DALE SANDERS, AND A.S. MOREAU, J R., petitioners, VS. HON. REGINO T.

VEREDIANO II, as Presiding Judge, Branch I, Court of First Instance of Zambales, Olongapo City, ANTHONY M. ROSSI and RALPH L. WYERS, Respondent. No.L-46930. JUNE 10, 1988. CRUZ, J.: FACTS: Petitioner Sanders was, at the time incident in question occurred, the (NAVSTA) in Olongapo City. Petitioner Moreau was the commanding officer of the Subic Naval Base, which includes the said station. Private respondent Rossi is an American citizen with permanent residence in the Philippines, as so was private respondent Wyer, who died two years ago. On October 3, 1975, the private respondents were advised that their employment had been converted from permanent part-time, effective October 18, 1975. Their reaction was to protest this conversion and to institute grievance proceedings conformably to the pertinent rules and regulations of the U.S. Department of Defense. The result was a recommendation from the hearing officer who conducted the proceedings for the reinstatement of the private respondents to permanent full-time status plus backwages. The report on the hearing contained the observation that Special Services management practices an autocratic form of supervision. In a letter addressed to petitioner Moreau on May 17, 1976 (Annex A of the complaint), Sanders disagreed with the hearing officers report and asked for the rejection of the above stated recommendation. The letter contained the statements that: a Mr. Rossi tends to alienate most co-workers and supervisors; b) Messrs. Rossi and Wyers have proven, according to their immediate supervisors, to be difficult employees to supervise; and c) even though grievants were under oath not to discuss the case with anyone, they placed the records in public places were others not involved in the case could hear. On November 7, 1975, before the start of the grievance hearings, a letter (Annex B of the complaint) purportedly coming from the petitioner Moreau as the commanding general of the U.S. Naval Station in Subic Bay was sent to the chief of Naval Personnel explaining the change of the private respondents employment status and requesting concurrence therewith. The letter did not carry his signature but was signed by W.B. Moore, Jr. by direction, presumably of Moreau. On the basis of these antecedent facts, the private respondent filed in the court of First instance of Olongapo City a complaint for damages against the herein petitioners on November 8, 1976. The plaintiffs claimed that the letters contained libelous imputations that had exposed them to ridicule and caused them mental anguish and that the prejudgment of the grievance proceedings was an invasion of their personal and property. The private respondents made it clear that the petitioners were being sued in their private or personal capacity. However, in a motion to dismiss filed under a special appearance, formed by them in the discharge of their official duties and that, consequently, the court had no jurisdiction over them under the doctrine of the state immunity. ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners were performing their duties when they did the acts for which they have been sued for damages by the private respondents. HELD: WHEREFORE the petition is GRANTED. The challenge orders dated March 8, 1977, August 9, 1977, and September 7, 1977 are SET ASIDE. The respondent court is directed to DISMISS Civil Case No. 2077). Our temporary restraining order of September 26, 1977, is made PERMANENT. No costs

VICTORIA AMIGABLE, PLAINTIFF-APPELANT VS. NICOLAS CUENCA, AS COMMISSIONER OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAYS AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, DEFENDANT-APPELLEES. No. L26400. FEBRUARY 29, 1972 MAKALINTAL, J,:

FACTS: Victoria Amigable, the appellant herein, is the registered owner of Lot No. 639 of the Banilad Estate in Cebu City as shown by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-18060, which superseded Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-3272 (T-3435) issued to her by the Registry of Deeds of Cebu on February 1, 1924. No annotation in favor of the government of any right or interest in the property appears at the back of the certificate. Without prior expropriation or negotiated sale, the government used a portion of said lot, with an area of 6,167 square meters, for the construction of the Mango and Gorordo Avenues. It appears that the said avenues were already existing in 1921 although they were in bad condition and very narrow, unlike the wide and beautiful avenues that they are now, and that the tracing of said roads was begun in 1924, and the formal construction in 1925. On March 27, 1958 Amigables counsel wrote the President of the Philippines, requesting payment of the portion of her lot which had been appropriated by the government. The claim was indorsed to the Auditor General, who disallowed it in his 9th Endorsement dated December 9, 1958. A copy of said endorsement was transmitted to Amigables counsel by the Office of the President on January 7, 1959. On February, 1959 Amigable filed in the court a quo a complaint, which was later amended on April 17, 1959 upon motion of the defendants, against the Republic of the Philippines and Nicolas Cuenca, in his capacity as Commissioner of Public Highways for the recovery of ownership and possession of the 6,167 square meters of land traverse by the Mango and Gorordo Avenues. She also sought the payment of compensatory damages in the sum of P50,000.00 for the illegal occupation of her land, moral damages in the sum of P25, 000.00. attorneys fees in the sum of P5,000.00 and the costs of the suit. Within the reglementary period the defendants filed a joint answer denying the material allegations of the complaint and interposing the following affirmative defenses, to wit: (1) that the action was premature, the claim not having been filed first with the Office of the Auditor General; (2) that the right of action for the recovery of any amount which might be due the plaintiff, if any, had already prescribed; (3) that the action being a suit against the government, the claim for moral damages, attorneys fees and costs had no valid basis since as to these items the government had not given its consent to be sued; and (4) that in as much as it was the province of Cebu that appropriated and used the area involved in the construction of Mango Avenue, plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendants. During the schedule hearings nobody appeared for the defendants notwithstanding due notice, so the trial court proceeded to receive the plaintiffs evidence ex parte. On July 29, 1959 said court rendered its decision holding that it had no jurisdiction over the plaintiffs cause of action for the recovery of possession and ownership of the portion of hr lot in question on the ground that the government cannot be sued without its consent; that it had neither original nor appellate jurisdiction to hear, try and decide plaintiffs claim for compensatory damages had long prescribed, nor did it have jurisdiction over said claim because the government had not given its consent to be sued. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed. Unable to secure a reconsiderations, the

plaintiff appealed to the court of Appeals, which subsequently certified the case to us, there being no question of fact involved. ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant may properly sue the government under the facts of the case. HELD: WHEREFORE the decision appealed from is hereby set aside and the case remanded to the court a qou for the determination of compensation, including attorneys fees, to which the appellant in entitled as above indicated. No pronouncement as to costs.

MARIANO GRACIA, plaintiff and appellant, vs. THE CHIEF OF STAFF and THE ADJUTANT GENERAL, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES and/or THE CHAIRMAN, PHILIPPINE VETERANS BOARD and /or THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINES, defendants and appellees. No. L-20213. January 31, 1966. REGALA J.: FACTS: that sometime in July, 1948 the plaintiff suffered injuries while undergoing the 10-month military training at Camp Floridablanca, Pampanga; that sometime thereafter he filed his claim under Commonwealth Act 400 and in April, 1957, he submitted some papers in support of his claim to the Adjutant Generals Office disallowing his claim for disability benefits; that on November 24, 1958, after further demands of the plaintiff, the Adjutant Generals Office denied the said claim, alleging that Commonwealth Act 400 had already been repealed by Republic Act 610 which took effect on January 1, 1959; tat by reason of the injuries suffered by plaintiff he was deprived of his right or vision rendering him permanently disabled; and that by reason of the unjustified refusal by defendants of plaintiffs claim, the latter was deprived of his disability pension from July, 1948 totalling no less P4,000.00 at the rate of P20 a month and suffered thereby moral damages and attorneys fees the amount of P2,000.00. The Philippine Veterans Administration and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces filed separate motions to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint; that the plaintiff failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before coming to court; that the complaint states no cause of action; and that the cause of action is barred by the statutes of limitations. Acting on the said motion, the court on March 2, 1962, rendered an order dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action has prescribed. Motion for reconsideration of the said order having been denied, the plaintiff has interposed this appeal. ISSUE: Whether or not the government can be sued without its consent. HELD: In view therefore, the order dismissing the complaint is hereby affirmed without pronouncement as to cost.

ANGEL MINISTERIO and ASUNCION SADAYA, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, Fourth Branch, Presided by the Honorable, Judge JOSE C. BORROMEO, THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY COMMISSIONER, and THE AUDITOR GENERAL, respondents. No. L-31635, August 31, 1971. FERNANDO J.: FACTS: Petitioner as plaintiff in a complaint filed with the Court of First Instance of Cebu, dated April 13, 1966, sought the payment of just compensation for a registered lot, containing an area of 1045 square meters, alleging that in 1927 the National Government through its authorized representatives took physical and material possession of it and used for the widening of the Gorordo Avenue, a national road, Cebu City, without paying just compensation and without any agreement, either written or verbal. There was an allegation of repeated demands for the payment of its price or return of its possession, but defendants Public Highway Commissioner and the Auditor General refused to restore its possession. It was further alleged that on August 25, 1965, the appraisal committee of the City of Cebu approved Resolution No. 90, appraising the reasonable and just price of Lot No. 647-B at P50.00 per square meter or a total price of P52,250.00. Thereafter, the complaint was amended on June 30, 1966 in the sense that the remedy prayed for was in the alternative, either the restoration of possession or the payment of the just compensation. In the answer filed by the defendants, now respondents, through the then Solicitor General, now Associate Justice, Antonio P. Barredo, the principal defense relied upon was that the suit in reality was one against the government and therefore should be dismissed, no consent having been shown. Then on July 11, 1969, the parties submitted a stipulation of facts to this effect: That the plaintiffs are registered owners of Lot 647-B of the Banilad estate described in the Survey planRS-600 GLRO Record No. 5988 and more particularly described in Transfer Certificate of Tilt No. RT-5963 containing an area of 1,045 square meters; that the National Government in 1927 took possession of Lot647-B Banilad estate, and used the same for the widening of Gorordo Avenue; That the Appraisal Committee of Cebu City approved Resolution No. 90, Series of 1965 fixing the price of Lot No. 647-B at P50.00 per square meter; That Lot No. 647-B is still in the possession of the National Government the same being utilized as part of the Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City, and that the National Government has not yet paid the value of the land is being utilized for public use. The lower court decision now under review was promulgated on January 30, 1969. As is evident from the excerpt to be cited, the plea that the suit was against the government without it consent having been manifested met with a favorable response. Thus: It is uncontrollable that the land in question is used by the National Government for road purposes. No evidence was presented whether or not there was an agreement or contract between the government the payment was paid or not to the original owner of the land. It may be presumed that when the land was taken by the government the payment of its value was made thereafter and no satisfactory explanation was given why this case was filed only in 1966. But granting that no compensation was given to the owner of the land, the case is undoubtedly against the National Government and there is no showing that the government has consented to the sued in this case. It may be contended that the present case is brought against the Public Highway Commissioner and the Auditor General. Considering that the herein defendants are sued in their official capacity the action is

one against the National Government who should have been made a party in this case, but, as stated before, with its consent. ISSUE: Whether or not plaintiffs, now petitioners seeking the just compensation to which they are entitled under the Constitution for the expropriation of their property necessary for the widening of a street, no condemnation proceeding having been filed, could sue defendants Public Highways Commissioner and the Auditor General, in their capacity as public officials without its consent. HELD: WHEREFORE, the lower court decision of January 30, 1969 dismissing the complaint is reversed and the case remanded to the lower court for proceedings in accordance with law.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE AMANTE P. PURISIMA, The Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch VII), and YELLOW BALL FREIGHT LINES, INC., respondent. No. L-36084. August 31, 1977. FERNANDO, Acting C.J.: FACTS: The jurisdictional issued raised by Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines in this certiorari and prohibition proceeding arose from the failure of respondent Judge Amante P. Purisima of the Court of First Instance of Manila to apply the well-known and of reiterated doctrine of the non-suability of s State, including its offices and agencies