof
therein that ;al!in as authori-ed to institute the petition for and in !ehalf and of petitioner.
)n Ma" &C, &@@@, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner+s, motion for reconsideration on the $rounds that9 8%: a
complaint filed on !ehalf of a corporation can !e made onl" if authori-ed !" its ;oard of Directors, and in the a!sence
thereof, the petition cannot prosper and !e $ranted due courseK and 8&: petitioner as una!le to sho that it had
su!stantiall" complied ith the rule re(uirin$ proof of authorit" to institute an action or proceedin$.
Hence, the instant petition.
ISSFES9
1. 5hether or not an authori-ation from petitioner+s ;oard of Directors is still re(uired in order for its resident
mana$er to institute or commence a le$al action for and in !ehalf of the corporation.
2. 5hether or not the Repu!lic of the Philippines can maintain the action for re,i,al of 2ud$ment herein.
RF3I'.9
1. It is undisputed that on )cto!er &%, %<<<, the time petitioner+s Resident Mana$er ;al!in filed the petition, there
as no proof attached thereto that ;al!in as authori-ed to si$n the ,erification and non6forum shoppin$
certification therein, as a conse(uence of hich the petition as dismissed !" the Court of Appeals. Hoe,er,
su!se(uent to such dismissal, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, attachin$ to said motion a certificate
issued !" its /!oard secretar" statin$ that on )cto!er %%, %<<<, or ten da"s prior to the filin$ of the petition, ;al!in
had !een authori-ed !" petitioner+s !oard of directors to file said petition.
2. Ha,in$ the capacit" to sue or !e sued, it should thus !e the ;CDA hich ma" file an action to cancel petitioner+s
title, not the Repu!lic, the former !ein$ the real part" in interest. )ne ha,in$ no ri$ht or interest to protect cannot
in,o4e the 2urisdiction of the court as a part" plaintiff in an action 8 'alla v% 'alla, %<< SCRA L<J N%<<%O:. A suit
ma" !e dismissed if the plaintiff or the defendant is not a real part" in interest. If the suit is not !rou$ht in the
name of the real part" in interest, a motion to dismiss ma" !e filed, as as done !" petitioner in this case, on the
$round that the complaint states no cause of action 8*anpingco v% &AC, &@= SCRA ?J& N%<<&O:.
MELCHORA CA1ANAS) ,s FRANCISCO PILAPIL
<.R. No. L028943 >!,# 28) 4:=4
BACTS9
The insured, Blorentino Pilapil had a child, Millian Pilapil, ith a married oman, the plaintiff, Melchora Ca!anas.
She as ten "ears old at the time the complaint as filed on )cto!er %@, %<?L. The defendant, Brancisco Pilapil, is the
!rother of the deceased. The deceased insured himself and instituted as !eneficiar", his child, ith his !rother to act as
trustee durin$ her minorit". Fpon his death, the proceeds ere paid to him. Hence this complaint !" the mother, ith
hom the child is li,in$, see4in$ the deli,er" of such sum. She filed the !ond re(uired !" the Ci,il Code. Defendant ould
2ustif" his claim to the retention of the amount in (uestion !" in,o4in$ the terms of the insurance polic".
The loer court ordered the defendant to deli,er the proceeds of the polic" in (uestion to plaintiff. Its main
reliance as on Articles C&@ and C&% of the Ci,il Code. The former pro,ides9 /The father, or in his a!sence the mother, is
the le$al administrator of the propert" pertainin$ to the child under parental authorit". If the propert" is orth more than
to thousand pesos, the father or mother shall $i,e a !ond su!2ect to the appro,al of the Court of Birst Instance./

The
latter states9 /The propert" hich the unemancipated child has ac(uired or ma" ac(uire ith his or4 or industr", or !"
an" lucrati,e title, !elon$s to the child in onership, and in usufruct to the father or mother under hom he is under
parental authorit" and hose compan" he li,es.
ISSFE9 5hether or not the proceeds of the insurance polic" should $o to the mother.
RF3I'.9 7es. 5hat is paramount is the elfare of the child. It is in consonance ith such primordial end that Articles C&@
and C&% ha,e !een orded. There is reco$nition in the la of the deep ties that !ind parent and child. In the e,ent that
there is less than full measure of concern for the offsprin$, the protection is supplied !" the !ond re(uired. 5ith the added
circumstance that the child sta"s ith the mother, not the uncle, ithout an" e,idence of lac4 of maternal care, the
decision arri,ed at can stand the test of the strictest scrutin". It is further fortified !" the assumption, !oth lo$ical and
natural, that infidelit" to the trust imposed !" the deceased is much less in the case of a mother than in the case of an
uncle.
The decision is supported !" another co$ent consideration. It is !uttressed !" its adherence to the concept that the
2udiciar", as an a$enc" of the State actin$ as parens patriae, is called upon hene,er a pendin$ suit of liti$ation affects
one ho is a minor to accord priorit" to his !est interest. It ma" happen, as it did occur here, that famil" relations ma"
press their respecti,e claims. It ould !e more in consonance not onl" ith the natural order of thin$s !ut the tradition of
the countr" for a parent to !e preferred. it could ha,e !een different if the conflict ere !eteen father and mother. Such
is not the case at all. It is a mother assertin$ priorit". Certainl" the 2udiciar" as the instrumentalit" of the State in its role of
parens patriae, cannot remain insensi!le to the ,alidit" of her plea. In a recent case,

there is this (uotation from an
opinion of the Fnited States Supreme Court9 /This prero$ati,e of parens patriae is inherent in the supreme poer of e,er"
State, hether that poer is lod$ed in a ro"al person or in the le$islature, and has no affinit" to those ar!itrar" poers
hich are sometimes e#erted !" irresponsi!le monarchs to the $reat detriment of the people and the destruction of their
li!erties./ 5hat is more, there is this constitutional pro,ision ,itali-in$ this concept. It reads9 /The State shall stren$then
the famil" as a !asic social institution./ If, as the Constitution so isel" dictates, it is the famil" as a unit that has to !e
stren$thened, it does not admit of dou!t that e,en if a stron$er case ere presented for the uncle, still deference to a
constitutional mandate ould ha,e led the loer court to decide as it did.
ANASTACIO LAUREL.ERI1ERTO MISA
<.R. No. L0233) Mar( 29) 4:4?
1eng-on) J.:
BACTS9 Anastacio 3aurel demands his release form ;ili!id Prison, mainl" assertin$ that Commonealth Act 'o. ?>&,
creatin$ the People+s Court, especiall" section %<, under hich he is detained as a political prisoner, is unconstitutional
and ,oid. The Solicitor .eneral, meetin$ the issue, sustains the ,alidit" of the hole la.
Petitioner 3aurel is a Bilipino citi-en. He as arrested in Camarines Sur in Ma", %<LJ, !" the Fnited States Arm", and as
interned, under a commitment order /for his acti,e colla!oration ith the Dapanese durin$ the Dapanese occupation./ In
Septem!er, %<LJ, he as turned o,er to the Commonealth .o,ernment, and since then has !een under the custod" of
the respondent Director of Prisons.
Petitioner (uestions the le$alit" of his arrest and detention !" the militar" authorities of the FS. His present incarceration,
hich is merel" continuation of his pre,ious apprehension, has lasted /more than si# hours/ counted from his deli,er" to
the respondentK !ut section %< of Commonealth Act 'o. ?>& pro,ides in part as follos9
+pon delivery by the Commander,in,Chief of the Armed -orces of the +nited .tates in the Philippines of the
persons detained by him as political prisoners, to the Commonwealth "overnment, the #ffice of .pecial
Prosecutors shall receive all records, documents, e/hibits, and such other things as the "overnment of the +nited
.tates may have turned over in connection with and0or affecting said political prisoners, e/amine the aforesaid
records, documents, e/hibits, etc%, and take, as speedily as possible, such action as maybe proper: Provided,
however, % % %% And, provided, further, That, in the interest of public security, the provisions of article one
hundred twenty-five of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall be deemed, as they are hereby,
suspended, insofar as the aforesaid political prisoners are concerned, until the filing of the
corresponding information with the People's Court, but the period of suspension shall not be more than
si !"# months from the formal delivery of said political prisoners by the Commander-in-Chief of the
$rmed %orces of the &nited 'tates in the Philippines to the Commonwealth (overnment.
In ,ie of the pro,ision, and the statement of the Solicitor .eneral that e,en on the date the petition as presented his
office had, read" for filin$, an information char$in$ herein petitioner ith treason.
ISSFE9 5hether or not the folloin$ ar$uments of the petitioner ha,e merit9 8%: discriminator" in natureK 8&: unlaful
dele$ation of le$islati,e poersK and 8C: retroacti,e in operation.
HE3D9 8%: '). It is first ar$ued that the suspension is not $eneral in application, it !ein$ made operati,e onl" to /the
political prisoners concerned,/ that other citi-ens are not denied the si#6hour limitation in article %&J of the Re,ised Penal
Code, that such discrimination is une#cusa!le and amounts to denial of the e(ual protection of the las.
It is accepted doctrine in constitutional la that the /e(ual protection/ clause does not pre,ent the 3e$islature from
esta!lishin$ classes of indi,iduals or o!2ects upon hich different rules shall operate P so lon$ as the classification is not
unreasona!le.
&
Instances of ,alid classification are numerous. The point to !e determined then, is hether the
differentiation in the case of the political prisoner is unreasona!le or ar!itrar".
5hen acti,e hostilities ith Dapan terminated, .eneral MacArthur ordered the deli,er" of the Commonealth of all the
prisoners theretofore ta4en under his said proclamation. There as ?,@@@ in round num!ers. Criminal informations a$ainst
all, or a ma2orit", or e,en a su!stantial num!er of them could not !e properl" filed in the si#6hour period. The" could not
o!,iousl" !e turned loose, considerin$ the conditions of peace and order, and the safet" of the prisoners themsel,es. So
the President, !" ,irtue of his emer$enc" poers, promul$ated E#ecuti,e )rder 'o. ?J suspendin$ article %&J of the
Re,ised Penal Code, for not more than thirt" da"s. Con$ress later appro,ed Commonealth Act. 'o. ?>&, esta!lishin$
the People+s Court and the )ffice of Special Prosecutors for the prosecution and trial of crimes a$ainst national securit"
committed durin$ the 55II and set the limit at si# months.
There can reall" !e no su!stantial $round to assail the si#6month e#tension, in ,ie of the pro,isions authori-in$ the
release under !ail. Article %&J of the Re,ised Penal Code as intended to pre,ent an" a!use resultin$ from confinin$ a
person ithout informin$ him of his offense and ithout permittin$ him to $o on !ail. Commonealth Act 'o. ?>& $i,es no
occasion to such a!use. The political prisoners 4no, or ou$ht to 4no, the" are !ein$ 4ept for crimes a$ainst national
securit". And the" are $enerall" permitted to furnish !ail !onds.
8&: '). There is hardl" an" merit to the ar$ument that as /the duration of the suspension of article %&J is placed in the
hands of the Special Prosecutor+s )ffice,/ the section constitutes an in,alid dele$ation of le$islati,e poersK for as
e#plained !" the Solicitor6.eneral, the result P some informations filed !efore, others afterards P is merel" the
/conse(uence of the fact that si# thousand informations could not !e filed simultaneousl", and that some one had to !e
first or some one else, necessaril" the last./ The la, in effect, permitted the Solicitor6.eneral to file the informations
ithin si# months. And statutes permittin$ officers to perform their duties ithin certain periods of time ma" not surel" !e
declared in,alid dele$ations of le$islati,e poer.
8c: '). Section %< is ')T retroacti,e in its operation. It refers to detention after its passa$e P not !efore. Incidentall",
there is no constitutional o!2ection to retroacti,e statutes here the" relate, to remedies or procedure.
The ar$ument is ad,anced that hen he as arrested, 8Ma", %<LJ:, article %&J of the Re,ised Penal Code as in force,
and petitioner could ha,e as4ed for release after si# hours and, therefore, Commonealth Act 'o. ?>& that ta4es aa"
that ri$ht is e/ post facto, retroacti,e and fundamentall" o!2ectiona!le. The premises are incorrect. In Ma#) 4:48) he
could not have as)ed for re,ea$e af"er $i/ (o!r$. In o"(er 'or&$) (e 'o!,& no" (ave %een &i$(arge& fro. "(e
!$"o&#. @Ra*!i-a vs. 1ranfor&) supra.A Ar"i,e 428 of "(e Revi$e& Pena, Co&e 'a$ in fore) i" i$ "r!eB %!" no" a$ "o
(i.. T(e ,a'$ of "(e Co..on'ea,"( 'ere revive& in Ca.arine$ S!r %# o+era"ion of <enera, MaAr"(!rC$
+ro,a.a"ion of O"o%er 23) 4:44) !+on i"$ ,i%era"ion fro. ene.# on"ro,B %!" $!%;e" "o (i$ re$erva"ion "o (o,&
a"ive o,,a%ora"ioni$"$ in re$"rain" Dfor "(e &!ra"ion of "(e 'ar.D So) +er$on$ a++re(en&e& !n&er "(a" &ire"ive)
for "rea$ona%,e o,,a%ora"ion) o!,& no" nee$$ari,# invoEe "(e %enefi"$ of ar"i,e 428 of "(e Revi$e& Pena, Co&e.
Fndou!tedl" the 3e$islature could ,alidl" repeal section %&J of the Re,ised Penal Code. Had it done so, herein petitioner
ould ha,e no $round to protest on constitutional principles, as he could claim no ,ested ri$ht to the continued
enforcement of said section. Therefore, a fortiori he ma" not complain, if, instead of repealin$ that section, our lama4in$
!od" merel" suspended its operation for a definite period of time. Should he counter that such repeal or suspension must
!e $eneral to !e ,alid, he ill !e referred to the precedin$ considerations re$ardin$ classification and the e(ual protection
of the las.
5herefore, e percei,e no irreconcila!le conflict !eteen the Constitution and the challen$ed portions of section %< of
Commonealth Act 'o. ?>&.
The petition for the rit of habeas corpus ill !e denied.
FILLIAM F. PERALTA) VS THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
<.R. No. L04: Nove.%er 42) 4:48
-eria, J%:
Petitioner6defendant, a mem!er of the Metropolitan Consta!ular" of Manila char$ed ith the super,ision and control of
the production, procurement and distri!ution of $oods and other necessaries as defined in section % of Act 'o. < of the
'ational Assem!l" of the so6called Repu!lic of the Philippines, as prosecuted for the crime of ro!!er".
The petition for habeas corpus is !ased on the $round that the Court of Special and E#ecuti,e Criminal Durisdiction
created !" )rdinance 'o. = /as a political instrumentalit" of the militar" forces of the Dapanese Imperial Arm", the aims
and purposes of hich are repu$nant to those aims and political purposes of the Commonealth of the Philippines, as
ell as those of the Fnited States of America, and therefore, null and ,oid a! initio,/ that the pro,isions of said )rdinance
'o. = are ,iolati,e of the fundamental las of the Commonealth of the Philippines and /the petitioner has !een depri,ed
of his constitutional ri$hts/K that the petitioner herein is !ein$ punished !" a la created to ser,e the political purpose of
the Dapanese Imperial Arm" in the Philippines, and /that the penalties pro,ided for are much 8more: se,ere than the
penalties pro,ided for in the Re,ised Penal Code./
Issue9 5hether the creation of the Court of Special and E#clusi,e Criminal Durisdiction, and of the summar" procedure
adopted is ,alid
5hether the ,alidit" of the sentence hich imprisonment durin$ the Dapanese militar" occupationK and
5hether if the" ere then ,alid, the effect on said puniti,e sentence of the reoccupation of the Philippines and the
restoration therein of the Commonealth .o,ernment.
Rulin$9
%: As to the ,alidit" of the creation of the Court of Special and E#clusi,e Criminal Durisdiction !" )rdinance 'o. =,
the onl" factor to !e considered is the authorit" of the le$islati,e poer hich promul$ated said la or ordinance.
It is ell esta!lished in International 3a that /The criminal 2urisdiction esta!lished !" the in,ader in the occupied
territor" finds its source neither in the las of the con(uerin$ or con(uered state, P it is dran entirel" form the
la martial as defined in the usa$es of nations. The authorit" thus deri,ed can !e asserted either throu$h special
tri!unals, hose authorit" and procedure is defined in the militar" code of the con(uerin$ state, or throu$h the
ordinar" courts and authorities of the occupied district.
The so6called Repu!lic of the Philippines, !ein$ a $o,ernmental instrumentalit" of the !elli$erent occupant, had
therefore the poer or as competent to create the Court of Special and E#clusi,e Criminal Durisdiction. 'o
(uestion ma" arise as to hether or not a court is of political comple#ion, for it is mere a $o,ernmental a$enc"
char$ed ith the dut" of appl"in$ the la to cases fallin$ ithin its 2urisdiction. Its 2ud$ments and sentences ma"
!e of political comple#ion, or not dependin$ upon the nature or character of the la so applied. There is no room
for dou!t, therefore, as to the ,alidit" of the creation of the court in (uestion.
5ith respect to the Summar" procedure adopted !" )rdinance 'o. =, and folloed in the trial of the case hich
resulted in the con,iction of the herein petitioner, there is also no (uestion as to the poer or competence of the
!elli$erent occupant to promul$ate the la pro,idin$ for such procedure
8&: The ,alidit" of the sentence rendered !" the Court of Special and E#clusi,e Criminal Durisdiction hich imposes life
imprisonment upon the herein petitioner, depends upon the competence or poer of the !elli$erent occupant to
promul$ate Act 'o. ?J hich punishes the crime of hich said petitioner as con,icted.
5estla4e sa"s that Article I3III, Section III, of the Ha$ue Con,entions of %<@= /indicates that the las to !e enforced !"
the occupant consist of, first, the territorial la in $eneral, as that hich stands to the pu!lic order and social and
commercial life of the district in a relation of mutual adaptation, so that an" needless displacement of it ould defeat the
o!2ect hich the in,ader is en2oined to ha,e in ,ie, and secondl", such ,ariations of the territorial la as ma" !e re(uired
!" real necessit" and are not e#pressl" prohi!ited !" an" of the rules hich ill come !efore us. Such ,ariations ill
naturall" !e $reatest in hat concerns the relation of the communities and indi,iduals ithin the district to the in,adin$
arm" and its folloers, it !ein$ necessar" for the protection of the latter, and for the unhindered prosecution of the ar !"
them, that acts committed to their detriment shall not onl" lose hat 2ustification the territorial la mi$ht $i,e them as
committed a$ainst enemies, !ut shall !e repressed more se,erel" than the territorial la ould repress acts committed
a$ainst fello su!2ects. Indeed the entire relation !eteen the in,aders and the in,aded, so far as it ma" fall ithin the
criminal department hether !" the intrinsic nature of the acts done or in conse(uence of the re$ulations made !" the
in,aders, ma" !e considered as ta4en out of the territorial la and referred to hat is called martial la./
All 2ud$ments of political comple#ion of the courts durin$ the Dapanese re$ime, ceased to !e ,alid upon the reoccupation
of the islands !" ,irtue of the principle or ri$ht of postliminium. Appl"in$ that doctrine to the present case, the sentence
hich con,icted the petitioner of a crime of a political comple#ion must !e considered as ha,in$ ceased to !e ,alid ipso
facto upon the reoccupation or li!eration of the Philippines !" .eneral Dou$las MacArthur.
It ma" not !e amiss to sa" in this connection that it is not necessar" and proper to in,o4e the proclamation of .eneral
Dou$las MacArthur declarin$ null and ,oid all las, amon$ them Act 'o. ?J, of the so6called Repu!lic of the Philippines
under hich petitioner as con,icted, in order to $i,e retroacti,e effect to the nullification of said penal act and in,alidate
sentence rendered a$ainst petitioner under said la, a sentence hich, !efore the proclamation, had alread" !ecome null
and of no effect.
5e therefore hold that the puniti,e sentence under consideration, althou$h $ood and ,alid durin$ the militar" occupation
of the Philippines !" the Dapanese forces, ceased to !e $ood and ,alid ipso facto upon the reoccupation of these Island
and the restoration therein of the Commonealth .o,ernment.
In ,ie of all the fore$oin$, the rit of habeas corpus pra"ed for is here!" $ranted and it is ordered that the petitioner !e
released forthith, ithout pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.
SOUTHEAST ASIAN FISHERIES DE7ELOPMENT CENTER 7 NLRC
23? SCRA 293
SEABDEC6AED is a department of an international or$ani-ation, the Southeast Asian Bisheries De,elopment Center,
or$ani-ed throu$h an a$reement entered into in ;an$4o4, Thailand on Decem!er &>, %<?= !" the $o,ernments of
Mala"sia, Sin$apore, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines ith Dapan as the sponsorin$ countr".
+ri,ate respondent Du,enal 3a-a$a as emplo"ed as a Research Associate an a pro!ationar" !asis !" the SEABDEC6
AD and as appointed Senior E#ternal Affairs )fficer on Danuar" J, %<>C ith a monthl" !asic salar" of P>,@@@.@@ and a
monthl" alloance of PL,@@@.@@. Thereafter, he as appointed to the position of Professional III and desi$nated as Head
of E#ternal Affairs )ffice ith the same pa" and !enefits.
)n Ma" >, %<>?, petitioner 3acanilao in his capacit" as Chief of SEABDEC6AED sent a notice of termination to pri,ate
respondent informin$ him that due to the financial constraints !ein$ e#perienced !" the department, his ser,ices shall !e
terminated at the close of office hours on Ma" %J, %<>? and that he is entitled to separation !enefits e(ui,alent to one 8%:
month of his !asic salar" for e,er" "ear of ser,ice plus other !enefits 8'ollo, p. %JC:.
Fpon petitioner SEABDEC6AED+s failure to pa" pri,ate respondent his separation pa", the latter filed on March %>, %<>= a
complaint a$ainst petitioners for non6pa"ment of separation !enefits plus moral dama$es and attorne"+s fees ith the
Ar!itration ;ranch of the '3RC
Issue9
5hether '3RC has 2urisdiction
Rulin$9
Petitioner Southeast Asian Bisheries De,elopment Center6A(uaculture Department 8SEABDEC6AED: is an international
a$enc" !e"ond the 2urisdiction of pu!lic respondent '3RC.
It as esta!lished !" the .o,ernments of ;urma, Qin$dom of Cam!odia, Repu!lic of Indonesia, Dapan, Qin$dom of 3aos,
Mala"sia. Repu!lic of the Philippines, Repu!lic of Sin$apore, Qin$dom of Thailand and Repu!lic of Vietnam 8Anne# /H/,
Petition:.
The Repu!lic of the Philippines !ecame a si$nator" to the A$reement esta!lishin$ SEABDEC on Danuar" %?,%<?>. Its
purpose is as follos9
The purpose of the Center is to contri!ute to the promotion of the fisheries de,elopment in
Southeast Asia !" mutual co6operation amon$ the mem!er $o,ernments of the Center,
hereinafter called the /Mem!ers/, and throu$h colla!oration ith international or$ani-ations and
$o,ernments e#ternal to the Center. 8A$reement Esta!lishin$ the SEABDEC, Art. %K Anne# /H/
Petition: 8p.C%@, 'ollo:
SEABDEC6AED as or$ani-ed durin$ the Si#th Council Meetin$ of SEABDEC on Dul" C6=, %<=C in Quala 3umpur,
Mala"sia as one of the principal departments of SEABDEC 8Anne# /I/, id.: to !e esta!lished in Iloilo for the promotion of
research in a(uaculture. Para$raph %, Article ? of the A$reement esta!lishin$ SEABDEC mandates9
%. The Council shall !e the supreme or$an of the Center and all poers of the Center shall !e
,ested in the Council.
;ein$ an inter$o,ernmental or$ani-ation, SEABDEC includin$ its Departments 8AED:, en2o"s functional independence
and freedom from control of the state in hose territor" its office is located.
As Senator Do,ito R. Salon$a and Bormer Chief Dustice Pedro 3. 7ap stated in their !oo4, Pu!lic International 3a 8p. >C,
%<J? ed.:9
Permanent international commissions and administrati,e !odies ha,e !een created !" the
a$reement of a considera!le num!er of States for a ,ariet" of international purposes, economic
or social and mainl" non6political. Amon$ the nota!le instances are the International 3a!or
)r$ani-ation, the International Institute of A$riculture, the International Danu!e Commission. In
so far as the" are autonomous and !e"ond the control of an" one State, the" ha,e a distinct
2uridical personalit" independent of the municipal la of the State here the" are situated. As
such, accordin$ to one leadin$ authorit" /the" must !e deemed to possess a species of
international personalit" of their on./ 8Salon$a and 7ap, Pu!lic International 3a, >C N%<J? ed.O:
Pursuant to its !ein$ a si$nator" to the A$reement, the Repu!lic of the Philippines a$reed to !e represented !" one
Director in the $o,ernin$ SEABDEC Council 8A$reement Esta!lishin$ SEABDEC, Art. J, Par. %, Anne# /H/, ibid.: and that
its national las and re$ulations shall appl" onl" insofar as its contri!ution to SEABDEC of /an a$reed amount of mone",
mo,a!le and immo,a!le propert" and ser,ices necessar" for the esta!lishment and operation of the Center/ are
concerned 8Art. %%, ibid.:. It e#pressl" ai,ed the application of the Philippine las on the dis!ursement of funds of
petitioner SEABDEC6AED 8Section &, P.D. 'o. &<&:.
The then Minister of Dustice li4eise opined that Philippine Courts ha,e no 2urisdiction o,er SEABDEC6AED in )pinion
'o. %C<, Series of %<>L P
L. )ne of the !asic immunities of an international or$ani-ation is immunit" from local 2urisdiction,
i.e., that it is immune from the le$al rits and processes issued !" the tri!unals of the countr"
here it is found. 8.ee Den4s, &d., pp. C=6LL: The o!,ious reason for this is that the su!2ection of
such an or$ani-ation to the authorit" of the local courts ould afford a con,enient medium thru
hich the host $o,ernment ma" interfere in there operations or e,en influence or control its
policies and decisions of the or$ani-ationK !esides, such su!2ection to local 2urisdiction ould
impair the capacit" of such !od" to dischar$e its responsi!ilities impartiall" on !ehalf of its
mem!er6states. In the case at !ar, for instance, the entertainment !" the 'ational 3a!or
Relations Commission of Mr. Madam!a+s reinstatement cases ould amount to interference !"
the Philippine .o,ernment in the mana$ement decisions of the SEARCA $o,ernin$ !oardK e,en
orse, it could compromise the desired impartialit" of the or$ani-ation since it ill ha,e to suit its
actuations to the re(uirements of Philippine la, hich ma" not necessaril" coincide ith the
interests of the other mem!er6states. It is precisel" to forestall these possi!ilities that in cases
here the e#tent of the immunit" is specified in the ena!lin$ instruments of international
or$ani-ations, 2urisdictional immunit" from the host countr" is in,aria!l" amon$ the first accorded.
8.ee Den4s, &d.K .ee also ;oett, The 3a of International Institutions, pp. &>L6%&>J:.
Respondent 3a-a$a+s in,ocation of estoppel ith respect to the issue of 2urisdiction is una,ailin$ !ecause estoppel does
not appl" to confer 2urisdiction to a tri!unal that has none o,er a cause of action. Durisdiction is conferred !" la. 5here
there is none, no a$reement of the parties can pro,ide one. Settled is the rule that the decision of a tri!unal not ,ested
ith appropriate 2urisdiction is null and ,oid. Thus, in Calimlim vs. 'amirez, this Court held9
A rule, that had !een settled !" un(uestioned acceptance and upheld in decisions so numerous
to cite is that the 2urisdiction of a court o,er the su!2ect matter of the action is a matter of la and
ma" not !e conferred !" consent or a$reement of the parties. The lac4 of 2urisdiction of a court
ma" !e raised at an" sta$e of the proceedin$s, e,en on appeal. This doctrine has !een (ualified
!" recent pronouncements hich it stemmed principall" from the rulin$ in the cited case of
.ibonghanoy. It is to !e re$retted, hoe,er, that the holdin$ in said case had !een applied to
situations hich ere o!,iousl" not contemplated therein. The e#ceptional circumstances
in,ol,ed in .ibonghanoy hich 2ustified the departure from the accepted concept of non6
ai,a!ilit" of o!2ection to 2urisdiction has !een i$nored and, instead a !lan4et doctrine had !een
repeatedl" upheld that rendered the supposed rulin$ in .ibonghanoy not as the e#ception, !ut
rather the $eneral rule, ,irtuall" o,erthroin$ alto$ether the time6honored principle that the issue
of 2urisdiction is not lost !" ai,er or !" estoppel. 8Calimlim ,s. Ramire-, ..R. 'o. 36CLC?&, %%>
SCRA C<<K N%<>&O:
Respondent '3RC+S citation of the rulin$ of this Court in 1acanilao v. 2e 1eon 8%L= SCRA &>? N%<>=O: to 2ustif" its
assumption of 2urisdiction o,er SEABDEC is misplaced. )n the contrar", the Court in said case e#plained h" it too4
co$ni-ance of the case. Said the Court9
5e ould note, finall", that the present petition relates to a contro,ers" !eteen to claimants to
the same positionK this is not a controversy between the .3A-23C on the one hand, and an
officer or employee, or a person claiming to be an officer or employee, of the .3A-23C, on the
other hand. There is !efore us no (uestion in,ol,in$ immunit" from the 2urisdiction of the Court,
there !ein$ no plea for such immunit" hether !" or on !ehalf of SEABDEC, or !" an official of
SEABDEC ith the consent of SEABDEC 8&d., at C@@K emphasis supplied:.
5HEREB)RE, findin$ SEABDEC6AED to !e an international a$enc" !e"ond the 2urisdiction of the courts or local a$enc"
of the Philippine $o,ernment, the (uestioned decision and resolution of the '3RC dated Dul" &?, %<>> and Danuar" <,
%<><, respecti,el", are here!" REVERSED and SET ASIDE for ha,in$ !een rendered ithout 2urisdiction. 'o costs.
GHOSROF MINUCHER ,s. HON. COURT OF APPEALS an& ARTHUR SCAL5O
<.R. No. 4423:?) Fe%r!ar# 44) 2333
4itug, J%:
Sometime in Ma" %<>?, an Information for ,iolation of Section L of Repu!lic Act 'o. ?L&J, otherise also 4non as the
/Dan$erous Dru$s Act of %<=&,/ as filed a$ainst petitioner Qhosro Minucher and one A!!as Tora!ian ith the RTC of
Pasi$ Cit". The criminal char$e folloed a /!u"6!ust operation/ conducted !" the Philippine police narcotic a$ents in the
house of Minucher, an Iranian national, here a (uantit" of heroin, a prohi!ited dru$, as said to ha,e !een sei-ed. The
narcotic a$ents ere accompanied !" pri,ate respondent Arthur Scal-o ho ould, in due time, !ecome one of the
principal itnesses for the prosecution.
Minucher filed a ci,il case !efore the RTC Manila for dama$es on account of hat he claimed to ha,e !een trumped6up
char$es of dru$ traffic4in$ made !" Arthur Scal-o. The testimon" of the plaintiff disclosed that he is an Iranian national.
He came to the Philippines to stud" in the Fni,ersit" of the Philippines in %<=L. In %<=?, under the re$ime of the Shah of
Iran, he as appointed La%or A""a(H for the Iranian Em!assies in To4"o, Dapan and Manila, Philippines.
He came to 4no the defendant on Ma" %<>?, hen the latter as !rou$ht to his house and introduced to him !" a
certain Dose Ii$o, an informer of the Intelli$ence Fnit of the militar". Durin$ his first meetin$ ith the defendant, upon the
introduction of Dose Ii$o, the defendant e#pressed his interest in !u"in$ ca,iar. As a matter of fact, he !ou$ht to 4ilos of
ca,iar from plaintiff and paid P%@,@@@.@@ for it. Sellin$ ca,iar, aside from that of Persian carpets, pistachio nuts and other
Iranian products as his !usiness after the Qhomeini $o,ernment cut his pension of o,er RC,@@@.@@ per month. Durin$
their introduction in that meetin$, the defendant $a,e the plaintiff his callin$ card, hich shoed that he is or4in$ at the
FS Em!ass" in the Philippines, as a special a$ent of the Dru$ Enforcement Administration, Department of Dustice, of the
Fnited States, and $a,e his address as FS Em!ass", Manila.
It as also durin$ this first meetin$ that plaintiff e#pressed his desire to o!tain a FS Visa for his ife and the ife of a
countr"man named A!!as Tora!ian. The defendant told him that he NcouldO help plaintiff for a fee of R&,@@@.@@ per ,isa.
The defendant called the plaintiff and in,ited the latter for dinner at Mario+s Restaurant at Ma4ati. He anted to !u" &@@
$rams of ca,iar.
Defendant ,isited plaintiff a$ain at the latter+s residence for %> "ears at Qapitol"o, Pasi$. The defendant anted to !u" a
pair of carpets hich plaintiff ,alued at R&=,<@@.@@. After some ha$$lin$, the" a$reed at R&L,@@@.@@. Bor the reason that
defendant did not "et ha,e the mone", the" a$reed that defendant ould come !ac4 the ne#t da". The folloin$ da", at
%9@@ p.m., he came !ac4 ith his R&L,@@@.@@, hich he $a,e to the plaintiff, and the latter, in turn, $a,e him the pair of
carpets.
/At a!out C9@@ in the afternoon of Ma" &=, %<>?, the defendant came !ac4 a$ain to plaintiff+s house and directl"
proceeded to the latter+s !edroom, here the latter and his countr"man, A!!as Tora!ian, ere pla"in$ chess. Plaintiff
opened his safe in the !edroom and o!tained R&,@@@.@@ from it, $a,e it to the defendant for the latter+s fee in o!tainin$ a
,isa for plaintiff+s ife. The defendant told him that he ould !e lea,in$ the Philippines ,er" soon and re(uested him to
come out of the house for a hile so that he can introduce him to his cousin aitin$ in a ca!. 5ithout much ado, and
ithout puttin$ on his shirt as he as onl" in his pa2ama pants, he folloed the defendant here he sa a par4ed ca!
opposite the street. To his complete surprise, an American 2umped out of the ca! ith a dran hi$h6poered $un. He as
in the compan" of a!out C@ to L@ Bilipino soldiers ith ? Americans, all armed. He as handcuffed and after a!out &@
minutes in the street, he as !rou$ht inside the house !" the defendant. He as made to sit don hile in handcuffs
hile the defendant as inside his !edroom. The defendant came out of the !edroom and out from defendant+s attachS
case, he too4 somethin$ and placed it on the ta!le in front of the plaintiff. The" also too4 plaintiff+s ife ho as at that
time at the !outi(ue near his house and li4eise arrested Tora!ian, ho as pla"in$ chess ith him in the !edroom and
!oth ere handcuffed to$ether.
The plaintiff too4 note of the fact that hen the defendant in,ited him to come out to meet his cousin, his safe as opened
here he 4ept the R&L,@@@.@@ the defendant paid for the carpets and another R>,@@@.@@ hich he also placed in the safe
to$ether ith a !racelet orth R%J,@@@.@@ and a pair of earrin$s orth R%@,@@@.@@. He also disco,ered missin$ upon his
release his > pieces hand6made Persian carpets, ,alued at R?J,@@@.@@, a paintin$ he !ou$ht for PC@,@@@.@@ to$ether ith
his TV and !etama# sets. He claimed that hen he as handcuffed, the defendant too4 his 4e"s from his allet. There
as, therefore, nothin$ left in his house.
Then, on %L Dune %<<@, after almost to "ears since the institution of the ci,il case, Sa,-o fi,e& a .o"ion "o &i$.i$$
"(e o.+,ain" on "(e gro!n& "(a") %eing a $+eia, agen" of "(e Uni"e& S"a"e$ Dr!g Enfore.en" A&.ini$"ra"ion) (e
'a$ en"i",e& "o &i+,o.a"i i..!ni"#.
5hile the trial court $a,e credence to the claim of Scal-o and the e,idence presented !" him that he as a diplomatic
a$ent entitled to immunit" as such, it ruled that he, ne,ertheless, should !e held accounta!le for the acts complained of
committed outside his official duties. )n appeal, the Court of Appeals re,ersed the decision of the trial court and
sustained the defense of Scal-o that he as sufficientl" clothed ith diplomatic immunit" durin$ his term of dut" and
there!" immune from the criminal and ci,il 2urisdiction of the /Recei,in$ State/ pursuant to the terms of the Vienna
Con,ention.
ISSFE9 5hether defendant Scal-o en2o"s diplomatic immunit".
HE3D9 '), defendant Scal-o &oe$ no" en;o# &i+,o.a"i i..!ni"#. H)5EVER, considerin$ that he is a representati,e
of the FS $o,ernment, he is en;o#$ $"a"e i..!ni"# from suit.
The Vienna Con,ention lists the classes of heads of diplomatic missions to include 8a: am!assadors or nuncios
accredited to the heads of state, 8!: en,o"s, ministers or internuncios accredited to the heads of statesK and 8c: char$es d+
affairs accredited to the ministers of forei$n affairs. Comprisin$ the /staff of the 8diplomatic: mission/ are the diplomatic
staff, the administrati,e staff and the technical and ser,ice staff. )nl" the heads of missions, as ell as mem!ers of the
diplomatic staff, e#cludin$ the mem!ers of the administrati,e, technical and ser,ice staff of the mission, are accorded
diplomatic ran4. E,en hile the Vienna Con,ention on Diplomatic Relations pro,ides for immunit" to the mem!ers of
diplomatic missions, it does so, ne,ertheless, ith an understandin$ that the same !e restricti,el" applied. )nl"
D&i+,o.a"i agen"$)D under the terms of the Con,ention, are ,ested ith !lan4et diplomatic immunit" from ci,il and
criminal suits. The Con,ention defines /diplomatic a$ents/ as the heads of missions or mem!ers of the diplomatic staff,
thus impliedl" ithholdin$ the same pri,ile$es from all others. It mi$ht !ear stressin$ that e,en consuls, ho represent
their respecti,e states in concerns of commerce and na,i$ation and perform certain administrati,e and notarial duties,
such as the issuance of passports and ,isas, authentication of documents, and administration of oaths, do not ordinaril"
en2o" the traditional diplomatic immunities and pri,ile$es accorded diplomats, mainl" for the reason that the" are not
char$ed ith the dut" of representin$ their states in +o,i"ia, .a""er$. Indeed, "(e .ain #ar&$"iE in a$er"aining
'(e"(er a +er$on i$ a &i+,o.a" en"i",e& "o i..!ni"# i$ "(e &e"er.ina"ion of '(e"(er or no" (e +erfor.$ &!"ie$ of
&i+,o.a"i na"!re.
Scal-o asserted, that he as an Assistant AttachS of the Fnited States diplomatic mission and as accredited as such !"
the Philippine .o,ernment. An attachS !elon$s to a cate$or" of officers in the diplomatic esta!lishment ho ma" !e in
char$e of its cultural, press, administrati,e or financial affairs. There could also !e a class of attaches !elon$in$ to certain
ministries or departments of the $o,ernment, other than the forei$n ministr" or department, ho are detailed !" their
respecti,e ministries or departments ith the em!assies such as the militar", na,al, air, commercial, a$ricultural, la!or,
science, and customs attaches, or the li4e. Attaches assist a chief of mission in his duties and are administrati,el" under
him, !ut their main function is to o!ser,e, anal"-e and interpret trends and de,elopments in their respecti,e fields in the
host countr" and su!mit reports to their on ministries or departments in the home $o,ernment. These officials are not
$enerall" re$arded as mem!ers of the diplomatic mission, nor are the" normall" desi$nated as ha,in$ diplomatic ran4.
;ut hile the diplomatic immunit" of Scal-o mi$ht thus remain contentious, it as sufficientl" esta!lished that, indeed, he
or4ed for the Fnited States Dru$ Enforcement A$enc" and as tas4ed to conduct sur,eillance of suspected dru$
acti,ities ithin the countr" on the dates pertinent to this case. If i" $(o!,& %e a$er"aine& "(a" Ar"(!r Sa,-o 'a$
a"ing 'e,, 'i"(in (i$ a$$igne& f!n"ion$ '(en (e o..i""e& "(e a"$ a,,ege& in "(e o.+,ain") "(e +re$en"
on"rover$# o!,& "(en %e re$o,ve& !n&er "(e re,a"e& &o"rine of S"a"e I..!ni"# fro. S!i".
The +ree+" "(a" a S"a"e anno" %e $!e& in "(e o!r"$ of a foreign $"a"e is a lon$6standin$ rule of customar"
international la then closel" identified ith the personal immunit" of a forei$n so,erei$n from suit and, ith the
emer$ence of democratic states, made to attach not 2ust to the person of the head of state, or his representati,e, !ut also
distinctl" to the state itself in its so,erei$n capacit". If the acts $i,in$ rise to a suit are those of a forei$n $o,ernment done
!" its forei$n a$ent, althou$h not necessaril" a diplomatic persona$e, !ut actin$ in his official capacit", the complaint
could !e !arred !" the immunit" of the forei$n so,erei$n from suit ithout its consent. Suin$ a representati,e of a state is
!elie,ed to !e, in effect, suin$ the state itself.
This immunit" principle, hoe,er, has its limitations. Thus, Shauf ,s. Court of Appeals ela!orates9
/It is a different matter here the pu!lic official is made to account in his capacit" as such for acts contrar" to la and
in2urious to the ri$hts of the plaintiff. Fnauthori-ed acts of $o,ernment officials or officers are not acts of the State, and an
action a$ainst the officials or officers !" one hose ri$hts ha,e !een in,aded or ,iolated !" such acts, for the protection of
his ri$hts, is not a suit a$ainst the State ithin the rule of immunit" of the State from suit. In the same tenor, it has !een
said that an action at la or suit in e(uit" a$ainst a State officer or the director of a State department on the $round that,
hile claimin$ to act for the State, he ,iolates or in,ades the personal and propert" ri$hts of the plaintiff, under an
unconstitutional act or under an assumption of authorit" hich he does not ha,e, is not a suit a$ainst the State ithin the
constitutional pro,ision that the State ma" not !e sued ithout its consent. The rationale for this rulin$ is that the doctrine
of state immunit" cannot !e used as an instrument for perpetratin$ an in2ustice.
/8T:he doctrine of immunit" from suit ill not appl" and ma" not !e in,o4ed here the pu!lic official is !ein$ sued in his
pri,ate and personal capacit" as an ordinar" citi-en. The cloa4 of protection afforded the officers and a$ents of the
$o,ernment is remo,ed the moment the" are sued in their indi,idual capacit". A forei$n a$ent, operatin$ ithin a territor",
can !e cloa4ed ith immunit" from suit !ut onl" as lon$ as it can !e esta!lished that he is actin$ ithin the directi,es of
the sendin$ state. The consent of the host state is an indispensa!le re(uirement of !asic courtes" !eteen the to
so,erei$ns.0
The official e#chan$es of communication !eteen a$encies of the $o,ernment of the to countries, certifications from
officials of !oth the Philippine Department of Borei$n Affairs and the Fnited States Em!ass", as ell as the participation
of mem!ers of the Philippine 'arcotics Command in the /!u"6!ust operation/ conducted at the residence of Minucher at
the !ehest of Scal-o, ma" !e inade(uate to support the /diplomatic status/ of the latter !ut the" $i,e enou$h indication
that the Philippine $o,ernment has $i,en its imprimatur, if not consent, to the acti,ities ithin Philippine territor" of a$ent
Scal-o of the Fnited States Dru$ Enforcement A$enc". The 2o! description of Scal-o has tas4ed him to conduct
sur,eillance on suspected dru$ suppliers and, after ha,in$ ascertained the tar$et, to inform local la enforcers ho ould
then !e e#pected to ma4e the arrest. In conductin$ sur,eillance acti,ities on Minucher, later actin$ as the poseur6!u"er
durin$ the !u"6!ust operation, and then !ecomin$ a principal itness in the criminal case a$ainst Minucher, Scal-o hardl"
can !e said to ha,e acted !e"ond the scope of his official function or duties.
ERNESTO CALLADO v$. INTERNATIONAL RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE @IRRIA
<.R. No. 43?493 Ma# 22) 4::8
'omero, J%:
Fa"$: Ernesto Callado, petitioner, as emplo"ed as a dri,er at the IRRI. )ne da" hile dri,in$ an IRRI ,ehicle on an
official trip to the 'AIA and !ac4 to the IRRI, petitioner fi$ured in an accident.
Petitioner as informed of the findin$s of a preliminar" in,esti$ation conducted !" the IRRI+s Human Resource
De,elopment Department Mana$er. In ,ie of the findin$s, he as char$ed ith9
8%: Dri,in$ an institute ,ehicle hile on official dut" under the influence of li(uorK
8&: Serious misconduct consistin$ of failure to report to super,isors the failure of the ,ehicle to start !ecause of a
pro!lem ith the car !atter", and
8C: .ross and ha!itual ne$lect of duties.
Petitioner su!mitted his anser and defenses to the char$es a$ainst him.

Hoe,er, IRRI issued a 'otice of Termination
to petitioner.
Thereafter, petitioner filed a complaint !efore the 3a!or Ar!iter for ille$al dismissal, ille$al suspension and indemnit" pa"
ith moral and e#emplar" dama$es and attorne"+s fees.
IRRI rote the 3a!or Ar!iter to inform him that the Institute en2o"s immunit" from le$al process !" ,irtue of Article C of
Presidential Decree 'o. %?&@,
8
and that it in,o4es such diplomatic immunit" and pri,ile$es as an international
or$ani-ation in the instant case filed !" petitioner, not ha,in$ ai,ed the same.
5hile admittin$ IRRI+s defense of immunit", the La%or Ar%i"er, nonetheless, cited an )rder issued !" the Institute to the
effect that /in all cases of termination, respondent IRRI ai,es its immunit",/ and, accordin$l", considered the defense of
immunit" no lon$er a le$al o!stacle in resol,in$ the case.
The NLRC found merit in pri,ate respondent+s appeal and, findin$ that IRRI did not ai,e its immunit", ordered the
aforesaid decision of the 3a!or Ar!iter set aside and the complaint dismissed.
In this petition petitioner contends that the immunit" of the IRRI as an international or$ani-ation $ranted !" Article C of
Presidential Decree 'o. %?&@ ma" not !e in,o4ed in the case at !ench inasmuch as it ai,ed the same !" ,irtue of its
Memorandum on /.uidelines on the handlin$ of dismissed emplo"ees in relation to P.D. %?&@./
I$$!e: Did the 8IRRI: ai,e its immunit" from suit in this dispute hich arose from an emplo"er6emplo"ee relationship1
He,&: 'o.
P.D. 'o. %?&@, Article C pro,ides9
Art% 5% &mmunity from 1egal Process% *he &nstitute shall en(oy immunity from any penal, civil and administrative
proceedings, e/cept insofar as that immunity has been e/pressly waived by the 2irector,"eneral of the &nstitute
or his authorized representatives%
The SC upholds the constitutionalit" of the afore(uoted la. There is in this case /a cate$orical reco$nition !" the
E#ecuti,e ;ranch of the .o,ernment that IRRI en2o"s immunities accorded to international or$ani-ations, hich
determination has !een held to !e a political (uestion conclusi,e upon the Courts in order not to em!arass a political
department of .o,ernment.
It is a reco$ni-ed principle of international la and under our s"stem of separation of poers that diplomatic immunit" is
essentiall" a political (uestion and courts should refuse to loo4 !e"ond a determination !" the e#ecuti,e !ranch of the
$o,ernment, and here the plea of diplomatic immunit" is reco$ni-ed and affirmed !" the e#ecuti,e !ranch of the
$o,ernment as in the case at !ar, it is then the dut" of the courts to accept the claim of immunit" upon appropriate
su$$estion !" the principal la officer of the $o,ernment or other officer actin$ under his direction.
The raison d6etre for these immunities is the assurance of unimpeded performance of their functions !" the a$encies
concerned.
The $rant of immunit" to IRRI is clear and une(ui,ocal and an e#press ai,er !" its Director6.eneral is the onl" a" !"
hich it ma" relin(uish or a!andon this immunit".
In cases in,ol,in$ dismissed emplo"ees, the Institute ma" ai,e its immunit", si$nif"in$ that such ai,er is discretionar"
on its part
SSS v$. CA) DA7ID CRU5) SOCORRO CONCIO CRU5) an& LORNA CRU5
<.R. No. L0442:: Fe%r!ar# 24) 4:93
7elencio,8errera, J%:
Fa"$: Sometime in March, %<?C the spouses Cru- applied for and ere $ranted a real estate loan !" the SSS ith their
residential lot located in Pateros, Ri-al as collateral.
Brom the proceeds of the real estate loan the mort$a$ors constructed their residential house on the mort$a$ed propert".
The mort$a$ors, plaintiffs herein, complied ith their monthl" pa"ments althou$h there ere times hen dela"s ere
incurred in their monthl" pa"ments hich ere due e,er" first fi,e 8J: da"s of the month.
SSS filed an application ith the Pro,incial Sheriff of Ri-al for the foreclosure of the real estate mort$a$e e#ecuted !" the
plaintiffs on the $round of default on the part of the mort$a$or to pa" in full the installments then due and pa"a!le on the
principal de!t and the interest thereon.
The notice of the Sheriff+s Sale of the mort$a$ed propert" as initiall" pu!lished in the Sunda" Chronicle announcin$ the
sale at pu!lic auction of the said mort$a$ed propert".
After this first pu!lication of the notice, and !efore the second pu!lication of the notice, plaintiff herein thru counsel
formall" rote defendant SSS, demandin$, amon$ others, for said defendant SSS to ithdra the foreclosure and
discontinue the pu!lication of the notice of sale of their propert" claimin$ that plaintiffs ere up6to6date in the pa"ment of
their monthl" amorti-ations.
The Cru- spouses, to$ether ith their dau$hter 3orna Cru-, instituted !efore the CBI of Ri-al an action for dama$es and
attorne"+s fees a$ainst the 8SSS: and the Pro,incial Sheriff of Ri-al alle$in$, amon$ other thin$s, that the" had full" and
reli$iousl" paid their monthl" amorti-ations and had not defaulted in an" pa"ment.
In its Anser, ith counterclaim, the SSS stressed its ri$ht to foreclose the mort$a$e e#ecuted in its fa,or !" pri,ate
respondents !" ,irtue of the automatic acceleration clause pro,ided in the mort$a$e contract, e,en after pri,ate
respondents had paid their amorti-ation installments. In its counterclaim, the SSS pra"ed for actual and other dama$es,
as ell as attorne"+s fees, for malicious and !aseless statements made !" pri,ate respondents and pu!lished in the
Manila Chronicle.
Tria, Co!r" en2oined the SSS from holdin$ the sale at pu!lic auction of pri,ate respondent+s propert" upon their postin$ of
a P&,@@@.@@ !ond e#ecuted in fa,or of the SSS.
In respect of the moral and temperate dama$es aarded, the Trial Court held that the first pu!lication of the
notice as made in $ood faith !ut committed !" defendant SSS in $ross ne$li$ence considerin$ the personnel at
its command and the ease ith hich ,erifications of the actual defaultin$ mort$a$ors ma" !e made. )n this
initial pu!lication of the notice of foreclosure, the Court !elie,es plaintiffs are entitled to the amount of PJ,@@@.@@.
The second pu!lication of the notice of foreclosure is another matter. There as alread" notice !" plaintiffs to
defendant SSS that there as no reason for the foreclosure of their mort$a$ed propert" as the" ere ne,er in
default. Instead of ta4in$ an" correcti,e measure to rectif" its error, defendant SSS adopted a position of
ri$hteousness and folloed the same course of action contendin$ that no error has open committed. This act of
defendant indeed as deli!erate, calculated to co plaintiffs into su!mission, and made o!,iousl" ith malice. )n
this score, the Court !elie,es defendant SSS should pa" and indemnif" plaintiffs 2ointl" in the sum of P%@,@@@.@@.
3astl", on the third pu!lication of the notice of foreclosure, the Court finds this continued pu!lication an outri$ht
disre$ard for the reputation and standin$ of plaintiffs. The pu!lication ha,in$ reached a !i$$er se$ment of societ"
and also done ith malice and callous disre$ard for the ri$hts of its clients, defendant SSS should compensate
plaintiffs 2ointl" in the sum of P&@,@@@.@@. All in all, plaintiffs are entitled to PCJ,@@@.@@ !" a" of moral dama$es.
The Co!r" of A++ea,$ affirmed the loer Court 2ud$ment !ut upon SSS+s Motion for Reconsideration, modified the
2ud$ment !" the elimination of the PJ,@@@.@@ moral dama$es aarded on account of the initial pu!lication of the
foreclosure notice.
In so far as e#emplar" and correcti,e dama$es are concerned, the Court found no e#tenuatin$ circumstances to
miti$ate the irresponsi!le action of defendant SSS and for this reason, said defendant should pa" e#emplar" and
correcti,e dama$es in the sum of P%@,@@@.@@
I$$!e$:
8%: hether the Cru- spouses had, in fact, ,iolated their real estate mort$a$e contract ith the SSS as ould ha,e
arranted the pu!lications of the notices of foreclosureK and
8&: hether the SSS can !e held lia!le for dama$es.
He,&:
%: 'o. The SSS application for foreclosure as not 2ustified, particularl" considerin$ that the real estate loan of
PL>,@@@.@@ o!tained !" the Cru-es in March, %<?C, as pa"a!le in %J "ears ith a monthl" amorti-ation of PL&J.%>, and
that as of Dul" %L, %<?>, the date of the first notice of foreclosure and sale, the outstandin$ o!li$ation as still PC>,>=J.@?
and not P%@,=@%.J>, as pu!lished.
The spouses ere up6to6date and current in the pa"ment of their monthl" installments. Ha,in$ accepted the prior late
pa"ments of the monthl" installments, the SSS could no lon$er suddenl" and ithout prior notice to the mort$a$ors appl"
for the e#tra62udicial foreclosure of the mort$a$e in Dul" %<?>.
&: )nl" No.ina, &a.age$ for ne$li$ence on the part of SSS hen the" mistoo4 the loan account of Socorro D. Cru- for
that of pri,ate respondent Socorro C. Cru- and Attorne"s Bees considerin$ that pri,ate respondents ere compelled to
liti$ate for the prosecution of their interests.
Di$!$$ion on '(# SSS anno" %e (e,& ,ia%,e for o"(er &a.age$.
To our minds, there should !e no (uestion on this score considerin$ that the SSS is a 2uridical entit" ith a personalit" of
its on. It has corporate poers separate and distinct from the .o,ernment. SSS+ on or$anic act specificall" pro,ides
that it can sue and !e sued in Court. These ords /sue and !e sued/ em!race all ci,il process incident to a le$al action.
So that, e,en assumin$ that the SSS, as it claims, en2o"s immunit" from suit as an entit" performin$ $o,ernmental
functions, !" ,irtue of the e#plicit pro,ision of the aforecited ena!lin$ la, the .o,ernment must !e deemed to ha,e
ai,ed immunit" in respect of the SSS, althou$h it does not there!" concede its lia!ilit".
That statuto" la has $i,en to the pri,ate6citi-en a remed" for the enforcement and protection of his ri$hts. The SSS
there!" has !een re(uired to su!mit to the 2urisdiction of the Courts, su!2ect to its ri$ht to interpose an" laful defense.
5hether the SSS performs $o,ernmental or proprietar" functions thus !ecomes unnecessar" to !ela!or. Bor !" that
ai,er, a pri,ate citi-en ma" !rin$ a suit a$ainst it for ,aried o!2ecti,es, such as, in this case, to o!tain compensation in
dama$es arisin$ from contract
4?
and e,en for tort.
The proposition that the SSS is not profit6oriented as re2ected in the case of ... 3mployees6 Association vs% 8on%
.oriano%
4=
;ut e,en concedin$ that the SSS is not, in the main, operated for profit, it cannot !e denied that, in so far as
contractual loan a$reements ith pri,ate parties are concerned, the SSS enters into them for profit considerin$ that the
!orroers pa" interest, hich is mone" paid for the use of mone", plus other char$es.
In so far as it is ar$ued that to hold the SSS lia!le for dama$es ould !e to deplete the !enefit funds a,aila!le for its
co,ered mem!ers, suffice it to sa", that e#penditures of the S"stem are not confined to the pa"ment of social securit"
!enefits. Bor e#ample, the S"stem also has to pa" the salaries of its personnel. Moreo,er, drain$ a parallel ith the
'ASSC) and the Vir$inia To!acco Administration, hose funds are in the nature of pu!lic funds, it has !een held that
those funds ma" e,en !e made the o!2ect of a notice of $arnishment.
5hat is of paramount importance in this contro,ers" is that an in2ustice is not perpetrated and that hen dama$e is
caused a citi-en, the latter should ha,e a ri$ht of redress particularl" hen it arises from a purel" pri,ate and contractual
relationship !eteen said indi,idual and the S"stem.
*e find, however, that under the circumstances of the case, the ''' cannot be held liable for the damages as
awarded by the Trial Court and the $ppellate Tribunal.
As !asis for the aard of actual dama$es, the Trial Court relied on the alle$ed e#penses incurred !" pri,ate respondents
for the ardro!e the" ere supposed to use durin$ their trip a!road, hich as alle$edl" a!orted !ecause of the filin$ of
the foreclosure application !" the SSS. 5e find the fore$oin$ too speculati,e. There could ha,e !een other reasons h"
the trip did not materiali-e. Moreo,er, it appears that pri,ate respondents+ passports had alread" e#pired !ut that the"
made no effort to secure ne passports. 'or did the" secure the necessar" ,isas from the local consulates of forei$n
countries the" intended to ,isit for their trip a!road.
'or can the SSS !e held lia!le for moral and temperate dama$es. As concluded !" the Court of Appeals /the ne$li$ence
of the appellant is not so $ross as to arrant moral and temperate dama$es/,e#cept that, said Court reduced those
dama$es !" onl" PJ,@@@.@@ instead of eliminatin$ them. 'either can e a$ree ith the findin$s of !oth the Trial Court and
respondent Court that the SSS had acted maliciousl" or in !ad faith. The SSS as of the !elief that it as actin$ in the
le$itimate e#ercise of its ri$ht under the mort$a$e contract in the face of irre$ular pa"ments made !" pri,ate respondents,
and placed reliance on the automatic acceleration clause in the contract. The filin$ alone of the foreclosure application
should not !e a $round for an aard of moral dama$es in the same a" that a clearl" unfounded ci,il action is not amon$
the $rounds for moral dama$es.
5ith the rulin$ out of compensator", moral and temperate dama$es, the $rant of e#emplar" or correcti,e dama$es should
also !e set aside. Moreo,er, no proof has !een su!mitted that the SSS had acted in a anton, rec4less and oppressi,e
manner.
Hoe,er, as found !" !oth the Trial and Appellate Courts, there as clear ne$li$ence on the part of SSS hen the"
mistoo4 the loan account of Socorro D. Cru- for that of pri,ate respondent Socorro C. Cru-. Its attention as called to the
error, !ut it adamantl" refused to ac4noled$e its mista4e. T(e SSS an %e (e,& ,ia%,e for no.ina, &a.age$. This t"pe
of dama$es is not for the purpose of indemnif"in$ pri,ate respondents for an" loss suffered !" them !ut to ,indicate or
reco$ni-e their ri$hts hich ha,e !een ,iolated or in,aded !" petitioner SSS.
T(e ir!.$"ane$ of "(e a$e a,$o ;!$"if# "(e a'ar& of a""orne#C$ fee$, as $ranted !" the Trial and Appellate Courts,
particularl" considerin$ that pri,ate respondents ere compelled to liti$ate for the prosecution of their interests.
Petitioner SSS shall pa" pri,ate respondents9 PC,@@@.@@ as nominal dama$esK and PJ,@@@.@@ as attorne"+s fees. Costs
a$ainst petitioner SSS.
1UREAU OF PRINTIN<) SERAFIN SAL7ADOR an& MARIANO LEDESMA 7. THE 1UREAU OF PRINTIN<
EMPLO6EES ASSOCIATION @NLUA) PACIFICO AD7INCULA) RO1ERTO MENDO5A) PONCIANO AR<ANDA an&
TEODULO TOLERAN
<.R. No. L048=84) >an!ar# 29) 4:?4
"utierrez 2avid, J%:
Fpon complaint of the respondents ;ureau of Printin$ Emplo"ees Association 8'3F:P filed !" an actin$ prosecutor of the
Industrial Court a$ainst herein petitioner ;ureau of Printin$, Serafin Sa,va&or, the Actin$ Secretar" of the Department of
.eneral Ser,ices, and Mariano Le&e$.a the Director of the ;ureau of Printin$. The complaint alle$ed that Sal,ador and
3edesma ha,e !een en$a$in$ in unfair la!or practices !" interferin$ ith, or coercin$ the emplo"ees of the ;ureau of
Printin$ particularl" the mem!ers of the complainin$ association petition, in the e#ercise of their ri$ht to self6or$ani-ation
an discriminatin$ in re$ard to hire and tenure of their emplo"ment in order to discoura$e them from pursuin$ the union
acti,ities.
Anserin$ the complaint, the petitioners ;ureau of Printin$, Sal,ador and 3edesma denied the char$es of unfair la!or
practices attri!uted to them and, !" a" of affirmati,e defenses, alle$ed, amon$ other thin$s, that respondents ere
suspended pendin$ result of an administrati,e in,esti$ation a$ainst them for !reach of Ci,il Ser,ice rules and re$ulations
petitionsK "(a" "(e 1!rea! of Prin"ing (a$ no ;!ri&ia, +er$ona,i"# "o $!e an& %e $!e&K "(a" $ai& 1!rea! of Prin"ing
i$ no" an in&!$"ria, onern engage& for "(e +!r+o$e of gain %!" i$ an agen# of "(e Re+!%,i +erfor.ing
govern.en" f!n"ion$. Bor relief, the" pra"ed that the case !e dismissed for lac4 of 2urisdiction.
Thereafter, !efore the case could !e heard, petitioners filed an /)mni!us Motion/ as4in$ for a preliminar" hearin$ on the
(uestion of 2urisdiction raised !" them in their anser and for suspension of the trial of the case on the merits pendin$ the
determination of such 2urisdictional (uestion. The motion as $ranted, !ut after hearin$, the trial 2ud$e of the Industrial
Court in an order sustained the 2urisdiction of the court on the theor" that the functions of the ;ureau of Printin$ are
/e#clusi,el" proprietar" in nature,/ and, conse(uentl", denied the pra"er for dismissal. Reconsideration of this order
ha,in$ !een also denied !" the court in !anc, the petitioners !rou$ht the case to this Court throu$h the present petition for
certiorari and prohi!ition.
ISSUE: 5hether the ;ureau of Printin$ is a $o,ernment entit" in,ol,ed in $o,ernmental functionsK hence, the ;ureau has
no 2uridical personalit" to sue and !e sued
HELD: 7ES, the ;ureau is a $o,ernment entit" in,ol,ed in $o,ernmental functions. As an office of the .o,ernment
ithout an" corporate or 2uridical personalit", the ;ureau of Printin$ anno" %e $!e&, and it follos that the .o,ernment
anno" %e $!e& 'i"(o!" i"$ on$en".
The ;ureau of Printin$ is an office of the .o,ernment created !" the Administrati,e Code of %<%?. As such instrumentalit"
of the .o,ernment, it operates under the direct super,ision of the E#ecuti,e Secretar", )ffice of the President, and is
/char$ed ith the e#ecution of all printin$ and !indin$, includin$ or4 incidental to those processes, re(uired !" the
'ational .o,ernment and such other or4 of the same character as said ;ureau ma", !" la or !" order of the 8Secretar"
of Binance: E#ecuti,e Secretar", !e authori-ed to underta4e . . ../ 8See. %?LL, Re,. Adm. Code:. It has no or+ora"e
e/i$"ene) an& i"$ a++ro+ria"ion$ are +rovi&e& for in "(e <enera, A++ro+ria"ion$ A". Desi$ned to meet the printin$
needs of the .o,ernment, i" i$ +ri.ari,# a $ervie %!rea! and o!,iousl", not en$a$ed in !usiness or occupation for
pecuniar" profit.
It is true, as stated in the order complained of, that the ;ureau of Printin$ recei,es outside 2o!s and that man" of its
emplo"ees are paid for o,ertime or4 on re$ular or4in$ da"s and on holida"s, !ut these facts do not 2ustif" the
conclusion that its functions are /e#clusi,el" proprietar" in nature./ ),ertime or4 in the ;ureau of Printin$ is done onl"
hen the interest of the ser,ice so re(uires. As a matter of administrati,e polic", the o,ertime compensation ma" !e paid,
!ut such pa"ment is discretionar" ith the head of the ;ureau dependin$ upon its current appropriations, so that it cannot
!e the !asis for holdin$ that the functions of said ;ureau are holl" proprietar" in character. Anent the additional or4 it
e#ecutes for pri,ate persons, e find that such or4 is done upon re(uest, as distin$uished from those solicited, and onl"
/as the re(uirements of .o,ernment or4 ill permit/, and /upon terms fi#ed !" the Director of Printin$, ith the appro,al
of the Department Head/. As shon !" the uncontradicted e,idence of the petitioners, most of these or4s consist of
orders for $reetin$ cards durin$ Christmas from $o,ernment officials, and for printin$ of chec4s of pri,ate !an4in$
institutions. )n those $reetin$ cards, the .o,ernment seal, of hich onl" the ;ureau of Printin$ is authori-ed to use, is
em!ossed, and on the !an4 chee4s, onl" the ;ureau of Printin$ can print the reproduction of the official documentar"
stamps appearin$ thereon.
The ,olume of pri,ate 2o!s done, in comparison ith $o,ernment 2o!s, is onl" one6half of % per cent, and in computin$ the
costs for or4 done for pri,ate parties, "(e 1!rea! &oe$ no" in,!&e +rofi" %ea!$e i" i$ no" a,,o'e& "o .aEe an#.
Clearl", hile the ;ureau of Printin$ is alloed to underta4e pri,ate printin$ 2o!s, it cannot !e pretended that it is there!"
an industrial or !usiness concern. The additional or4 it e#ecutes for pri,ate parties is merel" incidental to its function,
and althou$h such or4 ma" !e deemed proprietar" in character, there is no shoin$ that the emplo"ees performin$ said
proprietar" function are separate and distinct from those emplo"ed in its $eneral $o,ernmental functions.
Brom hat has !een stated, it is o!,ious that "(e Co!r" of In&!$"ria, Re,a"ion$ &i& no" a*!ire ;!ri$&i"ion over "(e
re$+on&en" 1!rea! of Prin"ing, and is thus de,oid of an" authorit" to ta4e co$ni-ance of the case.
In&ee&) a$ an offie of "(e <overn.en") 'i"(o!" an# or+ora"e or ;!ri&ia, +er$ona,i"#) "(e 1!rea! of Prin"ing
anno" %e $!e&. 8Sec. %, Rule C, Rules of Court:. An" suit, action or proceedin$ a$ainst it, if it ere to produce an" effect,
ould actuall" !e a suit, action or proceedin$ a$ainst the .o,ernment itself, and the rule is settled that the .o,ernment
cannot !e sued ithout its consent, much less o,er its o!2ection.
DEPARTMENT OF A<RICULTURE 7 NLRC
22= SCRA ?:3
Petitioner Department of A$riculture 8DA: and Sultan Securit" A$enc" entered into a contract for securit" ser,ices to !e
pro,ided !" the latter to the said $o,ernmental entit". Pursuant to their arran$ements, $uards ere deplo"ed !" Sultan
Securit" A$enc" in the ,arious premises of the DA. Thereafter, se,eral $uards filed a complaint for underpa"ment of
a$es, nonpa"ment of %Cth month pa", uniform alloances, ni$ht shift differential pa", holida" pa", and o,ertime pa", as
ell as for dama$es a$ainst the DA and the securit" a$enc".
The 3a!or Ar!iter rendered a decision findin$ the DA 2ointl" and se,erall" lia!le ith the securit" a$enc" for the pa"ment
of mone" claims of the complainant securit" $uards. The DA and the securit" a$enc" did not appeal the decision. Thus,
the decision !ecame final and e#ecutor". The 3a!or Ar!iter issued a rit of e#ecution to enforce and e#ecute the
2ud$ment a$ainst the propert" of the DA and the securit" a$enc". Thereafter, the Cit" Sheriff le,ied on e#ecution the
motor ,ehicles of the DA.
I$$!e: 5hether or not the doctrine of non6sua!ilit" of the State applies in the case
He,&: The !asic postulate enshrined in the Constitution that *the State ma" not !e sued ithout its consent0 reflects
nothin$ less than a reco$nition of the so,erei$n character of the State and an e#press affirmation of the unritten rule
effecti,el" insulatin$ it from the 2urisdiction of courts. It is !ased on the ,er" essence of so,erei$nt". A so,erei$n is
e#empt from suit !ased on the lo$ical and practical $round that there can !e no le$al ri$ht as a$ainst the authorit" that
ma4es the la on hich the ri$ht depends.
The rule is not reall" a!solute for it does not sa" that the State ma" not !e sued under an" circumstances. The State ma"
at times !e sued. The StateGs consent ma" !e $i,en e#pressl" or impliedl". E#press consent ma" !e made throu$h a
$eneral la or a special la. Implied consent, on the other hand, is conceded hen the State itself commences liti$ation,
thus openin$ itself to a counterclaim, or hen it enters into a contract. In this situation, the $o,ernment is deemed to ha,e
descended to the le,el of the other contractin$ part" and to ha,e di,ested itself of its so,erei$n immunit".
;ut not all contracts entered into !" the $o,ernment operate as a ai,er of its non6sua!ilit"K distinction must still !e made
!eteen one hich is e#ecuted in the e#ercise of its so,erei$n function and another hich is done in its proprietar"
capacit". A State ma" !e said to ha,e descended to the le,el of an indi,idual and can this !e deemed to ha,e actuall"
$i,en its consent to !e sued onl" hen it enters into !usiness contracts. It does not appl" here the contract relates to the
e#ercise of its so,erei$n functions.
In the case, the DA has not pretended to ha,e assumed a capacit" apart from its !ein$ a $o,ernmental entit" hen it
entered into the (uestioned contractK nor that it could ha,e, in fact, performed an" act proprietar" in character.
;ut, !e that as it ma", the claims of the complainant securit" $uards clearl" constitute mone" claims. Act 'o. C@>C $i,es
the consent of the State to !e sued upon an" mone"ed claim in,ol,in$ lia!ilit" arisin$ from contract, e#press or implied.
Pursuant, hoe,er, to Commonealth Act C&=, as amended !" PD %%LJ, the mone" claim must first !e !rou$ht to the
Commission on Audit.
SANDERS 7 7ERIDIANO
4?2 SCRA 99
Petitioner Sanders as the director of the FS 'a,al Statio' 8'AVSTA: in )loan$apo Cit", co petitioner Moreau !ein$ the
commandin$ officer of Su!ic 'a,al !ase.

Pri,ate respondents Anthon" Rossi and Ralph 5"ers ere emplo"ed as $ameroom attendants at the special ser,ices
dept of 'AVSTA. ;oth had the status of permanent full time emplo"ment. This status as chan$ed to permanent part
time. This prompted them to institute $rie,ance proceedin$s in accordance ith the processes set !" the FS Dept of
Defense, hich led to the reinstatement of their old status. The report on the hearin$ o!ser,ed that *Special ser,ices
mana$ement practices an autocratic form of super,ision.0

In response to this Sanders rote a letter to Moreau statin$ that a: Mr. Rossi tends to alienate his most co or4ers and
super,isors, ;:Rossi and D"er are difficult to super,ise, c: thou$h under oath not to discuss their $rie,ance the" alloed
others to learn of it !" placin$ the records in pu!lic places.

Moreau on the other hand !efore the start of the $rie,ance hearin$s rote a letter to the Chief of 'a,al Personnel
e#plainin$ the pri,ate respondents chan$e in status and re(uestin$ concurrence thereith.

These acts of petitioners led Rossi and 5"er to file a complaint for dama$es a$ainst Sanders and Moreau. The" made it
clear that the" ere suin$ Sanders and Moreau in their personal capacit". Sanders and Moreau in their defense claimed
that their acts ere official in nature and ere in the dischar$e of their official duties and that !ecause of this the court
does not ha,e 2urisdiction o,er them on the principle of state immunit".
ISSUES
%. 5hether or not Sanders and Moreau ere actin$ in their official capacit" hen the" committed said acts1

&. 5hether or not the" ma" a,ail of state immunit"1

HELDB
%. 7es. Petitioners ere actin$ in an official capacit". Sanders as director of the special ser,ices dept of 'AVSTA had
super,ision o,er its personnel hich included Rossi and 5"er. He had a hand in their, emplo"ment, discipline, dismissal
etc. MoreauGs letter dealt ith the financial and !ud$etar" pro!lems of his dept and contained solutions to it hich
included the su$$estion to chan$e the status of Rossi and 5"er. It as not personal nor pri,ate in nature.

The alle$ation that Snaders and Moreau ere !ein$ sued in their personal capacit" ill not automaticall" shed him from
the protection of the la of pu!lic officers and the doctrine of state immunit". Con,ersel" the in,ocation of official
character ill not suffice to insulate from sua!ilit" and lia!ilit" for a tort committed ithout or in e#cess of authorit".

&. 7ES. This is !ecause the acts complained of ere done in their official capacit", and thus the" ere !ein$ sued as
officers of the FS $o,ernment. from suit e#tends to them !" ,irtue of the principle of so,erei$n e(ualit" of states.
PERALTA 7. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
=8 PHIL 298 @4:48A

BACTS9
Petitioner, a mem!er of the Metropolitan Consta!ular", as prosecuted for the crime of ro!!er" as defined !" the
'ational Assem!l" of the so6called Repu!lic of the Philippines. He as found $uilt" and sentenced to ser,e time !" the
Court of Special and E#clusi,e Criminal Durisdiction created in sec. % of )rdinance no. = promul$ated !" the President of
the Repu!lic. The petition for ha!eas corpus is !ased on the $round that the CourtGs e#istence as ,oid a! initio !ecause
it as created as a political instrumentalit" under the command of the Dapanese Imperial Arm"K that the pro,isions of said
ordinance ,iolate his constitutional ri$htsK that the penalties pro,ided for are much more se,ere than the RPC. Sol.en is
of the opinion that the petition should !e $ranted !ecause the )rdinance mentioned in creatin$ said court is *tin$ed ith
political comple#ion0, that the procedure does not afford a fair trial and ,iolates constitutional ri$ht of accused persons
under a le$itimate Constitution.
ISSFES and HE3D9
The court is of the opinion that9

As to the validity of the creation of the Court of .pecial and 3/clusive Criminal Jurisdiction by #rdinance $o% 9,
the onl" factor to !e considered is the authorit" of the le$islati,e poer hich promul$ated said la or
ordinance. It is ell esta!lished in International 3a that /The criminal 2urisdiction esta!lished !" the in,ader in
the occupied territor" finds its source neither in the las of the con(uerin$ or con(uered state, P it is dran
entirel" from the la martial as defined in the usa$es of nations. The authorit" thus deri,ed can !e asserted
either throu$h special tri!unals, hose authorit" and procedure is defined in the militar" code of the con(uerin$
state, or throu$h the ordinar" courts and authorities of the occupied district./ 8Ta"lor, International Pu!lic 3a,
p. J<>.:

The so6called Repu!lic of the Philippines, !ein$ a $o,ernmental instrumentalit" of the !elli$erent occupant, had
therefore the poer or as competent to create the Court of Special and E#clusi,e Criminal Durisdiction. 'o
(uestion ma" arise as to hether or not a court is of a political comple#ion, for it is mere $o,ernmental a$enc"
char$ed ith the dut" of appl"in$ the la to cases fallin$ ithin its 2urisdiction. Its 2ud$ments and sentences
ma" !e of a political comple#ion or not dependin$ upon the nature or character of the la so applied. There is
no room for dou!t, therefore, as to the ,alidit" of the creation of the court in (uestion.

*he validity of the sentence rendered !" the Court of Special and E#clusi,e Criminal Durisdiction hich
imposes life imprisonment upon the herein petitioner, depends upon the competence or poer of the
!elli$erent occupant to promul$ate Act 'o. ?J hich punishes the crime of hich said petitioner as con,icted.

It appears clear that it as ithin the poer and competence of the !elli$erent occupant to promul$ate, throu$h
the 'ational Assem!l" of the so6called Repu!lic of the Philippines, Act 'o. ?J of the said Assem!l", hich
penali-es the crimes of ro!!er" and other offenses !" imprisonment ran$in$ from the ma#imum period of the
imprisonment prescri!ed !" the las and ordinances promul$ated !" the President of the so6called Repu!lic
as minimum, to life imprisonment or death as ma#imum. Althou$h these crimes are defined in the Re,ised
Penal Code, the" ere altered and penali-ed !" said Act 'o. ?J ith different and hea,ier penalties, as ne
crimes and offenses demanded !" militar" necessit", incident to a state of ar, and necessar" for the control of
the countr" !" the !elli$erent occupant, the protection and safet" of the arm" of occupation, its support and
efficienc", and the success of its operations.

The last (uestion is the le$al effect of the reoccupation of the Philippines and restoration of the Commonealth
.o,ernmentK that is, hether or not, !" the principle of postlimin", the punitive sentence which petitioner is
now serving fell through or ceased to be valid from that time%

5e ha,e alread" held in our recent decision in the case of Co Qim Cham ,s. Valde- Tan Qeh and Di-on,
supra, that all 2ud$ment of political comple#ion of the courts durin$ the Dapanese re$ime, ceased to !e ,alid
upon reoccupation of the islands !" ,irtue of the principle or ri$ht of postliminium. Appl"in$ that doctrine to the
present case, the sentence hich con,icted the petitioner of a crime of a political comple#ion must !e
considered as ha,in$ ceased to !e ,alid ipso facto upon the reoccupation or li!eration of the Philippines !"
.eneral Dou$las MacArthur.
REPU1LIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v$. HON. EDIL1ERTO <. SANDO7AL
<.R. No. 94?3= an& 94?48 Mar( 4:) 4::3
Campos, Jr%, J%:
BACTS9 The Mendiola massacre as the culmination of ei$ht da"s and se,en ni$hts of encampment !" mem!ers of the
militant Qilusan$ Ma$!u!u4id sa Pilipinas 8QMP: at the then Ministr" 8no Department: of A$rarian Reform 8MAR: at the
Philippine To!acco Administration ;uildin$ alon$ Elliptical Road in Diliman, Eue-on Cit".
The farmers and their s"mpathi-ers presented their demands for hat the" called /$enuine a$rarian reform/. The QMP,
led !" its national president, Daime Tadeo, presented their pro!lems and demands, amon$ hich ere9 8a: $i,in$ lands
for free to farmersK 8!: -ero retention of lands !" landlordsK and 8c: stop amorti-ations of land pa"ments.
)n Danuar" &&, %<>=, Tadeo+s $roup decided to march to Malacaan$ to air their demands. ;efore the march started,
Tadeo tal4ed to the press and TV media. He uttered fier" ords, the most tellin$ of hich ere9
/. . . inalis namin an$ !ari4ada !ilan$ 4ahilin$an n$ atin$ Presidente, pero 4ina4ailan$an alisin din ni"a an$ !ari4ada sa
Mendiola sapa$4at !u!utasin din namin i"on at dadana4 an$ du$o . . . ./

The marchers, at around L9C@ p.m., num!ered a!out %@,@@@ to %J,@@@. Brom C.M. Recto A,enue, the" proceeded toard
the police lines. 'o dialo$ue too4 place !eteen the marchers and the anti6riot s(uad. It as at this moment that a clash
occurred.
After the clash, tel,e 8%&: marchers ere officiall" confirmed dead, althou$h accordin$ to Tadeo, there ere thirteen 8%C:
dead, !ut he as not a!le to $i,e the name and address of said ,ictim. Thirt"6nine 8C<: ere ounded !" $unshots and
tel,e 8%&: sustained minor in2uries, all !elon$in$ to the $roup of the marchers.
)f the police and militar" personnel, three 8C: sustained $unshot ounds and tent" 8&@: suffered minor ph"sical in2uries
such as a!rasions, contusions and the li4e.
In the aftermath of the confrontation, then President Cora-on C. A(uino issued Administrati,e )rder 'o. %%,

hich
created the Citi-ens+ Mendiola Commission. The !od" as composed of retired Supreme Court Dustice Vicente A!ad
Santos as Chairman, retired Supreme Court Dustice Dose 7. Beria and Mr. Antonio F. Miranda, !oth as mem!ers..
In its report, the Commission recapitulated its findin$s, to it9
8%: The march to Mendiola of the QMP led !" Daime Tadeo, to$ether ith the other sectoral $roups, as
not co,ered !" an" permit as re(uired under ;atas Pam!ansa ;l$. >>@, the Pu!lic Assem!l" Act of %<>J,
in ,iolation of para$raph 8a: Section %C, punisha!le under para$raph 8a:, Section %L of said la.
8&: The crod dispersal control units of the police and the militar" ere armed ith .C> and .LJ cali!er
hand$uns, and M6%? armalites, hich is a prohi!ited act under para$raph L8$:, Section %C, and
punisha!le under para$raph 8!:, Section %L of ;atas Pam!ansa ;l$. >>@.
8C: The securit" men assi$ned to protect the 5PD, I'P Bield Borce, the Marines and supportin$ militar"
units, as ell as the securit" officers of the police and militar" commanders ere in civilian attire in
violation of para$raph 8a:, Section %@, ;atas Pam!ansa >>@.
8L: There as unnecessar" firin$ !" the police and militar" crod dispersal control units in dispersin$ the
marchers, a prohi!ited act under para$raph 8e:, Section %C, and punisha!le under para$raph 8!:, Section
%L, ;atas Pam!ansa ;l$. >>@.
8J: The carr"in$ and use of steel !ars, pill!o#es, darts, lead pipe, ooden clu!s ith spi4es, and $uns !"
the marchers as offensi,e eapons are prohi!ited acts punisha!le under para$raph 8$:, Section %C, and
punisha!le under para$raph 8e:, Section %L of ;atas Pam!ansa ;l$. >>@.
8?: The QMP farmers !ro4e off further ne$otiations ith the MAR officials and ere determined to march
to Malacaan$, em!oldened as the" are, !" the inflammator" and incendiar" utterances of their leader,
Daime Tadeo P /!u!utasin namin an$ !ari4ada . . Dadana4 and du$o . . . An$ na$u$utom na ma$sasa4a
a" $a$aa n$ sarilin$ !utas. . .
8=: There as no dialo$ue !eteen the rall"ists and the $o,ernment forces. Fpon approachin$ the
intersections of 3e$arda and Mendiola, the marchers !e$an pushin$ the police lines and penetrated and
!ro4e throu$h the first line of the CDC contin$ent.
8>: The police fou$ht !ac4 ith their truncheons and shields. The" stood their $round !ut the CDC line
as !reached. There ensued $unfire from !oth sides. It is not clear ho started the firin$.
8<: At the onset of the distur!ance and ,iolence, the ater cannons and tear $as ere not put into
effecti,e use to disperse the riotin$ crod.
8%@: The ater cannons and fire truc4s ere not put into operation !ecause 8a: there as no order to use
themK 8!: the" ere incorrectl" prepositionedK and 8c: the" ere out of ran$e of the marchers.
8%%: Tear $as as not used at the start of the distur!ance to disperse the rioters. After the crod had
dispersed and the ounded and dead ere !ein$ carried aa", the MDTs of the police and the militar"
ith their tear $as e(uipment and components conducted dispersal operations in the Mendiola area and
proceeded to 3iasan$ ;onifacio to disperse the remnants of the marchers.
8%&: 'o !ar!ed ire !arricade as used in Mendiola !ut no official reason as $i,en for its a!sence.
>
Brom the results of the pro!e, the last and the most si$nificant recommendation of the Commission as for the deceased
and wounded victims of the 7endiola incident to be compensated by the government% &t was this portion that petitioners
(Caylao group! invoke in their claim for damages from the government%
'otithstandin$ such recommendation, no concrete form of compensation as recei,ed !" the ,ictims. Petitioners
8Ca"lao $roup: filed a formal letter of demand for compensation from the .o,ernment. This formal demand as indorsed
!" the office of the E#ecuti,e Secretar" to the Department of ;ud$et and Mana$ement 8D;M:. The House Committee on
Human Ri$hts, on Be!ruar" %@, %<>>, recommended the e#peditious pa"ment of compensation to the Mendiola ,ictims.
After almost a "ear, petitioners 8Ca"lao $roup: ere constrained to institute an action for dama$es a$ainst the Repu!lic of
the Philippines, to$ether ith the militar" officers, and personnel in,ol,ed in the Mendiola incident, !efore the trial court.
The Solicitor .eneral filed a Motion to Dismiss on the $round that the State cannot !e sued ithout its consent.
Petitioners opposed said motion maintainin$ that the State has ai,ed its immunit" from suit and that the dismissal of the
instant action is contrar" to !oth the Constitution and the International 3a on Human Ri$hts.
Respondent Dud$e Sando,al, in his first (uestioned )rder, dismissed the complaint as a$ainst the Repu!lic of the
Philippines on the $round that there as no ai,er !" the State. MR as also denied, hence, this petition.
ISSFE9 5hether or not the State has ai,ed its immunit" from suit.
HE3D9 '). Petitioners 8Ca"lao $roup: ad,ance the ar$ument that the State has impliedl" ai,ed its so,erei$n immunit"
from suit. It is their considered ,ie that !" the recommendation made !" the Commission for the $o,ernment to
indemnif" the heirs and ,ictims of the Mendiola incident and !" the pu!lic addresses made !" then President A(uino in
the aftermath of the 4illin$s, the State has consented to !e sued.
This is not a suit a$ainst the State ith its consent.
Birstl", the recommendation made !" the Commission re$ardin$ indemnification of the heirs of the deceased and the
,ictims of the incident !" the $o,ernment does not in an" a" mean that lia!ilit" automaticall" attaches to the State.
5hate,er ma" !e the findin$s of the Commission, the same shall onl" ser,e as the cause of action in the e,ent that an"
part" decides to liti$ate hisAher claim. Therefore, the Commission is merel" a preliminar" ,enue. The Commission is not
the end in itself. 5hate,er recommendation it ma4es cannot in an" a" !ind the State immediatel", such
recommendation not ha,in$ !ecome final and, e#ecutor". This is precisel" the essence of it !ein$ a fact,finding body.
Secondl", hate,er acts or utterances that then President A(uino ma" ha,e done or said, the same are not tantamount to
the State ha,in$ ai,ed its immunit" from suit. The President+s act of 2oinin$ the marchers, da"s after the incident, does
not mean that there as an admission !" the State of an" lia!ilit". In fact to !orro the ords of petitioners 8Ca"lao
$roup:, /it as an act of solidarit" !" the $o,ernment ith the people/. Moreo,er, petitioners rel" on President A(uino+s
speech promisin$ that the $o,ernment ould address the $rie,ances of the rall"ists. ;" this alone, it cannot !e inferred
that the State has admitted an" lia!ilit", much less can it !e inferred that it has consented to the suit.
Althou$h consent to !e sued ma" !e $i,en impliedl", still it cannot !e maintained that such consent as $i,en considerin$
the circumstances o!tainin$ in the instant case.
Thirdl", the case does not (ualif" as a suit a$ainst the State.
Some instances hen a suit a$ainst the State is proper are9
8%: 5hen the Repu!lic is sued !" nameK
8&: 5hen the suit is a$ainst an unincorporated $o,ernment a$enc"K
8C: 5hen the, suit is on its face a$ainst a $o,ernment officer !ut the case is such that ultimate lia!ilit" ill !elon$ not to
the officer !ut to the $o,ernment.
5hile the Repu!lic in this case is sued !" name, the ultimate lia!ilit" does not pertain to the $o,ernment. Althou$h the
militar" officers and personnel, then part" defendants, ere dischar$in$ their official functions hen the incident occurred,
their functions ceased to !e official the moment the" e#ceeded their authorit". ;ased on the Commission findin$s, there
as lac4 of 2ustification !" the $o,ernment forces in the use of firearms. Moreo,er, the mem!ers of the police and militar"
crod dispersal units committed a prohi!ited act under ;.P. ;l$. >>@ as there as unnecessar" firin$ !" them in
dispersin$ the marchers.
5hile it is true that nothin$ is !etter settled than the $eneral rule that a so,erei$n state and its political su!di,isions cannot
!e sued in the courts e#cept hen it has $i,en its consent, it cannot !e in,o4ed !" !oth the militar" officers to release
them from an" lia!ilit", and !" the heirs and ,ictims to demand indemnification from the $o,ernment. The principle of state
immunit" from suit does not appl", as in this case, hen the relief demanded !" the suit re(uires no affirmati,e official
action on the part of the State nor the affirmati,e dischar$e of an" o!li$ation hich !elon$s to the State in its political
capacit", even though the officers or agents who are made defendants claim to hold or act only by virtue of a title of the
state and as its agents and servants. This Court has made it (uite clear that e,en a /hi$h position in the $o,ernment does
not confer a license to persecute or rec4lessl" in2ure another./
The inescapa!le conclusion is that the State cannot !e held ci,ill" lia!le for the deaths that folloed the incident. Instead,
the lia!ilit" should fall on the named defendants in the loer court. In line ith the rulin$ of this court in .hauf vs% Court of
Appeals, herein pu!lic officials, ha,in$ !een found to ha,e acted !e"ond the scope of their authorit", ma" !e held lia!le
for dama$es.
FS V RFIT
RI5AL COMMERCIAL 1ANGIN< CORPORATION v. PACIFICO P. DE CASTRO
<.R. No. L034849 Nove.%er 2:) 4:99
BACTS9
In Ci,il Case 'o. E6%&=>J of the CBI of Ri-al, Eue-on Cit" entitled /;adoc Planters, Inc. ,s. Philippine Vir$inia
To!acco Administration, et al.,/ hich as an action for reco,er" of unpaid to!acco deli,eries, an )rder 8Partial
Dud$ment: as issued on Danuar" %J, %<=@ !" the Hon. 3ourdes P. San Die$o, then Presidin$ Dud$e, orderin$ the
defendants therein to pa" 2ointl" and se,erall", the plaintiff ;adoc Planters, Inc. 8hereinafter referred to as /;AD)C/:
ithin L> hours the a$$re$ate amount of P&@?,<%?.=?, ith le$al interests thereon.
)n Danuar" &?,%<=@, ;AD)C filed an Fr$ent E#6Parte Motion for a 5rit of E#ecution of the said Partial Dud$ment
hich as $ranted on the same da" !" the herein respondent 2ud$e ho acted in place of the Hon. Dud$e San Die$o ho
had 2ust !een ele,ated as a Dustice of the Court of Appeals. Accordin$l", the ;ranch Cler4 of Court on the ,er" same da",
issued a 5rit of E#ecution addressed to Special Sheriff Baustino Ri$or, ho then issued a 'otice of .arnishment
addressed to the .eneral Mana$er andAor Cashier of RC;C, the petitioner in this case, re(uestin$ a repl" ithin fi,e 8J:
da"s to said $arnishment as to an" propert" hich the Philippine Vir$inia To!acco Administration 8PVTA: mi$ht ha,e in
the possession or control of petitioner or of an" de!ts oin$ !" the petitioner to said defendant. Fpon receipt of such
'otice, RC;C notified PVTA thereof to ena!le the PVTA to ta4e the necessar" steps for the protection of its on interest.
Fpon an Fr$ent E#6Parte Motion dated Danuar" &=, %<=@ filed !" ;AD)C, the respondent Dud$e issued an )rder
$rantin$ the E#6Parte Motion and directin$ the herein petitioner /to deli,er in chec4 the amount $arnished to Sheriff
Baustino Ri$or and Sheriff Ri$or in turn is ordered to cash the chec4 and deli,er the amount to the plaintiff+s
representati,e andAor counsel on record./ In compliance ith said )rder, petitioner deli,ered to Sheriff Ri$or a certified
chec4 in the sum of P &@?,<%?.=?.
Respondent PVTA filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated Be!ruar" &?,%<=@ hich as $ranted in an )rder
dated April ?,%<=@, settin$ aside the )rders of E#ecution and of Pa"ment and the 5rit of E#ecution and orderin$
petitioner and ;AD)C /to restore, 2ointl" and se,erall", the account of PVTA ith the said !an4 in the same condition and
state it as !efore the issuance of the aforesaid )rders !" reim!ursin$ the PVTA of the amount of P &@?, <%?.=? ith
interests at the le$al rate from Danuar" &=, %<=@ until full" paid to the account of the PVTA This is ithout pre2udice to the
ri$ht of plaintiff to mo,e for the e#ecution of the partial 2ud$ment pendin$ appeal in case the motion for reconsideration is
denied and appeal is ta4en from the said partial 2ud$ment./
The Motion for Reconsideration of the said )rder of April ?, %<=@ filed !" herein petitioner as denied in the
)rder of respondent 2ud$e dated Dune %@, %<=@ and on Dune %<, %<=@, hich as ithin the period for perfectin$ an
appeal, the herein petitioner filed a 'otice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals from the said )rders.
This case as then certified !" the Court of Appeals to this Honora!le Court, in,ol,in$ as it does purel" (uestions
of la.
ISSFES9
%. 5hether or not PVTA funds are pu!lic funds not su!2ect to $arnishment.
&. 5hether or not RC;C as !ound to in(uire into the le$alit" and propriet" of the 5rit of E#ecution and 'otice of
.arnishment issued a$ainst the funds of the PVTA deposited ith said !an4
RF3I'.9
1. Repu!lic Act 'o. &&?J created the PVTA as an ordinar" corporation ith all the attri!utes of a corporate entit"
su!2ect to the pro,isions of the Corporation 3a. Hence, it possesses the poer /to sue and !e sued/ and /to
ac(uire and hold such assets and incur such lia!ilities resultin$ directl" from operations authori-ed !" the
pro,isions of this Act or as essential to the proper conduct of such operations./ NSection C, Repu!lic Act 'o.
&&?J.O
Brom the fore$oin$, it is clear that PVTA has !een endoed ith a personalit" distinct and separate from the
$o,ernment hich ons and controls it. Accordin$l", this Court has heretofore declared that the funds of the
PVTA can !e $arnished since /funds of pu!lic corporation hich can sue and !e sued ere not e#empt from
$arnishment/.
%. The !an4 as in no position to (uestion the le$alit" of the $arnishment since it as not e,en a part" to the
case. As correctl" pointed out !" the petitioner, it had neither the personalit" nor the interest to assail or
contro,ert the orders of respondent Dud$e. It had no choice !ut to o!e" the same inasmuch as it had no
standin$ at all to impu$n the ,alidit" of the partial 2ud$ment rendered in fa,or of the plaintiff or of the
processes issued in e#ecution of such 2ud$ment.
RC;C cannot therefore !e compelled to ma4e restitution solidaril" ith the plaintiff ;AD)C. Plaintiff ;AD)C
alone as responsi!le for the issuance of the 5rit of E#ecution and )rder of Pa"ment and so, the plaintiff alone
should !ear the conse(uences of a su!se(uent annulment of such court ordersK hence, onl" the plaintiff can !e
ordered to restore the account of the PVTA.
MUNICIPALIT6 OF MAGATI v. COURT OF APPEALS
4:3 SCRA 23?) O"o%er 4) 4::3
Cortes, J:
To+i: <overne.en" f!n&$ of "(e M!nii+a,i"# of MaEa"i are no" $!%;e" "o e/e!"ion or garni$(.en" for "(e
+a#.en" of a ;!&g.en" of a o!r". T(e re.e&# i$ .an&a.!$.
FACTS:
An"ee&en"$
E#propriation proceedin$s ere initiated !" petitioner Municipalit" of Ma4ati on a parcel of land The respondent in that
case 8Admiral Binance Creditors Consortium,Inc, Home ;uildin$ S"stem and Realt" Corporation and one Arceli Do mo,ed
for the issuance of a rit of e#ecution. A 'otice of .arnishment as ser,ed !" the sheriff nut the latter as informed that
a *hold code0 as placed on the P'C account of the petitioner.
A motion to lift the $arnishment as filed !" petitioner sa"in$ that the Dud$e failed to stae in his decision that the
e#propriation am<ount as to !e paid in installments.
Pendin$ the resolution of the motion, Philippine Sa,in$s ;an4 8PS;: consolidated title to such propert" !" ,irtue of an
e#tra 2udicial foreclosure sale and hence is not the respondent.
The main ar$ument of the petitioner applied the doctrine in Repu!lic , Palacio here it sa"s that its fund in one sa,in$s
account 8holdin$ collections of the municipalit": P'; ;uendia ;ranch could not !e either $arnished or le,ied upon
e#ecution, for to do so ould result in the dis!ursement of pu!lic funds ithout the proper appropriation re(uired under
the la. The Re$ional Trial Court in this $uise said it did not appl" to this case !ecause the petitionerGs P'; Account
as an account specificall" opened for the e#propriation proceedin$ of the su!2ect propert".
T(e Ca$e
Petitioner stren$thens its reliance on the Palacio doctrine. Petitioner had to sa,in$s account ith the P'; ;uendia
;ranch. It admits that the P'; Account opened for the e#propriation proceedin$ has a !alance of P<<,=LC.<L and does
not o!2ect to the $arnishment or the le," under e#ecution thereof. ItGs main contention that inasmuch as the assailed
orders of the respondent RTC 2ud$e in,ol,ed the net amount PL,<?J,J@?.LJ, the funds $arnished !" respondent sheriff in
e#cess of P<<,=LC.<L, hich are pu!lic funds earmar4ed for the municipal $o,ernmentGs other statutor" o!li$ation, are
e#empted from e#ecution ithout the proper appropriation re(uired under the la.
ISSUE:
Are properties of a municipalit" , hether real or personal hich are necessar" for pu!lic use, su!2ect to !e sold at
e#ecution sale or $arnishment to satisf" a mone" 2ud$ment a$ainst the municipalit"16 '). The remed" is Mandamus.
RULIN<:
Municipal Re,enues deri,ed from ta#es licenses and mar4et fees, and hich are intended primaril" and e#clusi,el" for the
purpose of financin$ the $o,ernmental acti,ities and functions of the municipalit", are e#empt from e#ecution.
A!sent a shoin$ that the municipal council of Ma4ati has passed an ordinance appropriatin$ from its pu!lic funds an
amount correspondin$ to the !alance due under the RTC decision, less the sum of <<=LC.<L in the account for the
e#propriation, ') 3EV7 F'DER EIECFTI)' MA7 ;E VA3ID37 EBBECTED )' THE PF;3IC BF'DS )B
PETITI)'ER DEP)SITED I' THE )THER SAVI'.S ACC)F'T.
'e,ertheless, this is not to sa" that pri,ate respondent and PS; are left ith no le$al recourse. 5here a municipalit" fails
or refuses, ithout 2ustifia!le reasons, to effect pa"ment of a final mone" 2ud$ment rendered a$ainst it, the claimant ma"
a,ail of the remed" of .an&a.!$ in order to compel the enactment and appro,al of the necessar" appropriation
ordinance, and the correspondin$ dis!ursement of municipal funds therefore.
'ote9 Petitioner has !enefited from its possession of the propert" since %<>?6%<>= as the site of the Ma4ati 5est Hi$h
School. The Court ill not condone petitionerGs !latant refusal to settle its o!li$ation arisin$ from e#propriation
proceedin$s it had in fact initiated.
FONTANILLA 7 MALIAMAN
<.R. No$. L088:?3 I ?4348) Fe%r!ar# 2=) 4::4
FACTS:
It appears that on Au$ust &%, %<=? at a!out ?9C@ P.M., a pic4up oned and operated !" respondent 'ational Irri$ation
Administration, a $o,ernment a$enc" !earin$ Plate 'o. I'6?J%, then dri,en officiall" !" Hu$o .arcia, an emplo"ee of
said a$enc" as its re$ular dri,er, !umped a !ic"cle ridden !" Brancisco Bontanilla, son of herein petitioners, and
Restituto Deli$o, at Maasin, San Dose Cit" alon$ the Maharli4a Hi$ha". As a result of the impact, Brancisco Bontanilla
and Restituto Deli$o ere in2ured and !rou$ht to the San Dose Cit" Emer$enc" Hospital for treatment. Bontanilla as
later transferred to the Ca!anatuan Pro,incial Hospital here he died.
.arcia as then a re$ular dri,er of respondent 'ational Irri$ation Administration ho, at the time of the accident, as a
licensed professional dri,er and ho (ualified for emplo"ment as such re$ular dri,er of respondent after ha,in$ passed
the ritten and oral e#aminations on traffic rules and maintenance of ,ehicles $i,en !" 'ational Irri$ation
Administration authorities.
This petition is an off6shot of the action 8Ci,il Case 'o. SDC6J?: instituted !" petitioners6spouses on April %=, %<=>
a$ainst respondent 'IA !efore the then CBI of San Dose Cit", for dama$es in connection ith the death of their son
from the accident. The trial court rendered 2ud$ment hich directed respondent 'ational Irri$ation Administration to pa"
dama$es 8death !enefits: and actual e#penses to petitioners. Respondent 'IA appealed said decision to the CA.
Instead of filin$ the re(uired !rief in the aforecited CA case, petitioners filed the instant petition ith this Court.
ISSUE:
%. 5hether 'IA is a $o,ernment a$enc" that performs $o,ernmental functions or a$enc" for proprietar" purposes1
Pro+rie"ar#.
&. 5hether it is le$all" proper to hold the 'IA responsi!le for moral, e#emplar" dama$es and attorne"Gs fees1 6e$.
HELD:
%. T(e NIA i$ an agen# of "(e govern.en" e/eri$ing +ro+rie"ar# f!n"ion$, !" e#press pro,ision of RA
C?@%, and is $o,erned !" the Corporation Code. It is a $o,ernment corporation ith 2uridical personalit" and not
a mere a$enc" of the $o,ernment. 'IA as created for the purpose of /constructin$, impro,in$, reha!ilitatin$, and
administerin$ all national irri$ation s"stems in the Philippines, includin$ all communal and pump irri$ation
pro2ects./
&. The ,ia%i,i"# of "(e S"a"e has to aspects, namel"9 8a: Its pu!lic or $o,ernmental aspects here it is lia!le for
the tortuous acts of special a$ents onl"K and 8!: Its pri,ate or !usiness aspects 8as hen it en$a$es in pri,ate
enterprises: here it !ecomes lia!le as an ordinar" emplo"er.
Par. J and ? of Art. &% >@ read as follos9
Emplo"ers shall !e lia!le for the dama$es caused !" their emplo"ees and household helpers actin$ ithin the
scope of their assi$ned tas4s, e,en the thou$h the former are not en$a$ed in an" !usiness or industr".
The State is responsi!le in li4e manner hen it acts throu$h a special a$entK !ut not hen the dama$e has
!een caused !" the official to hom the tas4 done properl" pertains, in hich case hat is pro,ided in Art.
&%=? shall !e applica!le.
Hene) if "(e S"a"eC$ agen" i$ no" a +!%,i offiia,) an& i$ o..i$$ione& "o +erfor. non0govern.en"a,
f!n"ion$) "(en "(e S"a"e a$$!.e$ "(e ro,e of an or&inar# e.+,o#er an& 'i,, %e (e,& ,ia%,e a$ $!( for i"$
agen"C$ "or". This assumption of lia!ilit" is predicated upon the e#istence of ne$li$ence on the part of respondent
'IA. The ne$li$ence referred to here is the ne$li$ence of super,ision. 22.."$44
PRO7INCE OF NORTH COTA1ATO 7 <RP
OCT 44) 2339
Bacts9
)n Au$ J, &@@>, the .RP and the MI3B, a re!el $roup under the leadership of the late Salamat Hashim, ere
scheduled to si$n a Memorandum of A$reement on the Ancestral Domain 8M)A6AD: Aspect of the .RP6MI3B Tripoli
A$reement on Peace of &@@% in 4uala 3umpur, Mala"sia. The si$nin$ didnGt materiali-e !ecause of the TRo issued !" the
SC, on motion of petitioners.
The M)A6AD as preceded !" a lon$ process of ne$otiation and the concludin$ of se,eral prior a$reements !eteen the
to parties !e$innin$ in %<<?, hen the .RP6MI3B peace ne$otiations !e$an.
5hen President .loria Macapa$al6Arro"o assumed office, the militar" offensi,e a$ainst the MI3B as suspended and the
$o,ernment sou$ht a resumption of the peace tal4s. Bormal peace tal4s !eteen the parties ere held in Tripoli, 3i!"a
from Dune &@6&&, &@@%, the outcome of hich as the .RP6MI3B Tripoli A$reement on Peace 8Tripoli A$reement &@@%:
containin$ the !asic principles and a$enda on the folloin$ aspects of the
ne$otiation9 Securit" Aspect, Reha!ilitation Aspect, and Ancestral Domain Aspect . 5ith re$ard to the Ancestral Domain
Aspect, the parties in Tripoli A$reement &@@% simpl" a$reed /that the same !e discussed further !" the Parties in their
ne#t meetin$./

Held9
%.: The petitions are ripe for ad2udication. The failure of respondents to consult the local $o,ernment units or communities
affected constitutes a departure !" respondents from their mandate under E.). 'o. C. Moreo,er, respondents e#ceeded
their authorit" !" the mere act of $uaranteein$ amendments to the Constitution. An" alle$ed ,iolation of the Constitution
!" an" !ranch of $o,ernment is a proper matter for 2udicial re,ie.

As the petitions in,ol,e constitutional issues hich are of paramount pu!lic interest or of transcendental importance, the
Court $rants the petitioners, petitioners6in6inter,ention and inter,enin$ respondents the re(uisitelocus standi in 4eepin$
ith the li!eral stance adopted in 2avid v% 7acapagal,Arroyo.

Contrar" to the assertion of respondents that the non6si$nin$ of the M)A6AD and the e,entual dissolution of the .RP
Peace Panel mooted the present petitions, the Court finds that the present petitions pro,ide an e#ception to the /moot and
academic/ principle in ,ie of 8a: the $ra,e ,iolation of the Constitution in,ol,edK 8!: the e#ceptional character of the
situation and paramount pu!lic interestK 8c: the need to formulate controllin$ principles to $uide the !ench, the !ar, and
the pu!licK and 8d: the fact that the case is capa!le of repetition "et e,adin$ re,ie.

The M)A6AD is a si$nificant part of a series of a$reements necessar" to carr" out the .RP6MI3B Tripoli A$reement on
Peace si$ned !" the $o,ernment and the MI3B !ac4 in Dune &@@%. Hence, the present M)A6AD can !e rene$otiated or
another one dran up that could contain similar or si$nificantl" dissimilar pro,isions compared to the ori$inal.

The Court, hoe,er, finds that the pra"ers for mandamus ha,e !een rendered moot in ,ie of the respondents+ action in
pro,idin$ the Court and the petitioners ith the official cop" of the final draft of the M)A6AD and its anne#es.

&.: The people+s ri$ht to information on matters of pu!lic concern under Sec. =, Article III of the Constitution is insplendid
symmetry ith the state polic" of full pu!lic disclosure of all its transactions in,ol,in$ pu!lic interest under Sec. &>, Article
II of the Constitution. The ri$ht to information $uarantees the ri$ht of the people to demand information, hile Section &>
reco$ni-es the dut" of officialdom to $i,e information e,en if no!od" demands. The complete and effecti,e e#ercise of the
ri$ht to information necessitates that its complementar" pro,ision on pu!lic disclosure deri,e the same self6e#ecutor"
nature, su!2ect onl" to reasona!le safe$uards or limitations as ma" !e pro,ided !" la.
The contents of the M)A6AD is a matter of paramount pu!lic concern in,ol,in$ pu!lic interest in the hi$hest order. In
declarin$ that the ri$ht to information contemplates steps and ne$otiations leadin$ to the consummation of the contract,
2urisprudence finds no distinction as to the e#ecutor" nature or commercial character of the a$reement.

An essential element of these tin freedoms is to 4eep a continuin$ dialo$ue or process of communication !eteen the
$o,ernment and the people. Corollar" to these tin ri$hts is the desi$n for feed!ac4 mechanisms. The ri$ht to pu!lic
consultation as en,isioned to !e a species of these pu!lic ri$hts.At least three pertinent las animate these
constitutional imperati,es and 2ustif" the e#ercise of the people+s ri$ht to !e consulted on rele,ant matters relatin$ to the
peace a$enda.

#ne, E.). 'o. C itself is replete ith mechanics for continuin$ consultations on !oth national and local le,els and for a
principal forum for consensus6!uildin$. In fact, it is the dut" of the Presidential Ad,iser on the Peace Process to conduct
re$ular dialo$ues to see4 rele,ant information, comments, ad,ice, and recommendations from peace partners and
concerned sectors of societ".
*wo, Repu!lic Act 'o. =%?@ or the 3ocal .o,ernment Code of %<<% re(uires all national offices to conduct consultations
!efore an" pro2ect or pro$ram critical to the en,ironment and human ecolo$" includin$ those that ma" call for the e,iction
of a particular $roup of people residin$ in such localit", is implemented therein. The M)A6AD is one peculiar pro$ram that
une(ui,ocall" and unilaterall" ,ests onership of a ,ast territor" to the ;an$samoro people, hich could per,asi,el" and
drasticall" result to the diaspora or displacement of a $reat num!er of inha!itants from their total en,ironment.
*hree, Repu!lic Act 'o. >C=% or the Indi$enous Peoples Ri$hts Act of %<<= pro,ides for clear6cut procedure for the
reco$nition and delineation of ancestral domain, hich entails, amon$ other thin$s, the o!ser,ance of the free and prior
informed consent of the Indi$enous Cultural CommunitiesAIndi$enous Peoples. $otably, the statute does not grant the
3/ecutive 2epartment or any government agency the power to delineate and recognize an ancestral domain claim by
mere agreement or compromise.

C.: The in,ocation of the doctrine of e#ecuti,e pri,ile$e as a defense to the $eneral ri$ht to information or the specific
ri$ht to consultation is untena!le. The ,arious e#plicit le$al pro,isions fl" in the face of e#ecuti,e secrec". In an" e,ent,
respondents effecti,el" ai,ed such defense after it unconditionall" disclosed the official copies of the final draft of the
M)A6AD, for 2udicial compliance and pu!lic scrutin".

In sum, the Presidential Ad,iser on the Peace Process committed $ra,e a!use of discretion hen he failed to carr" out
the pertinent consultation process, as mandated !" E.). 'o. C, Repu!lic Act 'o. =%?@, and Repu!lic Act 'o. >C=%. The
furti,e process !" hich the M)A6AD as desi$ned and crafted runs contrar" to and in e#cess of the le$al authorit", and
amounts to a himsical, capricious, oppressi,e, ar!itrar" and despotic e#ercise thereof. It illustrates a $ross e,asion of
positi,e dut" and a ,irtual refusal to perform the dut" en2oined.

L.: The M)A6AD cannot !e reconciled ith the present Constitution and las. 'ot onl" its specific pro,isions !ut the
,er" concept underl"in$ them, namel", the associati,e relationship en,isioned !eteen the .RP and the
;DE, areunconstitutional, for the concept presupposes that the associated entit" is a state and implies that the same is on
its a" to independence.

6The pro,isions of the M)A indicate, amon$ other thin$s, that the Parties aimed to ,est in the ;DE the status of an
associated state, or at an" rate, a status closel" appro#imatin$ it. The concept of association is not reco$ni-ed under the
present constitution.

6 The ;DE is a far more poerful entit" than the autonomous re$ion reco$ni-ed in the constitution.;esides !ein$
irreconcila!le ith the Constitution, the M)A6AD is also inconsistent ith pre,ailin$ statutor" la, amon$ hich are R.A.
'o. <@JL or the )r$anic Act of the ARMM, and the IPRA.

J.: As to the le$alit" of the suspensi,e clause 8*An" pro,isions of the M)A6AD re(uirin$ amendments to the e#istin$
le$al frameor4 shall come into force upon si$nin$ of a Comprehensi,e Compact and upon effectin$ the necessar"
chan$es to the le$al frameor4 ith due re$ard to non dero$ation of prior a$reements and ithin the stipulated timeframe
to !e contained in the Comprehensi,e Compact.0: The in(uir" on the le$alit" of the /suspensi,e clause,/ hoe,er, cannot
stop here, !ecause it must !e as4edhether the President herself ma" e#ercise the poer dele$ated to the .RP Peace
Panel under E.). 'o. C, Sec. L8a:.The President cannot dele$ate a poer that she herself does not possess. Ma" the
President, in the course of peace ne$otiations, a$ree to pursue reforms that ould re(uire ne le$islation and
constitutional amendments, or should the reforms !e restricted onl" to those solutions hich the present las allo1 The
anser to this (uestion re(uires a discussion of the e#tent of the President+s poer to conduct peace ne$otiations. This
stems from his residual poers and is included in her poers as Chief E#ecuti,e and commander6in6Chief. Brom the
fore$oin$ discussion, the principle ma" !e inferred that the President 6 in the course of conductin$ peace ne$otiations 6
ma" ,alidl" consider implementin$ e,en those policies that re(uire chan$es to the Constitution, !ut she
ma" not unilaterall" implement them ithout the inter,ention of Con$ress, or act in an" a" as if the assent of that !od"
ere assumed as a certaint".

Plainl", stipulation6para$raph = on .)VER'A'CE is inconsistent ith the limits of the President+s authorit" to propose
constitutional amendments, it !ein$ a ,irtual $uarantee that the Constitution and the las of the Repu!lic of the
Philippines ill certainl" !e ad2usted to conform to all the /consensus points/ found in the M)A6AD.Hence, it must !e
struc4 don as unconstitutional .

5hile there is a clause in the M)A6AD statin$ that the pro,isions thereof inconsistent ith the present le$al frameor4 ill
not !e effecti,e until that frameor4 is amended, the same does not cure its defect. The inclusion of pro,isions in the
M)A6AD esta!lishin$ an associati,e relationship !eteen the ;DE and the Central .o,ernment is, itself, a ,iolation of the
Memorandum of Instructions Brom The President dated March %, &@@%, addressed to the $o,ernment peace panel.
Moreo,er, as the clause is orded, it ,irtuall" $uarantees that the necessar" amendments to the Constitution and the las
ill e,entuall" !e put in place. 'either the .RP Peace Panel nor the President herself is authori-ed to ma4e such a
$uarantee. Fpholdin$ such an act ould amount to authori-in$ a usurpation of the constituent poers ,ested onl" in
Con$ress, a Constitutional Con,ention, or the people themsel,es throu$h the process of initiati,e, for the onl" a" that
the E#ecuti,e can ensure the outcome of the amendment process is throu$h an undue influence or interference ith that
process.

?.: 5hile the M)A6AD ould not amount to an international a$reement or unilateral declaration !indin$ on the
Philippines under international la, respondents+ act of $uaranteein$ amendments is, !" itself, alread" a constitutional
,iolation that renders the M)A6AD fatall" defecti,e.
5HEREB)RE, respondents+ motion to dismiss is DE'IED. The main and inter,enin$ petitions are .IVE' DFE C)FRSE
and here!" .RA'TED.
The Memorandum of A$reement on the Ancestral Domain Aspect of the .RP6MI3B Tripoli A$reement on Peace of &@@%
is declared contrar" to la and the Constitution.

NICOLAS v. ROMULO
<.R. No. 4=8999
Azcuna, J%
FACTS: These are petitions for certiorari, etc. as special ci,il actions andAor for re,ie of the Decision of the Court of
Appeals in 1ance Corporal 2aniel J% .mith v% 8on% en(amin *% Pozon, et al%, in CA6..R. SP 'o. <=&%&, dated Danuar" &,
&@@=.
Respondent 3ance Corporal 83ACP3: Daniel Smith is a mem!er of the Fnited States Armed Borces. He as char$ed ith
the crime of rape committed a$ainst a Bilipina (.uzette $icolas a%k%a% $icole!, petitioner herein, sometime on 'o,em!er %,
&@@J.
Pursuant to the Visitin$ Borces A$reement 8VBA: !eteen the Repu!lic of the Philippines and the Fnited States, entered
into on Be!ruar" %@, %<<>, the Fnited States, at its re(uest, as $ranted custod" of defendant Smith pendin$ the
proceedin$s. Durin$ the trial, hich as transferred from the Re$ional Trial Court 8RTC: of Tam!ales to the RTC of
Ma4ati for securit" reasons, the Fnited States .o,ernment faithfull" complied ith its underta4in$ to !rin$ defendant
Smith to the trial court e,er" time his presence as re(uired.
)n Decem!er L, &@@?, the RTC of Ma4ati, folloin$ the end of the trial, rendered its Decision, findin$ defendant Smith
$uilt". As a result, the Ma4ati court ordered Smith detained at the Ma4ati 2ail until further orders.
)n Decem!er &<, &@@?, hoe,er, defendant Smith as ta4en out of the Ma4ati 2ail !" a contin$ent of Philippine la
enforcement a$ents, purportedl" actin$ under orders of the Department of the Interior and 3ocal .o,ernment, and
!rou$ht to a facilit" for detention under the control of the Fnited States $o,ernment, pro,ided for under ne a$reements
!eteen the Philippines and the Fnited States, referred to as the Romulo6Qenne" A$reement of Decem!er %<, &@@?
hich states that the $o,ernments of the FS and Philippines a$ree that in accordance ith the VBA, 3ance Corporal
Smith ill !e returned to FS militar" custod" at the FS Em!ass" in Manila.
Petitioners contend that the Philippines should ha,e custod" of defendant 3ACP3 Smith !ecause, first of all, the VBA is
,oid and unconstitutional.
ISSUES:
@4A 5hether or not the presence of FS Armed Borces in Philippine territor" pursuant to the VBA is alloed *under a
treat" dul" concurred in !" the Senate an& reogni-e& a$ a "rea"# %# "(e o"(er on"ra"ing S"a"e.
@2A 5hether or not VBA is constitutional 8*he petitioners are arguing that to allow the transfer of custody of an accused to
a foreign power is to provide for a different rule of procedure for that accused, which also violates the e:ual protection
clause of the Constitution ;Art% &&&, .ec% <%=:.
HELD:
@4A 6e$. Fir$") "(e 7FA 'a$ &!,# on!rre& in %# "(e P(i,i++ine Sena"e an& (a$ %een reogni-e& a$ a "rea"# %# "(e
Uni"e& S"a"e$ a$ a""e$"e& an& er"ifie& %# "(e &!,# a!"(ori-e& re+re$en"a"ive of "(e Uni"e& S"a"e$ govern.en".
The fact that the VBA as not su!mitted for ad,ice and consent of the Fnited States Senate does not detract from its
status as a !indin$ international a$reement or treat" reco$ni-ed !" the said State. Bor this is a matter of internal Fnited
States la. 'otice can !e ta4en of the internationall" 4non practice !" the Fnited States of su!mittin$ to its Senate for
ad,ice and consent a$reements that are polic"ma4in$ in nature, hereas those that carr" out or further implement these
polic"ma4in$ a$reements are merel" su!mitted to Con$ress, under the pro,isions of the so6called CaseUTa!loc4i Act,
ithin si#t" da"s from ratification. T(e $eon& rea$on (a$ "o &o 'i"( "(e re,a"ion %e"'een "(e 7FA an& "(e RP0US
M!"!a, Defen$e Trea"# of A!g!$" 33) 4:84. This earlier a$reement as si$ned and dul" ratified ith the concurrence of
!oth the Philippine Senate and the Fnited States Senate. The VBA, hich is the instrument a$reed upon to pro,ide for the
2oint RP6FS militar" e#ercises, is simpl" an implementin$ a$reement to the main RP6FS Militar" Defense Treat".
Accordin$l", as an implementin$ a$reement of the RP6FS Mutual Defense Treat", it as not necessar" to su!mit the VBA
to the FS Senate for ad,ice and consent, !ut merel" to the FS Con$ress under the CaseUTa!loc4i Act ithin ?@ da"s of
its ratification. It is for this reason that the FS has certified that it reco$ni-es the VBA as a !indin$ international
a$reement, i%e., a treat", and this su!stantiall" complies ith the re(uirements of Art. IVIII, Sec. &J of our Constitution.
The pro,ision of Art. IVIII, Sec. &J of the Constitution, is complied ith !" ,irtue of the fact that the presence of the FS
Armed Borces throu$h the VBA is a presence *alloed under0 the RP6FS Mutual Defense Treat". Since the RP6FS
Mutual Defense Treat" itself has !een ratified and concurred in !" !oth the Philippine Senate and the FS Senate, there is
no ,iolation of the Constitutional pro,ision resultin$ from such presence. T(e 7FA %eing a va,i& an& %in&ing
agree.en") "(e +ar"ie$ are re*!ire& a$ a .a""er of in"erna"iona, ,a' "o a%i&e %# i"$ "er.$ an& +rovi$ion$.
@2A 6ES. 7FA i$ on$"i"!"iona,. The e(ual protection clause is not ,iolated, !ecause there is a su!stantial !asis for a
different treatment of a mem!er of a forei$n militar" armed forces alloed to enter our territor" and all other accused. The
rule in international la is that a forei$n armed forces alloed to enter oneGs territor" is immune from local 2urisdiction,
e#cept to the e#tent a$reed upon. The Status of Borces A$reements in,ol,in$ forei$n militar" units around the orld ,ar"
in terms and conditions, accordin$ to the situation of the parties in,ol,ed, and reflect their !ar$ainin$ poer. ;ut the
principle remains, i%e., the recei,in$ State can e#ercise 2urisdiction o,er the forces of the sendin$ State onl" to the e#tent
a$reed upon !" the parties.
As a result, the situation in,ol,ed is not one in hich the poer of this Court to adopt rules of procedure is curtailed or
,iolated, !ut rather one in hich, as is normall" encountered around the orld, the las 8includin$ rules of procedure: of
one State do not e#tend or appl" U e/e+" "o "(e e/"en" agree& !+on U to su!2ects of another State due to the
reco$nition of e#traterritorial immunit" $i,en to such !odies as ,isitin$ forei$n armed forces.
'othin$ in the Constitution prohi!its such a$reements reco$ni-in$ immunit" from 2urisdiction or some aspects of
2urisdiction 8such as custod":, in relation to lon$6reco$ni-ed su!2ects of such immunit" li4e Heads of State, diplomats and
mem!ers of the armed forces contin$ents of a forei$n State alloed to enter another StateGs territor". )n the contrar",
the Constitution states that the Philippines adopts the $enerall" accepted principles of international la as part of the la
of the land. 8Art. II, Sec. &:.
JHOFE7ER) even if "(e 7FA i$ on$"i"!"iona,) "(e Ro.!,o0Genne# Agree.en" '(i( "ran$ferre& Mr. S.i"(K$
!$"o&# af"er onvi"ion 'a$ !+(e,& a$ no" in aor&ane 'i"( "(e 7FA. The Court finds that there is a different
treatment hen it comes to detention as a$ainst custod". The moment the accused has to !e detained, e%g., after
con,iction, the rule that $o,erns is the folloin$ pro,ision of the VBA that the confinement or detention !" Philippine
authorities of Fnited States personnel shall !e carried out in facilities a$reed on !" appropriate Philippines and Fnited
States authorities. It is clear that the parties to the VBA reco$ni-ed the difference !eteen custod" durin$ the trial and
detention after con,iction, !ecause the" pro,ided for a specific arran$ement to co,er detention. And this specific
arran$ement clearl" states not onl" that the detention shall !e carried out in facilities a$reed on !" authorities of !oth
parties, !ut also that the detention shall !e *!" Philippine authorities.0 Therefore, the Romulo6Qenne" A$reements of
Decem!er %< and &&, &@@?, hich are a$reements on the detention of the accused in the Fnited States Em!ass", are not
in accord ith the VBA itself !ecause such detention is not *!" Philippine authorities.0
DISSENTIN< OPINION
In his dissent, Chief Dustice Puno maintained his ,ie in the earlier case of ;a"an ,. Tamora that the VBA falls short of
the re(uirement set !" Sec. &J, Art. IVIII, %<>= Constitution, hich pro,ides that the a$reement alloin$ the presence of
forei$n militar" troops in the Philippines must !e *reco$ni-ed as a treat" !" the other contractin$ state.0 Bor the Chief
Dustice, the ma2orit" of the Court in ;a"an ,. Tamora $a,e undue deference to the statement of former FS Am!assador
Thomas Hu!!ard that FS Senate ad,ice and consent as not needed to consider a treat" !indin$ on the FS, *then
2umped to the conclusion that the FS reco$ni-ed the VBA as a treat", and that the constitutional re(uirements had !een
satisfied.0

PART 4 - Philippine As A State

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

PART 4 - Philippine As A State

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Part IV (The Philippine as a State)

Case Digests Page 1 of 30

Potrebbero piacerti anche