CASE 23

Merritt vs GPI

MERRITT VS GPI
G.R. No. L-11154
34 Phil 311
March 21, 1916
MERRITT, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The case is an appeal by both parties from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of
the city of Manila in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of P14,741, together with the
costs of the cause.

Prior to this appeal, Plaintiff E. Meritt, a contractor, had a collision with the General
Hospital Ambulance which turned suddenly and unexpectedly without having sounded
any whistle or horn. Merrit was severely injured. His condition had undergone
depreciation and his efficiency as a contractor was affected. The plaintiff is seeking a
certain amount for permanent injuries and the loss of wages during he was
incapacitated from pursuing his occupation. In order for Merritt to recover damages, he
sought to sue the government which later authorized the plaintiff to bring suit against
the GPI and authorizing the Attorney- General to appear in said suit.

On this appeal, Counsel for the plaintiff insists that the trial court erred:
 “in limiting the general damages which the plaintiff suffered to P5,000, instead of
P25,000 as claimed in the complaint,” and
 “in limiting the time when plaintiff was entirely disabled to two months and
twenty-one days and fixing the damage accordingly in the sum of P2,666, instead of
P6,000 as claimed by plaintiff in his complaint.”

On the other hand, the Attorney-General on behalf of the defendant urges that the trial
court erred:
 in finding that the collision between the plaintiff’s motorcycle and the ambulance
of the General Hospital was due to the negligence of the chauffeur, who is an
alleged agent or employee of the Government;
 in holding that the Government of the Philippine Islands is liable for the damages
sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the collision, even if it be true that the
collision was due to the negligence of the chauffeur; and
 in rendering judgment against the defendant for the sum of P14,741.

ISSUES:
  Whether or not the Government is legally liable to the plaintiff by allowing a
lawsuit to commence against it.
 Whether or not the ambulance driver is considered as an employee of the
government.

RULINGS:
 By consenting to be sued a state simply waives its immunity from suit. It does
not thereby concede its liability to plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his favor,
or extend its liability to any cause not previously recognized. It merely gives a
remedy to enforce a pre-existing liability and submits itself to the jurisdiction of the
court, subject to its right to interpose any lawful defense.
 In the case at bar, the ambulance driver was not a special agent nor was a
government officer acting as a special agent. Hence, there can be no liability from
the government. As stated by Justice Story of United States “The Government does
not undertake to guarantee to any person the fidelity of the officers or agents whom
it employs, since that would involve it in all its operations in endless
embarrassments, difficulties and losses, which would be subversive of the public
interest.”