REPUBLIC VS SANDOVAL

FACT: The massacre was the culmination of eight days and seven nights of encampment (Jan.
15- 22, 1987) by members of the militant Kilusang Magbubukid sa Pilipinas (KMP) headed by
Jaime Tadeo, 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 demand for what they called genuine agrarian reform. On Jan. 22, 1987, Tadeo and
then Ministry of agrarian Reform Heherson Alvarez had a negotiation but it did not end good
so the group of Tadeo decided to march all the way to Malacaang to air their demands.
On their march to Malacaang, they were joined by other militant groups (KMU-Kilusang Mayo
Uno, BAYAN- Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, LFS- League of Filipino Students and KPMLKongreso ng Pagkakaisa ng Maralitang Lungsod). The marchers numbered grew to around
10,000-15,000. With this, the Government anti-riot forces assembled at Mendiola. When the
group reached Mendiola toward the police lines assembled, the fight began at once. After the
clash, 12 were officially confirmed dead and 39 were wounded, all belonging to the marchers. Of
the police and military, 3 sustained gunshot and 20 suffered minor physical injuries.
After the said event, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Administrative Order No. 11
dated January 22, 1987, which created the Citizens' Mendiola Commission. It was tasked to
investigate and make recommendations on what had happened.
One of the Commissions recommendations was for the deceased and wounded victims of
the Mendiola incident to be compensated by the government.
After a year of not still receiving a compensation, 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 on January
20, 1988.
The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 88-43351. On February 23, 1988, the Solicitor
General filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the State cannot be sued without its
consent. Petitioners opposed said motion on March 16, 1988, 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. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration
there from, but the same was denied by respondent judge in his Order dated August 8, 1988.
Consequently, Caylao and her co-petitioners filed the instant petition. The petitioners (Caylao
group) claimed that the State impliedly waived its immunity from suit when the Commission
recommendation and the public addresses made by then Pres. Corazon Aquino moved to
indemnify the victims in the event.

On the other hand, the Republic of the Philippines, together with the military officers and
personnel impleaded as defendants in the lower court, filed its petition for certiorari.
Having arisen from the same factual beginnings and raising practically identical issues, these
two (2) petitions were consolidated in this case.

ISSUE: Whether or not the State has waived its immunity from suit and therefore should the
State be liable for the incident?

HELD: No, the State is not liable in the said event.

The recommendation made by the Citizens Mendiola Commission regarding the
indemnifi cation of the heirs of the deceased and the victims of the incident does
not in any way mean that the liability in the Mendiola event was automatically
attached to t he State t hus waiving its immunity from suit. The
p u r p o s e o f w h i c h i s to o n ly i nve st i ga t e d i s o rd e r s t h a t to o k p l a c e . A s a
f a c t - fi n d i n g b o d y, i t s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a r e n o t fi n a l a n d e x e c u t o r y.
The acts and utterances of President Aquino do not mean that the State waived its immunity
from suit. It was just an act of solidarity by the government to the people.
Moreover, the case does not qualify as suit against the State. While the Republic in this
case is sued by name, the ultimate liability does not pertain to the government.
The military officials are held liable for the damages because their official functions ceased the
moment they have exceeded to their authority. They were deployed to ensure that the rally
would be peaceful and orderly and should guarantee the safety of the people. The 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 court found no r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r a n d n o g r a v e a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n
c o m m i t t e d b y t h e r e s p o n d e n t J u d g e i n i s s u i n g t h e questioned orders, the
instant petitions are hereby DISMISSED.