Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
GOROSPE
HELD: NO.
G.R. No. 152154 July 15, 2003 RA 1379 raises the prima facie
presumption that a property is unlawfully
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
acquired, hence subject to forfeiture, if its
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN amount or value is manifestly disproportionate
(SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION), to the official salary and other lawful income of
Ferdinand E. Marcos (represented the public officer who owns it. The following
by his estate/heirs: Imelda R. facts must be established in order that
Marcos, Maria Imelda [Imee] forfeiture or seizure of the Swiss deposits may
be effected: (1) ownership by the public officer
Marcos-Manotoc, Ferdinand R.
of money or property acquired during his
Marcos, Jr. and Irene Marcos- incumbency, whether it be in his name or
Araneta) and Imelda Romualdez otherwise, and (2) the extent to which the
Marcos amount of that money or property exceeds, i.
e., is grossly disproportionate to, the
FACTS: legitimate income of the public officer. Herein,
Petitioner Republic, through the the spouses Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos
Presidential Commission on Good Government were public officials during the time material to
(PCGG), represented by the Office of the the present case was never in dispute.
Solicitor General (OSG), filed a petition for The spouses accumulated salary of
forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner $304,372.43 should be held as the only known
sought the declaration of the aggregate lawful income of the Marcoses since they did
amount of US$356 million (now estimated to not file any Statement of Assets and Liabilities
be more than US$658 million inclusive of (SAL), as required by law, from which their net
interest) deposited in escrow in the PNB, as ill- worth could be determined. Besides, under the
gotten wealth. The funds were previously held 1935 Constitution, Ferdinand E. Marcos as
by the following five account groups, using President could not receive "any other
various foreign foundations in certain Swiss emolument from the Government or any of its
banks. In addition, the petition sought the subdivisions and instrumentalities". Likewise,
forfeiture of US$25 million and US$5 million in under the 1973 Constitution, Ferdinand E.
treasury notes which exceeded the Marcos Marcos as President could "not receive during
couples salaries, other lawful income as well his tenure any other emolument from the
as income from legitimately acquired Government or any other source."
property. Their only known lawful income of
The treasury notes are frozen at the $304,372.43 can therefore legally and fairly
Central Bank of the Philippines by virtue of the serve as basis for determining the existence of
freeze order issued by the PCGG. Before the a prima facie case of forfeiture of the Swiss
case was set for pre-trial, a General Agreement funds. The Republic did not fail to establish a
and the Supplemental Agreement dated prima facie case for the forfeiture of the Swiss
December 28, 1993 were executed by the deposits.
Marcos children and then PCGG Chairman The Swiss deposits which were
Magtanggol Gunigundo for a global settlement transferred to and are deposited in escrow at
of the assets of the Marcos family to identify, the Philippine National Bank in the estimated
collate, cause the inventory of and distribute aggregate amount of US$658,175,373.60 as of
all assets presumed to be owned by the Marcos 31 January 2002, plus interest, were forfeited
family under the conditions contained therein. in favor of the Republic.
FACTS: FACTS:
Petitioner Reagan, a civilian employee Respondent Lance Corporal (L/CPL)
of an American corporation providing technical Daniel Smith is a member of the US Armed
assistance to the US Air Force in the Forces. He was charged with the crime of rape
Philippines, questioned the payment of the committed against a Filipina, petitioner herein,
income tax assessed on him by respondent CIR sometime on November 1, 2005. Pursuant to
on an amount realized by him on a sale of his the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between
automobile to a member of the US Marine the Republic of the Philippines and the US
Corps, the transaction having taken place at entered into, the US, at its request, was
the Clark Field Air Base at Pampanga. It is his granted custody of Smith. The RTC of Makati
contention, that in legal contemplation the sale rendered a decision finding defendant Smith
was made outside Philippine territory and guilty due to sufficient evidence.
therefore beyond our jurisdictional power to Defendant Smith was taken out of the
tax. He seeks that an amount of P2,979.00 as Makati jail by a contingent of Philippine law
the income tax paid by him be refunded. enforcement agents, purportedly acting under
orders of the DILG and brought to a facility for
ISSUE: WON the Clark Field Air Base is a detention under the control of the US
foreign property therefore excluded from the government under the new agreements
power of Philippine taxation. between the Philippines and the US, referred to
as the Romulo-Kenney Agreement.
HELD: NO. Petitioners contend that
By the [Military Bases] Agreement, it the Philippines should have custody of
should be noted, the Philippine Government defendant L/CPL Smith because, first of all, the
merely consents that the United States VFA is void and unconstitutional.
exercise jurisdiction in certain cases. The
consent was given purely as a matter of ISSUE: WON the VFA is void and
comity, courtesy, or expediency over the bases unconstitutional.
as part of the Philippine territory or divested
itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses HELD: NO.
committed therein. This provision is not and Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 states:
can not on principle or authority be construed Sec. 25. After the expiration in 1991
as a limitation upon the rights of the Philippine of the Agreement between the
Government. Philippines and the United States of
The State is not precluded from America concerning Military Bases,
allowing another power to participate in the foreign military bases, troops, or
exercise of jurisdictional right over certain facilities shall not be allowed in the
which exception is taken with the reasons and NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS,
authorities relied on for reversing such President of the Republic of the Philippines, by
decision. virtue of the powers vested in me by the
Constitution, do hereby order and decree:
Section 3. This Act shall take effect upon its
Section 1. Procedure for, and Conditions of,
approval.
Waiver of Sovereign Immunity.
In instances where the law expressly
Approved: June 18. 1938. authorizes the Republic of the Philippines to
contract or incur a foreign obligation, it may
consent to be sued in connection therewith.
The President of the Philippines or his duly
designated representative may, in behalf of the
Republic of the Philippines, contractually agree
to waive any claim to sovereign immunity from
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1807 suit or legal proceedings and from set-off,
PRESCRIBING THE PROCEDURE attachment or executive with respect to its
property, and to be sued in any appropriate
WHEREBY THE REPUBLIC OF THE
jurisdiction in regard to such foreign obligation.
PHILIPPINES MAY WAIVE For purposes of this decree, a foreign
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FROM SUIT obligation means any direct, indirect, or
AND OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDING contingent obligation or liability capable of
WITH RESPECT TO ITSELF OR ITS pecuniary estimation and payable in a currency
PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH other than Philippine currency.
FOREIGN OBLIGATIONS
Section 2. Validity of existing Waivers.
CONTRACTED BY IT PURSUANT TO Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to
LAW revoke or repeal any waiver of sovereign
immunity from suit or legal proceedings or
WHEREAS, in the pursuit of economic growth from set-off, attachment or execution granted
and development, it has become imperative for under or pursuant to other provisions of law.
the Republic of the Philippines to enter into
contracts or transactions with international Section 3. Effectivity. This Decree shall take
banking, financial and other foreign effect immediately.
enterprises;
FACTS:
Counsel for the plaintiff insists that the Civil Code reads: The state is liable in this
trial court erred (1) "in limiting the general sense when it acts through a special agent, but
damages which the plaintiff suffered to P5,000, not when the damage should have been
instead of P25,000 as claimed in the caused by the official to whom properly it
complaint," and (2) "in limiting the time when pertained to do the act performed, in which
plaintiff was entirely disabled to two months case the provisions of the preceding article
and twenty-one days and fixing the damage shall be applicable. The responsibility of the
accordingly in the sum of P2,666, instead of state is limited to that which it contracts
P6,000 as claimed by plaintiff in his through a special agent, duly empowered by
complaint." a definite order or commission to perform
The Attorney-General on behalf of the some act or charged with some definite
defendant urges that the trial court erred: (a) purpose which gives rise to the claim.
in finding that the collision between the The chauffeur of the ambulance of the
plaintiff's motorcycle and the ambulance of the General Hospital was not such an agent.
General Hospital was due to the negligence of
the chauffeur, who is an alleged agent or
employee of the Government; (b) in holding GRN L-35645 May 22, 1985.
that the Government of the Philippine Islands UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
is liable for the damages sustained by the
CAPT. JAMES B. GALLOWAY,
plaintiff as a result of the collision, even if it be
true that the collision was due to the
WILLIAM I. COLLINS and ROBERT
negligence of the chauffeur; and (c) in GOHIER vs. HON. V. M. RUIZ,
rendering judgment against the defendant for Presiding Judge of Branch XV,
the sum of P14,741. Court of First Instance of Rizal
Consequently, the Government issued and ELIGIO DE GUZMAN & CO.,
an act allowing the plaintiff to commence a
INC.
lawsuit against it.
ISSUE: FACTS:
The United States of America had a
1) WON the Government conceded its
naval base in Subic, Zambales. The base was
liability to the plaintiff by allowing a
one of those provided in the Military Bases
lawsuit to commence against it.
Agreement between the Philippines and the
2) WON the chauffeur is a government
United States.
employee or agent.
Sometime in May, 1972, the United
States invited the submission of bids for a
HELD:
couple of repair projects. Eligio de Guzman
1) NO.
land Co., Inc. responded to the invitation and
By consenting to be sued a state simply
submitted bids. Subsequent thereto, the
waives its immunity from suit. It does not
company received from the US two telegrams
thereby concede its liability to plaintiff, or
requesting it to confirm its price proposals and
create any cause of action in his favor, or
for the name of its bonding company. The
extend its liability to any cause not previously
company construed this as an acceptance of its
recognized. It merely gives a remedy to
offer so they complied with the requests. The
enforce a preexisting liability and submits itself
company received a letter which was signed by
to the jurisdiction of the court, subject to its
William I. Collins of Department of the Navy of
right to interpose any lawful defense.
the United States, also one of the petitioners
2) NO.
herein informing that the company did not
We will now examine the substantive law
qualify to receive an award for the projects
touching the defendant's liability for the
because of its previous unsatisfactory
negligent acts of its officers, agents, and
performance rating in repairs, and that the
employees. Paragraph 5 of article 1903 of the
projects were awarded to third parties. The
the sovereign descends to the level of the lawful revenues from imported articles and all
citizen. Its consent to be sued is implied from other tariff and customs duties, fees, charges,
the very act of entering into such contract, fines and penalties. To this function, arrastre
breach of which on its part gives the service is a necessary incident.
corresponding right to the other party to the
agreement.
G.R. No. L-33112 June 15, 1978
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs.
G.R. No. L-23139 December 17, HON. JUDGE JAVIER PABALAN,
1966 Judge of the Court of First
MOBIL PHILIPPINES Instance, Branch III, La Union,
EXPLORATION, INC. vs. AGOO TOBACCO PLANTERS
CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE and ASSOCIATION, INC., PHILIPPINE
BUREAU of CUSTOMS VIRGINIA TOBACCO
ADMINISTRATION, and PANFILO P.
FACTS:
JIMENEZ, Deputy Sheriff, La Union
Four cases of rotary drill parts were
shipped from abroad on S.S. "Leoville"
FACTS:
consigned to Mobil Philippines Exploration,
The reliance of petitioner Philippine National
Inc., Manila. It was discharged to the custody
Bank against respondent Judge Javier Pabalan
of the Customs Arrastre Service, the unit of
who issued a writ of execution, followed
the Bureau of Customs then handling arrastre
thereafter by a notice of garnishment of the
operations therein. The Customs Arrastre
funds of respondent Philippine Virginia Tobacco
Service later delivered to the broker of the
Administration, deposited with it, is on the
consignee three cases only. Petitioner filed suit
fundamental constitutional law doctrine of non-
in the Court of First Instance of Manila against
suability of a state, it being alleged that such
the Customs Arrastre Service and the Bureau
funds are public in character.
of Customs to recover the value of the
undelivered case plus other damages. The
ISSUE: WON the funds are public in character,
respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the
thus immune from suit.
ground that not being persons under the law,
they cannot be sued.
HELD: NO.
It is to be admitted that under the
ISSUE: WON the defendants can invoke state present Constitution, what was formerly
immunity. implicit as a fundamental doctrine in
constitutional law has been set forth in express
HELD: YES. terms: "The State may not be sued without its
Now, the fact that a non-corporate consent." If the funds appertained to one of
government entity performs a function the regular departments or offices in the
proprietary in nature does not necessarily government, then, certainly, such a provision
result in its being suable. If said non- would be a bar to garnishment. Such is not the
governmental function is undertaken as an case here.
incident to its governmental function, there is It is well-settled that when the
no waiver thereby of the sovereign immunity government enters into commercial business,
from suit extended to such government entity. it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be
The Bureau of Customs, to repeat, is treated like any other corporation. By engaging
part of the Department of Finance with no in a particular business thru the
personality of its own apart from that of the instrumentality of a corporation, the
national government. Its primary function is government divests itself pro hac vice of its
governmental, that of assessing and collecting sovereign character, so as to render the
corporation subject to the rules of law State within the rule of immunity of the State
governing private corporations. from suit.
G.R. No. L-31635 August 31, 1971 G.R. No. 169304 March
ANGEL MINISTERIO and ASUNCION 13, 2007
SADAYA vs. THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE SECRETARY MANUEL M. DAYRIT,
OF CEBU, Fourth Branch, Presided USEC. MA. MARGARITA GALON and
by the Honorable, Judge JOSE C. USEC. ANTONIO M. LOPEZ, vs.
BORROMEO, THE PUBLIC PHIL. PHARMAWEALTH, INC.
HIGHWAY COMMISSIONER, and
THE AUDITOR GENERAL FACTS:
Respondent Phil. Pharmawealth, Inc. is
FACTS: a domestic corporation engaged in the
Petitioners sought the payment of just business of manufacturing and supplying
compensation for a registered lot alleging that pharmaceutical products to government
in 1927 the National Government through its hospitals in the Philippines. Then Secretary of
authorized representatives took physical and Health Alberto G. Romualdez, Jr. issued
material possession of it and used it for the Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 27 outlining
widening of a national road, without paying the guidelines and procedures on the
just compensation and without any agreement, accreditation of government suppliers for
either written or verbal. There was an pharmaceutical products. A.O. No. 27 was later
allegation of repeated demands for the amended by providing for additional
payment of its price or return of its possession, guidelines for accreditation of drug
but defendants Public Highway Commissioner suppliers aimed at ensuring that only qualified
and the Auditor General refused to restore its bidders can transact business with petitioner.
possession. Respondent submitted to petitioner
DOH a request for the inclusion of additional
ISSUE: WON the defendants are immune from items in its list of accredited drug products,
suit. including the antibiotic "Penicillin G
Benzathine." DOH issued an Invitation for Bids
HELD: NO. for the procurement of 1.2 million units vials of
Where the judgment in such a case Penicillin G Benzathine. Despite the lack of
would result not only in the recovery of response from petitioner DOH regarding
possession of the property in favor of said respondents request for inclusion of additional
citizen but also in a charge against or financial items in its list of accredited products,
liability to the Government, then the suit respondent submitted its bid for the Penicillin G
should be regarded as one against the Benzathine contract. Only two companies
government itself, and, consequently, it cannot participated, the respondent being the lower
prosper or be validly entertained by the courts bidder. In view, however, of the non-
except with the consent of said Government. accreditation of respondents Penicillin G
Inasmuch as the State authorizes only Benzathine product, the contract was awarded
legal acts by its officers, unauthorized acts to the other company. Hence, respondent filed
of government officials or officers are not a complaint injunction, mandamus and
acts of the State, and an action against the damages against DOH.
officials or officers by one whose rights have
been invaded or violated by such acts, for the ISSUE: WON DOH can invoke immunity from
protection of his rights, is not a suit against the suit.
G.R. No. 131544. March 16, 2001 ISSUE: WON DPWH can invoke state
EPG CONSTRUCTION CO., ET. AL. immunity.
vs. HONORABLE GREGORIO R.
HELD: NO.
VIGILAR, In His Capacity as
Under these circumstances, respondent
Secretary of Public Works and
may not validly invoke the Royal Prerogative
Highways of Dishonesty and conveniently hide under
the States cloak of invincibility against
FACTS: suit, considering that this principle yields to
The Ministry of Human Settlement, certain settled exceptions. True enough, the
through the BLISS Development Corporation, rule, in any case, is not absolute for it does not
initiated a housing project on a government say that the state may not be sued under any
property along the east bank of the circumstance. The doctrine of governmental
Manggahan Floodway in Pasig City. For this immunity from suit cannot serve as an
purpose, the Ministry of Human Settlement instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a
entered into a Memorandum of Agreement citizen.
(MOA) with the Ministry of Public Works and To be sure, this Court as the staunch
Highways, where the latter undertook to guardian of the citizens rights and welfare
develop the housing site and construct thereon cannot sanction an injustice so patent on its
145 housing units. By virtue of the MOA, the face, and allow itself to be an instrument in the
Ministry of Public Works and Highways forged perpetration thereof. Justice and equity
individual contracts with herein petitioners EPG sternly demand that the States cloak of
Construction Co., et. al. for the construction of invincibility against suit be shred in this
the housing units. particular instance, and that petitioners
contractors be duly compensated on the
basis of quantum meruit for construction standards, which can only be ignored at the
done on the public works housing project. risk of losing the confidence of the people, the
repository of the sovereign power.
FACTS:
In the petition filed by the Republic of
the Philippines, a summary of facts was set A.M. No. RTJ-05-1959
forth thus: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
A decision was rendered in favor of
JUDGE VICENTE A. HIDALGO,
respondents P. J. Kiener Co., Ltd., Gavino
Unchuan, and International Construction
Presiding Judge of the Regional
Corporation, and against the petitioner herein, Trial Court of Manila, Branch 37
confirming the arbitration award in the
amount of P1,712,396.40, subject of Special FACTS:
Proceedings. Respondent Judge Villasor, issued Tarcila Laperal Mendoza filed an action
an Order declaring the aforestated decision for the annulment or declaration of nullity of
final and executory, directing the Sheriffs of the title and deed of sale, reconveyance and/or
Rizal Province, Quezon City [as well as] Manila recovery of ownership and possession a
to execute the said decision. Pursuant to the property against the Republic of the
said Order, the corresponding Alias Writ of Philippinesin the RTC of Manila.
Execution [was issued]. On the strength of the It is also known as the Arlegui
afore-mentioned Alias Writ of Execution, the Residence which housed two Philippine
Provincial Sheriff of Rizal (respondent herein) presidents and which now holds the Office of
served notices of garnishment with several the Press Secretary and the News Information
Banks, specially on the monies due the Armed Bureau.
Forces of the Philippines in the form of deposits The case was initially dismissed by the
sufficient to cover the amount mentioned in presiding Judge of the Manila RTC (Branch 35)
the said Writ of Execution. The Philippine on the ground of state immunity. The case was
Veterans Bank received the same notice of re-raffled to the Manila RTC (Branch 37), with
garnishment. The funds of the Armed Forces of respondent Vicente A. Hidalgo as presiding
the Philippines on deposit with the Banks, Judge. In an Order, Judge Hidalgo declared the
particularly, with the Philippine Veterans Bank Republic in default for failure of Solicitor
and the Philippine National Bank [or] their Gabriel Francisco Ramirez, the handling
branches are public funds duly appropriated solicitor, to file the required Answer within the
and allocated for the payment of pensions of period prayed for in his motion for extension.
retirees, pay and allowances of military and It is contended that the respondent
civilian personnel and for maintenance and Judge violated the Constitution and the
operations of the Armed Forces of the fundamental rule that government funds are
Philippines. exempt from execution or garnishment when
he caused the issuance of the writ of execution
ISSUE: WON the Republic can invoke state against the Republic.
immunity from suit.
ISSUE: WON the Republic can invoke immunity
HELD: YES. from suit.
Since government funds and properties
may not be seized under writs of execution or HELD:
garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is It is settled that when the State gives
based on obvious considerations of public its consent to be sued, it does not thereby
policy. Disbursements of public funds must be necessarily consent to an unrestrained
covered by the corresponding appropriation as execution against it. Tersely put, when the
required by law. The functions and State waives its immunity, all it does, in effect,
public services rendered by the State cannot is to give the other party an opportunity to
be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the prove, if it can, that the state has a liability.
diversion of public funds from their legitimate The functions and public services
and specific objects, as appropriated by law. rendered by the State cannot be allowed to
eminent domain against petitioner as owner of Iloilo to expropriate two parcels of land in the
the property. municipality of Barotac, Iloilo owned by
It is the City School Board which has petitioner Sebastian Cosculluela and one Mita
the authority to pass a resolution allocating Lumampao, for the construction of the canal
funds for the full satisfaction of the just network of the Barotac Irrigation Project.
compensation fixed, the said body is hereby The trial court rendered a decision
given thirty (30) days from receipt to pass the granting the expropriation and ordered the
necessary resolution for the payments of the public respondent to pay Lumampao, the sum
remaining balance due to Yujuico. However, of P20,000 and Cosculluela, the sum of
despite petitioner demanding compliance from P200,000.00.
the CSB after 30 days, the latter still did not The Republic contends that the funds
take action. of the National Irrigation Authority (NIA) are
government funds and therefore, cannot be
ISSUE: WON respondent is justified in not disbursed without a government appropriation.
paying the petitioner her just compensation.
ISSUE: WON the Republic is exempt from
HELD: NO. paying the just compensation demanded by
While this Court recognizes the power the petitioner in view of non-disbursement of
of LGU to expropriate private property for funds without prior public appropriation.
public use, it will not stand idly by while the
expropriating authority maneuvers to evade HELD: NO.
the payment of just compensation of property One of the basic principles enshrined in
already in its possession. our Constitution is that no person shall be
The notion of expropriation is hard deprived of his private property without due
enough to take for a private owner. He is process of law; and in expropriation cases, an
compelled to give up his property for the essential element of due process is that there
common weal. But to give it up and wait in must be just compensation whenever private
vain for the just compensation decreed by the property is taken for public use.
courts is too much to bear. In cases like these, Just compensation means not only the
courts will not hesitate to step in to ensure correct determination of the amount to be paid
that justice and fair play are served. to the owner of the land but also the payment
of the land within a reasonable time from its
taking.
standards in the Agreement. Hence, the seized. The narcotic agents were accompanied
Indonesian Embassy terminated the by private respondent Arthur Scalzo who
agreement. Petitioners claim, that they had would, in due time, become one of the
earlier verbally informed respondent of their
principal witnesses for the prosecution. On 08
decision to terminate the agreement.
January 1988, Presiding Judge Eutropio Migrino
On the other hand, respondent claims that
the aforesaid termination was arbitrary and rendered a decision acquitting the two
unlawful. Hence, he filed a complaint against accused.
the petitioners which opposed by invoking
immunity from suit.
ISSUE: WON respondent Scalzo can invoke
ISSUE: WON the Republic of Indonesia can immunity from suit.
successfully invoke state immunity from suit.
HELD: YES.
HELD: YES. The doctrine of immunity from suit will not
There is no dispute that the apply and may not be invoked where the public
establishment of a diplomatic mission is an official is being sued in his private and personal
act jure imperii. A sovereign State does not capacity as an ordinary citizen. The cloak of
merely establish a diplomatic mission and protection afforded the officers and agents of
leave it at that; the establishment of a the government is removed the moment they
diplomatic mission encompasses its are sued in their individual capacity. This
maintenance and upkeep. Hence, the State situation usually arises where the public official
may enter into contracts with private entities acts without authority or in excess of the
to maintain the premises, furnishings and powers vested in him
equipment of the embassy and the living A foreign agent, operating within a
quarters of its agents and officials. It is territory, can be cloaked with immunity from
therefore clear that petitioner Republic of suit but only as long as it can be established
Indonesia was acting in pursuit of a sovereign that he is acting within the directives of the
activity when it entered into a contract with sending state. The consent of the host state is
respondent for the upkeep or maintenance. an indispensable requirement of basic courtesy
The Solicitor General, in his Comment, between the two sovereigns.
submits the view that, the Maintenance The job description of Scalzo has tasked
Agreement was entered into by the Republic of him to conduct surveillance on suspected drug
Indonesia in the discharge of its governmental suppliers and, after having ascertained the
functions. In such a case, it cannot be deemed target, to inform local law enforcers who would
to have waived its immunity from suit. then be expected to make the arrest. In
conducting surveillance activities on Minucher,
later acting as the poseur-buyer during the
G.R. No. 142396. February 11,
buy-bust operation, and then becoming a
2003 principal witness in the criminal case against
KHOSROW MINUCHER vs. HON. Minucher, Scalzo hardly can be said to have
COURT OF APPEALS and ARTHUR acted beyond the scope of his official function
SCALZO or duties.
All told, this Court is constrained to rule
FACTS: that respondent Arthur Scalzo, an agent of the
United States Drug Enforcement Agency
Sometime in May 1986, an Information for allowed by the Philippine government to
violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, conduct activities in the country to help contain
otherwise also known as the Dangerous Drugs the problem on the drug traffic, is entitled to
Act of 1972, was filed against petitioner the defense of state immunity from suit.
Khosrow Minucher and one Abbas Torabian.
The criminal charge followed a buy-bust
operation conducted by the Philippine police G.R. No. 124772 August
narcotic agents in the house of Minucher, an 14, 2007
Iranian national, where a quantity of heroin, a
prohibited drug, was said to have been
on the said protocol communication that appear in court, not the individual, except
petitioner is immune from suit, the MeTC judge insofar as he appears in the name of the
without notice to the prosecution dismissed the organization.
two criminal cases.
Historically, international officials were granted
ISSUE: WON petitioner Liang is immune from diplomatic privileges and immunities and were thus
considered immune for both private and official
suit.
acts. In practice, this wide grant of diplomatic
prerogatives was curtailed because of practical
HELD: NO.
necessity and because the proper functioning of the
Slandering a person could not possibly
organization did not require such extensive
be covered by the immunity agreement immunity for its officials. Thus, the current status
because our laws do not allow the commission of the law does not maintain that states grant
of a crime, such as defamation, in the name of jurisdictional immunity to international officials
official duty. It is well-settled principle of law for acts of their private lives.
that a public official may be liable in his
personal private capacity for whatever damage Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
he may have caused by his act done with Relations, a diplomatic envoy is immune from
malice or in bad faith or beyond the scope of criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State for all
his authority or jurisdiction. acts, whether private or official, and hence he
cannot be arrested, prosecuted and punished for
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION OF JUSTICE any offense he may commit, unless his diplomatic
PUNO: immunity is waived.[ On the other hand, officials
of international organizations enjoy functional
The Charter of the ADB provides under Article immunities, that is, only those necessary for the
55(i) that officers and employees of the bank shall exercise of the functions of the organization
be immune from legal process with respect to acts and the fulfillment of its purposes. This is the
performed by them in their official capacity except reason why the ADB Charter and Headquarters
when the Bank waives immunity. Section 45 (a) of Agreement explicitly grant immunity from legal
the ADB Headquarters Agreement accords the process to bank officers and employees only with
same immunity to the officers and staff of the respect to acts performed by them in their official
bank. There can be no dispute that international capacity, except when the Bank waives
officials are entitled to immunity only with immunity. In other words, officials and
respect to acts performed in their official employees of the ADB are subject to the
capacity, unlike international organizations jurisdiction of the local courts for their private
which enjoy absolute immunity acts, notwithstanding the absence of a waiver
of immunity.
Clearly, the most important immunity to an
international official, in the discharge of his Considering that bank officials and employees are
international functions, is immunity from local covered by immunity only for their official acts, the
jurisdiction. There is no argument in doctrine or necessary inference is that the authority of the
practice with the principle that an international Department of Affairs, or even of the ADB for
official is independent of the jurisdiction of the local that matter, to certify that they are entitled to
authorities for his official acts. Those acts are not immunity is limited only to acts done in their
his, but are imputed to the organization, and without official capacity. Stated otherwise, it is not within
waiver the local courts cannot hold him liable for the power of the DFA, as the agency in charge of
them. In strict law, it would seem that even the the executive departments foreign relations, nor
organization itself could have no right to waive the ADB, as the international organization vested
an officials immunity for his official acts. This with the right to waive immunity, to invoke immunity
permits local authorities to assume jurisdiction for private acts of bank official and employees,
over and individual for an act which is not, in since no such prerogative exists in the first place. If
the wider sense of the term, his act at all. It is the immunity does not exist, there is nothing to
the organization itself, as a juristic person, certify.
which should waive its own immunity and
G.R. No. 152318 April 16, on the grounds of "serious and gross
2009 insubordination, among others, resulting to
loss of confidence and trust."
DEUTSCHE GESELLSCHAFT FR
TECHNISCHE ZUSAMMENARBEIT, HELD: NO.
ET. AL. vs. This self-description of GTZ in its own
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL. official website gives further cause for pause in
adopting petitioners argument that GTZ is
FACTS: entitled to immunity from suit because it is "an
The governments of the Federal implementing agency." The above-quoted
Republic of Germany and the Republic of the statement does not dispute the
Philippines ratified an Agreement called Social characterization of GTZ as an "implementing
Health InsuranceNetworking and agency of the Federal Republic of Germany,"
Empowerment (SHINE which was designed to yet it bolsters the notion that as a company
"enable Philippine familiesespecially poor organized under private law, it has a legal
onesto maintain their health and secure personality independent of that of the Federal
health care of sustainable quality." Private Republic of Germany.
respondents were engaged as contract The Court is thus holds and so rules
employees hired by GTZ to work for SHINE. that GTZ consistently has been unable to
Nicolay, a Belgian national, assumed establish with satisfaction that it enjoys the
the post of SHINE Project Manager. immunity from suit generally enjoyed by its
Disagreements eventually arose between parent country, the Federal Republic of
Nicolay and private respondents in matters Germany.
such as proposed salary adjustments, and the
course Nicolay was taking in the
implementation of SHINE different from her
predecessors.
The dispute culminated in a signed by
the private respondents, addressed to Nicolay,
and copies furnished officials of the DOH,
Philheath, and the director of the Manila office
of GTZ. The letter raised several issues which
private respondents claim had been brought up
several times in the past, but have not been
given appropriate response.
In response, Nicolay wrote each of the
private respondents a letter, all similarly
worded except for their respective addressees.
She informed private respondents that they
could no longer find any reason to stay with
the project unless ALL of these issues be
addressed immediately and appropriately.
Under the foregoing premises and
circumstances, it is now imperative that I am
to accept your resignation, which I expect to
receive as soon as possible.
Negotiations ensued between private
respondents and Nicolay, but for naught. Each
of the private respondents received a letter
from Nicolay, informing them of the pre-
termination of their contracts of employment