BUREAU OF PRINTING v.

BUREAU OF PRINTING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

No. L-15751 January 28, 1961

FACTS:
1. A complaint was filed by the respondents Bureau of Printing Employees Association, Pacifico
Advincula, Roberto Mendoza, Ponciano Arganda and Teodulo Toleran against petitioners Bureu
of Printing, Serafin Salvador, the Acting Secretary of the Department of General Services, and
Mariano Ledesma, the Director of the Bureau of Printing.
2. The complaint alleged that Salvador and Ledesma had been engaging in unfair labor practices by
interfering with the employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization and
discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of their employment in order to discourage them
from pursuing their union activities.
3. Answer to the complaint: petitioners denied the charges of unfair labor practice and prayed for
the dismissal of the complaint due to lack of jurisdiction and alleging that: (1) respondents were
suspended pending result of an administrative investigation against them for breach of Civil
Service Rules and Regulations; (2) the Bureau of Printing has no juridical personality to sue and
be sued; and (3) petitioner is not an industrial concern engaged for the purpose of gain but is an
agency of the Republic performing governmental functions.
4. The respondent Court of Industrial Relations sustained the jurisdiction of the court.
5. The petitioners brought the case to the Supreme Court for certiorari and prohibition on certain
orders of the respondent court.
ISSUE:
Is the Bureau of Printing an office of the Government and therefore it cannot be sued?
HELD:
Yes. The Bureau of Printing is an office of the Government created by the Administrative Code of
1916 (Act No, 2657). It is charged with the execution of all printing and binding required by the National
Government. Although there are works that may be deemed proprietary in character, there is no
showing that the employees performed are separate and distinct from those employed in tis general
governmental functions. Indeed, as an office of the Government, without any corporate or juridical
personality, the Bureau of Printing cannot be sued. Any suit, action, or proceeding against it , if it were
to produce any effect, would actually be a suit against the government itself, and the rule is settled that
the Government cannot be sued without its consent, much less over its objection.


SANDERS v. VERIDIANO II
No. L-46930 June 10, 1988

FACTS:
1. Petitioners Dale Sanders and A.S. Moreau, Jr. were the special services director of the U.S.
Naval Station and the commanding officer of the Subic Naval Base (which include the
station), respectively.
2. Private respondent Anthony M. Rossi and Ralph L. Wyers were employed as gameroom
attendants in that station as permanent full-time status.
3. On October 3, 1975, the private respondents were advised that their employment was
converted to permanent part-time status, effective October 8, 1975.
4. The result of the protest was a recommendation from the hearing officer for their
reinstatement plus backwages.
5. In a letter addressed to petitioner Moreau, Sanders disagreed with the report and the letter
also contained defamatory remarks against the private respondents.
6. The private respondent filed before the Court of First Instance of Olongapo City a complaint
for damages against petitioners alleging that the letter caused them mental anguish.
7. In a motion to dismiss, the petitioners argued that the acts complained of were performed
by them in the discharge of their official duties, and that consequently, the court had no
jurisdiction over them under the doctrine of state immunity. The motion was denied by the
CFI presided by Judge Regino Veridiano II.
8. A petition for certiorari, prohibition and preliminary injunction was filed before the Supreme
Court.
ISSUE:
Were the petitioners acting officially when they did the acts for which the private respondents
have sued them for damages?
HELD:
Yes. Petitioners were being sued as officers of the United States Government. As they have
acted on behalf of that government, and within the scope of their territory, it is that government and
not the petitioners personally, that is responsible for their acts. Assuming that the trial can proceed and
it is proved that claimants have a right to the payment of damages, such award will have to be satisfied
not by the petitioners in their official capacity but by the United States Government as their principal.
This will require the Government to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the judgment, thus making the
action a suit against that Government without its consent.

TORIO v. FONTANILLA
No. L-29993 October 23, 1978
FACTS:
1. On October 21, 1958, the Municipal Council of Malasiqui, Pangasinan, passed Resolution No.
159 whereby it resolved to manage the 1959 Malasiqui town Fiesta celebration on January
21, 22, and 23, 1959. Resolution No. 182 was also passed creating the 1959 Malasiqui Town
Fiesta Executive Committee.
2. The zarzuela entitled Midas Extravaganza was donated by an association of Malasiqui
Employees of the Manila Railroad Company.
3. During the performance, the stage collapsed and Vicente Fontanilla who was at the rear of
the stage was pinned underneath.
4. Fontanilla was taken to the San Carlos General Hospital where he died in the afternoon of
the following day.
5. The heirs of Fontanilla filed a complaint with the CFI of Manila to recover damages. Named
party-defendants were the Municipality of Malasiqui, the Municipal Council of Malasiqui
and all the individual members of the Municipal Council.
6. Answering the complaint, defendant municipality invoked the principal defense that as a
duly organized public corporation it performs sovereign functions and the holding of a town
fiesta is an exercise of their governmental functions and thus no liability.
7. The defendant councilors maintained that they are merely acting as agents of the
municipality in carrying out the ordinance and the undertaking was not one for profit.
8. The complaint was dismissed. On appeal before the Court of Appeals, the decision was
reversed.
9. A petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals was filed before the Supreme
Court.
ISSUE:
Is the celebration of a town fiesta an undertaking in the exercise of the municipalitys
governmental function?
HELD:
No. the powers of the municipality are two-fold in character public, governmental or political
on the one hand, and corporate, private, or proprietary in the other. With respect to proprietary
functions, the settled rule is that a municipal corporation can be held liable to third persons. A
municipality is liable for a tort committed in connection with the celebration of a town fiesta, which was
considered a proprietary function.


CALLADO v. INTERNATIONAL RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE
G.R. No. 106483 May 22, 1995

FACTS:
1. Petitioner Callado was employed as a driver at the IRRI. While driving an IRRI vehicle on an
official trip to NAIA and back to the IRRI, petitioner met an accident.
2. The findings of a preliminary investigation conducted by the IRRIs Human Resource
Development Department Manager resulted in the charging against petitioner of neglect of
duties due to driving while drinking liquor.
3. IRRI issued a notice of termination against petitioner.
4. Petitioner filed a complaint against the IRRI before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal.
5. IRRI informed the Labor Arbiter that it enjoys immunity from legal processes by virtue of
Article 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1620 and that it hasnt waived the same.
6. While admitting IRRIs Immunity, the Labor Arbiter ordered a decision stating that in all
cases of termination, respondent IRRI waives its immunity and ordered the respondent to
reinstate complainant.
7. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the decision.
8. Hence, this petition where it is contended that the immunity of the IRRI may not be invoked
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 International Rice Research Institute waive its immunity form suit which arose from an
employer-employee relationship?

HELD:
No. P.D. 1620, Article 3 provides that the Institute shall enjoy immunity from any penal, civil,
and administrative proceedings, except in so far as that immunity has been expressly waived by the
Director-General of the Institute or his authorized representatives.





HOLY SEE, THE v. ROSARIO, JR.
G.R. No. 101949 December 1, 1994
FACTS:
1. Private respondent filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court for annulment of the sale
of the three parcels of land against petitioner. (pabasa nalang nung buong case, dami ng
conditions eh)
2. The complaint alleged breach of contract of the petitioner for selling the lot to another
person or entity.
3. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction based on
sovereign immunity form suit.
4. The trial court presided by Judge Eriberto Rosario, Jr. issued an order denying petitioners
motion to dismiss finding that petitioner shed off its sovereign immunity by entering into
the business contract in question.
5. Hence, this petition invoking the privilege of sovereign immunity only on its own behalf of
its official representative, the Papal Nuncio.
6. A motion for intervention was filed by the Department of Foreign Affairs claiming that it has
a legal interest in the outcome of the case as regards the diplomatic immunity and that it
adopts by reference, the allegations contained in the petition of the Holy See insofar as they
refer to arguments relative to its claim of sovereign immunity form suit.
ISSUE:
Can the petitioner invoke immunity form suit?
HELD:
Yes. The Republic of the Philippines has accorded the Holy See the status of a foreign sovereign.
The right of a foreign sovereign to acquire property, real or personal, in a receiving state, necessary for
the creation and maintenance of its diplomatic mission, is recognized in the 1961 Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations. Petitioner did not sell the lot for profit or gain. It merely wanted to dispose off the
same because the squatters living thereon made it almost impossible for petitioner to use it for the
purpose of the donation.





REPUBLIC v. VILLASOR
No. L-30671 November 28, 1973
FACTS:
1. On July 3, 1961, a decision was rendered in favor of respondents P.J. Kiener Co., Ltd., Gavino
Unchuan, and International Construction Corporation, and against the petitioner, confirming the
arbitration award.
2. On June 24, 1969, respondent judge Guillermo P. Villasor ordered the decision final and
executor directing the sheriffs to execute the said decision.
3. The Provincial Sheriff served notices of garnishment with several banks especially on the monies
due to the Armed Forces of the Philippines in the form of deposits, sufficient to cover the
amount mentioned in the Writ of Execution.
4. A certiorari and prohibition proceeding was instituted against respondent judge on the ground
of grave abuse of discretion for granting an alias writ of execution on the funds of the AFP.

ISSUE:
Granting that the State gives its consent to be sued, does it follow that has also gave its consent
in the execution of the judgment?
HELD:
No. The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either
by general or special law, it may limit claimants action only up to the completion of proceedings
anterior to the state of execution and that the power of the Courts ends when the judgment is
rendered, since Government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or
garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is based on obvious considerations of public policy.








MOBIL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION INC. v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE
No. L-23139 December 17, 1966
FACTS:
1. Four cases of rotary drill parts were shipped from abroad on S.S. Leoville consigned to
Mobil Philippines Exploration Inc., Manila.
2. When the shipment arrived, it was discharged to the custody of the Customs Arrastre
Services (the unit of the Bureau of Customs handling arrastre operations), who delivered the
same to the broker of the consignee but only three cases.
3. Petitioner filed suit in the CFI of Manila against the respondents to recover the value of the
undelivered case.
4. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that not being
persons under the law, defendants cannot be sued; this was granted by the court.
5. Hence, an appeal from the order of dismissal was filed before the SC.
6. Petitioners contention: (a) not all Government entities are immune from suit; and (b) the
respondents are discharging proprietary functions and as such, can be sued by private
individuals.
ISSUE:
May the respondents be sued?
HELD:
No. A defendant in a civil suit must be (1) a natural person; (2) a juridical person or (3) an entity
authorized by law to be sued. The Bureau of Customs and Customs Arrastre Service are not persons.
They are merely parts of the machinery of Government. The arrastre service is a proprietary or non-
governmental function. However, performance by a non-corporate government entity of a proprietary
function does not make it suable.








FAROLAN, JR. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS
G.R. No. 42204 January 21, 1993
FACTS:
1. The vessel S/S Pacific Hawk arrived at the Port of Manila carrying, among others, 80 bales
of screen net consigned to Bagong Buhay Trading and was declared through a customs
broker and the latter paid the duties and taxes due in the amount of P11, 350.00.
2. However, the office of the Collector of Customs ordered a re-examination of the shipment
where Bagong Buhay Trading was assessed P272, 600.00 as duties and taxes due.
3. Since the shipment was also misdeclared as to quantity and value, the Collector of Customs
forfeited the subject shipment in favor of the Government.
4. Private respondent then appealed the decision of the Collector of Customs by filing a
petition for review with the Commissioner of Customs, which affirmed the decision of the
Collector of Customs.
5. The case was elevated before the Court of Tax Appeals, which reversed the decision of the
Commissioner of Customs. Consequently, the CTA ordered the release of the said article
upon payment of the corresponding duties and taxes.
6. Private respondents filed a petition asking for the release of the questioned goods which the
SC denied. However, in view of the fact that the good were being exposed to the natural
elements, the goods were ordered to be released.
7. Since, some of the goods are not in good condition, private respondent demand that the
Bureau of Customs be ordered to pay for the damages it actually lost.
8. Hence, a petition for review on certiorari before the Court of Tax Appeals was filed before
the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
May the Collector of Cutoms be held liable for the yard actually lost by private respondent?
HELD:
No. The Bureau of Customs cannot be held liable for actual damages that the private
respondent sustained with regard to its goods. Otherwise, to permit private respondents claim to
prosper would violate the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Since it demands that the Commissioner of
Customs be ordered to pay for actual damages it sustained, for which ultimately liability will fall on the
Government, it is obvious that this case has been converted technically into a suit against the State.On
this point, the political doctrine that the State may not be sued against its consent categorically
applies. As an incorporated Government agency without any separate juridical personality on its own,
the Bureau of Customs enjoys immunity from suit. Along with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, it is
invested with an inherent power of sovereignty, namely, taxation. As an agency, the Bureau of Customs
performs the governmental function of collecting revenues which is definitely not a proprietary
function. Thus, private respondents claim for damages against the Commissioner of Customs must fail.
REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 90478 November 21, 1991
FACTS:
1. Private respondents Bienvenido R. Tantoco, Jr. and Dominador R. Santiago, together
with Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Bienvenido R. Tantoco, Sr., Gliceria R.
Tantoco, and Maria Lourdes Tantoco-Pineda are defendants in Civil Case No. 0008 of
the Sandiganbayan, which was commenced by the Presidential Commission on
Good Governance in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines.
2. The case was one for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages
pursuant to E.O. 14 of Pres. Cory Aquino.
3. Private respondents filed a motion to strike out some portions of the complaint and
for bill of particulars of other portions. The PCGG filed an Expanded Complaint
4. Private respondents filed with the Sandiganbayan a pleading denominated
Interrogatories to Plaintiff and a motion for production and inspection of
documents, which was granted by the Sandiganbayan.
5. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE:
Is the PCGG immune from suit in the case at bar?

HELD:
No. The State is immune from suit in the sense that it cannot, as a rule, be sued without its
consent. But it is axiomatic that in filing an action, it divests itself of its sovereign character and sheds its
immunity from suit, descending to the level of an ordinary litigant. The consent of the state to be sued
may be given expressly or impliedly. Express consent may be manifested either through a general law or
a special law. Implied consent is given when the State itself commence litigation or when it enters into a
contract.





SYQUIA v. ALMEDA LOPEZ
No. L-1648 August 17, 1949
FACTS:
1. The plaintiffs named Pedro, Gonzalo, and Leopoldo, all surnamed Syquia, are the undivided
joint owners of three apartment buildings situated in the City of Manila known as the North
Syquia Apartments (NSA), South Syquia Apartments (SSA) and Michel Apartments (MA)
located at 1131 M.H. Del Pilar, 1151 M.H. del Pilar and 1188 A. Mabini Streets, respectively.
2. About the middle of the year 1945, said plaintiffs executed three lease contracts in favor of
the United States of America, (NSA-P1775 per month; SSA-P1890; MA-P3335) for the
duration of the war and six months thereafter, unless sooner terminated by the US.
3. The apartment buildings were used for billeting and quartering officers of the U.S. Forces
stationed in Manila Area.
4. Defendant George F. Moore was the commanding general of the U.S. Army, under him was
Erland A. Tillman, the chief, were in charge and control of the lease contract.
5. Six months after the war ended, plaintiffs requested the defendants to return the
apartment buildings and vacate the same. However, the U.S. Army wanted to continue in
occupying the premises.
6. The plaintiffs renegotiate with the U.S. Army to pay a reasonable rental higher than those
payable under the old contracts but the latter refused.
7. Because of the defendants failure to comply of the assurance to vacate the apartments, the
plaintiffs commenced the present action in the Municipal Courts of Manila of an action for
unlawful detainer against the defendants.
8. A motion to dismiss was filed by the defendants, alleging among others that the court had
no jurisdiction over the defendants and over the subject matter of the action, because the
real party in interest was the U.S. Government and not the individual defendants named
therein and that under the well-settled rule of International Law, a foreign Government like
the United States Government cannot be sued in the courts of another State without its
consent.
9. The municipal court dismissed the action and was also affirmed by the CFI of Manila.
ISSUE:
Does the court have jurisdiction to render judgment in cases involving financial liability of
Government?
HELD:
No. where the judgment in the suit by the private citizen against the officers and agents of the
government would result not only in the recovery of possession of property in favor of said citizen but
also in a charge against or financial liability to the Government itself, and, consequently, it cannot
prosper or be entertained by courts except with the consent of said Government. This is not only a case
of a citizen filing a suit against his own Government without the latters consent but it is of citizen filing
an action against a foreign government without said governments consent, which renders more
obvious the lack of jurisdiction of the courts of this country.


PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. PABALAN
No. L-33112 June 15, 1978
FACTS:
1. An order was issued by respondent judge declaring that sufficient funds of the Philippine
Virginia Tobacco Administration now deposited with the Philippine National Bank of La
Union shall be garnished and delivered to the plaintiff immediately to satisfy the Writ of
Execution for one-half of the amount awarded in the decision.
2. Petitioner PNB invoked the doctrine of Non-suability.
ISSUE:
Can the State Immunity from suit be validly invoked in the case at bar?
HELD:
No. Funds of the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration on deposit with the Philippine
National Bank may be garnished. State immunity from suit cannot be invoked with regard to funds of
public corporations.










MINUCHER v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 142396 February 11, 2003
FACTS:
1. An Information for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 was filed against petitioner
Khosrow Minucher and one Abbas Torabian with the RTC of Pasig City but however
acquitted.
2. The narcotic agents who conducted the buy-bust operation in the house of Minucher were
accompanied by private respondent Arthur Scalzo.
3. Minucher filed before the RTC of Manila for damages on account of what he claimed to have
been trumped-up charges of drug trafficking made by Scalzo. Different proceedings were
filed by the parties.
4. 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, which the trial court denied.
5. The trial clourt gave credence to his claim that he was a diplomatic agent but he should be
held accountable for the acts complained of committed outside his official duties.
6. Scalzo filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which sustained the
contention of Scalzo and ordered the dismissal of the complaint.
7. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari was filed.
ISSUE:
Is the private respondent entitled to diplomatic immunity?
HELD:
Yes. Suing a representative of the State is believed to be, in effect, suing the State itself, the
proscription is not accorded for the benefit of an individual but for the State. A State cannot be sued in
the courts of a foreign State. Respondent, an agent of the United States drug Enforcement Agency
allowed by the Philippine Government to conduct activities in the country to help contain the problem
on the drug traffic, is entitled to the defense of state immunity form suit.