part 4 - philippine as a state

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

IV. The Philippine as a StateCIR v. CAMPOS RUEDA

42 SCRA 23

FACTS:Antonio Campos Rueda, administrator of the estate of the deceased Doña Maria de la Estrella Soriano Vda. de Cerdeira, was held liable by the CIR for deficiency state and inheritance taxes for the properties left by the decedent in the Philippines. It must be noted that Dona Maria was a resident of Tangiers, Monaco at the time of her death. Campos Rueda claimed exemption under Sec 122, NIRC from the payment of the said taxes. The CIR denied the request on the grounds that the law of Tangiers is not reciprocal to Sec 122 and that Tangiers was a mere principality and not a foreign country. On appeal, the CTA ruled that “the expression 'foreign country', used in the last proviso of Section 122 of the National Internal Revenue Code, refers to a government of that foreign power which, although not an international person in the sense of international law, does not impose transfer or death taxes upon intangible personal properties of our citizens not residing therein, or whose law allows a similar exemption from such taxes. It is, therefore, not necessary that Tangier should have been recognized by our Government in order to entitle the petitioner to the exemption benefits of the last proviso of Section 122 of our Tax Code."

ISSUE:Is the acquisition of internal personality a condition sine qua non to Tangier being considered a "foreign country” within the purview of Sec 122, NIRC?

HELD:NO. It does not admit of doubt that if a foreign country is to be identified with a state, it is required in line with Pound's formulation that it be a politically organized sovereign community independent of outside control bound by ties of nationhood, legally supreme within its territory, acting through a government functioning under a regime of law. It is thus a sovereign person with the people composing it viewed as an organized corporate society under a government with the legal competence to exact obedience its commands. It has been referred to as a body-politic organized by common consent for mutual defense and mutual safety and to promote the general welfare. Correctly has it been described by Esmein as "the juridical personification of the nation." This is to view it in the light its historical development. The stress is on its being a nation, its people occupying a definite territory, politically organized, exercising by means of its government its sovereign will over the individuals within it and maintaining its separate international personality. Laski could speak of it then as a territorial society divided into government and subjects, claiming within its allotted area a supremacy over all other institutions. McIver similarly would point to the power entrusted to its government to maintain within its territory the conditions of a legal order and to enter into international relations. With the latter requisites satisfied, international law does not exact independence as a condition of statehood.

N.B. The court ruled as such based on the ruling in CIR v. De Lara, where it recognized that the estate of a decedent who resided in the State of California, may claim the exemptions provided in Sec 122, NIRC on the ground that although lacking the alleged international personality is a foreign country within the purview of the said provision. //mmts2011

ROMUALDEZ-YAP vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION225 SCRA 285, August 12, 1993

Padilla, J:

Topic: The concept of ministrant functions and management prerogative used as a valid basis for reorganization. Sister of Imelda Marcos says it was in bad faith and used reorganization to oust her out of office thus being separation without just cause,

FACTS:

Antecedents:Petitioner Conchita Romualdez-Yap (note: sister of Imelda Marcos) was working with the Philippine National Bank from 1972 with several promotions up to the year 1987. In 1986, while she was on leave, Executive Order No. 80 (Revised Charter of the PNB) was approved. Said executive order authorized the restructure/reorganization and rehabilitation of PNB. Pursuant to the reorganization plan, the Fund Transfer Department was abolished and its functions transferred to the International Department. Consequently, petitioner was notified of her separation from the service in a letter dated 30 January 1987. Petitioner questioned her separation but the then CSC Chairman Samilo Barlongay upheld the validity of her separation from the service

*antonio|arrellano|calvan|cayaban|federio|quinto|quintos|salendab|santos|sta.ana|tecson|valencia|villanueva|zulueta*


The case:Petitioner contends that her separation was in bad faith due to ,among others, being politically motivated she being the sister of Imelda Marcos. She claims the separation was illegal because it took effect on February 16, 1986 (as written in her separation letter) before the promulgation of EO 80 on December 3, 1986. (Note that in this issue, the court found that it was a typographical error.)

Also, she contends that there was bad faith in the reorganization of the PNB because her department (the FTD that was abolished) was revived after four years and hence it was a plot to ease her out of her office by putting another officer in her position and thus the separation from her office violated her security of tenure.

ISSUE:1. Was there bad faith in the reorganization of the Philippine National Bank resulting in the separation from the service of petitioner? - NONE. 2. Was the reorganization done in good faith as tested by the Dario v Mison Doctrine?- YES .3.Was the petitioner correct assailing this case is one fore separation without just cause and hence would be bound by the four year prescriptive period rule? Or is she bound by the (1) year prescriptive period for quo warranto proceedings?- QUO WARRANTO.

RULING:

1. PNB’s reorganization was by virtue of a valid law. At the time of reorganization, due to the critical financial situation of the bank, departments, positions and functions were abolished or merged. The abolition of the FTD was deemed necessary and hence in good faith. This was a management prerogative exercised pursuant to a business judgment.

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 Bureau of Customs) and a GOCC performing ministrant function (like the PNB). Commercial or universal banking is, ideally not governmental, but a private sector endeavor. It is an optional function of government.

Reorganization is always subject to the common test of good faith which is determined on a case to case basis. Hence, there was NO EXISTENCE OF BAD FAITH CONSISTING OF TANGIBLE BUREAUCRATIC/MANAGEMENT PRESSURES EXERTED TO EASE HER OUT OF OFFICE.

2. Requirement of good faith in the reorganization of a government bureau wherein offices are abolished. It says:

. . . Reorganizations in this jurisdiction have been regarded as valid provided they are pursued in good faith. As a general rule, a reorganization is carried out in "good faith" if it is for the purpose of economy or to make bureaucracy more efficient. In that event, no dismissal (in case of dismissal) or separation actually occurs because the position itself ceases to exist. And in that case, security of tenure would not be a Chinese wall. Be that as it may, if the "abolition," which is nothing else but a separation or removal, is done for political reasons or purposely to defeat security of tenure, or otherwise not in good faith, no valid "abolition" takes place and whatever "abolition" is done, is void ab initio. There is an invalid "abolition" as where there is merely a change of nomenclature of positions, or where claims of economy are belied by the existence of ample funds.

Good faith, as a component of a reorganization under a constitutional regime, is judged from the facts of each case.

Issues 1 and 2 go together as to good faith in the validity of reorganization of a GOCC performing ministrant functions

3. The case squarely fall under a quo warranto proceeding, not an illegal termination case. A person claiming to be entitled to a public office or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another may bring an action for quo warranto. The separation here was due to an abolition of office in implementation of a valid reorganization based on a rehabilitation plan. Petitioner slept on her rights.

Note: Magno case: Vigilantibus, nin dormientibus jura subvient (Laws come to the assistance of the vigilant, not of the sleeping.)



SHIPSIDE INCORPORATED v. COURT OF APPEALSG.R. No. 143377 February 20, 2001

FACTS:

On October 29, 1958, Original Certificate of Title No. 0-381 was issued in favor of Rafael Galvez, over four parcels of land - Lot 1 with 6,571 square meters; Lot 2, with 16,777 square meters; Lot 3 with 1,583 square meters; and Lot 4, with 508 square meters.

On April 11, 1960, Lots No. 1 and 4 were conveyed by Rafael Galvez in favor of Filipina Mamaril, Cleopatra Llana, Regina Bustos, and Erlinda Balatbat in a deed of sale. Consequently, Transfer Certificate No. T-4304 was issued in favor of the buyers covering Lots No. 1 and 4.

On August 16, 1960, Mamaril, et al. sold Lots No. 1 and 4 to Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company. Subsequently, Transfer Certificate No. T-4314 was issued in the name of Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company as owner of Lots No. 1 and 4.

On February 1, 1963, unknown to Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, the Court of First Instance of La Union, Second Judicial District, issued an Order in Land Registration Case No. N- 361 declaring the registration issued in the name of Rafael Galvez, null and void, and ordered the cancellation thereof.

On October 28, 1963, Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company sold to herein petitioner Lots No. 1 and 4 to herein petitioner which starting since then exercised proprietary rights over Lots No. 1 and 4.

In the meantime, Rafael Galvez filed his motion for reconsideration against the order issued by the CFI of La Union. The motion was denied on January 25, 1965. On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Republic of the Philippines in a Resolution promulgated on August 14, 1973..nêt

Thereafter, the Court of Appeals issued an Entry of Judgment, certifying that its decision dated August 14, 1973 became final and executory on October 23, 1973. The writ of execution was served on the Register of Deeds, San Fernando, La Union on April 29, 1974.

Twenty four long years, thereafter, on January 14, 1999, the Office of the Solicitor General received a letter dated January 11, 1999 from Mr. Victor G. Floresca, Vice-President, John Hay Poro Point Development Corporation, stating that the aforementioned orders and decision of the trial court have not been executed by the Register of Deeds, San Fernando, La Union despite receipt of the writ of execution.

On April 21, 1999, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a complaint for revival of judgment and cancellation of titles before the RTC San Fernando, La Union.

On July 22, 1999, petitioner Shipside, Inc. filed its Motion to Dismiss, based on the following grounds: (1) the complaint stated no cause of action because only final and executory judgments may be subject of an action for revival of judgment; (2) .the plaintiff is not the real party-in-interest because the real property covered by the Torrens titles sought to be cancelled, allegedly part of Camp Wallace (Wallace Air Station), were under the ownership and administration of the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) under Republic Act No. 7227; (3) plaintiff's cause of action is barred by prescription; {4) twenty-five years having lapsed since the issuance of the writ of execution, no action for revival of judgment may be instituted because under Paragraph 3 of Article 1144 of the Civil Code, such action may be brought only within ten (10) years from the time the judgment had been rendered.

An opposition to the motion to dismiss was filed by the Solicitor General on August 23, 1999, alleging among others, that: (1) the real party-in-interest is the Republic of the Philippines; and (2) prescription does not run against the State.

On August 31, 1999, the trial court denied petitioner's motion to dismiss and on October 14, 1999, its motion for reconsideration was likewise turned down.

On October 21, 1999, petitioner instituted a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals on the ground that the orders of the trial court denying its motion to dismiss and its subsequent motion for reconsideration were issued in excess of jurisdiction.



On November 4, 1999, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on the ground that the verification and certification in the petition, tinder the signature of Lorenzo Balbin, Jr., was made without authority, there being no proof therein that Balbin was authorized to institute the petition for and in behalf and of petitioner.

On May 23, 2000, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's, motion for reconsideration on the grounds that: (1) a complaint filed on behalf of a corporation can be made only if authorized by its Board of Directors, and in the absence thereof, the petition cannot prosper and be granted due course; and (2) petitioner was unable to show that it had substantially complied with the rule requiring proof of authority to institute an action or proceeding.

Hence, the instant petition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not an authorization from petitioner's Board of Directors is still required in order for its resident manager to institute or commence a legal action for and in behalf of the corporation.

2. Whether or not the Republic of the Philippines can maintain the action for revival of judgment herein.

RULING:

1. It is undisputed that on October 21, 1999, the time petitioner's Resident Manager Balbin filed the petition, there was no proof attached thereto that Balbin was authorized to sign the verification and non-forum shopping certification therein, as a consequence of which the petition was dismissed by the Court of Appeals. However, subsequent to such dismissal, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, attaching to said motion a certificate issued by its "board secretary stating that on October 11, 1999, or ten days prior to the filing of the petition, Balbin had been authorized by petitioner's board of directors to file said petition.

2. Having the capacity to sue or be sued, it should thus be the BCDA which may file an action to cancel petitioner's title, not the Republic, the former being the real party in interest. One having no right or interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court as a party plaintiff in an action (Ralla v. Ralla, 199 SCRA 495 [1991]). A suit may be dismissed if the plaintiff or the defendant is not a real party in interest. If the suit is not brought in the name of the real party in interest, a motion to dismiss may be filed, as was done by petitioner in this case, on the ground that the complaint states no cause of action (Tanpingco v. IAC, 207 SCRA 652 [1992]).

MELCHORA CABANAS, vs FRANCISCO PILAPILG.R. No. L-25843 July 25, 1974

FACTS: The insured, Florentino Pilapil had a child, Millian Pilapil, with a married woman, the plaintiff, Melchora Cabanas.

She was ten years old at the time the complaint was filed on October 10, 1964. The defendant, Francisco Pilapil, is the brother of the deceased. The deceased insured himself and instituted as beneficiary, his child, with his brother to act as trustee during her minority. Upon his death, the proceeds were paid to him. Hence this complaint by the mother, with whom the child is living, seeking the delivery of such sum. She filed the bond required by the Civil Code. Defendant would justify his claim to the retention of the amount in question by invoking the terms of the insurance policy.

The lower court ordered the defendant to deliver the proceeds of the policy in question to plaintiff. Its main reliance was on Articles 320 and 321 of the Civil Code. The former provides: "The father, or in his absence the mother, is the legal administrator of the property pertaining to the child under parental authority. If the property is worth more than two thousand pesos, the father or mother shall give a bond subject to the approval of the Court of First Instance." The latter states: "The property which the unemancipated child has acquired or may acquire with his work or industry, or by any lucrative title, belongs to the child in ownership, and in usufruct to the father or mother under whom he is under parental authority and whose company he lives.

ISSUE: Whether or not the proceeds of the insurance policy should go to the mother.

RULING: Yes. What is paramount is the welfare of the child. It is in consonance with such primordial end that Articles 320 and 321 have been worded. There is recognition in the law of the deep ties that bind parent and child. In the event that there is less than full measure of concern for the offspring, the protection is supplied by the bond required. With the added circumstance that the child stays with the mother, not the uncle, without any evidence of lack of maternal care, the decision arrived at can stand the test of the strictest scrutiny. It is further fortified by the assumption, both logical and



natural, that infidelity to the trust imposed by the deceased is much less in the case of a mother than in the case of an uncle.

The decision is supported by another cogent consideration. It is buttressed by its adherence to the concept that the judiciary, as an agency of the State acting as parens patriae, is called upon whenever a pending suit of litigation affects one who is a minor to accord priority to his best interest. It may happen, as it did occur here, that family relations may press their respective claims. It would be more in consonance not only with the natural order of things but the tradition of the country for a parent to be preferred. it could have been different if the conflict were between father and mother. Such is not the case at all. It is a mother asserting priority. Certainly the judiciary as the instrumentality of the State in its role of parens patriae, cannot remain insensible to the validity of her plea. In a recent case, there is this quotation from an opinion of the United States Supreme Court: "This prerogative of parens patriae is inherent in the supreme power of every State, whether that power is lodged in a royal person or in the legislature, and has no affinity to those arbitrary powers which are sometimes exerted by irresponsible monarchs to the great detriment of the people and the destruction of their liberties." What is more, there is this constitutional provision vitalizing this concept. It reads: "The State shall strengthen the family as a basic social institution." If, as the Constitution so wisely dictates, it is the family as a unit that has to be strengthened, it does not admit of doubt that even if a stronger case were presented for the uncle, still deference to a constitutional mandate would have led the lower court to decide as it did.

ANASTACIO LAUREL.ERIBERTO MISAG.R. No. L-200, March 28, 1946

Bengzon, J.:

FACTS: Anastacio Laurel demands his release form Bilibid Prison, mainly asserting that Commonwealth Act No. 682, creating the People's Court, especially section 19, under which he is detained as a political prisoner, is unconstitutional and void. The Solicitor General, meeting the issue, sustains the validity of the whole law.

Petitioner Laurel is a Filipino citizen. He was arrested in Camarines Sur in May, 1945, by the United States Army, and was interned, under a commitment order "for his active collaboration with the Japanese during the Japanese occupation." In September, 1945, he was turned over to the Commonwealth Government, and since then has been under the custody of the respondent Director of Prisons.

Petitioner questions the legality of his arrest and detention by the military authorities of the US. His present incarceration, which is merely continuation of his previous apprehension, has lasted "more than six hours" counted from his delivery to the respondent; but section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 682 provides in part as follows:

Upon delivery by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States in the Philippines of the persons detained by him as political prisoners, to the Commonwealth Government, the Office of Special Prosecutors shall receive all records, documents, exhibits, and such other things as the Government of the United States may have turned over in connection with and/or affecting said political prisoners, examine the aforesaid records, documents, exhibits, 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 six (6) months from the formal delivery of said political prisoners by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States in the Philippines to the Commonwealth Government.

In view of the provision, and the statement of the Solicitor General that even on the date the petition was presented his office had, ready for filing, an information charging herein petitioner with treason.

ISSUE: Whether or not the following arguments of the petitioner have merit: (1) discriminatory in nature; (2) unlawful delegation of legislative powers; and (3) retroactive in operation.

HELD: (1) NO. It is first argued that the suspension is not general in application, it being made operative only to "the political prisoners concerned," that other citizens are not denied the six-hour limitation in article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, that such discrimination is unexcusable and amounts to denial of the equal protection of the laws.

It is accepted doctrine in constitutional law that the "equal protection" clause does not prevent the Legislature from establishing classes of individuals or objects upon which different rules shall operate — so long as the classification is not unreasonable.2 Instances of valid classification are numerous. The point to be determined then, is whether the differentiation in the case of the political prisoner is unreasonable or arbitrary.



When active hostilities with Japan terminated, General MacArthur ordered the delivery of the Commonwealth of all the prisoners theretofore taken under his said proclamation. There was 6,000 in round numbers. Criminal informations against all, or a majority, or even a substantial number of them could not be properly filed in the six-hour period. They could not obviously be turned loose, considering the conditions of peace and order, and the safety of the prisoners themselves. So the President, by virtue of his emergency powers, promulgated Executive Order No. 65 suspending article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, for not more than thirty days. Congress later approved Commonwealth Act. No. 682, establishing the People's Court and the Office of Special Prosecutors for the prosecution and trial of crimes against national security committed during the WWII and set the limit at six months.

There can really be no substantial ground to assail the six-month extension, in view of the provisions authorizing the release under bail. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code was intended to prevent any abuse resulting from confining a person without informing him of his offense and without permitting him to go on bail. Commonwealth Act No. 682 gives no occasion to such abuse. The political prisoners know, or ought to know, they are being kept for crimes against national security. And they are generally permitted to furnish bail bonds.

(2) NO. There is hardly any merit to the argument that as "the duration of the suspension of article 125 is placed in the hands of the Special Prosecutor's Office," the section constitutes an invalid delegation of legislative powers; for as explained by the Solicitor-General, the result — some informations filed before, others afterwards — is merely the "consequence of the fact that six thousand informations could not be filed simultaneously, and that some one had to be first or some one else, necessarily the last." The law, in effect, permitted the Solicitor-General to file the informations within six months. And statutes permitting officers to perform their duties within certain periods of time may not surely be declared invalid delegations of legislative power.

(c) NO. Section 19 is NOT retroactive in its operation. It refers to detention after its passage — not before. Incidentally, there is no constitutional objection to retroactive statutes where they relate, to remedies or procedure.

The argument is advanced that when he was arrested, (May, 1945), article 125 of the Revised Penal Code was in force, and petitioner could have asked for release after six hours and, therefore, Commonwealth Act No. 682 that takes away that right is ex post facto, retroactive and fundamentally objectionable. The premises are incorrect. In May, 1945, he could not have asked for release after six hours. In other words, he would not have been discharged from the custody. (Raquiza vs. Branford, supra.) Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code was in force, it is true; but not as to him. The laws of the Commonwealth were revived in Camarines Sur by operation of General MacArthur's proclamation of October 23, 1944, upon its liberation from enemy control; but subject to his reservation to hold active collaborationists in restraint "for the duration of the war." So, persons apprehended under that directive, for treasonable collaboration, could not necessarily invoke the benefits of article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.Undoubtedly the Legislature could validly repeal section 125 of the Revised Penal Code. Had it done so, herein petitioner would have no ground to protest on constitutional principles, as he could claim no vested right to the continued enforcement of said section. Therefore, a fortiori he may not complain, if, instead of repealing that section, our lawmaking body merely suspended its operation for a definite period of time. Should he counter that such repeal or suspension must be general to be valid, he will be referred to the preceding considerations regarding classification and the equal protection of the laws.

Wherefore, we perceive no irreconcilable conflict between the Constitution and the challenged portions of section 19 of Commonwealth Act No. 682.

The petition for the writ of habeas corpus will be denied.

WILLIAM F. PERALTA, VS THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONSG.R. No. L-49 November 12, 1945

Feria, J.:

Petitioner-defendant, a member of the Metropolitan Constabulary of Manila charged with the supervision and control of the production, procurement and distribution of goods and other necessaries as defined in section 1 of Act No. 9 of the National Assembly of the so-called Republic of the Philippines, was prosecuted for the crime of robbery.

The petition for habeas corpus is based on the ground that the Court of Special and Executive Criminal Jurisdiction created by Ordinance No. 7 "was a political instrumentality of the military forces of the Japanese Imperial Army, the aims and purposes of which are repugnant to those aims and political purposes of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, as well as those of the United States of America, and therefore, null and void ab initio," that the provisions of said Ordinance No. 7 are violative of the fundamental laws of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and "the petitioner has been deprived



of his constitutional rights"; that the petitioner herein is being punished by a law created to serve the political purpose of the Japanese Imperial Army in the Philippines, and "that the penalties provided for are much (more) severe than the penalties provided for in the Revised Penal Code."

Issue: Whether the creation of the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction, and of the summary procedure adopted is valid

Whether the validity of the sentence which imprisonment during the Japanese military occupation; and

Whether if they were then valid, the effect on said punitive sentence of the reoccupation of the Philippines and the restoration therein of the Commonwealth Government.

Ruling:

1) As to the validity of the creation of the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction by Ordinance No. 7, the only factor to be considered is the authority of the legislative power which promulgated said law or ordinance. It is well established in International Law that "The criminal jurisdiction established by the invader in the occupied territory finds its source neither in the laws of the conquering or conquered state, — it is drawn entirely form the law martial as defined in the usages of nations. The authority thus derived can be asserted either through special tribunals, whose authority and procedure is defined in the military code of the conquering state, or through the ordinary courts and authorities of the occupied district.

The so-called Republic of the Philippines, being a governmental instrumentality of the belligerent occupant, had therefore the power or was competent to create the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction. No question may arise as to whether or not a court is of political complexion, for it is mere a governmental agency charged with the duty of applying the law to cases falling within its jurisdiction. Its judgments and sentences may be of political complexion, or not depending upon the nature or character of the law so applied. There is no room for doubt, therefore, as to the validity of the creation of the court in question.

With respect to the Summary procedure adopted by Ordinance No. 7, and followed in the trial of the case which resulted in the conviction of the herein petitioner, there is also no question as to the power or competence of the belligerent occupant to promulgate the law providing for such procedure

(2) The validity of the sentence rendered by the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction which imposes life imprisonment upon the herein petitioner, depends upon the competence or power of the belligerent occupant to promulgate Act No. 65 which punishes the crime of which said petitioner was convicted.

Westlake says that Article XLIII, Section III, of the Hague Conventions of 1907 "indicates that the laws to be enforced by the occupant consist of, first, the territorial law in general, as that which stands to the public order and social and commercial life of the district in a relation of mutual adaptation, so that any needless displacement of it would defeat the object which the invader is enjoined to have in view, and secondly, such variations of the territorial law as may be required by real necessity and are not expressly prohibited by any of the rules which will come before us. Such variations will naturally be greatest in what concerns the relation of the communities and individuals within the district to the invading army and its followers, it being necessary for the protection of the latter, and for the unhindered prosecution of the war by them, that acts committed to their detriment shall not only lose what justification the territorial law might give them as committed against enemies, but shall be repressed more severely than the territorial law would repress acts committed against fellow subjects. Indeed the entire relation between the invaders and the invaded, so far as it may fall within the criminal department whether by the intrinsic nature of the acts done or in consequence of the regulations made by the invaders, may be considered as taken out of the territorial law and referred to what is called martial law."



All judgments of political complexion of the courts during the Japanese regime, ceased to be valid upon the reoccupation of the islands by virtue of the principle or right of postliminium. Applying that doctrine to the present case, the sentence which convicted the petitioner of a crime of a political complexion must be considered as having ceased to be valid ipso facto upon the reoccupation or liberation of the Philippines by General Douglas MacArthur.

It may not be amiss to say in this connection that it is not necessary and proper to invoke the proclamation of General Douglas MacArthur declaring null and void all laws, among them Act No. 65, of the so-called Republic of the Philippines under which petitioner was convicted, in order to give retroactive effect to the nullification of said penal act and invalidate sentence rendered against petitioner under said law, a sentence which, before the proclamation, had already become null and of no effect.

We therefore hold that the punitive sentence under consideration, although good and valid during the military occupation of the Philippines by the Japanese forces, ceased to be good and valid ipso facto upon the reoccupation of these Island and the restoration therein of the Commonwealth Government.

In view of all the foregoing, the writ of habeas corpus prayed for is hereby granted and it is ordered that the petitioner be released forthwith, without pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

SOUTHEAST ASIAN FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CENTER V NLRC206 SCRA 283

SEAFDEC-AQD is a department of an international organization, the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center, organized through an agreement entered into in Bangkok, Thailand on December 28, 1967 by the governments of Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines with Japan as the sponsoring country.

private respondent Juvenal Lazaga was employed as a Research Associate an a probationary basis by the SEAFDEC- AD and was appointed Senior External Affairs Officer on January 5, 1983 with a monthly basic salary of P8,000.00 and a monthly allowance of P4,000.00. Thereafter, he was appointed to the position of Professional III and designated as Head of External Affairs Office with the same pay and benefits.

On May 8, 1986, petitioner Lacanilao in his capacity as Chief of SEAFDEC-AQD sent a notice of termination to private respondent informing him that due to the financial constraints being experienced by the department, his services shall be terminated at the close of office hours on May 15, 1986 and that he is entitled to separation benefits equivalent to one (1) month of his basic salary for every year of service plus other benefits (Rollo, p. 153).

Upon petitioner SEAFDEC-AQD's failure to pay private respondent his separation pay, the latter filed on March 18, 1987 a complaint against petitioners for non-payment of separation benefits plus moral damages and attorney's fees with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC

Issue:Whether NLRC has jurisdiction

Ruling:

Petitioner Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center-Aquaculture Department (SEAFDEC-AQD) is an international agency beyond the jurisdiction of public respondent NLRC.

It was established by the Governments of Burma, Kingdom of Cambodia, Republic of Indonesia, Japan, Kingdom of Laos, Malaysia. Republic of the Philippines, Republic of Singapore, Kingdom of Thailand and Republic of Vietnam (Annex "H", Petition).



The Republic of the Philippines became a signatory to the Agreement establishing SEAFDEC on January 16,1968. Its purpose is as follows:

The purpose of the Center is to contribute to the promotion of the fisheries development in Southeast Asia by mutual co-operation among the member governments of the Center, hereinafter called the "Members", and through collaboration with international organizations and governments external to the Center. (Agreement Establishing the SEAFDEC, Art. 1; Annex "H" Petition) (p.310, Rollo)

SEAFDEC-AQD was organized during the Sixth Council Meeting of SEAFDEC on July 3-7, 1973 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia as one of the principal departments of SEAFDEC (Annex "I", id.) to be established in Iloilo for the promotion of research in aquaculture. Paragraph 1, Article 6 of the Agreement establishing SEAFDEC mandates:

1. The Council shall be the supreme organ of the Center and all powers of the Center shall be vested in the Council.

Being an intergovernmental organization, SEAFDEC including its Departments (AQD), enjoys functional independence and freedom from control of the state in whose territory its office is located.

As Senator Jovito R. Salonga and Former Chief Justice Pedro L. Yap stated in their book, Public International Law (p. 83, 1956 ed.):

Permanent international commissions and administrative bodies have been created by the agreement of a considerable number of States for a variety of international purposes, economic or social and mainly non-political. Among the notable instances are the International Labor Organization, the International Institute of Agriculture, the International Danube Commission. In so far as they are autonomous and beyond the control of any one State, they have a distinct juridical personality independent of the municipal law of the State where they are situated. As such, according to one leading authority "they must be deemed to possess a species of international personality of their own." (Salonga and Yap, Public International Law, 83 [1956 ed.])

Pursuant to its being a signatory to the Agreement, the Republic of the Philippines agreed to be represented by one Director in the governing SEAFDEC Council (Agreement Establishing SEAFDEC, Art. 5, Par. 1, Annex "H", ibid.) and that its national laws and regulations shall apply only insofar as its contribution to SEAFDEC of "an agreed amount of money, movable and immovable property and services necessary for the establishment and operation of the Center" are concerned (Art. 11, ibid.). It expressly waived the application of the Philippine laws on the disbursement of funds of petitioner SEAFDEC-AQD (Section 2, P.D. No. 292).

The then Minister of Justice likewise opined that Philippine Courts have no jurisdiction over SEAFDEC-AQD in Opinion No. 139, Series of 1984 —

4. One of the basic immunities of an international organization is immunity from local jurisdiction, i.e., that it is immune from the legal writs and processes issued by the tribunals of the country where it is found. (See Jenks, Id., pp. 37-44) The obvious reason for this is that the subjection of such an organization to the authority of the local courts would afford a convenient medium thru which the host government may interfere in there operations or even influence or control its policies and decisions of the organization; besides, such subjection to local jurisdiction would impair the capacity of such body to discharge its responsibilities impartially on behalf of its member-states. In the case at bar, for instance, the entertainment by the National Labor Relations Commission of Mr. Madamba's reinstatement cases would amount to interference by the Philippine Government in the management decisions of the SEARCA governing board; even worse, it could compromise the desired impartiality of the organization since it will have to suit its actuations to the requirements of Philippine law, which may not necessarily coincide with the interests of the other member-states. It is precisely to forestall these possibilities that in cases where the extent of the immunity is specified in the enabling instruments of international



organizations, jurisdictional immunity from the host country is invariably among the first accorded. (See Jenks, Id.; See also Bowett, The Law of International Institutions, pp. 284-1285).

Respondent Lazaga's invocation of estoppel with respect to the issue of jurisdiction is unavailing because estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction to a tribunal that has none over a cause of action. Jurisdiction is conferred by law. Where there is none, no agreement of the parties can provide one. Settled is the rule that the decision of a tribunal not vested with appropriate jurisdiction is null and void. Thus, in Calimlim vs. Ramirez, this Court held:

A rule, that had been settled by unquestioned acceptance and upheld in decisions so numerous to cite is that the jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of the action is a matter of law and may not be conferred by consent or agreement of the parties. The lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. This doctrine has been qualified by recent pronouncements which it stemmed principally from the ruling in the cited case of Sibonghanoy. It is to be regretted, however, that the holding in said case had been applied to situations which were obviously not contemplated therein. The exceptional circumstances involved in Sibonghanoy which justified the departure from the accepted concept of non-waivability of objection to jurisdiction has been ignored and, instead a blanket doctrine had been repeatedly upheld that rendered the supposed ruling in Sibonghanoy not as the exception, but rather the general rule, virtually overthrowing altogether the time-honored principle that the issue of jurisdiction is not lost by waiver or by estoppel. (Calimlim vs. Ramirez, G.R. No. L-34362, 118 SCRA 399; [1982])

Respondent NLRC'S citation of the ruling of this Court in Lacanilao v. De Leon (147 SCRA 286 [1987]) to justify its assumption of jurisdiction over SEAFDEC is misplaced. On the contrary, the Court in said case explained why it took cognizance of the case. Said the Court:

We would note, finally, that the present petition relates to a controversy between two claimants to the same position; this is not a controversy between the SEAFDEC on the one hand, and an officer or employee, or a person claiming to be an officer or employee, of the SEAFDEC, on the other hand. There is before us no question involving immunity from the jurisdiction of the Court, there being no plea for such immunity whether by or on behalf of SEAFDEC, or by an official of SEAFDEC with the consent of SEAFDEC (Id., at 300; emphasis supplied).

WHEREFORE, finding SEAFDEC-AQD to be an international agency beyond the jurisdiction of the courts or local agency of the Philippine government, the questioned decision and resolution of the NLRC dated July 26, 1988 and January 9, 1989, respectively, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE for having been rendered without jurisdiction. No costs.

KHOSROW MINUCHER vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ARTHUR SCALZOG.R. No. 142396, February 11, 2003

Vitug, J.:

Sometime in May 1986, an Information for violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise also known as the "Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972," was filed against petitioner Khosrow Minucher and one Abbas Torabian with the RTC of Pasig City. The criminal charge followed a "buy-bust operation" conducted by the Philippine police narcotic agents in the house of Minucher, an Iranian national, where a quantity of heroin, a prohibited drug, was said to have been seized. The narcotic agents were accompanied by private respondent Arthur Scalzo who would, in due time, become one of the principal witnesses for the prosecution.

Minucher filed a civil case before the RTC Manila for damages on account of what he claimed to have been trumped-up charges of drug trafficking made by Arthur Scalzo. The testimony of the plaintiff disclosed that he is an Iranian national. He came to the Philippines to study in the University of the Philippines in 1974. In 1976, under the regime of the Shah of Iran, he was appointed Labor Attaché for the Iranian Embassies in Tokyo, Japan and Manila, Philippines.

He came to know the defendant on May 1986, when the latter was brought to his house and introduced to him by a certain Jose Iñigo, an informer of the Intelligence Unit of the military. During his first meeting with the defendant, upon the introduction of Jose Iñigo, the defendant expressed his interest in buying caviar. As a matter of fact, he bought two kilos of



caviar from plaintiff and paid P10,000.00 for it. Selling caviar, aside from that of Persian carpets, pistachio nuts and other Iranian products was his business after the Khomeini government cut his pension of over $3,000.00 per month. During their introduction in that meeting, the defendant gave the plaintiff his calling card, which showed that he is working at the US Embassy in the Philippines, as a special agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice, of the United States, and gave his address as US Embassy, Manila.

It was also during this first meeting that plaintiff expressed his desire to obtain a US Visa for his wife and the wife of a countryman named Abbas Torabian. The defendant told him that he [could] help plaintiff for a fee of $2,000.00 per visa. The defendant called the plaintiff and invited the latter for dinner at Mario's Restaurant at Makati. He wanted to buy 200 grams of caviar.

Defendant visited plaintiff again at the latter's residence for 18 years at Kapitolyo, Pasig. The defendant wanted to buy a pair of carpets which plaintiff valued at $27,900.00. After some haggling, they agreed at $24,000.00. For the reason that defendant did not yet have the money, they agreed that defendant would come back the next day. The following day, at 1:00 p.m., he came back with his $24,000.00, which he gave to the plaintiff, and the latter, in turn, gave him the pair of carpets.

"At about 3:00 in the afternoon of May 27, 1986, the defendant came back again to plaintiff's house and directly proceeded to the latter's bedroom, where the latter and his countryman, Abbas Torabian, were playing chess. Plaintiff opened his safe in the bedroom and obtained $2,000.00 from it, gave it to the defendant for the latter's fee in obtaining a visa for plaintiff's wife. The defendant told him that he would be leaving the Philippines very soon and requested him to come out of the house for a while so that he can introduce him to his cousin waiting in a cab. Without much ado, and without putting on his shirt as he was only in his pajama pants, he followed the defendant where he saw a parked cab opposite the street. To his complete surprise, an American jumped out of the cab with a drawn high-powered gun. He was in the company of about 30 to 40 Filipino soldiers with 6 Americans, all armed. He was handcuffed and after about 20 minutes in the street, he was brought inside the house by the defendant. He was made to sit down while in handcuffs while the defendant was inside his bedroom. The defendant came out of the bedroom and out from defendant's attaché case, he took something and placed it on the table in front of the plaintiff. They also took plaintiff's wife who was at that time at the boutique near his house and likewise arrested Torabian, who was playing chess with him in the bedroom and both were handcuffed together.

The plaintiff took note of the fact that when the defendant invited him to come out to meet his cousin, his safe was opened where he kept the $24,000.00 the defendant paid for the carpets and another $8,000.00 which he also placed in the safe together with a bracelet worth $15,000.00 and a pair of earrings worth $10,000.00. He also discovered missing upon his release his 8 pieces hand-made Persian carpets, valued at $65,000.00, a painting he bought for P30,000.00 together with his TV and betamax sets. He claimed that when he was handcuffed, the defendant took his keys from his wallet. There was, therefore, nothing left in his house.

Then, on 14 June 1990, after almost two years since the institution of the civil case, Scalzo filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that, being a special agent of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, he was entitled to diplomatic immunity.

While the trial court gave credence to the claim of Scalzo and the evidence presented by him that he was a diplomatic agent entitled to immunity as such, it ruled that he, nevertheless, should be held accountable for the acts complained of committed outside his official duties. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and sustained the defense of Scalzo that he was sufficiently clothed with diplomatic immunity during his term of duty and thereby immune from the criminal and civil jurisdiction of the "Receiving State" pursuant to the terms of the Vienna Convention.

ISSUE: Whether defendant Scalzo enjoys diplomatic immunity.

HELD: NO, defendant Scalzo does not enjoy diplomatic immunity. HOWEVER, considering that he is a representative of the US government, he is enjoys state immunity from suit.

The Vienna Convention lists the classes of heads of diplomatic missions to include (a) ambassadors or nuncios accredited to the heads of state, (b) envoys, ministers or internuncios accredited to the heads of states; and (c) charges d'



affairs accredited to the ministers of foreign affairs. Comprising the "staff of the (diplomatic) mission" are the diplomatic staff, the administrative staff and the technical and service staff. Only the heads of missions, as well as members of the diplomatic staff, excluding the members of the administrative, technical and service staff of the mission, are accorded diplomatic rank. Even while the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations provides for immunity to the members of diplomatic missions, it does so, nevertheless, with an understanding that the same be restrictively applied. Only "diplomatic agents," under the terms of the Convention, are vested with blanket diplomatic immunity from civil and criminal suits. The Convention defines "diplomatic agents" as the heads of missions or members of the diplomatic staff, thus impliedly withholding the same privileges from all others. It might bear stressing that even consuls, who represent their respective states in concerns of commerce and navigation and perform certain administrative and notarial duties, such as the issuance of passports and visas, authentication of documents, and administration of oaths, do not ordinarily enjoy the traditional diplomatic immunities and privileges accorded diplomats, mainly for the reason that they are not charged with the duty of representing their states in political matters. Indeed, the main yardstick in ascertaining whether a person is a diplomat entitled to immunity is the determination of whether or not he performs duties of diplomatic nature.

Scalzo asserted, that he was an Assistant Attaché of the United States diplomatic mission and was accredited as such by the Philippine Government. An attaché belongs to a category of officers in the diplomatic establishment who may be in charge of its cultural, press, administrative or financial affairs. There could also be a class of attaches belonging to certain ministries or departments of the government, other than the foreign ministry or department, who are detailed by their respective ministries or departments with the embassies such as the military, naval, air, commercial, agricultural, labor, science, and customs attaches, or the like. Attaches assist a chief of mission in his duties and are administratively under him, but their main function is to observe, analyze and interpret trends and developments in their respective fields in the host country and submit reports to their own ministries or departments in the home government. These officials are not generally regarded as members of the diplomatic mission, nor are they normally designated as having diplomatic rank.

But while the diplomatic immunity of Scalzo might thus remain contentious, it was sufficiently established that, indeed, he worked for the United States Drug Enforcement Agency and was tasked to conduct surveillance of suspected drug activities within the country on the dates pertinent to this case. If it should be ascertained that Arthur Scalzo was acting well within his assigned functions when he committed the acts alleged in the complaint, the present controversy could then be resolved under the related doctrine of State Immunity from Suit.

The precept that a State cannot be sued in the courts of a foreign state is a long-standing rule of customary international law then closely identified with the personal immunity of a foreign sovereign from suit and, with the emergence of democratic states, made to attach not just to the person of the head of state, or his representative, but also distinctly to the state itself in its sovereign capacity. If the acts giving rise to a suit are those of a foreign government done by its foreign agent, although not necessarily a diplomatic personage, but acting in his official capacity, the complaint could be barred by the immunity of the foreign sovereign from suit without its consent. Suing a representative of a state is believed to be, in effect, suing the state itself.

This immunity principle, however, has its limitations. Thus, Shauf vs. Court of Appeals elaborates:

"It is a different matter where the public official is made to account in his capacity as such for acts contrary to law and injurious to the rights of the plaintiff. Unauthorized acts of government officials or officers are not acts of the State, and an action against the officials or officers by one whose rights have been invaded or violated by such acts, for the protection of his rights, is not a suit against the State within the rule of immunity of the State from suit. In the same tenor, it has been said that an action at law or suit in equity against a State officer or the director of a State department on the ground that, while claiming to act for the State, he violates or invades the personal and property rights of the plaintiff, under an unconstitutional act or under an assumption of authority which he does not have, is not a suit against the State within the constitutional provision that the State may not be sued without its consent. The rationale for this ruling is that the doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice.

"(T)he doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply and may not be invoked where the public official is being sued in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. The cloak of protection afforded the officers and agents of the government is removed the moment they are sued in their individual capacity. A foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked with immunity from suit but only as long as it can be established that he is acting within the directives of the sending state. The consent of the host state is an indispensable requirement of basic courtesy between the two sovereigns.”



The official exchanges of communication between agencies of the government of the two countries, certifications from officials of both the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs and the United States Embassy, as well as the participation of members of the Philippine Narcotics Command in the "buy-bust operation" conducted at the residence of Minucher at the behest of Scalzo, may be inadequate to support the "diplomatic status" of the latter but they give enough indication that the Philippine government has given its imprimatur, if not consent, to the activities within Philippine territory of agent Scalzo of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency. The job description of Scalzo has tasked him to conduct surveillance on suspected drug suppliers and, after having ascertained the target, to inform local law enforcers who would then be expected to make the arrest. In conducting surveillance activities on Minucher, later acting as the poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation, and then becoming a principal witness in the criminal case against Minucher, Scalzo hardly can be said to have acted beyond the scope of his official function or duties.

ERNESTO CALLADO vs. INTERNATIONAL RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE (IRRI)G.R. No. 106483 May 22, 1995

Romero, J.:

Facts: Ernesto Callado, petitioner, was employed as a driver at the IRRI. One day while driving an IRRI vehicle on an official trip to the NAIA and back to the IRRI, petitioner figured in an accident.

Petitioner was informed of the findings of a preliminary investigation conducted by the IRRI's Human Resource Development Department Manager. In view of the findings, he was charged with:

(1) Driving an institute vehicle while on official duty under the influence of liquor; (2) Serious misconduct consisting of failure to report to supervisors the failure of the vehicle to start because of a problem with the car battery, and(3) Gross and habitual neglect of duties.

Petitioner submitted his answer and defenses to the charges against him. However, IRRI issued a Notice of Termination to petitioner.Thereafter, petitioner filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension and indemnity pay with moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

IRRI wrote the Labor Arbiter to inform him that the Institute enjoys immunity from legal process by virtue of Article 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1620, 5 and that it invokes such diplomatic immunity and privileges as an international organization in the instant case filed by petitioner, not having waived the same.

While admitting IRRI's defense of immunity, the Labor Arbiter, nonetheless, cited an Order issued by the Institute to the effect that "in all cases of termination, respondent IRRI waives its immunity," and, accordingly, considered the defense of immunity no longer a legal obstacle in resolving the case.

The NLRC found merit in private respondent's appeal and, finding that IRRI did not waive its immunity, ordered the aforesaid decision of the Labor Arbiter set aside and the complaint dismissed.

In this petition petitioner contends that the immunity of the IRRI as an international organization granted by Article 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1620 may not be invoked in the case at bench inasmuch as it waived the same by virtue of its Memorandum on "Guidelines on the handling of dismissed employees in relation to P.D. 1620."

Issue: Did the (IRRI) waive its immunity from suit in this dispute which arose from an employer-employee relationship?

Held: No.

P.D. No. 1620, Article 3 provides:Art. 3. Immunity from Legal Process. The Institute shall enjoy immunity from any penal, civil and administrative proceedings, except insofar as that immunity has been expressly waived by the Director-General of the Institute or his authorized representatives.

The SC upholds the constitutionality of the aforequoted law. There is in this case "a categorical recognition by the Executive Branch of the Government that IRRI enjoys immunities accorded to international organizations, which



determination has been held to be a political question conclusive upon the Courts in order not to embarass a political department of Government. It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by the executive branch of the government, and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the government as in the case at bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of the government or other officer acting under his direction.

The raison d'etre for these immunities is the assurance of unimpeded performance of their functions by the agencies concerned.

The grant of immunity to IRRI is clear and unequivocal and an express waiver by its Director-General is the only way by which it may relinquish or abandon this immunity.

In cases involving dismissed employees, the Institute may waive its immunity, signifying that such waiver is discretionary on its part

SSS vs. CA, DAVID CRUZ, SOCORRO CONCIO CRUZ, and LORNA CRUZG.R. No. L-41299 February 21, 1983

Melencio-Herrera, J.:

Facts: Sometime in March, 1963 the spouses Cruz applied for and were granted a real estate loan by the SSS with their residential lot located in Pateros, Rizal as collateral.

From the proceeds of the real estate loan the mortgagors constructed their residential house on the mortgaged property. The mortgagors, plaintiffs herein, complied with their monthly payments although there were times when delays were incurred in their monthly payments which were due every first five (5) days of the month.

SSS filed an application with the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal for the foreclosure of the real estate mortgage executed by the plaintiffs on the ground of default on the part of the mortgagor to pay in full the installments then due and payable on the principal debt and the interest thereon.

The notice of the Sheriff's Sale of the mortgaged property was initially published in the Sunday Chronicle announcing the sale at public auction of the said mortgaged property.

After this first publication of the notice, and before the second publication of the notice, plaintiff herein thru counsel formally wrote defendant SSS, demanding, among others, for said defendant SSS to withdraw the foreclosure and discontinue the publication of the notice of sale of their property claiming that plaintiffs were up-to-date in the payment of their monthly amortizations.

The Cruz spouses, together with their daughter Lorna Cruz, instituted before the CFI of Rizal an action for damages and attorney's fees against the (SSS) and the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal alleging, among other things, that they had fully and religiously paid their monthly amortizations and had not defaulted in any payment.

In its Answer, with counterclaim, the SSS stressed its right to foreclose the mortgage executed in its favor by private respondents by virtue of the automatic acceleration clause provided in the mortgage contract, even after private respondents had paid their amortization installments. In its counterclaim, the SSS prayed for actual and other damages, as well as attorney's fees, for malicious and baseless statements made by private respondents and published in the Manila Chronicle.

Trial Court enjoined the SSS from holding the sale at public auction of private respondent's property upon their posting of a P2,000.00 bond executed in favor of the SSS.

In respect of the moral and temperate damages awarded, the Trial Court held that the first publication of the notice was made in good faith but committed by defendant SSS in gross negligence considering the personnel at its command and the ease with which verifications of the actual defaulting mortgagors may be made. On this initial publication of the notice of foreclosure, the Court believes plaintiffs are entitled to the amount of P5,000.00.

The second publication of the notice of foreclosure is another matter. There was already notice by plaintiffs to defendant SSS that there was no reason for the foreclosure of their mortgaged property as they were never in default. Instead of taking any corrective measure to rectify its error, defendant SSS adopted a position of righteousness and followed the same course of action contending that no error has open committed. This act of



defendant indeed was deliberate, calculated to cow plaintiffs into submission, and made obviously with malice. On this score, the Court believes defendant SSS should pay and indemnify plaintiffs jointly in the sum of P10,000.00.

Lastly, on the third publication of the notice of foreclosure, the Court finds this continued publication an outright disregard for the reputation and standing of plaintiffs. The publication having reached a bigger segment of society and also done with malice and callous disregard for the rights of its clients, defendant SSS should compensate plaintiffs jointly in the sum of P20,000.00. All in all, plaintiffs are entitled to P35,000.00 by way of moral damages.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower Court judgment but upon SSS's Motion for Reconsideration, modified the judgment by the elimination of the P5,000.00 moral damages awarded on account of the initial publication of the foreclosure notice.

In so far as exemplary and corrective damages are concerned, the Court found no extenuating circumstances to mitigate the irresponsible action of defendant SSS and for this reason, said defendant should pay exemplary and corrective damages in the sum of P10,000.00

Issues: (1) whether the Cruz spouses had, in fact, violated their real estate mortgage contract with the SSS as would have warranted the publications of the notices of foreclosure; and

(2) whether the SSS can be held liable for damages.

Held: 1) No. The SSS application for foreclosure was not justified, particularly considering that the real estate loan of P48,000.00 obtained by the Cruzes in March, 1963, was payable in 15 years with a monthly amortization of P425.18, and that as of July 14, 1968, the date of the first notice of foreclosure and sale, the outstanding obligation was still P38,875.06 and not P10,701.58, as published.

The spouses were up-to-date and current in the payment of their monthly installments. Having accepted the prior late payments of the monthly installments, the SSS could no longer suddenly and without prior notice to the mortgagors apply for the extra-judicial foreclosure of the mortgage in July 1968.

2) Only Nominal damages for negligence on the part of SSS when they mistook the loan account of Socorro J. Cruz for that of private respondent Socorro C. Cruz and Attorneys Fees considering that private respondents were compelled to litigate for the prosecution of their interests.

Discussion on why SSS cannot be held liable for other damages.To our minds, there should be no question on this score considering that the SSS is a juridical entity with a personality of its own. It has corporate powers separate and distinct from the Government. SSS' own organic act specifically provides that it can sue and be sued in Court. These words "sue and be sued" embrace all civil process incident to a legal action.

So that, even assuming that the SSS, as it claims, enjoys immunity from suit as an entity performing governmental functions, by virtue of the explicit provision of the aforecited enabling law, the Government must be deemed to have waived immunity in respect of the SSS, although it does not thereby concede its liability.

That statutoy law has given to the private-citizen a remedy for the enforcement and protection of his rights. The SSS thereby has been required to submit to the jurisdiction of the Courts, subject to its right to interpose any lawful defense. Whether the SSS performs governmental or proprietary functions thus becomes unnecessary to belabor. For by that waiver, a private citizen may bring a suit against it for varied objectives, such as, in this case, to obtain compensation in damages arising from contract 16 and even for tort.

The proposition that the SSS is not profit-oriented was rejected in the case of SSS Employees' Association vs. Hon. Soriano. 17 But even conceding that the SSS is not, in the main, operated for profit, it cannot be denied that, in so far as contractual loan agreements with private parties are concerned, the SSS enters into them for profit considering that the borrowers pay interest, which is money paid for the use of money, plus other charges.

In so far as it is argued that to hold the SSS liable for damages would be to deplete the benefit funds available for its covered members, suffice it to say, that expenditures of the System are not confined to the payment of social security benefits. For example, the System also has to pay the salaries of its personnel. Moreover, drawing a parallel with the NASSCO and the Virginia Tobacco Administration, whose funds are in the nature of public funds, it has been held that those funds may even be made the object of a notice of garnishment.



What is of paramount importance in this controversy is that an injustice is not perpetrated and that when damage is caused a citizen, the latter should have a right of redress particularly when it arises from a purely private and contractual relationship between said individual and the System.

We find, however, that under the circumstances of the case, the SSS cannot be held liable for the damages as awarded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Tribunal.As basis for the award of actual damages, the Trial Court relied on the alleged expenses incurred by private respondents for the wardrobe they were supposed to use during their trip abroad, which was allegedly aborted because of the filing of the foreclosure application by the SSS. We find the foregoing too speculative. There could have been other reasons why the trip did not materialize. Moreover, it appears that private respondents' passports had already expired but that they made no effort to secure new passports. Nor did they secure the necessary visas from the local consulates of foreign countries they intended to visit for their trip abroad.

Nor can the SSS be held liable for moral and temperate damages. As concluded by the Court of Appeals "the negligence of the appellant is not so gross as to warrant moral and temperate damages",except that, said Court reduced those damages by only P5,000.00 instead of eliminating them. Neither can we agree with the findings of both the Trial Court and respondent Court that the SSS had acted maliciously or in bad faith. The SSS was of the belief that it was acting in the legitimate exercise of its right under the mortgage contract in the face of irregular payments made by private respondents, and placed reliance on the automatic acceleration clause in the contract. The filing alone of the foreclosure application should not be a ground for an award of moral damages in the same way that a clearly unfounded civil action is not among the grounds for moral damages.

With the ruling out of compensatory, moral and temperate damages, the grant of exemplary or corrective damages should also be set aside. Moreover, no proof has been submitted that the SSS had acted in a wanton, reckless and oppressive manner.

However, as found by both the Trial and Appellate Courts, there was clear negligence on the part of SSS when they mistook the loan account of Socorro J. Cruz for that of private respondent Socorro C. Cruz. Its attention was called to the error, but it adamantly refused to acknowledge its mistake. The SSS can be held liable for nominal damages. This type of damages is not for the purpose of indemnifying private respondents for any loss suffered by them but to vindicate or recognize their rights which have been violated or invaded by petitioner SSS.

The circumstances of the case also justify the award of attorney's fees, as granted by the Trial and Appellate Courts, particularly considering that private respondents were compelled to litigate for the prosecution of their interests.

Petitioner SSS shall pay private respondents: P3,000.00 as nominal damages; and P5,000.00 as attorney's fees. Costs against petitioner SSS.

BUREAU OF PRINTING, SERAFIN SALVADOR and MARIANO LEDESMA V. THE BUREAU OF PRINTING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (NLU), PACIFICO ADVINCULA, ROBERTO MENDOZA, PONCIANO ARGANDA and

TEODULO TOLERANG.R. No. L-15751, January 28, 1961

Gutierrez David, J.:

Upon complaint of the respondents Bureau of Printing Employees Association (NLU)— filed by an acting prosecutor of the Industrial Court against herein petitioner Bureau of Printing, Serafin Salvador, the Acting Secretary of the Department of General Services, and Mariano Ledesma the Director of the Bureau of Printing. The complaint alleged that Salvador and Ledesma have been engaging in unfair labor practices by interfering with, or coercing the employees of the Bureau of Printing particularly the members of the complaining association petition, in the exercise of their right to self-organization an discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of their employment in order to discourage them from pursuing the union activities.

Answering the complaint, the petitioners Bureau of Printing, Salvador and Ledesma denied the charges of unfair labor practices attributed to them and, by way of affirmative defenses, alleged, among other things, that respondents were suspended pending result of an administrative investigation against them for breach of Civil Service rules and regulations petitions; that the Bureau of Printing has no juridical personality to sue and be sued; that said Bureau of Printing is not an industrial concern engaged for the purpose of gain but is an agency of the Republic performing government functions. For relief, they prayed that the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Thereafter, before the case could be heard, petitioners filed an "Omnibus Motion" asking for a preliminary hearing on the question of jurisdiction raised by them in their answer and for suspension of the trial of the case on the merits pending the determination of such jurisdictional question. The motion was granted, but after hearing, the trial judge of the Industrial



Court in an order sustained the jurisdiction of the court on the theory that the functions of the Bureau of Printing are "exclusively proprietary in nature," and, consequently, denied the prayer for dismissal. Reconsideration of this order having been also denied by the court in banc, the petitioners brought the case to this Court through the present petition for certiorari and prohibition.

ISSUE: Whether the Bureau of Printing is a government entity involved in governmental functions; hence, the Bureau has no juridical personality to sue and be sued

HELD: YES, the Bureau is a government entity involved in governmental functions. As an office of the Government without any corporate or juridical personality, the Bureau of Printing cannot be sued, and it follows that the Government cannot be sued without its consent.The Bureau of Printing is an office of the Government created by the Administrative Code of 1916. As such instrumentality of the Government, it operates under the direct supervision of the Executive Secretary, Office of the President, and is "charged with the execution of all printing and binding, including work incidental to those processes, required by the National Government and such other work of the same character as said Bureau may, by law or by order of the (Secretary of Finance) Executive Secretary, be authorized to undertake . . .." (See. 1644, Rev. Adm. Code). It has no corporate existence, and its appropriations are provided for in the General Appropriations Act. Designed to meet the printing needs of the Government, it is primarily a service bureau and obviously, not engaged in business or occupation for pecuniary profit.

It is true, as stated in the order complained of, that the Bureau of Printing receives outside jobs and that many of its employees are paid for overtime work on regular working days and on holidays, but these facts do not justify the conclusion that its functions are "exclusively proprietary in nature." Overtime work in the Bureau of Printing is done only when the interest of the service so requires. As a matter of administrative policy, the overtime compensation may be paid, but such payment is discretionary with the head of the Bureau depending upon its current appropriations, so that it cannot be the basis for holding that the functions of said Bureau are wholly proprietary in character. Anent the additional work it executes for private persons, we find that such work is done upon request, as distinguished from those solicited, and only "as the requirements of Government work will permit", and "upon terms fixed by the Director of Printing, with the approval of the Department Head". As shown by the uncontradicted evidence of the petitioners, most of these works consist of orders for greeting cards during Christmas from government officials, and for printing of checks of private banking institutions. On those greeting cards, the Government seal, of which only the Bureau of Printing is authorized to use, is embossed, and on the bank cheeks, only the Bureau of Printing can print the reproduction of the official documentary stamps appearing thereon.

The volume of private jobs done, in comparison with government jobs, is only one-half of 1 per cent, and in computing the costs for work done for private parties, the Bureau does not include profit because it is not allowed to make any. Clearly, while the Bureau of Printing is allowed to undertake private printing jobs, it cannot be pretended that it is thereby an industrial or business concern. The additional work it executes for private parties is merely incidental to its function, and although such work may be deemed proprietary in character, there is no showing that the employees performing said proprietary function are separate and distinct from those employed in its general governmental functions.

From what has been stated, it is obvious that the Court of Industrial Relations did not acquire jurisdiction over the respondent Bureau of Printing, and is thus devoid of any authority to take cognizance of the case.

Indeed, as an office of the Government, without any corporate or juridical personality, the Bureau of Printing cannot be sued. (Sec. 1, Rule 3, Rules of Court). Any suit, action or proceeding against it, if it were to produce any effect, would actually be a suit, action or proceeding against the Government itself, and the rule is settled that the Government cannot be sued without its consent, much less over its objection.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE V NLRC227 SCRA 693

Petitioner Department of Agriculture (DA) and Sultan Security Agency entered into a contract for security services to be provided by the latter to the said governmental entity. Pursuant to their arrangements, guards were deployed by Sultan Security Agency in the various premises of the DA. Thereafter, several guards filed a complaint for underpayment of wages, nonpayment of 13th month pay, uniform allowances, night shift differential pay, holiday pay, and overtime pay, as well as for damages against the DA and the security agency.

The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding the DA jointly and severally liable with the security agency for the payment of money claims of the complainant security guards. The DA and the security agency did not appeal the decision. Thus,



the decision became final and executory. The Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution to enforce and execute the judgment against the property of the DA and the security agency. Thereafter, the City Sheriff levied on execution the motor vehicles of the DA.

Issue: Whether or not the doctrine of non-suability of the State applies in the case

Held: The basic postulate enshrined in the Constitution that “the State may not be sued without its consent” reflects nothing less than a recognition of the sovereign character of the State and an express affirmation of the unwritten rule effectively insulating it from the jurisdiction of courts. It is based on the very essence of sovereignty. A sovereign is exempt from suit based on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.

The rule is not really absolute for it does not say that the State may not be sued under any circumstances. The State may at times be sued. The State’s consent may be given expressly or impliedly. Express consent may be made through a general law or a special law. Implied consent, on the other hand, is conceded when the State itself commences litigation, thus opening itself to a counterclaim, or when it enters into a contract. In this situation, the government is deemed to have descended to the level of the other contracting party and to have divested itself of its sovereign immunity.

But not all contracts entered into by the government operate as a waiver of its non-suability; distinction must still be made between one which is executed in the exercise of its sovereign function and another which is done in its proprietary capacity. A State may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can this be deemed to have actually given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts. It does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions.

In the case, the DA has not pretended to have assumed a capacity apart from its being a governmental entity when it entered into the questioned contract; nor that it could have, in fact, performed any act proprietary in character.

But, be that as it may, the claims of the complainant security guards clearly constitute money claims. Act No. 3083 gives the consent of the State to be sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract, express or implied. Pursuant, however, to Commonwealth Act 327, as amended by PD 1145, the money claim must first be brought to the Commission on Audit.

SANDERS V VERIDIANO162 SCRA 88

Petitioner Sanders was the director of the US Naval StatioN (NAVSTA) in Oloangapo City, co petitioner Moreau being the commanding officer of Subic Naval base. Private respondents Anthony Rossi and Ralph Wyers were employed as gameroom attendants at the special services dept of NAVSTA. Both had the status of permanent full time employment. This status was changed to permanent part time. This prompted them to institute grievance proceedings in accordance with the processes set by the US Dept of Defense, which led to the reinstatement of their old status. The report on the hearing observed that “Special services management practices an autocratic form of supervision.” In response to this Sanders wrote a letter to Moreau stating that a) Mr. Rossi tends to alienate his most co workers and supervisors, B)Rossi and Dwyer are difficult to supervise, c) though under oath not to discuss their grievance they allowed others to learn of it by placing the records in public places. Moreau on the other hand before the start of the grievance hearings wrote a letter to the Chief of Naval Personnel explaining the private respondents change in status and requesting concurrence therewith. These acts of petitioners led Rossi and Wyer to file a complaint for damages against Sanders and Moreau. They made it clear that they were suing Sanders and Moreau in their personal capacity. Sanders and Moreau in their defense claimed that their acts were official in nature and were in the discharge of their official duties and that because of this the court does not have jurisdiction over them on the principle of state immunity.



ISSUES1. Whether or not Sanders and Moreau were acting in their official capacity when they committed said acts? 2. Whether or not they may avail of state immunity? HELD;1. Yes. Petitioners were acting in an official capacity. Sanders as director of the special services dept of NAVSTA had supervision over its personnel which included Rossi and Wyer. He had a hand in their, employment, discipline, dismissal etc. Moreau’s letter dealt with the financial and budgetary problems of his dept and contained solutions to it which included the suggestion to change the status of Rossi and Wyer. It was not personal nor private in nature. The allegation that Snaders and Moreau were being sued in their personal capacity will not automatically shed him from the protection of the law of public officers and the doctrine of state immunity. Conversely the invocation of official character will not suffice to insulate from suability and liability for a tort committed without or in excess of authority. 2. YES. This is because the acts complained of were done in their official capacity, and thus they were being sued as officers of the US government. from suit extends to them by virtue of the principle of sovereign equality of states.

PERALTA V. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS75 PHIL 285 (1945)

FACTS:Petitioner, a member of the Metropolitan Constabulary, was prosecuted for the crime of robbery as defined by the National Assembly of the so-called Republic of the Philippines. He was found guilty and sentenced to serve time by the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction created in sec. 1 of Ordinance no. 7 promulgated by the President of the Republic. The petition for habeas corpus is based on the ground that the Court’s existence was void ab initio because it was created as a political instrumentality under the command of the Japanese Imperial Army; that the provisions of said ordinance violate his constitutional rights; that the penalties provided for are much more severe than the RPC. SolGen is of the opinion that the petition should be granted because the Ordinance mentioned in creating said court is “tinged with political complexion”, that the procedure does not afford a fair trial and violates constitutional right of accused persons under a legitimate Constitution.

ISSUES and HELD:The court is of the opinion that:

As to the validity of the creation of the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction by Ordinance No. 7, the only factor to be considered is the authority of the legislative power which promulgated said law or ordinance. It is well established in International Law that "The criminal jurisdiction established by the invader in the occupied territory finds its source neither in the laws of the conquering or conquered state, — it is drawn entirely from the law martial as defined in the usages of nations. The authority thus derived can be asserted either through special tribunals, whose authority and procedure is defined in the military code of the conquering state, or through the ordinary courts and authorities of the occupied district." (Taylor, International Public Law, p. 598.) The so-called Republic of the Philippines, being a governmental instrumentality of the belligerent occupant, had therefore the power or was competent to create the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction. No question may arise as to whether or not a court is of a political complexion, for it is mere governmental agency charged with the duty of applying the law to cases falling within its jurisdiction. Its judgments and sentences may be of a political complexion or not depending upon the nature or character of the law so applied. There is no room for doubt, therefore, as to the validity of the creation of the court in question. The validity of the sentence rendered by the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction which imposes life imprisonment upon the herein petitioner, depends upon the competence or power of the belligerent occupant to promulgate Act No. 65 which punishes the crime of which said petitioner was convicted. It appears clear that it was within the power and competence of the belligerent occupant to promulgate, through the National Assembly of the so-called Republic of the Philippines, Act No. 65 of the said Assembly, which penalizes the crimes of robbery and other offenses by imprisonment ranging from the maximum period of the



imprisonment prescribed by the laws and ordinances promulgated by the President of the so-called Republic as minimum, to life imprisonment or death as maximum. Although these crimes are defined in the Revised Penal Code, they were altered and penalized by said Act No. 65 with different and heavier penalties, as new crimes and offenses demanded by military necessity, incident to a state of war, and necessary for the control of the country by the belligerent occupant, the protection and safety of the army of occupation, its support and efficiency, and the success of its operations. The last question is the legal effect of the reoccupation of the Philippines and restoration of the Commonwealth Government; that is, whether or not, by the principle of postliminy, the punitive sentence which petitioner is now serving fell through or ceased to be valid from that time. We have already held in our recent decision in the case of Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, supra, that all judgment of political complexion of the courts during the Japanese regime, ceased to be valid upon reoccupation of the islands by virtue of the principle or right of postliminium. Applying that doctrine to the present case, the sentence which convicted the petitioner of a crime of a political complexion must be considered as having ceased to be valid ipso facto upon the reoccupation or liberation of the Philippines by General Douglas MacArthur.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. EDILBERTO G. SANDOVALG.R. No. 84607 and 84645 March 19, 1993

Campos, Jr., J.:

FACTS: The Mendiola massacre was the culmination of eight days and seven nights of encampment by members of the militant Kilusang Magbubukid sa Pilipinas (KMP) at the then Ministry (now Department) of Agrarian Reform (MAR) at the Philippine Tobacco Administration Building along Elliptical Road in Diliman, Quezon City.

The farmers and their sympathizers presented their demands for what they called "genuine agrarian reform". The KMP, led by its national president, Jaime Tadeo, presented their problems and demands, among which were: (a) giving lands for free to farmers; (b) zero retention of lands by landlords; and (c) stop amortizations of land payments.

On January 22, 1987, Tadeo's group decided to march to Malacañang to air their demands. Before the march started, Tadeo talked to the press and TV media. He uttered fiery words, the most telling of which were:". . . inalis namin ang barikada bilang kahilingan ng ating Presidente, pero kinakailangan alisin din niya ang barikada sa Mendiola sapagkat bubutasin din namin iyon at dadanak ang dugo . . . ."

The marchers, at around 4:30 p.m., numbered about 10,000 to 15,000. From C.M. Recto Avenue, they proceeded toward the police lines. No dialogue took place between the marchers and the anti-riot squad. It was at this moment that a clash occurred.

After the clash, twelve (12) marchers were officially confirmed dead, although according to Tadeo, there were thirteen (13) dead, but he was not able to give the name and address of said victim. Thirty-nine (39) were wounded by gunshots and twelve (12) sustained minor injuries, all belonging to the group of the marchers.

Of the police and military personnel, three (3) sustained gunshot wounds and twenty (20) suffered minor physical injuries such as abrasions, contusions and the like.

In the aftermath of the confrontation, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Administrative Order No. 11, which created the Citizens' Mendiola Commission. The body was composed of retired Supreme Court Justice Vicente Abad Santos as Chairman, retired Supreme Court Justice Jose Y. Feria and Mr. Antonio U. Miranda, both as members..

In its report, the Commission recapitulated its findings, to wit:

(1) The march to Mendiola of the KMP led by Jaime Tadeo, together with the other sectoral groups, was not covered by any permit as required under Batas Pambansa Blg. 880, the Public Assembly Act of 1985, in violation of paragraph (a) Section 13, punishable under paragraph (a), Section 14 of said law.

(2) The crowd dispersal control units of the police and the military were armed with .38 and .45 caliber handguns, and M-16 armalites, which is a prohibited act under paragraph 4(g), Section 13, and punishable under paragraph (b), Section 14 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 880.

(3) The security men assigned to protect the WPD, INP Field Force, the Marines and supporting military units, as well as the security officers of the police and military commanders were in civilian attire in violation of paragraph (a), Section 10, Batas Pambansa 880.



(4) There was unnecessary firing by the police and military crowd dispersal control units in dispersing the marchers, a prohibited act under paragraph (e), Section 13, and punishable under paragraph (b), Section 14, Batas Pambansa Blg. 880.

(5) The carrying and use of steel bars, pillboxes, darts, lead pipe, wooden clubs with spikes, and guns by the marchers as offensive weapons are prohibited acts punishable under paragraph (g), Section 13, and punishable under paragraph (e), Section 14 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 880.

(6) The KMP farmers broke off further negotiations with the MAR officials and were determined to march to Malacañang, emboldened as they are, by the inflammatory and incendiary utterances of their leader, Jaime Tadeo — "bubutasin namin ang barikada . . Dadanak and dugo . . . Ang nagugutom na magsasaka ay gagawa ng sariling butas. . .

(7) There was no dialogue between the rallyists and the government forces. Upon approaching the intersections of Legarda and Mendiola, the marchers began pushing the police lines and penetrated and broke through the first line of the CDC contingent.

(8) The police fought back with their truncheons and shields. They stood their ground but the CDC line was breached. There ensued gunfire from both sides. It is not clear who started the firing.

(9) At the onset of the disturbance and violence, the water cannons and tear gas were not put into effective use to disperse the rioting crowd.

(10) The water cannons and fire trucks were not put into operation because (a) there was no order to use them; (b) they were incorrectly prepositioned; and (c) they were out of range of the marchers.

(11) Tear gas was not used at the start of the disturbance to disperse the rioters. After the crowd had dispersed and the wounded and dead were being carried away, the MDTs of the police and the military with their tear gas equipment and components conducted dispersal operations in the Mendiola area and proceeded to Liwasang Bonifacio to disperse the remnants of the marchers.

(12) No barbed wire barricade was used in Mendiola but no official reason was given for its absence.8

From the results of the probe, the last and the most significant recommendation of the Commission was for the deceased and wounded victims of the Mendiola incident to be compensated by the government. It was this portion that petitioners (Caylao group) invoke in their claim for damages from the government.

Notwithstanding such recommendation, no concrete form of compensation was received by the victims. Petitioners (Caylao group) filed a formal letter of demand for compensation from the Government. This formal demand was indorsed by the office of the Executive Secretary to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). The House Committee on Human Rights, on February 10, 1988, recommended the expeditious payment of compensation to the Mendiola victims.

After almost a year, petitioners (Caylao group) were constrained to institute an action for damages against the Republic of the Philippines, together with the military officers, and personnel involved in the Mendiola incident, before the trial court.

The Solicitor General filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the State cannot be sued without its consent. Petitioners opposed said motion maintaining that the State has waived its immunity from suit and that the dismissal of the instant action is contrary to both the Constitution and the International Law on Human Rights.

Respondent Judge Sandoval, in his first questioned Order, dismissed the complaint as against the Republic of the Philippines on the ground that there was no waiver by the State. MR was also denied, hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the State has waived its immunity from suit.

HELD: NO. Petitioners (Caylao group) advance the argument that the State has impliedly waived its sovereign immunity from suit. It is their considered view that by the recommendation made by the Commission for the government to indemnify the heirs and victims of the Mendiola incident and by the public addresses made by then President Aquino in the aftermath of the killings, the State has consented to be sued.

This is not a suit against the State with its consent.

Firstly, the recommendation made by the Commission regarding indemnification of the heirs of the deceased and the victims of the incident by the government does not in any way mean that liability automatically attaches to the State. Whatever may be the findings of the Commission, the same shall only serve as the cause of action in the event that any party decides to litigate his/her claim. Therefore, the Commission is merely a preliminary venue. The Commission is not



the end in itself. Whatever recommendation it makes cannot in any way bind the State immediately, such recommendation not having become final and, executory. This is precisely the essence of it being a fact-finding body.

Secondly, whatever acts or utterances that then President Aquino may have done or said, the same are not tantamount to the State having waived its immunity from suit. The President's act of joining the marchers, days after the incident, does not mean that there was an admission by the State of any liability. In fact to borrow the words of petitioners (Caylao group), "it was an act of solidarity by the government with the people". Moreover, petitioners rely on President Aquino's speech promising that the government would address the grievances of the rallyists. By this alone, it cannot be inferred that the State has admitted any liability, much less can it be inferred that it has consented to the suit.

Although consent to be sued may be given impliedly, still it cannot be maintained that such consent was given considering the circumstances obtaining in the instant case.

Thirdly, the case does not qualify as a suit against the State.

Some instances when a suit against the State is proper are:

(1) When the Republic is sued by name;

(2) When the suit is against an unincorporated government agency;

(3) When the, suit is on its face against a government officer but the case is such that ultimate liability will belong not to the officer but to the government.

While the Republic in this case is sued by name, the ultimate liability does not pertain to the government. Although the military officers and personnel, then party defendants, were discharging their official functions when the incident occurred, their functions ceased to be official the moment they exceeded their authority. Based on the Commission findings, there was lack of justification by the government forces in the use of firearms. Moreover, the members of the police and military crowd dispersal units committed a prohibited act under B.P. Blg. 880 as there was unnecessary firing by them in dispersing the marchers.

While it is true that nothing is better settled than the general rule that a sovereign state and its political subdivisions cannot be sued in the courts except when it has given its consent, it cannot be invoked by both the military officers to release them from any liability, and by the heirs and victims to demand indemnification from the government. The principle of state immunity from suit does not apply, as in this case, when the relief demanded by the suit requires no affirmative official action on the part of the State nor the affirmative discharge of any obligation which belongs to the State in its political capacity, 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 quite clear that even a "high position in the government does not confer a license to persecute or recklessly injure another."

The inescapable conclusion is that the State cannot be held civilly liable for the deaths that followed the incident. Instead, the liability should fall on the named defendants in the lower court. In line with the ruling of this court in Shauf vs. Court of Appeals, herein public officials, having been found to have acted beyond the scope of their authority, may be held liable for damages.

US V RUIZ

RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. PACIFICO P. DE CASTROG.R. No. L-34548 November 29, 1988

FACTS:

In Civil Case No. Q-12785 of the CFI of Rizal, Quezon City entitled "Badoc Planters, Inc. vs. Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration, et al.," which was an action for recovery of unpaid tobacco deliveries, an Order (Partial Judgment) was issued on January 15, 1970 by the Hon. Lourdes P. San Diego, then Presiding Judge, ordering the defendants therein to pay jointly and severally, the plaintiff Badoc Planters, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "BADOC") within 48 hours the aggregate amount of P206,916.76, with legal interests thereon.

On January 26,1970, BADOC filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for a Writ of Execution of the said Partial Judgment which was granted on the same day by the herein respondent judge who acted in place of the Hon. Judge San Diego who had just been elevated as a Justice of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the Branch Clerk of Court on the very same day, issued a Writ of Execution addressed to Special Sheriff Faustino Rigor, who then issued a Notice of Garnishment



addressed to the General Manager and/or Cashier of RCBC, the petitioner in this case, requesting a reply within five (5) days to said garnishment as to any property which the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA) might have in the possession or control of petitioner or of any debts owing by the petitioner to said defendant. Upon receipt of such Notice, RCBC notified PVTA thereof to enable the PVTA to take the necessary steps for the protection of its own interest.

Upon an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion dated January 27, 1970 filed by BADOC, the respondent Judge issued an Order granting the Ex-Parte Motion and directing the herein petitioner "to deliver in check the amount garnished to Sheriff Faustino Rigor and Sheriff Rigor in turn is ordered to cash the check and deliver the amount to the plaintiff's representative and/or counsel on record." In compliance with said Order, petitioner delivered to Sheriff Rigor a certified check in the sum of P 206,916.76.

Respondent PVTA filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated February 26,1970 which was granted in an Order dated April 6,1970, setting aside the Orders of Execution and of Payment and the Writ of Execution and ordering petitioner and BADOC "to restore, jointly and severally, the account of PVTA with the said bank in the same condition and state it was before the issuance of the aforesaid Orders by reimbursing the PVTA of the amount of P 206, 916.76 with interests at the legal rate from January 27, 1970 until fully paid to the account of the PVTA This is without prejudice to the right of plaintiff to move for the execution of the partial judgment pending appeal in case the motion for reconsideration is denied and appeal is taken from the said partial judgment."

The Motion for Reconsideration of the said Order of April 6, 1970 filed by herein petitioner was denied in the Order of respondent judge dated June 10, 1970 and on June 19, 1970, which was within the period for perfecting an appeal, the herein petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals from the said Orders.

This case was then certified by the Court of Appeals to this Honorable Court, involving as it does purely questions of law.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not PVTA funds are public funds not subject to garnishment.

2. Whether or not RCBC was bound to inquire into the legality and propriety of the Writ of Execution and Notice of Garnishment issued against the funds of the PVTA deposited with said bank

RULING:

1. Republic Act No. 2265 created the PVTA as an ordinary corporation with all the attributes of a corporate entity subject to the provisions of the Corporation Law. Hence, it possesses the power "to sue and be sued" and "to acquire and hold such assets and incur such liabilities resulting directly from operations authorized by the provisions of this Act or as essential to the proper conduct of such operations." [Section 3, Republic Act No. 2265.]

From the foregoing, it is clear that PVTA has been endowed with a personality distinct and separate from the government which owns and controls it. Accordingly, this Court has heretofore declared that the funds of the PVTA can be garnished since "funds of public corporation which can sue and be sued were not exempt from garnishment".

1. The bank was in no position to question the legality of the garnishment since it was not even a party to the case. As correctly pointed out by the petitioner, it had neither the personality nor the interest to assail or controvert the orders of respondent Judge. It had no choice but to obey the same inasmuch as it had no standing at all to impugn the validity of the partial judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff or of the processes issued in execution of such judgment.

RCBC cannot therefore be compelled to make restitution solidarily with the plaintiff BADOC. Plaintiff BADOC alone was responsible for the issuance of the Writ of Execution and Order of Payment and so, the plaintiff alone should bear the consequences of a subsequent annulment of such court orders; hence, only the plaintiff can be ordered to restore the account of the PVTA.



MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI v. COURT OF APPEALS190 SCRA 206, October 1, 1990

Cortes, J:

Topic: Governement funds of the Municipality of Makati are not subject to execution or garnishment for the payment of a judgment of a court. The remedy is mandamus.

FACTS:

AntecedentsExpropriation proceedings were initiated by petitioner Municipality of Makati on a parcel of land The respondent in that case (Admiral Finance Creditors Consortium,Inc, Home Building System and Realty Corporation and one Arceli Jo moved for the issuance of a writ of execution. A Notice of Garnishment was served by the sheriff nut the latter was informed that a “hold code” was placed on the PNC account of the petitioner.

A motion to lift the garnishment was filed by petitioner saying that the Judge failed to stae in his decision that the expropriation am9ount was to be paid in installments.

Pending the resolution of the motion, Philippine Savings Bank (PSB) consolidated title to such property by virtue of an extra judicial foreclosure sale and hence is not the respondent.

The main argument of the petitioner applied the doctrine in Republic v Palacio where it says that its fund in one savings account (holding collections of the municipality) PNB Buendia Branch could not be either garnished or levied upon execution, for to do so would result in the disbursement of public funds without the proper appropriation required under the law. The Regional Trial Court in this guise said it did not apply to this case because the petitioner’s PNB Account was an account specifically opened for the expropriation proceeding of the subject property.

The CasePetitioner strengthens its reliance on the Palacio doctrine. Petitioner had two savings account with the PNB Buendia Branch. It admits that the PNB Account opened for the expropriation proceeding has a balance of P99,743.94 and does not object to the garnishment or the levy under execution thereof. It’s main contention that inasmuch as the assailed orders of the respondent RTC judge involved the net amount P4,965,506.45, the funds garnished by respondent sheriff in excess of P99,743.94, which are public funds earmarked for the municipal government’s other statutory obligation, are exempted from execution without the proper appropriation required under the law.

ISSUE:

Are properties of a municipality , whether real or personal which are necessary for public use, subject to be sold at execution sale or garnishment to satisfy a money judgment against the municipality?- NO. The remedy is Mandamus.

RULING:

Municipal Revenues derived from taxes licenses and market fees, and which are intended primarily and exclusively for the purpose of financing the governmental activities and functions of the municipality, are exempt from execution.

Absent a showing that the municipal council of Makati has passed an ordinance appropriating from its public funds an amount corresponding to the balance due under the RTC decision, less the sum of 99743.94 in the account for the expropriation, NO LEVY UNDER EXECUTION MAY BE VALIDLY EFFECTED ON THE PUBLIC FUNDS OF PETITIONER DEPOSITED IN THE OTHER SAVINGS ACCOUNT.

Nevertheless, this is not to say that private respondent and PSB are left with no legal recourse. Where a municipality fails or refuses, without justifiable reasons, to effect payment of a final money judgment rendered against it, the claimant may avail of the remedy of mandamus in order to compel the enactment and approval of the necessary appropriation ordinance, and the corresponding disbursement of municipal funds therefore.

Note: Petitioner has benefited from its possession of the property since 1986-1987 as the site of the Makati West High School. The Court will not condone petitioner’s blatant refusal to settle its obligation arising from expropriation proceedings it had in fact initiated.



FONTANILLA V MALIAMANG.R. Nos. L-55963 & 61045, February 27, 1991

FACTS:It appears that on August 21, 1976 at about 6:30 P.M., a pickup owned and operated by respondent National Irrigation Administration, a government agency bearing Plate No. IN-651, then driven officially by Hugo Garcia, an employee of said agency as its regular driver, bumped a bicycle ridden by Francisco Fontanilla, son of herein petitioners, and Restituto Deligo, at Maasin, San Jose City along the Maharlika Highway. As a result of the impact, Francisco Fontanilla and Restituto Deligo were injured and brought to the San Jose City Emergency Hospital for treatment. Fontanilla was later transferred to the Cabanatuan Provincial Hospital where he died.

Garcia was then a regular driver of respondent National Irrigation Administration who, at the time of the accident, was a licensed professional driver and who qualified for employment as such regular driver of respondent after having passed the written and oral examinations on traffic rules and maintenance of vehicles given by National Irrigation Administration authorities.

This petition is an off-shot of the action (Civil Case No. SJC-56) instituted by petitioners-spouses on April 17, 1978 against respondent NIA before the then CFI of San Jose City, for damages in connection with the death of their son from the accident. The trial court rendered judgment which directed respondent National Irrigation Administration to pay damages (death benefits) and actual expenses to petitioners. Respondent NIA appealed said decision to the CA. Instead of filing the required brief in the aforecited CA case, petitioners filed the instant petition with this Court.

ISSUE:1. Whether NIA is a government agency that performs governmental functions or agency for proprietary purposes?

Proprietary.2. Whether it is legally proper to hold the NIA responsible for moral, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees? Yes.

HELD:1. The NIA is an agency of the government exercising proprietary functions , by express provision of RA

3601, and is governed by the Corporation Code. It is a government corporation with juridical personality and not a mere agency of the government. NIA was created for the purpose of "constructing, improving, rehabilitating, and administering all national irrigation systems in the Philippines, including all communal and pump irrigation projects."

2. The liability of the State has two aspects, namely: (a) Its public or governmental aspects where it is liable for the tortuous acts of special agents only; and (b) Its private or business aspects (as when it engages in private enterprises) where it becomes liable as an ordinary employer.

Par. 5 and 6 of Art. 21 80 read as follows:Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even the though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.

The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in Art. 2176 shall be applicable.

Hence, if the State's agent is not a public official, and is commissioned to perform non-governmental functions, then the State assumes the role of an ordinary employer and will be held liable as such for its agent's tort. This assumption of liability is predicated upon the existence of negligence on the part of respondent NIA. The negligence referred to here is the negligence of supervision. //mmts11

PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO V GRPOCT 14, 2008

Facts: On Aug 5, 2008, the GRP and the MILF, a rebel group under the leadership of the late Salamat Hashim, were scheduled to sign a Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli



Agreement on Peace of 2001 in kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The signing didn’t materialize because of the TRo issued by the SC, on motion of petitioners.

The MOA-AD was preceded by a long process of negotiation and the concluding of several prior agreements between the two parties beginning in 1996, when the GRP-MILF peace negotiations began.

When President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo assumed office, the military offensive against the MILF was suspended and the government sought a resumption of the peace talks. Formal peace talks between the parties were held in Tripoli, Libya from June 20-22, 2001, the outcome of which was the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace (Tripoli Agreement 2001) containing the basic principles and agenda on the following aspects of the

negotiation: Security Aspect, Rehabilitation Aspect, and Ancestral Domain Aspect . With regard to the Ancestral Domain Aspect, the parties in Tripoli Agreement 2001 simply agreed "that the same be discussed further by the Parties in their next meeting." Held:

1.) The petitions are ripe for adjudication. The failure of respondents to consult the local government units or communities affected constitutes a departure by respondents from their mandate under E.O. No. 3. Moreover, respondents exceeded their authority by the mere act of guaranteeing amendments to the Constitution. Any alleged violation of the Constitution by any branch of government is a proper matter for judicial review. As the petitions involve constitutional issues which are of paramount public interest or of transcendental importance, the Court grants the petitioners, petitioners-in-intervention and intervening respondents the requisitelocus standi in keeping with the liberal stance adopted in David v. Macapagal-Arroyo. Contrary to the assertion of respondents that the non-signing of the MOA-AD and the eventual dissolution of the GRP Peace Panel mooted the present petitions, the Court finds that the present petitions provide an exception to the "moot and academic" principle in view of (a) the grave violation of the Constitution involved; (b) the exceptional character of the situation and paramount public interest; (c) the need to formulate controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and (d) the fact that the case is capable of repetition yet evading review. The MOA-AD is a significant part of a series of agreements necessary to carry out the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace signed by the government and the MILF back in June 2001. Hence, the present MOA-AD can be renegotiated or another one drawn up that could contain similar or significantly dissimilar provisions compared to the original. The Court, however, finds that the prayers for mandamus have been rendered moot in view of the respondents' action in providing the Court and the petitioners with the official copy of the final draft of the MOA-AD and its annexes. 2.) The people's right to information on matters of public concern under Sec. 7, Article III of the Constitution is insplendid symmetry with the state policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest under Sec. 28, Article II of the Constitution. The right to information guarantees the right of the people to demand information, while Section 28 recognizes the duty of officialdom to give information even if nobody demands. The complete and effective exercise of the right to information necessitates that its complementary provision on public disclosure derive the same self-executory nature, subject only to reasonable safeguards or limitations as may be provided by law.

The contents of the MOA-AD is a matter of paramount public concern involving public interest in the highest order. In declaring that the right to information contemplates steps and negotiations leading to the consummation of the contract, jurisprudence finds no distinction as to the executory nature or commercial character of the agreement. An essential element of these twin freedoms is to keep a continuing dialogue or process of communication between the government and the people. Corollary to these twin rights is the design for feedback mechanisms. The right to public consultation was envisioned to be a species of these public rights.At least three pertinent laws animate these constitutional imperatives and justify the exercise of the people's right to be consulted on relevant matters relating to the peace agenda. One, E.O. No. 3 itself is replete with mechanics for continuing consultations on both national and local levels and for a principal forum for consensus-building. In fact, it is the duty of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process to conduct



regular dialogues to seek relevant information, comments, advice, and recommendations from peace partners and concerned sectors of society.

Two, Republic Act No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 requires all national offices to conduct consultations before any project or program critical to the environment and human ecology including those that may call for the eviction of a particular group of people residing in such locality, is implemented therein. The MOA-AD is one peculiar program that unequivocally and unilaterally vests ownership of a vast territory to the Bangsamoro people, which could pervasively and drastically result to the diaspora or displacement of a great number of inhabitants from their total environment.

Three, Republic Act No. 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 provides for clear-cut procedure for the recognition and delineation of ancestral domain, which entails, among other things, the observance of the free and prior informed consent of the Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples. Notably, the statute does not grant the Executive Department or any government agency the power to delineate and recognize an ancestral domain claim by mere agreement or compromise. 3.) The invocation of the doctrine of executive privilege as a defense to the general right to information or the specific right to consultation is untenable. The various explicit legal provisions fly in the face of executive secrecy. In any event, respondents effectively waived such defense after it unconditionally disclosed the official copies of the final draft of the MOA-AD, for judicial compliance and public scrutiny. In sum, the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process committed grave abuse of discretion when he failed to carry out the pertinent consultation process, as mandated by E.O. No. 3, Republic Act No. 7160, and Republic Act No. 8371. The furtive process by which the MOA-AD was designed and crafted runs contrary to and in excess of the legal authority, and amounts to a whimsical, capricious, oppressive, arbitrary and despotic exercise thereof. It illustrates a gross evasion of positive duty and a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined. 4.) The MOA-AD cannot be reconciled with the present Constitution and laws. Not only its specific provisions but the very concept underlying them, namely, the associative relationship envisioned between the GRP and the BJE, areunconstitutional, for the concept presupposes that the associated entity is a state and implies that the same is on its way to independence. -The provisions of the MOA indicate, among other things, that the Parties aimed to vest in the BJE the status of an associated state, or at any rate, a status closely approximating it. The concept of association is not recognized under the present constitution. - The BJE is a far more powerful entity than the autonomous region recognized in the constitution.Besides being irreconcilable with the Constitution, the MOA-AD is also inconsistent with prevailing statutory law, among which are R.A. No. 9054 or the Organic Act of the ARMM, and the IPRA. 5.) As to the legality of the suspensive clause (“Any provisions of the MOA-AD requiring amendments to the existing legal framework shall come into force upon signing of a Comprehensive Compact and upon effecting the necessary changes to the legal framework with due regard to non derogation of prior agreements and within the stipulated timeframe to be contained in the Comprehensive Compact.”) The inquiry on the legality of the "suspensive clause," however, cannot stop here, because it must be askedwhether the President herself may exercise the power delegated to the GRP Peace Panel under E.O. No. 3, Sec. 4(a).The President cannot delegate a power that she herself does not possess. May the President, in the course of peace negotiations, agree to pursue reforms that would require new legislation and constitutional amendments, or should the reforms be restricted only to those solutions which the present laws allow? The answer to this question requires a discussion of the extent of the President's power to conduct peace negotiations. This stems from his residual powers and is included in her powers as Chief Executive and commander-in-Chief. From the foregoing discussion, the principle may be inferred that the President - in the course of conducting peace negotiations - may validly consider implementing even those policies that require changes to the Constitution, but she may not unilaterally implement them without the intervention of Congress, or act in any way as if the assent of that body were assumed as a certainty. Plainly, stipulation-paragraph 7 on GOVERNANCE is inconsistent with the limits of the President's authority to propose constitutional amendments, it being a virtual guarantee that the Constitution and the laws of the Republic of the Philippines will certainly be adjusted to conform to all the "consensus points" found in the MOA-AD.Hence, it must be struck down as unconstitutional .



While there is a clause in the MOA-AD stating that the provisions thereof inconsistent with the present legal framework will not be effective until that framework is amended, the same does not cure its defect. The inclusion of provisions in the MOA-AD establishing an associative relationship between the BJE and the Central Government is, itself, a violation of the Memorandum of Instructions From The President dated March 1, 2001, addressed to the government peace panel. Moreover, as the clause is worded, it virtually guarantees that the necessary amendments to the Constitution and the laws will eventually be put in place. Neither the GRP Peace Panel nor the President herself is authorized to make such a guarantee. Upholding such an act would amount to authorizing a usurpation of the constituent powers vested only in Congress, a Constitutional Convention, or the people themselves through the process of initiative, for the only way that the Executive can ensure the outcome of the amendment process is through an undue influence or interference with that process. 6.) While the MOA-AD would not amount to an international agreement or unilateral declaration binding on the Philippines under international law, respondents' act of guaranteeing amendments is, by itself, already a constitutional violation that renders the MOA-AD fatally defective.

WHEREFORE, respondents' motion to dismiss is DENIED. The main and intervening petitions are GIVEN DUE COURSE and hereby GRANTED.

The Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 is declared contrary to law and the Constitution.

NICOLAS v. ROMULOG.R. No. 175888

Azcuna, J.

FACTS: These are petitions for certiorari, etc. as special civil actions and/or for review of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in Lance Corporal Daniel J. Smith v. Hon. Benjamin T. Pozon, et al., in CA-G.R. SP No. 97212, dated January 2, 2007.

Respondent Lance Corporal (L/CPL) Daniel Smith is a member of the United States Armed Forces. He was charged with the crime of rape committed against a Filipina (Suzette Nicolas a.k.a. Nicole), petitioner herein, sometime on November 1, 2005.

Pursuant to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States, entered into on February 10, 1998, the United States, at its request, was granted custody of defendant Smith pending the proceedings. During the trial, which was transferred from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zambales to the RTC of Makati for security reasons, the United States Government faithfully complied with its undertaking to bring defendant Smith to the trial court every time his presence was required.

On December 4, 2006, the RTC of Makati, following the end of the trial, rendered its Decision, finding defendant Smith guilty. As a result, the Makati court ordered Smith detained at the Makati jail until further orders.

On December 29, 2006, however, defendant Smith was taken out of the Makati jail by a contingent of Philippine law enforcement agents, purportedly acting under orders of the Department of the Interior and Local Government, and brought to a facility for detention under the control of the United States government, provided for under new agreements between the Philippines and the United States, referred to as the Romulo-Kenney Agreement of December 19, 2006 which states that the governments of the US and Philippines agree that in accordance with the VFA, Lance Corporal Smith will be returned to US military custody at the US Embassy in Manila.

Petitioners contend that the Philippines should have custody of defendant L/CPL Smith because, first of all, the VFA is void and unconstitutional.



ISSUES: (1) Whether or not the presence of US Armed Forces in Philippine territory pursuant to the VFA is allowed “under a

treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State.

(2) Whether or not VFA is constitutional (The 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 equal protection clause of the Constitution [Art. III, Sec. 1.]).

HELD:

(1) Yes. First, the VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the United States as attested and certified by the duly authorized representative of the United States government. The fact that the VFA was not submitted for advice and consent of the United States Senate does not detract from its status as a binding international agreement or treaty recognized by the said State. For this is a matter of internal United States law. Notice can be taken of the internationally known practice by the United States of submitting to its Senate for advice and consent agreements that are policymaking in nature, whereas those that carry out or further implement these policymaking agreements are merely submitted to Congress, under the provisions of the so-called Case–Zablocki Act, within sixty days from ratification. The second reason has to do with the relation between the VFA and the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty of August 30, 1951. This earlier agreement was signed and duly ratified with the concurrence of both the Philippine Senate and the United States Senate. The VFA, which is the instrument agreed upon to provide for the joint RP-US military exercises, is simply an implementing agreement to the main RP-US Military Defense Treaty. Accordingly, as an implementing agreement of the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty, it was not necessary to submit the VFA to the US Senate for advice and consent, but merely to the US Congress under the Case–Zablocki Act within 60 days of its ratification. It is for this reason that the US has certified that it recognizes the VFA as a binding international agreement, i.e., a treaty, and this substantially complies with the requirements of Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 of our Constitution.

The provision of Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 of the Constitution, is complied with by virtue of the fact that the presence of the US Armed Forces through the VFA is a presence “allowed under” the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty. Since the RP-US Mutual Defense Treaty itself has been ratified and concurred in by both the Philippine Senate and the US Senate, there is no violation of the Constitutional provision resulting from such presence. The VFA being a valid and binding agreement, the parties are required as a matter of international law to abide by its terms and provisions.

(2) YES. VFA is constitutional. The equal protection clause is not violated, because there is a substantial basis for a different treatment of a member of a foreign military armed forces allowed to enter our territory and all other accused. The rule in international law is that a foreign armed forces allowed to enter one’s territory is immune from local jurisdiction, except to the extent agreed upon. The Status of Forces Agreements involving foreign military units around the world vary in terms and conditions, according to the situation of the parties involved, and reflect their bargaining power. But the principle remains, i.e., the receiving State can exercise jurisdiction over the forces of the sending State only to the extent agreed upon by the parties.

As a result, the situation involved is not one in which the power of this Court to adopt rules of procedure is curtailed or violated, but rather one in which, as is normally encountered around the world, the laws (including rules of procedure) of one State do not extend or apply – except to the extent agreed upon – to subjects of another State due to the recognition of extraterritorial immunity given to such bodies as visiting foreign armed forces.

Nothing in the Constitution prohibits such agreements recognizing immunity from jurisdiction or some aspects of jurisdiction (such as custody), in relation to long-recognized subjects of such immunity like Heads of State, diplomats and members of the armed forces contingents of a foreign State allowed to enter another State’s territory. On the contrary, the Constitution states that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. (Art. II, Sec. 2).

*HOWEVER, even if the VFA is constitutional, the Romulo-Kenney Agreement which transferred Mr. Smith’s custody after conviction was upheld as not in accordance with the VFA. The Court finds that there is a different treatment when it comes to detention as against custody. The moment the accused has to be detained, e.g., after conviction, the rule that governs is the following provision of the VFA that the confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of United States personnel shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippines and United



States authorities. It is clear that the parties to the VFA recognized the difference between custody during the trial and detention after conviction, because they provided for a specific arrangement to cover detention. And this specific arrangement clearly states not only that the detention shall be carried out in facilities agreed on by authorities of both parties, but also that the detention shall be “by Philippine authorities.” Therefore, the Romulo-Kenney Agreements of December 19 and 22, 2006, which are agreements on the detention of the accused in the United States Embassy, are not in accord with the VFA itself because such detention is not “by Philippine authorities.”DISSENTING OPINION

In his dissent, Chief Justice Puno maintained his view in the earlier case of Bayan v. Zamora that the VFA falls short of the requirement set by Sec. 25, Art. XVIII, 1987 Constitution, which provides that the agreement allowing the presence of foreign military troops in the Philippines must be “recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state.” For the Chief Justice, the majority of the Court in Bayan v. Zamora gave undue deference to the statement of former US Ambassador Thomas Hubbard that US Senate advice and consent was not needed to consider a treaty binding on the US, “then jumped to the conclusion that the US recognized the VFA as a treaty, and that the constitutional requirements had been satisfied.”


part 4 - philippine as a state

Documents