A.M. No. 93-7-696-0 February 21, 1995 In Re JOAQUIN T. BORROMEO, Ex Rel.

Cebu City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. PER CURIAM: It is said that a little learning is a dangerous thing; and that he who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client. There would seem to be more than a grain of truth in these aphorisms; and they appear to find validation in the proceeding at bench, at least. The respondent in this case, Joaquin T. Borromeo, is not a lawyer but has apparently read some law books, and ostensibly come to possess some superficial awareness of a few substantive legal principles and procedural rules. Incredibly, with nothing more than this smattering of learning, the respondent has, for some sixteen (16) years now, from 1978 to the present, been instituting and prosecuting legal proceedings in various courts, dogmatically pontificating on errors supposedly committed by the courts, including the Supreme Court. In the picturesque language of former Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando, he has "with all the valor of ignorance," 1 been verbally jousting with various adversaries in diverse litigations; or in the words of a well-known song, rushing into arenas "where angels fear to tread." Under the illusion that his trivial acquaintance with the law had given him competence to undertake litigation, he has ventured to represent himself in numerous original and review proceedings. Expectedly, the results have been disastrous. In the process, and possibly in aid of his interminable and quite unreasonable resort to judicial proceedings, he has seen fit to compose and circulate many scurrilous statements against courts, judges and their employees, as well as his adversaries, for which he is now being called to account. Respondent Borromeo's ill-advised incursions into lawyering were generated by fairly prosaic transactions with three (3) banks which came to have calamitous consequences for him chiefly because of his failure to comply with his contractual commitments and his stubborn insistence on imposing his own terms and conditions for their fulfillment. These banks were: Traders Royal Bank (TRB), United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), Security Bank & Trust Co. (SBTC). Borromeo obtained loans or credit accommodation from them, to secure which he constituted mortgages over immovables belonging to him or members of his family, or third persons. He failed to pay these obligations, and when demands were made for him to do so, laid down his own terms for their satisfaction which were quite inconsistent with those agreed upon with his obligees or prescribed by law. When, understandably, the banks refused to let him have his way, he brought suits right and left, successively if not contemporaneously, against said banks, its officers, and even the lawyers who represented the banks in the actions brought by or against him. He sued, as well, the public prosecutors, the Judges of the Trial Courts, and the Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court who at one time or another, rendered a judgment, resolution or order adverse to him, as well as the Clerks of Court and other Court employees signing the notices thereof. In the aggregate, he has initiated or spawned in different fora the astounding number of no less-than fifty (50) original or review proceedings, civil, criminal, administrative. For some sixteen (16) years now, to repeat, he has been continuously cluttering the Courts with his repetitive, and quite baseless if not outlandish complaints and contentions. I. CASES INVOLVING TRADERS ROYAL BANK (TRB) The first bank that Joaquin T. Borromeo appears to have dealt with was the Traders Royal Bank (TRB). On June 2, 1978, he got a loan from it in the sum of P45,000.00. This he secured by a real estate mortgage created over two parcels of land covered by TCT No. 59596 and TCT No. 59755 owned, respectively, by Socorro Borromeo-Thakuria (his sister) and Teresita Winniefred Lavarino. On June 16, 1978, Borromeo obtained a second loan from TRB in the amount of P10,000.00, this time giving as security a mortgage over a parcel of land owned by the Heirs of Vicente V. Borromeo, covered by TCT No. RT-7634. Authority to mortgage these three lots was vested in him by a Special Power of Attorney executed by their respective owners. Additionally, on April 23, 1980, Borromeo obtained a Letter of Credit from TRB in the sum of P80,000.00, in consideration of which he executed a Trust Receipt (No. 595/80) falling due on July 22, 1980. 2 Borromeo failed to pay the debts as contracted despite demands therefor. Consequently, TRB caused the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgages given to secure them. At the public sale conducted by the sheriff on September 7, 1981, the three mortgaged parcels of land were sold to TRB as the highest bidder, for P73,529.09.

Within the redemption period, Borromeo made known to the Bank his intention to redeem the properties at their auction price. TRB manager Blas C. Abril however made clear that Borromeo would also have to settle his outstanding account under Trust Receipt No. 595/80 (P88,762.78), supra. Borromeo demurred, and this disagreement gave rise to a series of lawsuits commenced by him against the Bank, its officers and counsel, as aforestated. A. CIVIL CASES 1. RTC Case No. R-22506; CA G.R. CV No. 07015; G.R. No. 83306 On October 29, 1982 Borromeo filed a complaint in the Cebu City Regional Trial Court for specific performance and damages against TRB and its local manager, Blas Abril, docketed as Civil Case No. R-22506. The complaint sought to compel defendants to allow redemption of the foreclosed properties only at their auction price, with stipulated interests and charges, without need of paying the obligation secured by the trust receipt above mentioned. Judgment was rendered in his favor on December 20, 1984 by Branch 23 of the Cebu City RTC; but on defendants' appeal to the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 07015 the judgment was reversed, by decision dated January 27, 1988. The Court of Appeals held that the "plaintiff (Borromeo) has lost his right of redemption and can no longer compel defendant to allow redemption of the properties in question." Borromeo elevated the case to this court where his appeal was docketed as G.R. No. 83306. By Resolution dated August 15, 1988, this Court's First Division denied his petition for review "for failure . . . to sufficiently show that the respondent Court of Appeals had committed any reversible error in its questioned judgment, it appearing on the contrary that the said decision is supported by substantial evidence and is in accord with the facts and applicable law." Reconsideration was denied, by Resolution dated November 23, 1988. A second motion for reconsideration was denied by Resolution dated January 30, 1989, as was a third such motion, by Resolution dated April 19, 1989. The last resolution also directed entry of judgment and the remand of the case to the court of origin for prompt execution of judgment. Entry of judgment was made on May 12, 1989. By Resolution dated August 7, 1989, the Court denied another motion of Borromeo to set aside judgment; and by Resolution dated December 20, 1989, the Court merely noted without action his manifestation and motion praying that the decision of the Court of Appeals be overturned, and declared that "no further motion or pleading . . . shall be entertained . . . ." 2. RTC Case No. CEB 8750; CA-G.R. SP No. 22356 The ink was hardly dry on the resolutions just mentioned before Borromeo initiated another civil action in the same Cebu City Regional Court by which he attempted to litigate the same issues. The action, against the new TRB Branch Manager, Jacinto Jamero, was docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-8750. As might have been anticipated, the action was, on motion of the defense, dismissed by Order dated May 18, 1990, 3 on the ground of res judicata, the only issue raised in the second action i.e., Borromeo's right to redeem the lots foreclosed by TRB having been ventilated in Civil Case No. R-22506 (Joaquin T. Borromeo vs. Blas C. Abril and Traders Royal Bank) (supra) and, on appeal, decided with finality by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court in favor of defendants therein. The Trial Court's judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 22356. 3. RTC Case No. CEB-9485; CA-G.R. SP No. 28221 In the meantime, and during the pendency of Civil Case No. R-22506, TRB consolidated its ownership over the foreclosed immovables. Contending that act of consolidation amounted to a criminal offense, Borromeo filed complaints in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Cebu against the bank officers and lawyers. These complaints were however, and quite correctly, given short shrift by that Office. Borromeo then filed suit in the Cebu City RTC, this time not only against the TRB, TRB officers Jacinto Jamero and Arceli Bustamante, but also against City Prosecutor Jufelinito Pareja and his assistants, Enriqueta Belarmino and Eva A. Igot, and the TRB lawyers, Mario Ortiz and the law, firm, HERSINLAW. The action was docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-9485. The complaint charged Prosecutors Pareja, Belarmino and Igot with manifest partiality and bias for dismissing the criminal cases just mentioned; and faulted TRB and its manager, Jamero, as well as its lawyers, for consolidating the titles to the

foreclosed properties in favor of the bank despite the pendency of Case No. R-22506. This action also failed. On defendants' motion, it was dismissed on February 19, 1992 by the RTC. (Branch 22) on the ground of res judicata(being identical with Civil Case Nos. R-22506 and CEB-8750, already decided with finality in favor of TRB), and lack of cause of action (as to defendants Pareja, Belarmino and Igot). Borromeo's certiorari petition to the Court of Appeals (CA G.R. SP No. 28221) was dismissed by that Court's 16th Division 4 on October 6, 1992, for the reason that the proper remedy was appeal. 4. RTC Case No. CEB-10368; CA-G.R. SP No. 27100 Before Case No. CEB-9845 was finally decided, Borromeo filed, on May 30, 1991, still another civil action for the same cause against TRB, its manager, Jacinto Jamero, and its lawyers, Atty. Mario Ortiz and the HERSINLAW law office. This action was docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-10368, and was described as one for "Recovery of Sums of Money, Annulment of Titles with Damages." The case met the same fate as the others. It was, on defendants' motion, dismissed on September 9, 1991 by the RTC (Branch 14 5) on the ground of litis pendentia. The RTC ruled that Civil Case No. CEB-9485 will readily show that the defendants therein, namely the Honorable Jufelinito Pareja, Enriqueta Belarmino, Eva Igot, Traders Royal Bank, Arceli Bustamante, Jacinto Jamero, Mario Ortiz and HERSINLAW are the same persons or nearly all of them who are impleaded as defendants in the present Civil Case No. CEB-10368, namely, the Traders Royal Bank, Jacinto Jamero, Mario Ortiz and HERSINLAW. The only difference is that more defendants were impleaded in Civil Case No. CEB-9485, namely, City Prosecutor Jufelinito Pareja and his assistants Enriqueta Belarmino and Eva Igot. The inclusion of the City Prosecutor and his two assistants in Civil Case No. CEB-9485 was however merely incidental as apparently they had nothing to do with the questioned transaction in said case. . . . The Court likewise found that the reliefs prayed for were the same as those sought in Civil Case No. CEB-9485, and the factual bases of the two cases were essentially the same the alleged fraudulent foreclosure and consolidation of the three properties mortgaged years earlier by Borromeo to TRB. For some reason, the Order of September 9, 1991 was set aside by an Order rendered by another Judge on November 11, 1991 6 the Judge who previously heard the case having inhibited himself; but this Order of November 11, 1991 was, in turn, nullified by the Court of Appeals (9th Division), by Decision promulgated on March 31, 1992 in CA-G.R. SP No. 27100 (Traders Royal Bank vs. Hon. Celso M. Gimenez, etc. and Joaquin T. Borromeo), 7 which decision also directed dismissal of Borromeo's complaint. 5. RTC Case No. CEB-6452 When a new branch manager, Ronald Sy, was appointed for TRB, Cebu City, Borromeo forthwith made that event the occasion for another new action, against TRB, Ronald Sy, and the bank's attorneys Mario Ortiz, Honorato Hermosisima, Jr., Wilfredo Navarro and HERSINLAW firm. This action was docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-6452, and described as one for "Annulment of Title with Damages." The complaint, dated October 20, 1987, again involved the foreclosure of the three (3) immovables above mentioned, and was anchored on the alleged malicious, deceitful, and premature consolidation of titles in TRB's favor despite the pendency of Civil Case No. 22506. On defendant's motion, the trial court 8 dismissed the case on the ground of prematurity, holding that "(a)t this point . . ., plaintiff's right to seek annulment of defendant Traders Royal Bank's title will only accrue if and when plaintiff will ultimately and finally win Civil Case No. R-22506." 6. RTC Case No. CEB-8236 Having thus far failed in his many efforts to demonstrate to the courts the "merit" of his cause against TRB and its officers and lawyers, Borromeo now took a different tack by also suing (and thus also venting his ire on) the members of the appellate courts who had ruled adversely to him. He filed in the Cebu City RTC, Civil Case No. CEB-8236, impleading as defendants not only the same parties he had theretofore been suing TRB and its

officers and lawyers (HERSINLAW, Mario Ortiz) but also the Chairman and Members of the First Division of the Supreme Court who had repeatedly rebuffed him in G.R. No. 83306 (SEE sub-head I, A, 1, supra), as well as the Members of the 5th, 9th and 10th Divisions of the Court of Appeals who had likewise made dispositions unfavorable to him. His complaint, dated August 22, 1989, aimed to recover damages from the defendants Justices for . . . maliciously and deliberately stating blatant falsehoods and disregarding evidence and pertinent laws, rendering manifestly unjust and biased resolutions and decisions bereft of signatures, facts or laws in support thereof, depriving plaintiff of his cardinal rights to due process and against deprivation of property without said process, tolerating, approving and legitimizing the patently illegal, fraudulent, and contemptuous acts of defendants TRB, (which) constitute a) GRAVE DERELICTION OF DUTY AND ABUSE OF POWER emanating from the people, b) FLAGRANT VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, CARDINAL PRIMARY RIGHTS DUE PROCESS, ART. 27, 32, CIVIL CODE, Art. 208, REV. PENAL CODE, and R.A. 3019, for which defendants must be held liable under said laws. The complaint also prayed for reconveyance of the "fake titles obtained fraudulently by TRB/HERSINLAW," and recovery of "100,000.00 moral damages; 30,000.00 exemplary damages; and P5,000.00 litigation expenses." This action, too, met a quick and unceremonious demise. On motion of defendants TRB and HERSINLAW, the trial court, by Order dated November 7, 1989, 9 dismissed the case. 7. RTC Case No. CEB-13069 It appears that Borromeo filed still another case to litigate the same cause subject of two (2) prior actions instituted by him. This was RTC Case No. CEB-13069, against TRB and the latter's lawyers, Wilfredo Navarro and Mario Ortiz. The action was dismissed in an Order dated October 4, 1993, 10 on the ground of res judicata the subject matter being the same as that in Civil Case No. R-22506, decision in which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 07015 as well as by this Court in G.R. No. 83306 11 and litis pendentia the subject matter being also the same as that in Civil Case No. CEB-8750, decision in which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 22356. 12 8. RTC Criminal Case No. CBU-19344; CA-G.R. SP No. 28275; G.R. No. 112928 On April 17, 1990 the City Prosecutor of Cebu City filed an information with the RTC of Cebu (Branch 22) against Borromeo charging him with a violation of the Trust Receipts Law. 13 The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. CBU-19344. After a while, Borromeo moved to dismiss the case on the ground of denial of his right to a speedy trial. His motion was denied by Order of Judge Pampio A. Abarintos dated April 10, 1992. In the same order, His Honor set an early date for Borromeo's arraignment and placed the case "under a continuous trial system on the dates as may be agreed by the defense and prosecution." Borromeo moved for reconsideration. When his motion was again found without merit, by Order dated May 21, 1992, he betook himself to the Court of Appeals on a special civil action of certiorari, to nullify these adverse orders, his action being docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 28275. Here again, Borromeo failed. The Court of Appeals declared that the facts did not show that there had been unreasonable delay in the criminal action against him, and denied his petition for being without merit. 14 Borromeo then filed a petition for review with this Court (G.R. No. 112928), but by resolution dated January 31, 1994, the same was dismissed for failure of Borromeo to comply with the requisites of Circulars Numbered 1-88 and 19-91. His motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied by Resolution dated March 23, 1994. a. Clarificatory Communications to Borromeo Re "Minute Resolutions" He next filed a Manifestation dated April 6, 1994 calling the Resolution of March 23, 1994 "Un-Constitutional, Arbitrary and tyrannical and a gross travesty of 'Justice,'" because it was "signed only by a mere clerk and . . . (failed) to state clear facts and law," and "the petition was not resolved on MERITS nor by any Justice but by a mere clerk." 15

The Court responded with another Resolution, promulgated on June 22, 1994, and with some patience drew his attention to the earlier resolution "in his own previous case (Joaquin T. Borromeo vs. Court of Appeals and Samson Lao, G.R. No. 82273, 1 June 1990; 186 SCRA 1) 16 and on the same issue he now raises." Said Resolution of June 22, 1994, after reiterating that the notices sent by the Clerk of Court of the Court En Banc or any of the Divisions simply advise of and quote the resolution actually adopted by the Court after deliberation on a particular matter, additionally stated that Borromeo "knew, as well, that the communications (notices) signed by the Clerk of Court start with the opening clause Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated. _________, thereby indisputably showing that it is not the Clerk of Court who prepared or signed the resolutions." This was not, by the way, the first time that the matter had been explained to Borromeo. The record shows that on July 10, 1987, he received a letter from Clerk of Court Julieta Y. Carreon (of this Court's Third Division) dealing with the subject, in relation to G.R. No. 77243. 17 The same matter was also dealt with in the letter received by him from Clerk of Court Luzviminda D. Puno, dated April 4, 1989, and in the letter to him of Clerk of Court (Second Division) Fermin J. Garma, dated May 19, 1989. 18 And the same subject was treated of in another Resolution of this Court, notice of which was in due course served on him, to wit: that dated July 31, 1989, in G.R. No. 87897. 19 B. CRIMINAL CASES Mention has already been made of Borromeo's attempt with "all the valor of ignorance" to fasten not only civil, but also criminal liability on TRB, its officers and lawyers. 20 Several other attempts on his part to cause criminal prosecution of those he considered his adversaries, will now be dealt with here. 1. I. S. Nos. 90-1187 and 90-1188 On March 7, 1990, Borromeo filed criminal complaints with the Office of the Cebu City Prosecutor against Jacinto Jamero (then still TRB Branch Manager), "John Doe and officers of Traders Royal Bank." The complaints (docketed as I.S. Nos. 90-1187-88) accused the respondents of "Estafa and Falsification of Public Documents." He claimed, among others that the bank and its officers, thru its manager, Jacinto Jamero, sold properties not owned by them: that by fraud, deceit and false pretenses, respondents negotiated and effected the purchase of the (foreclosed) properties from his (Borromeo's) mother, who "in duress, fear and lack of legal knowledge," agreed to the sale thereof for only P671,000.00, although in light of then prevailing market prices, she should have received P588,030.00 more. In a Joint Resolution dated April 11, 1990, 21 the Cebu City Fiscal's office dismissed the complaints observing that actually, the Deed of Sale was not between the bank and Borromeo's mother, but between the bank and Mrs. Thakuria (his sister), one of the original owners of the foreclosed properties; and that Borromeo, being a stranger to the sale, had no basis to claim injury or prejudice thereby. The Fiscal ruled that the bank's ownership of the foreclosed properties was beyond question as the matter had been raised and passed upon in a judicial litigation; and moreover, there was no proof of the document allegedly falsified nor of the manner of its falsification. a. I.S. Nos. 87-3795 and 89-4234 Evidently to highlight Borromeo's penchant for reckless filing of unfounded complaints, the Fiscal also adverted to two other complaints earlier filed in his Office by Borromeo involving the same foreclosed properties and directed against respondent bank officers' predecessors (including the former Manager, Ronald Sy) and lawyers both of which were dismissed for lack of merit. These were: a. I. S. No. 87-3795 (JOAQUIN T. BORROMEO vs. ATTY. MARIO ORTIZ and RONALD SY) for "Estafa Through Falsification of Public Documents, Deceit and False Pretenses." This case was dismissed by Resolution dated January 19, 1988 of the City Prosecutor's Office because based on nothing more than a letter dated June 4, 1985, sent by Bank Manager Ronald Sy to the lessee of a portion of the foreclosed immovables, advising the latter to remit all rentals to the bank as new owner thereof, as shown by the consolidated title; and there was no showing that respondent Atty.

Ortiz was motivated by fraud in notarizing the deed of sale in TRB's favor after the lapse of the period of redemption, or that Ortiz had benefited pecuniarily from the transaction to the prejudice of complainant; and b. I.S. No. 89-4234 (JOAQUIN T. BORROMEO vs. RONALD SY, ET AL.) for "Estafa Through False Pretenses and Falsification of Public Documents." This case was dismissed by Resolution dated January 31, 1990. 2. I.S.Nos. 88-205 to 88-207 While Joaquin Borromeo's appeal (G.R. No. 83306) was still pending before the Supreme Court, 22 an affidavit was executed in behalf of TRB by Arceli Bustamante, in connection with the former's fire insurance claim over property registered in its name one of two immovables formerly owned by Socorro B. Thakuria (Joaquin Borromeo's sister) and foreclosed by said bank. 23 In that affidavit, dated September 10, 1987, Bustamante stated that "On 24 June 1983, TRB thru foreclosure acquired real property together with the improvements thereon which property is located at F. Ramos St., Cebu City covered by TCT No. 87398 in the name or TRB." The affidavit was notarized by Atty. Manuelito B. Inso. Claiming that the affidavit was "falsified and perjurious" because the claim of title by TRB over the foreclosed lots was a "deliberate, wilful and blatant fasehood in that, among others: . . . the consolidation was premature, illegal and invalid," Borromeo filed a criminal complaint with the Cebu City Fiscal's Office against the affiant (Bustamante) and the notarizing lawyer (Atty. Inso) for "falsification of public document, false pretenses, perjury." On September 28, 1988, the Fiscal's Office dismissed the complaint. 24 It found no untruthful statements in the affidavit or any malice in its execution, considering that Bustamante's statement was based on the Transfer Certificate of Title in TRB's file, and thus the document that Atty. Inso notarized was legally in order. 3. OMB-VIS-89-00136 This Resolution of this Court (First Division) in G.R. No. 83306 dated August 15, 1988 sustaining the judgment of the Court of Appeals (10th Division) of January 27, 1988 in CA-G.R. CV No. 07015, supra, was made the subject of a criminal complaint by Borromeo in the Office of the Ombudsman, Visayas, docketed as OMB-VIS-89-00136. His complaint against "Supreme Court Justice (First Div.) and Court of Appeals Justice (10th Div)" was dismissed for lack of merit in a Resolution issued on February 14, 1990 25 which, among other things, ruled as follows: It should be noted and emphasized that complainant has remedies available under the Rules of Court, particularly on civil procedure and existing laws. It is not the prerogative of this Office to make a review of Decisions and Resolutions of judicial courts, rendered within their competence. The records do not warrant this Office to take further proceedings against the respondents. In addition, Sec. 20. of R.A. 6770, "the Ombudsman Act states that the Office of the Ombudsman may not conduct the necessary investigation of any administrative act or omission complained of if it believes that (1) the complainant had adequate remedy in another judicial or quasi-judicial body;" and Sec. 21 the same law provides that the Office of the Ombudsman does not have disciplinary authority over members of the Judiciary. II. CASES INVOLVING UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK (UCPB) As earlier stated, 26 Borromeo (together with a certain Mercader) also borrowed money from the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) and executed a real estate mortgage to secure repayment thereof. The mortgage was constituted over a 122-square-meter commercial lot covered by TCT No. 75680 in Borromeo's name. This same lot was afterwards sold on August 7, 1980 by Borromeo to one Samson K. Lao for P170,000.00, with a stipulation for its repurchase (pacto de retro) by him (Borromeo, as the vendor). The sale was made without the knowledge and consent of UCPB. A. CIVIL CASES

Now, just as he had defaulted in the payment of the loans and credit accommodations he had obtained from the Traders Royal Bank, Borromeo failed in the fulfillment of his obligations to the UCPB. Shortly after learning of Borromeo's default, and obviously to obviate or minimize the ill effects of the latter's delinquency, Lao applied with the same bank (UCPB) for a loan, offering the property he had purchased from Borromeo as collateral. UCPB was not averse to dealing with Lao but imposed several conditions on him, one of which was for Lao to consolidate his title over the property. Lao accordingly instituted a suit for consolidation of title, docketed as Civil Case No. R-21009. However, as will shortly be narrated, Borromeo opposed the consolidation prayed for. As a result, UCPB cancelled Lao's application for a loan and itself commenced proceedings foreclose the mortgage constituted by Borromeo over the property. This signaled the beginning of court battles waged by Borromeo not only against Lao, but also against UCPB and the latter's lawyers, battles which he (Borromeo) fought contemporaneously with his court war with Traders Royal Bank. 1. RTC Case No. R-21009; AC-G.R. No. CV-07396; G.R. No. 82273 The first of this new series of court battles was, as just stated, the action initiated by Samson Lao in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu (Branch 12), docketed as Case No. R-21009, for consolidation of title in his favor over the 122square-meter lot subject of the UCPB mortgage, in accordance with Article 1007 of the Civil Code. In this suit Lao was represented by Atty. Alfredo Perez, who was later substituted by Atty. Antonio Regis. Borromeo contested Lao's application. Judgment was in due course rendered by the RTC (Branch 12, Hon. Francis Militante, presiding) denying consolidation because the transaction between the parties could not be construed as a sale with pacto de retrobeing in law an equitable mortgage; however, Borromeo was ordered to pay Lao the sum of P170,000.00, representing the price stipulated in the sale a retro, plus the amounts paid by Lao for capital gains and other taxes in connection with the transaction (P10,497.50). Both Lao and Borromeo appealed to the Court of Appeals. Lao's appeal was dismissed for failure of his lawyer to file brief in his behalf. Borromeo's appeal AC-G.R. No. CV-07396 resulted in a Decision by the Court of Appeals dated December 14, 1987, affirming the RTC's judgment in toto. The Appellate Court's decision was, in turn, affirmed by this Court (Third Division) in a four-page Resolution dated September 13, 1989, promulgated in G.R. No. 82273 an appeal also taken by Borromeo. Borromeo filed a motion for reconsideration on several grounds, one of which was that the resolution of September 13, 1989 was unconstitutional because contrary to "Sec. 4 (3), Art. VIII of the Constitution," it was not signed by any Justice of the Division, and there was "no way of knowing which justices had deliberated and voted thereon, nor of any concurrence of at least three of the members." Since the motion was not filed until after there had been an entry of judgment, Borromeo having failed to move for reconsideration within the reglementary period, the same was simply noted without action, in a Resolution dated November 27, 1989. Notices of the foregoing Resolutions were, in accordance with established rule and practice, sent to Borromeo over the signatures of the Clerk of Court and Assistant Clerk of Court (namely: Attys. Julieta Y. CARREON and Alfredo MARASIGAN, respectively). a. RTC Case No. CEB-8679 Following the same aberrant pattern of his judicial campaign against Traders Royal Bank, Borromeo attempted to vent his resentment even against the Supreme Court officers who, as just stated, had given him notices of the adverse dispositions of this Court's Third Division. He filed Civil Case No. CEB-8679 in the Cebu City RTC (CFI) for recovery of damages against "Attys. Julieta Y. Carreon and Alfredo Marasigan, Division Clerk of Court and Asst. Division Clerk of Court, Third Division, and Atty. Jose I. Ilustre, Chief of Judicial Records Office." He charged them with usurpation of judicial functions, for allegedly "maliciously and deviously issuing biased, fake, baseless and unconstitutional 'Resolution' and 'Entry of Judgment' in G.R. No. 82273."

Summonses were issued to defendants by RTC Branch 18 (Judge Rafael R. Ybaez, presiding). These processes were brought to the attention of this Court's Third Division. The latter resolved to treat the matter as an incident in G.R. No. 82273, and referred it to the Court En Banc on April 25, 1990. By Resolution (issued in said G.R. No. 82273, supra) dated June 1, 1990, the Court En Banc ordered Judge Ybaez to quash the summonses, to dismiss Civil Case No. CEB-8679, and "not to issue summons or otherwise to entertain cases of similar nature which may in the future be filed in his court." Accordingly, Judge Ibaez issued an Order on June 6, 1990 quashing the summonses and dismissing the complaint in said Civil Case No. CEB-8679. The Resolution of June 1, 1990 27 explained to Borromeo in no little detail the nature and purpose of notices sent by the Clerks of Court of decisions or resolutions of the Court En Banc or the Divisions, in this wise: This is not the first time that Mr. Borromeo has filed charges/complaints against officials of the Court. In several letter complaints filed with the courts and the Ombudsman, Borromeo had repeatedly alleged that he "suffered injustices," because of the disposition of the four (4) cases he separately appealed to this Court which were resolved by minute resolutions, allegedly in violation of Sections 4 (3), 13 and 14 of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. His invariable complaint is that the resolutions which disposed of his cases do not bear the signatures of the Justices who participated in the deliberations and resolutions and do not show that they voted therein. He likewise complained that the resolutions bear no certification of the Chief Justice and that they did not state the facts and the law on which they were based and were signed only by the Clerks of Court and therefore "unconstitutional, null and void." The Court reminds all lower courts, lawyers, and litigants that it disposes of the bulk of its cases by minute resolutions and decrees them as final and executory, as were a case is patently without merit, where the issues raised are factual in nature, where the decision appealed from is in accord with the facts of the case and the applicable laws, where it is clear from the records that the petition is filed merely to forestall the early execution of judgment and for non-compliance with the rules. The resolution denying due course always gives the legal basis. As emphasized in In Re: Wenceslao Laureta, 148 SCRA 382, 417 [1987], "[T]he Court is not 'duty bound' to render signed Decisions all the time. It has ample discretion to formulate Decisions and/or Minute Resolutions, provided a legal basis is given, depending on its evaluation of a case" . . . This is the only way whereby it can act on all cases filed before it and, accordingly, discharge its constitutional functions. . . . . . . (W)hen the Court, after deliberating on a petition and any subsequent pleadings, manifestations, comments, or motions decides to deny due course to the petition and states that the questions raised are factual, or no reversible error in the respondent court's decision is shown, or for some other legal basis stated in the resolution, there is sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement . . . (of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution "that no petition for review or motion for reconsideration shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis thereof"). For a prompt dispatch of actions of the Court, minute resolutions are promulgated by the Court through the Clerk of Court, who takes charge of sending copies thereof to the parties concerned by quoting verbatim the resolution issued on a particular case. It is the Clerk of Court's duty to inform the parties of the action taken on their cases quoting the resolution adopted by the Court. The Clerk of Court never participates in the deliberations of a case. All decisions and resolutions are actions of the Court. The Clerk of Court merely transmits the Court's action. This was explained in the case G.R. No. 56280, "Rhine Marketing Corp. v. Felix Gravante, et al.," where, in a resolution dated July 6, 1981, the Court said "[M]inute resolutions of this Court denying or dismissing unmeritorious petitions like the petition in the case at bar, are the result of a thorough deliberation among the members of this Court, which does not and cannot delegate the exercise of its judicial functions to its Clerk of Court or any of its subalterns, which should be known to counsel. When a petition is denied or dismissed by this Court, this Court sustains the challenged decision or order together with its findings of facts and legal conclusions. Minute resolutions need not be signed by the members of the Court who took part in the deliberations of a case nor do they require the certification of the Chief Justice. For to require members of the Court to sign all resolutions issued would not only unduly delay the issuance of its

resolutions but a great amount of their time would be spent on functions more properly performed by the Clerk of Court and which time could be more profitably used in the analysis of cases and the formulation of decisions and orders of important nature and character. Even with the use of this procedure, the Court is still struggling to wipe out the backlogs accumulated over the years and meet the ever increasing number of cases coming to it. . . . b. RTC CIVIL CASE NO. CEB-(6501) 6740; G.R. No. 84054 It is now necessary to digress a little and advert to actions which, while having no relation to the UCPB, TRB or SBTC, are relevant because they were the predicates for other suits filed by Joaquin Borromeo against administrative officers of the Supreme Court and the Judge who decided one of the cases adversely to him. The record shows that on or about December 11, 1987, Borromeo filed a civil action for damages against a certain Thomas B. Tan and Marjem Pharmacy, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-6501. On January 12, 1988, the trial court dismissed the case, without prejudice, for failure to state a cause of action and prematurity (for non-compliance with P.D. 1508). What Borromeo did was simply to re-file the same complaint with the same Court, on March 18, 1988. This time it was docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-6740, and assigned to Branch 17 of the RTC of Cebu presided by Hon. Mario Dizon. Again, however, on defendants' motion, the trial court dismissed the case, in an order dated May 28, 1988. His first and second motions for reconsideration having been denied, Borromeo filed a petition for review before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 84054 (Joaquin T. Borromeo vs. Tomas Tan and Non. Mario Dizon). In a Resolution dated August 3, 1988, the Court required petitioner to comply with the rules by submitting a verified statement of material dates and paying the docket and legal research fund fees; it also referred him to the Citizens Legal Assistance Office for help in the case. His petition was eventually dismissed by Resolution of the Second Division dated November 21, 1988, for failure on his part to show any reversible error in the trial court's judgment. His motion for reconsideration was denied with finality, by Resolution dated January 18, 1989. Borromeo wrote to Atty. Fermin J. Garma (Clerk of Court of the Second Division) on April 27, 1989 once more remonstrating that the resolutions received by him had not been signed by any Justice, set forth no findings of fact or law, and had no certification of the Chief Justice. Atty. Garma replied to him on May 19, 1989, pointing out that "the minute resolutions of this Court denying dismissing petitions, like the petition in the case at bar, which was denied for failure of the counsel and/or petitioner to sufficiently show that the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 17, had committed any reversible error in the questioned judgment [resolution dated November 21, 1988], are the result of a thorough deliberation among the members of this Court, which does not and cannot delegate the exercise of its judicial function to its Clerk of Court or any of its subalterns. When the petition is denied or dismissed by the Court, it sustains the challenged decision or order together with its findings of facts and legal conclusions." Borromeo obviously had learned nothing from the extended Resolution of June 1, 1990 in G.R. No. 82273, supra(or the earlier communications to him on the same subject) which had so clearly pointed out that minute resolutions of the Court are as much the product of the Members' deliberations as full-blown decisions or resolutions, and that the intervention of the Clerk consists merely in the ministerial and routinary function of communicating the Court's action to the parties concerned. c. RTC Case No. CEB-9042 What Borromeo did next, evidently smarting from this latest judicial rebuff, yet another in an already long series, was to commence a suit against Supreme Court (Second Division) Clerk of Court Fermin J. Garma and Assistant Clerk of Court Tomasita Dris. They were the officers who had sent him notices of the unfavorable resolutions in G.R. No. 84054, supra. His suit, filed on June 1, 1990, was docketed as Case No. CEB-9042 (Branch 8, Hon. Bernardo Salas presiding). Therein he complained essentially of the same thing he had been harping on all along: that in relation to G.R. No. 91030 in which the Supreme Court dismissed his petition for "technical reasons" and failure to demonstrate any reversible error in the challenged judgment the notice sent to him of the "unsigned and unspecific" resolution of February 19, 1990, denying his motion for reconsideration had been signed only by the defendant clerks of court and not by the Justices. According to him, he had thereupon written letters to defendants

demanding an explanation for said "patently unjust and un-Constitutional resolutions," which they ignored; defendants had usurped judicial functions by issuing resolutions signed only by them and not by any Justice, and without stating the factual and legal basis thereof; and defendants' "wanton, malicious and patently abusive acts" had caused him "grave mental anguish, severe moral shock, embarrassment, sleepless nights and worry;" and consequently, he was entitled to moral damages of no less than P20,000.00 and exemplary damages of P10,000.00, and litigation expenses of P5,000.00. On June 8, 1990, Judge Renato C. Dacudao ordered the records of the case transmitted to the Supreme Court conformably with its Resolution dated June 1, 1990 in G.R. No. 82273, entitled "Joaquin T. Borromeo vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Samson-Lao," supra directing that all complaints against officers of that Court be forwarded to it for appropriate action. 28 Borromeo filed a "Manifestation/Motion" dated June 27, 1990 asking the Court to "rectify the injustices" committed against him in G.R. Nos. 83306, 84999, 87897, 77248 and 84054. This the Court ordered expunged from the record (Resolution, July 19, 1990). 2. RTC Case No. R-21880; CA-G.R. CV No. 10951; G.R. No. 87897 Borromeo also sued to stop UCPB from foreclosing the mortgage on his property. In the Cebu City RTC, he filed a complaint for "Damages with Injunction," which was docketed as Civil Case No. R-21880 (Joaquin T. Borromeo vs. United Coconut Planters Bank, et al.). Named defendants in the complaint were UCPB, Enrique Farrarons (UCPB Cebu Branch Manager) and Samson K. Lao. UCPB was represented in the action by Atty. Danilo Deen, and for a time, by Atty. Honorato Hermosisima (both being then resident partners of ACCRA Law Office). Lao was represented by Atty. Antonio Regis. Once again, Borromeo was rebuffed. The Cebu RTC (Br. 11, Judge Valeriano R. Tomol, Jr. presiding) dismissed the complaint, upheld UCPB's right to foreclose, and granted its counterclaim for moral damages in the sum of P20,000.00; attorney's fees amounting to P10,000.00; and litigation expenses of P1,000.00. Borromeo perfected an appeal to the Court of Appeals where it was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 10951. That Court, thru its Ninth Division (per Martinez, J., ponente, with de la Fuente and Pe, JJ., concurring), dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Trial Court's judgment. Borromeo filed a petition far review with the Supreme Court which, in G.R. No. 87897 dismissed it for insufficiency in form and substance and for being "largely unintelligible." Borromeo's motion for reconsideration was denied by Resolution dated June 25, 1989. A second motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated July 31, 1989 which directed as well entry of judgment (effected on August 1, 1989). In this Resolution, the Court (First Division) said: The Court considered the Motion for Reconsideration dated July 4, 1989 filed by petitioner himself and Resolved to DENY the same for lack of merit, the motion having been filed without "express leave of court" (Section 2, Rule 52, Rules of Court) apart from being a reiteration merely of the averments of the Petition for Review dated April 14, 1989 and the Motion for Reconsideration dated May 25, 1989. It should be noted that petitioner's claims have already been twice rejected as without merit, first by the Regional Trial Court of Cebu and then by the Court of Appeals. What petitioner desires obviously is to have a third ruling on the merits of his claims, this time by this Court. Petitioner is advised that a review of a decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion and will be granted only when there is a special and important reason therefor (Section 4, Rule 45); and a petition for review may be dismissed summarily on the ground that "the appeal is without merit, or is prosecuted manifestly for delay or the question raised is too unsubstantial to require consideration" (Section 3, Rule 45), or that only questions of fact are raised in the petition, or the petition otherwise fails to comply with the formal requisites prescribed therefor (Sections 1 and 2, Rule 45; Circular No. 1-88). Petitioner is further advised that the first sentence of Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution refers to a decision, and has no application to a resolution as to which said section pertinently provides that a resolution denying a motion for reconsideration need state only the legal basis therefor; and that the resolution of June 26, 1989 denying petitioner's first Motion for Reconsideration dated May 25, 1989 does indeed state the legal reasons therefor. The plain and patent signification of the grounds for denial set out in the Resolution

of June 26, 1989 is that the petitioner's arguments aimed at the setting aside of the resolution denying the petition for review and consequently bringing about a review of the decision of the Court of Appeals had failed to persuade the Court that the errors imputed to the Court of Appeals had indeed been committed and therefore, there was no cause to modify the conclusions set forth in that judgment; and in such a case, there is obviously no point in reproducing and restating the conclusions and reasons therefor of the Court of Appeals. Premises considered, the Court further Resolved to DIRECT ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. On August 13, 1989 Borromeo wrote to Atty. Estrella C. Pagtanac, then the Clerk of Court of the Court's First Division, denouncing the resolution above mentioned as "a LITANY OF LIES, EVASIONS, and ABSURD SELFSERVING LOGIC from a Supreme Court deluded and drunk with power which it has forgotten emanates from the people," aside from being "patently UNCONSTITUTIONAL for absence of signatures and facts and law: . . . and characterizing the conclusions therein as "the height of ARROGANCE and ARBITRARINESS assuming a KINGLIKE AND EVEN GOD-LIKE POWER totally at variance and contradicted by . . . CONSTITUTIONAL provisions . . ." To the letter Borromeo attached copies of (1) his "Open Letter to the Ombudsman" dated August 10, 1989 protesting the Court's "issuing UNSIGNED, UNSPECIFIC, and BASELESS 'MINUTE RESOLUTIONS;'" (2) his "Open Letter of Warning" dated August 12, 1989; and (3) a communication of Domingo M. Quimlat, News Ombudsman, Phil. Daily Inquirer, dated August 10, 1989. His letter was ordered expunged from the record because containing "false, impertinent and scandalous matter (Section 5, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court)." Another letter of the same ilk, dated November 7, 1989, was simply "NOTED without action" by Resolution promulgated on December 13, 1989. 3. RTC Case No. CEB-4852; CA G.R. SP No. 14519; G.R. No. 84999 In arrant disregard of established rule and practice, Borromeo filed another action to invalidate the foreclosure effected at the instance of UCPB, which he had unsuccessfully tried to prevent in Case No. CEB-21880. This was Civil Case No. CEB-4852 of the Cebu City RTC (Joaquin T. Borromeo vs. UCPB, et al.) for "Annulment of Title with Damages." Here, UCPB was represented by Atty. Laurence Fernandez, in consultation with Atty. Deen. On December 26, 1987, the Cebu City RTC (Br. VII, Hon. Generoso A. Juaban, presiding) dismissed the complaint on the ground of litis pendentia and ordered Borromeo to pay attorney's fees (P5,000.00) and litigation expenses (P1,000.00). Borromeo instituted a certiorari action in the Court of Appeals to annul this judgment (CA G.R. SP No. 14519); but his action was dismissed by the Appellate Court on June 7, 1988 on account of his failure to comply with that Court's Resolution of May 13, 1988 for submission of certified true copies of the Trial Court's decision of December 26, 1987 and its Order of February 26, 1988, and for statement of "the dates he received . . . (said) decision and . . . order." Borromeo went up to this Court on appeal, his appeal being docketed as G.R. No. 84999. In a Resolution dated October 10, 1988, the Second Division required comment on Borromeo's petition for review by the respondents therein named, and required Borromeo to secure the services of counsel. On November 9, 1988, Atty. Jose L. Cerilles entered his appearance for Borromeo. After due proceedings, Borromeo's petition was dismissed, by Resolution dated March 6, 1989 of the Second Division for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals had committed any reversible error in the questioned judgment. His motion for reconsideration dated April 4, 1989, again complaining that the resolution contained no findings of fact and law, was denied. a. RTC Case No. CEB-8178 Predictably, another action, Civil Case No. CEB-8178, was commenced by Borromeo in the RTC of Cebu City, this time against the Trial Judge who had lately rendered judgment adverse to him, Judge Generoso Juaban. Also impleaded as defendants were UCPB, and Hon. Andres Narvasa (then Chairman, First Division), Estrella G.Pagtanac and Marissa Villarama (then, respectively, Clerk of Court and Assistant Clerk of Court of the First Division), and others. Judge German G. Lee of Branch 15 of said Court to which the case was raffled caused issuance of summonses which were in due course served on September 22, 1989, among others, on said

defendants in and of the Supreme Court. In an En Banc Resolution dated October 2, 1989 in G.R. No. 84999 this Court, required Judge Lee and the Clerk of Court and Assistant Clerk of Court of the Cebu RTC to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against them for issuing said summonses. Shortly thereafter, Atty. Jose L. Cerilles who, as already stated, had for a time represented Borromeo in G.R. No. 84999 filed with this Court his withdrawal of appearance, alleging that there was "no compatibility" between him and his client, Borromeo because "Borromeo had been filing pleadings, papers; etc. without . . . (his) knowledge and advice" and declaring that he had "not advised and . . . (had) no hand in the filing of (said) Civil Case CEB 8178 before the Regional Trial Court in Cebu. On the other hand, Judge Lee, in his "Compliance" dated October 23, 1989, apologized to the Court and informed it that he had already promulgated an order dismissing Civil Case No. CEB-8178 on motion of the principal defendants therein, namely, Judge Generoso Juaban and United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB). Atty. Cerilles' withdrawal of appearance, and Judge Lee's compliance, were noted by the Court in its Resolution dated November 29, 1989. 4. RTC Case No. CEB-374; CA-G.R. CV No. 04097; G.R. No. 77248 It is germane to advert to one more transaction between Borromeo and Samson K. Lao which gave rise to another action that ultimately landed in this Court. 29 The transaction involved a parcel of land of Borromeo's known as the "San Jose Property" (TCT No. 34785). Borromeo sued Lao and another person (Mariano Logarta) in the Cebu Regional Trial Court on the theory that his contract with the latter was not an absolute sale but an equitable mortgage. The action was docketed as Case No. CEB-374. Judgment was rendered against him by the Trial Court (Branch 12) declaring valid and binding the purchase of the property by Lao from him, and the subsequent sale thereof by Lao to Logarta. Borromeo appealed to the Court of Appeals, but that Court, in CA-G.R. CV No. 04097, affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, by Decision promulgated on October 10, 1986. Borromeo came up to this Court. on appeal, his review petition being docketed as G.R. No. 77248. By Resolution of the Second Division of March 16, 1987, however, his petition was denied for the reason that "a) the petition as well as the docket and legal research fund fees were filed and paid late; and (b) the issues raised are factual and the findings thereon of the Court of Appeals are final." He moved for reconsideration; this was denied by Resolution dated June 3, 1987. He thereafter insistently and persistently still sought reconsideration of said adverse resolutions through various motions and letters, all of which were denied. One of his letters inter alia complaining that the notice sent to him by the Clerk of Court did not bear the signature of any Justice elicited the following reply from Atty. Julieta Y. Carreon, Clerk of Court of the Third Division, dated July 10, 1987, reading as follows: Dear Mr. Borromeo: This refers to your letter dated June 9, 1987 requesting for a copy of the actual resolution with the signatures of all the Justices of the Second Division in Case G.R. No. 77243 whereby the motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the petition was denied for lack of merit. In connection therewith, allow us to cite for your guidance, Resolution dated July 6, 1981 in G.R. No. 56280, Rhine Marketing Corp. v. Felix Gravante, Jr., et al., wherein the Supreme Court declared that "(m)inute resolutions of this Court denying or dismissing unmeritorious petitions like the petition in the case at bar, are the result of a thorough deliberation among the members of this Court, which does not and cannot delegate the exercise of its judicial functions to its Clerk of Court or any of its subalterns, which should be known to counsel. When a petition is denied or dismissed by this Court, this Court sustains the challenged decision or order together with its findings of facts and legal conclusions." It is the Clerk of Court's duty to notify the parties of the action taken on their case by quoting the resolution adopted by the Court. Very truly yours, JULIETA Y. CARREON

B. CRIMINAL CASES Just as he had done with regard to the cases involving the Traders Royal Bank, and similarly without foundation, Borromeo attempted to hold his adversaries in the cases concerning the UCPB criminally liable. 1. Case No; OMB-VIS-89-00181 In relation to the dispositions made of Borromeo's appeals and other attempts to overturn the judgment of the RTC in Civil Case No. 21880, 30 Borromeo filed with the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) on August 18, 1989, a complaint against the Chairman and Members of the Supreme Court's First Division; the Members of the Ninth Division of the Court of Appeals, Secretary of Justice Sedfrey Ordoez, Undersecretary of Justice Silvestre Bello III, and Cebu City Prosecutor Jufelinito Pareja, charging them with violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Revised Penal Code. By Resolution dated January 12, 1990, 31 the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed Borromeo's complaint, opining that the matters therein dealt with had already been tried and their merits determined by different courts including the Supreme Court (decision, June 26, 1989, in G.R. No. 87987). The resolution inter alia stated that, "Finally, we find it unreasonable for complainant to dispute and defiantly refuse to acknowledge the authority of the decree rendered by the highest tribunal of the land in this case. . . ." 2. Case No. OMB-VIS-90-00418 A second complaint was filed by Borromeo with the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas), dated January 12, 1990, against Atty. Julieta Carreon, Clerk of Court of the Third Division, Supreme Court, and others, charging them with a violation of R.A. 3019 (and the Constitution, the Rules of Court, etc.) for supposedly usurping judicial functions in that they issued Supreme Court resolutions (actually, notices of resolutions) in connection with G.R. No. 82273 which did not bear the justices' signatures. 32 In a Resolution dated March 19, 1990, the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed his complaint for "lack of merit" declaring inter alia that "in all the questioned actuations of the respondents alleged to constitute usurpation . . . it cannot be reasonably and fairly inferred that respondents really were the ones rendering them," and "it is not the prerogative of this office to review the correctness of judicial resolutions." 33 III. CASES INVOLVING SECURITY BANK & TRUST CO. (SBTC) A. CIVIL CASES 1. RTC Case No. 21615; CAG.R. No. 20617; G.R. No. 94769 The third banking institution which Joaquin T. Borromeo engaged in running court battles, was the Security Bank & Trust Company (SBTC). From it Borromeo had obtained five (5) loans in the aggregate sum of P189,126.19, consolidated in a single Promissory Note on May 31, 1979. To secure payment thereof, Summa Insurance Corp. (Summa) issued a performance bond which set a limit of P200,000.00 on its liability thereunder. Again, as in the case of his obligations to Traders Royal Bank and UCPB, Borromeo failed to discharge his contractual obligations. Hence, SBTC brought an action in the Cebu City RTC against Borromeo and Summa for collection. The action was docketed as Civil Case No. R-21615, and was assigned to Branch 10, Judge Leonardo Caares, presiding. Plaintiff SBTC was represented by Atty. Edgar Gica, who later withdrew and was substituted by the law firm, HERSINLAW. The latter appeared in the suit through Atty. Wilfredo Navarro. Judgment by default was rendered in the case on January 5, 1989; both defendents were sentenced to pay to SBTC, solidarily, the amount of P436,771.32; 25% thereof as attorney's fees (but in no case less than P20,000.00); and P5,000.00 as litigation expenses; and the costs. A writ of execution issued in due course pursuant to which an immovable of Borromeo was levied on, and eventually sold at public auction on October 19, 1989 in favor of the highest bidder, SBTC.

On February 5, 1990, Borromeo filed a motion to set aside the judgment by default, but the same was denied on March 6, 1990. His Motion for Reconsideration having likewise been denied, Borromeo went to the Court of Appeals for relief (CA-G.R. No. 20617), but the latter dismissed his petition. Failing in his bid for reconsideration, Borromeo appealed to this Court on certiorari his appeal being docketed as G.R. No. 94769. On September 17, 1990, this Court dismissed his petition, and subsequently denied with finality his motion for reconsideration. Entry of Judgment was made on December 26, 1990. However, as will now be narrated, and as might now have been anticipated in light of his history of recalcitrance and bellicosity, these proceedings did not signify the end of litigation concerning Borromeo's aforesaid contractual commitments to SBTC, but only marked the start of another congeries of actions and proceedings, civil and criminal concerning the same matter, instituted by Borromeo. 2. RTC Case No. CEB-9267 While G.R. No. 94769 was yet pending in the Supreme Court, Borromeo commenced a suit of his own in the Cebu RTC against SBTC; the lawyers who represented it in Civil Case No. R-21625 HERSINLAW, Atty. Wilfredo Navarro, Atty. Edgar Gica; and even the Judge who tried and disposed of the suit, Hon. Leonardo Caares. He denominated his action, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-9267, as one for "Damages from Denial of Due Process, Breach of Contract, Fraud, Unjust Judgment, with Restraining Order and Injunction." His complaint accused defendants of "wanton, malicious and deceitful acts" in "conniving to deny plaintiff due process and defraud him through excessive attorney's fees," which acts caused him grave mental and moral shock, sleepless nights, worry, social embarrassment and severe anxiety for which he sought payment of moral and exemplary damages as well as litigation expenses. By Order dated May 21, 1991, the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 16 (Hon. Godardo Jacinto, presiding) granted the demurrer to evidence filed by defendants and dismissed the complaint, holding that "since plaintiff failed to introduce evidence to support . . . (his) causes of action asserted . . ., it would be superfluous to still require defendants to present their own evidence as there is nothing for them to controvert." 2. RTC Case No. CEB-10458; CA-G.R. CV No. 39047 Nothing daunted, and running true to form, Borromeo filed on July 2, 1991 still another suit against the same parties SBTC, HERSINLAW, and Judge Caares but now including Judge Godardo Jacinto, 34 who had rendered the latest judgment against him. This suit, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-10458, was, according to Borromeo, one "for Damages (For Unjust Judgment and Orders, Denial of Equal Protection of the Laws Violation of the Constitution, Fraud and Breach of Contract)." Borromeo faulted Judges Caares and Jacinto "for the way they decided the two cases (CVR-21615 & CEB NO. 9267)," and contended that defendants committed "wanton, malicious, and unjust acts" by "conniving to defraud plaintiff and deny him equal protection of the laws and due process," on account of which he had been "caused untold mental anguish, moral shock, worry, sleepless nights, and embarrassment for which the former are liable under Arts. 20, 21, 27, and 32 of the Civil Code." The defendants filed motions to dismiss. By Order dated August 30, 1991, the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 15 (Judge German G. Lee, Jr., presiding) dismissed the complaint on grounds of res judicata, immunity of judges from liability in the performance of their official functions, and lack of jurisdiction. Borromeo took an appeal to the Court of Appeals, which docketed it as CA-G.R. CV No. 39047. In the course thereof, he filed motions to cite Atty. Wilfredo F. Navarro, lawyer of SBTC, for contempt of court. The motions were denied by Resolution of the Court of Appeals (Special 7th Division) dated April 13, 1993. 35 Said the Court: Stripped of their disparaging and intemperate innuendoes, the subject motions, in fact, proffer nothing but a stark difference in opinion as to what can, or cannot, be considered res judicata under the circumstances. xxx xxx xxx

By their distinct disdainful tenor towards the appellees, and his apparent penchant for argumentum ad hominen, it is, on the contrary the appellant who precariously treads the acceptable limits of argumentation and personal advocacy. The Court, moreover, takes particular note of the irresponsible leaflets he admits to have authored and finds them highly reprehensible and needlessly derogatory to the dignity, honor and reputation of the Courts. That he is not a licensed law practitioner is, in fact, the only reason that his otherwise contumacious behavior is presently accorded the patience and leniency it probably does not deserve. Considering the temperament he has, by far, exhibited, the appellant is, however, sufficiently warned that similar displays in the future shall accordingly be dealt with with commensurate severity. IV. OTHER CASES A. RTC Case No. CEB-2074; CA-G.R, CV No. 14770; G.R. No. 98929 One other case arising from another transaction of Borromeo with Samson K. Lao is pertinent. This is Case No. CEB-2974 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu. It appears that sometime in 1979, Borromeo was granted a loan of P165,000.00 by the Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCom) on the security of a lot belonging to him in San Jose Street, Cebu City, covered by TCT No. 34785. 36 Later, Borromeo obtained a letter of credit in the amount of P37,000.00 from Republic Planters Bank, with Samson Lao as co-maker. Borromeo failed to pay his obligations; Lao agreed to, and did pay Borromeo's obligations to both banks (PBCom and Republic), in consideration of which a deed of sale was executed in his favor by Borromeo over two (2) parcels of land, one of which was that mortgaged to PBCom, as above stated. Lao then mortgaged the land to PBCom as security for his own loan in the amount of P240,000.00. Borromeo subsequently sued PBCom, some of its personnel, and Samson Lao in the Cebu Regional Trial Court alleging that the defendants had conspired to deprive him of his property. Judgment was rendered against him by the Trial Court. Borromeo elevated the case to the Court of Appeals where his appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 14770. On March 21, 1990, said Court rendered judgment affirming the Trial Court's decision, and on February 7, 1991, issued a Resolution denying Borromeo's motion for reconsideration. His appeal to this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 98929, was given short shrift. On May 29, 1991, the Court (First Division) promulgated a Resolution denying his petition for review "for being factual and for failure . . . to sufficiently show that respondent court had committed any reversible error in its questioned judgment." Stubbornly, in his motion for reconsideration, he insisted the notices of the resolutions sent to him were unconstitutional and void because bearing no signatures of the Justices who had taken part in approving the resolution therein mentioned. B. RTC Case No. CEB-11528 What would seem to be the latest judicial dispositions rendered against Borromeo, at least as of date of this Resolution, are two orders issued in Civil Case No. CEB-11528 of the Regional Trial Court at Cebu City (Branch 18), which was yet another case filed by Borromeo outlandishly founded on the theory that a judgment promulgated against him by the Supreme Court (Third Division) was wrong and "unjust." Impleaded as defendant in the action was former Chief Justice Marcelo B. Fernan, as Chairman of the Third Division at the time in question. On August 31, 1994 the presiding judge, Hon. Galicano O. Arriesgado, issued a Resolution inter alia dismissing Borromeo's complaint "on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and res judicata." His Honor made the following pertinent observations: . . . (T)his Court is of the well-considered view and so holds that this Court has indeed no jurisdiction to review, interpret or reverse the judgment or order of the Honorable Supreme Court. The acts or omissions complained of by the plaintiff against the herein defendant and the other personnel of the highest Court of the land as alleged in paragraphs 6 to 12 of plaintiff's complaint are certainly beyond the sphere of this humble court to consider and pass upon to determine their propriety and legality. To try to review, interpret or reverse the judgment or order of the Honorable Supreme Court would appear not only presumptuous but also contemptuous. As argued by the lawyer for the defendant, a careful perusal of the allegations in the complaint clearly shows that all material allegations thereof are directed against a resolution of the Supreme Court which was allegedly issued by the Third

Division composed of five (5) justices. No allegation is made directly against defendant Marcelo B. Fernan in his personal capacity. That being the case, how could this Court question the wisdom of the final order or judgment of the Supreme Court (Third Division) which according to the plaintiff himself had issued a resolution denying plaintiffs petition and affirming the Lower Court's decision as reflected in the "Entry of Judgment." Perhaps, if there was such violation of the Rules of Court, due process and Sec. 14, Art. 8 of the Constitution by the defendant herein, the appropriate remedy should not have been obtained before this Court. For an inferior court to reverse, interpret or review the acts of a superior court might be construed to a certain degree as a show of an uncommon common sense. Lower courts are without supervising jurisdiction to interpret or to reverse the judgment of the higher courts. Borromeo's motion for reconsideration dated September 20, 1994 was denied "for lack of sufficient factual and legal basis" by an Order dated November 15, 1994. V. ADMINISTRATIVE CASE No. 3433 A. Complaint Against Lawyers of his Court Adversaries Borromeo also initiated administrative disciplinary proceedings against the lawyers who had appeared for his adversaries UCPB and Samson K. Lao in the actions above mentioned, and others. As already mentioned, these lawyers were: Messrs. Laurence Fernandez, Danilo Deen, Honorato Hermosisima, Antonio Regis, and Alfredo Perez. His complaint against them, docketed as Administrative Case No. 3433, prayed for their disbarment. Borromeo averred that the respondent lawyers connived with their clients in (1) maliciously misrepresenting a deed of sale with pacto de retro as a genuine sale, although it was actually an equitable mortgage; (2) fraudulently depriving complainant of his proprietary rights subject of the Deed of Sale; and (3) defying two lawful Court orders, all in violation of their lawyer's oath to do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in Court. Borromeo alleged that respondents Perez and Regis falsely attempted to consolidate title to his property in favor of Lao. B. Answer of Respondent Lawyers The respondent lawyers denounced the disbarment complaint as "absolutely baseless and nothing but pure harassment." In a pleading dated July 10, 1990, entitled "Comments and Counter Motion to Cite Joaquin Borromeo in Contempt of Court;" July 10, 1990, filed by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Cebu City Chapter, signed by Domero C. Estenzo (President), Juliano Neri (Vice-President), Ulysses Antonio C. Yap (Treasurer); Felipe B. Velasquez (Secretary), Corazon E. Valencia (Director), Virgilio U. Lainid (Director), Manuel A. Espina (Director), Ildefonsa A. Ybaez (Director), Sylvia G. Almase (Director), and Ana Mar Evangelista P. Batiguin (Auditor). The lawyers made the following observations: It is ironic. While men of the legal profession regard members of the Judiciary with deferential awe and respect sometimes to the extent of cowering before the might of the courts, here is a non-lawyer who, with gleeful abandon and unmitigated insolence, has cast aspersions and shown utter disregard to the authority and name of the courts. And lawyers included. For indeed, it is very unfortunate that here is a non-lawyer who uses the instruments of justice to harass lawyers and courts who crosses his path more especially if their actuations do not conform with his whims and caprices. Adverting to letters publicly circulated by Borromeo, inter alia charging then Chief Justice Marcelo B. Fernan with supposed infidelity and violation of the constitution, etc., the lawyers went on to say the following: The conduct and statement of Borromeo against this Honorable Court, and other members of the Judiciary are clearly and grossly disrespectful, insolent and contemptuous. They tend to bring dishonor to the Judiciary and subvert the public confidence on the courts. If unchecked, the scurrilous attacks will undermine the dignity of the courts and will result in the loss of confidence in the country's judicial system and administration of justice.

. . . (S)omething should be done to protect the integrity of the courts and the legal profession. So many baseless badmouthing have been made by Borromeo against this Honorable Court and other courts that for him to go scot-free would certainly be demoralizing to members of the profession who afforded the court with all the respect and esteem due them. Subsequently, in the same proceeding; Borromeo filed another pleading protesting the alleged "refusal" of the Cebu City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to act on his disbarment cases "filed against its members." C. Decision of the IBP On March 28, 1994, the National Executive Director, IBP (Atty. Jose Aguila Grapilon) transmitted to this Court the notice and copy of the decision in the case, reached after due investigation, as well as the corresponding records in seven (7) volumes. Said decision approved and adopted the Report and Recommendation dated December 15, 1993 of Atty. Manuel P. Legaspi, President, IBP, Cebu City Chapter, representing the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, recommending dismissal of the complaint as against all the respondents and the issuance of a "warning to Borromeo to be more cautious and not be precipitately indiscriminate in the filing of administrative complaints against lawyers." 37 VI. SCURRILOUS WRITINGS Forming part of the records of several cases in this Court are copies of letters ("open" or otherwise), "circulars," flyers or leaflets harshly and quite unwarrantedly derogatory of the many court judgments or directives against him and defamatory of his adversaries and their lawyers and employees, as well as the judges and court employees involved in the said adverse dispositions some of which scurrilous writings were adverted to by the respondent lawyers in Adm. Case No. 3433, supra. The writing and circulation of these defamatory writing were apparently undertaken by Borromeo as a parallel activity to his "judicial adventures." The Court of Appeals had occasion to refer to his "apparent penchant for argumentum ad hominen" and of the "irresponsible leaflets he admits to have authored . . . (which were found to be) highly reprehensible and needlessly derogatory to the dignity, honor and reputation of the Courts." In those publicly circulated writings, he calls judges and lawyers ignorant, corrupt, oppressors, violators of the Constitution and the laws, etc. Sometime in July, 1990, for instance, he wrote to the editor of the "Daily Star" as regards the reported conferment on then Chief Justice Marcelo B. Fernan of an "Award from the University of Texas for his contributions in upholding the Rule of Law, Justice, etc.," stressing that Fernan "and the Supreme Court persist in rendering rulings patently violative of the Constitution, Due Process and Rule of Law, particularly in their issuance of so-called Minute Resolutions devoid of FACT or LAW or SIGNATURES . . ." He sent a copy of his letter in the Supreme Court. He circulated an "OPEN LETTER TO SC justices, Fernan," declaring that he had "suffered INJUSTICE after INJUSTICE from you who are sworn to render TRUE JUSTICE but done the opposite, AND INSTEAD OF RECTIFYING THEM, labeled my cases as 'frivolous, nuisance, and harassment suits' while failing to refute the irrefutable evidences therein . . .;" in the same letter, he specified what he considered to be some of "the terrible injustices inflicted on me by this Court." In another letter to Chief Justice Fernan, he observed that "3 years after EDSA, your pledges have not been fulfilled. Injustice continues and as you said, the courts are agents of oppression, instead of being saviours and defenders of the people. The saddest part is that (referring again to minute resolutions) even the Supreme Court, the court of last resort, many times, sanctions injustice and the trampling of the rule of law and due process, and does not comply with the Constitution when it should be the first to uphold and defend it . . . ." Another circulated letter of his, dated June 21, 1989 and captioned, "Open Letter to Supreme Court Justices Marcelo Fernan and Andres Narvasa," repeated his plaint of having "been the victim of many . . . 'Minute Resolutions' . . . which in effect sanction the theft and landgrabbing and arson of my properties by TRADERS ROYAL BANK, UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, AND one TOMAS B. TAN all without stating any FACT or LAW to support your dismissal of . . . (my) cases, despite your firm assurances (Justice Fernan) that you would cite me such facts or laws (during our talk in your house last March 12 1989);" and that "you in fact have no such facts or laws but simply want to ram down a most unjust Ruling in favor of a wrongful party. . . ."

In another flyer entitled in big bold letters, "A Gov't That Lies! Blatant attempt to fool people!" he mentions what he regards as "The blatant lies and contradictions of the Supreme Court, CA to support the landgrabbing by Traders Royal Bank of Borromeos' Lands." Another flyer has at the center the caricature of a person, seated on a throne marked Traders Royal Bank, surrounded by such statements as, "Sa TRB para kami ay royalty. Nakaw at nakaw! Kawat Kawat! TRB WILL STEAL!" etc Still another "circular" proclaims: "So the public may know: Supreme Court minute resolutions w/o facts, law, or signatures violate the Constitution" and ends with the admonition: "Supreme Court, Justice Fernan: STOP VIOLATING THE CHARTER." 38 One other "circular" reads: SC, NARVASA TYRANTS!!! CODDLERS OF CROOKS! VIOLATOR OF LAWS by: JOAQUIN BORROMEO NARVASA's SC has denied being a DESPOT nor has it shielded CROOKS in the judiciary. Adding "The SCRA (SC Reports) will attest to this continuing vigilance Of the supreme Court." These are lame, cowardly and self-serving denials and another "self-exoneration" belied by evidence which speak for themselves (Res Ipsa Loquitor) (sic) the SCRA itself. It is pure and simply TYRANNY when Narvasa and associates issued UNSIGNED, UNCLEAR, SWEEPING "Minute Resolutions" devoid of CLEAR FACTS and LAWS in patent violation of Secs. 4(3), 14, Art. 8 of the Constitution. It is precisely through said TYRANNICAL, and UNCONSTITUTIONAL sham rulings that Narvasa & Co. have CODDLED CROOKS like crony bank TRB, UCPB, and SBTC, and through said fake resolutions that Narvasa has LIED or shown IGNORANCE of the LAW in ruling that CONSIGNATION IS NECESSARY IN RIGHT OF REDEMPTION (GR 83306). Through said despotic resolutions, NARVASA & CO. have sanctioned UCPB/ACCRA's defiance of court orders and naked land grabbing What are these if not TYRANNY? (GR 84999). Was it not tyranny for the SC to issue an Entry of Judgment without first resolving the motion for reconsideration (G.R No. 82273). Was it not tyranny and abuse of power for the SC to order a case dismissed against SC clerks (CEBV-8679) and declare justices and said clerks "immune from suit" despite their failure to file any pleading? Were Narvasa & Co. not in fact trampling on the rule of law and rules of court and DUE PROCESS in so doing? (GR No. 82273). TYRANTS will never admit that they are tyrants. But their acts speak for themselves! NARVASA & ASSOC: ANSWER AND REFUTE THESE SERIOUS CHARGES OR RESIGN!! IMPEACH NARVASA ISSUING UNSIGNED, SWEEPING, UNCLEAR, UNCONSTITUTIONAL "MINUTE RESOLUTIONS" VIOLATIVE OF SECS. 4(3), 14, ART. 8, Constitution VIOLATING RULES OF COURT AND DUE PROCESS IN ORDERING CASE AGAINST SC CLERKS (CEB-8679) DISMISSED DESPITE THE LATTER'S FAILURE TO FILE PLEADINGS; HENCE IN DEFAULT CORRUPTION AND/OR GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IN RULING, THAT CONSIGNATION IS NECESSARY IN RIGHT OF REDEMPTION, CONTRADICTING LAW AND SC'S OWN RULINGS TO ALLOW CRONY BANK TRB TO STEALS LOTS WORTH P3 MILLION CONDONING CRONY BANK UCPB'S DEFIANCE OF TWO LAWFUL COURT ORDERS AND STEALING OF TITLE OF PROPERTY WORTH P4 MILLION

 BEING JUDGE AND ACCUSED AT THE SAME TIME AND PREDICTABLY EXONERATING HIMSELF AND FELLOW CORRUPT JUSTICES DECLARING HIMSELF, JUSTICES, and even MERE CLERKS TO BE IMMUNE FROM SUIT AND UN-ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE and REFUSING TO ANSWER AND REFUTE CHARGES AGAINST HIMSELF JOAQUIN T. BORROMEO. VI. IMMEDIATE ANTECEDENTS OF PROCEEDINGS AT BAR A. Letter of Cebu City Chapter IBP, dated June 21, 1992 Copies of these circulars evidently found their way into the hands, among others, of some members of the Cebu City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Its President thereupon addressed a letter to this Court, dated June 21, 1992, which (1) drew attention to one of them that last quoted, above " . . . .sent to the IBP Cebu City Chapter and probably other officers . . . in Cebu," described as containing "highly libelous and defamatory remarks against the Supreme Court and the whole justice system" and (2) in behalf of the Chapter's "officers and members," strongly urged the Court "to impose sanctions against Mr. Borromeo for his condemnable act." B. Resolution of July 22, 1993 Acting thereon, the Court En Banc issued a Resolution on July 22, 1993, requiring comment by Borromeo on the letter, notice of which was sent to him by the Office of the Clerk of Court. The resolution pertinently reads as follows: xxx xxx xxx The records of the Court disclose inter alia that as early as April 4, 1989, the Acting Clerk of Court, Atty. Luzviminda D. Puno, wrote a four page letter to Mr. Borromeo concerning G.R. No. 83306 (Joaquin T. Borromeo vs. Traders Royal Bank [referred to by Borromeo in the "circular" adverted to by the relator herein, the IBP Cebu City Chapter]) and two (2) other cases also filed with the Court by Borromeo: G.R. No. 77248 (Joaquin T. Borromeo v. Samson Lao and Mariano Logarta) and G.R. No. 84054 (Joaquin T. Borromeo v. Hon. Mario Dizon and Tomas Tan), all resolved adversely to him by different Divisions of the Court. In that letter Atty. Puno explained to Borromeo very briefly the legal principles applicable to his cases and dealt with the matters mentioned in his circular. The records further disclose subsequent adverse rulings by the Court in other cases instituted by Borromeo in this Court, i.e., G.R. No. 87897 (Joaquin T. Borromeo v. Court of Appeals, et al.) and No. 82273 (Joaquin T. Borromeo v. Court of Appeals and Samson Lao), as well as the existence of other communications made public by Borromeo reiterating the arguments already passed upon by the court in his cases and condemning the court's rejection of those arguments. Acting on the letter dated June 21, 1993 of the Cebu City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines thru its above named, President, and taking account of the related facts on record, the Court Resolved: 1) to REQUIRE: (a) the Clerk of Court (1) to DOCKET the matter at bar as a proceeding for contempt against Joaquin T. Borromeo instituted at the relation of said Cebu City Chapter, Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and (2) to SEND to the City Sheriff, Cebu City, notice of this resolution and copies of the Chapter's letter dated June 21, 1993 together with its annexes; and

(b) said City Sheriff of Cebu City to CAUSE PERSONAL SERVICE of said notice of resolution and a copy of the Chapter's letter dated June 21, 1993, together with its annexes, on Joaquin T. Borromeo at his address at Mabolo, Cebu City; and 2) to ORDER said Joaquin T. Borromeo, within ten (10) days from receipt of such notice and the IBP Chapter's letter of June 21, 1993 and its annexes, to file a comment on the letter and its annexes as well as on the other matters set forth in this resolution, serving copy thereof on the relator, the Cebu City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Palace of Justice Building, Capitol, Cebu City. SO ORDERED. 1. Atty. Puno's Letter of April 4, 1989 Clerk of Court Puno's letter to Borromeo of April 4, 1989, referred to in the first paragraph of the resolution just mentioned, explained to Borromeo for perhaps the second time, precisely the principles and established practice relative to "minute resolutions" and notices thereof, treated of in several other communications and resolutions sent to him by the Supreme Court, to wit: the letter received by him on July 10, 1987, from Clerk of Court Julieta Y. Carreon (of this Court's Third Division) (in relation to G.R No. 77243 39) the letter to him of Clerk of Court (Second Division) Fermin J. Garma, dated May 19, 1989, 40 and three resolutions of this Court, notices of which were in due course served on him, to wit: that dated July 31, 1989, in G.R. No. 87897; 41 that dated June 1, 1990 in G.R. No. 82274 (186 SCRA 1), 42 and that dated June 11, 1994 in G. R. No. 112928. 43 C. Borromeo's Comment of August 27, 1993 In response to the Resolution of July 22, 1993, Borromeo filed a Comment dated August 27, 1993 in which he alleged the following: 1) the resolution of July 22, 1993 (requiring comment) violates the Constitution which requires "signatures and concurrence of majority of members of the High Court;" hence, "a certified copy duly signed by Justices is respectfully requested;" 2) the Chief Justice and other Members of the Court should inhibit themselves "since they cannot be the Accused and Judge at the same time, . . . (and) this case should be heard by an impartial and independent body;" 3) the letter of Atty. Legaspi "is not verified nor signed by members of said (IBP Cebu Chapter) Board; . . . is vague, unspecific, and sweeping" because failing to point out "what particular statements in the circular are allegedly libelous and condemnable;" and does not appear that Atty. Legaspi has authority to speak or file a complaint "in behalf of those accused in the "libelous circular;" 4) in making the circular, he (Borromeo) "was exercising his rights of freedom of speech, of expression, and to petition the government for redress of grievances as guaranteed by the Constitution (Sec. 4, Art. III) and in accordance with the accountability of public officials;" the circular merely states the truth and asks for justice based on the facts and the law; . . . it is not libelous nor disrespectful but rather to be commended and encouraged; . . . Atty. Legaspi . . . should specify under oath which statements are false and lies; 5) he "stands by the charges in his circular and is prepared to support them with pertinent facts, evidence and law;" and it is "incumbent on the Hon. Chief Justice and members of the High Court to either refute said charges or dispense the justice that they are duty bound to dispense. D. Resolution of September 30, 1993

After receipt of the comment, and desiring to accord Borromeo the fullest opportunity to explain his side, and be reprsented by an attorney, the Court promulgated the following Resolution on September 30, 1993, notice of which was again served on him by the Office of the Clerk of Court. . . . The return of service filed by Sheriff Jessie A. Belarmino, Office of the Clerk of Court Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, dated August 26, 1993, and the Comment of Joaquin Borromeo, dated August 27, 1993, on the letter of President Manuel P. Legaspi of the relator dated June 21, 1993, are both NOTED. After deliberating on the allegations of said Comment, the Court Resolved to GRANT Joaquin T. Borromeo an additional period of fifteen (15) days from notice hereof within which to engage the services or otherwise seek the assistance of a lawyer and submit such further arguments in addition to or in amplification of those set out in his Comment dated August 27, 1993, if he be so minded. SO ORDERED. E. Borromeo's Supplemental Comment of October 15, 1992 Borromeo filed a "Supplemental Comment" dated October 15, 1992, reiterating the arguments and allegations in his Comment of August 27, 1993, and setting forth "additional arguments and amplification to . . . (said) Comment," viz.: 1) the IBP and Atty. Legaspi have failed "to specify and state under oath the alleged 'libelous' remarks contained in the circular . . .; (they should) be ordered to file a VERIFIED COMPLAINT . . .(failing in which, they should) be cited in contempt of court for making false charges and wasting the precious time of this Highest Court by filing a baseless complaint; 2) the allegations in their circular are not libelous nor disrespectful but "are based on the TRUTH and the LAW", namely: a) "minute resolutions" bereft of signatures and clear facts and laws are patent violations of Secs. 4(32), 13, 14, Art. VIII of the Constitution; b) there is no basis nor thruth to this Hon. Court's affirmation to the Appelate Court's ruling that the undersigned "lost" his right of redemption price, since no less than this Hon. Court has ruled in many rulings that CONSIGNATION IS UNNECESSARY in right of redemption; c) this Hon. Court has deplorably condoned crony banks TRB and UCPB's frauds and defiance of court orders in G.R. Nos. 83306 and 878997 and 84999. F. Borromeo's "Manifestation" of November 26, 1993 Borromeo afterwards filed a "Manifestation" under date of November 26, 1993, adverting to "the failure of the IBP and Atty. Legaspi to substantiate his charges under oath and the failure of the concerned Justices to refute the charges in the alledged "libelous circular" and, construing these as "and admission of the thruth in said circular," theorized that it is "incumbent on the said Justices to rectify their grave as well as to dismiss Atty. Legaspi's baseless and false charges." VII. THE COURT CONCLUSIONS A. Respondent's Liability for Contempt of Court Upon the indubitable facts on record, there can scarcely be any doubt of Borromeo's guilt of contempt, for abuse of and interference with judicial rules and processes, gross disrespect to courts and judges and improper conduct

directly impeding, obstructing and degrading the administration of justice. 44 He has stubbornly litigated issues already declared to be without merit, obstinately closing his eyes to the many rulings rendered adversely to him in many suits and proceedings, rulings which had become final and executory, obdurately and unreasonably insisting on the application of his own individual version of the rules, founded on nothing more than his personal (and quite erroneous) reading of the Constitution and the law; he has insulted the judges and court officers, including the attorneys appearing for his adversaries, needlessly overloaded the court dockets and sorely tried the patience of the judges and court employees who have had to act on his repetitious and largely unfounded complaints, pleadings and motions. He has wasted the time of the courts, of his adversaries, of the judges and court employees who have had the bad luck of having to act in one way or another on his unmeritorious cases. More particularly, despite his attention having been called many times to the egregious error of his theory that the so-called "minute resolutions" of this Court should contain findings of fact and conclusions of law, and should be signed or certified by the Justices promulgating the same, 45 he has mulishly persisted in ventilating that self-same theory in various proceedings, causing much loss of time, annoyance and vexation to the courts, the court employees and parties involved. 1. Untenability of Proffered Defenses The first defense that he proffers, that the Chief Justice and other Members of the Court should inhibit themselves "since they cannot be the Accused and Judge at the same time . . . (and) this case should be heard by an impartial and independent body, is still another illustration of an entirely unwarranted, arrogant and reprehensible assumption of a competence in the field of the law: he again uses up the time of the Court needlessly by invoking an argument long since declared and adjudged to be untenable. It is axiomatic that the "power or duty of the court to institute a charge for contempt against itself, without the intervention of the fiscal or prosecuting officer, is essential to the preservation of its dignity and of the respect due it from litigants, lawyers and the public. Were the intervention of the prosecuting officer required and judges obliged to file complaints for contempts against them before the prosecuting officer, in order to bring the guilty to justice, courts would be inferior to prosecuting officers and impotent to perform their functions with dispatch and absolute independence. The institution of charges by the prosecuting officer is not necessary to hold persons guilty of civil or criminal contempt amenable to trial and punishment by the court. All that the law requires is that there be a charge in writing duly filed in court and an opportunity to the person charged to be heard by himself or counsel. The charge may be made by the fiscal, by the judge, or even by a private person. . . ." 46 His claim that the letter of Atty. Legaspi "is not verified nor signed by members of said (IBP Cebu Chapter) Board; . . . is vague, unspecific, and sweeping" because failing to point out what particular statements in the circular are allegedly libelous and condemnable;" and it does not appear that Atty. Legaspi has authority to speak or file a complaint "in behalf of those accused in the 'libelous' circular" is in the premises, plainly nothing but superficial philosophizing, deserving no serious treatment. Equally as superficial, and sophistical, is his other contention that in making the allegations claimed to be contumacious, he "was exercising his rights of freedom of speech, of expression, and to petition the government for redress of grievances as guaranteed by the Constitution (Sec. 4, Art. III) and in accordance with the accountablity of public officials." The constitutional rights invoked by him afford no justification for repetitious litigation of the same causes and issues, for insulting lawyers, judges, court employees; and other persons, for abusing the processes and rules of the courts, wasting their time, and bringing them into disrepute and disrespect. B. Basic Principles Governing the Judicial Function The facts and issues involved in the proceeding at bench make necessary a restatement of the principles governing finality of judgments and of the paramount need to put an end to litigation at some point, and to lay down definite postulates concerning what is perceived to be a growing predilection on the part of lawyers and litigants like Borromeo to resort to administrative prosecution (or institution of civil or criminal actions) as a substitute for or supplement to the specific modes of appeal or review provided by law from court judgments or orders. 1. Reason for courts; Judicial Hierarchy

Courts exist in every civilized society for the settlement of controversies. In every country there is a more or less established hierarchical organization of courts, and a more or less comprehensive system of review of judgments and final orders of lower courts. The judicial system in this jurisdiction allows for several levels of litigation, i.e., the presentation of evidence by the parties a trial or hearing in the first instance as well as a review of the judgments of lower courts by higher tribunals, generally by consideration anew and ventilation of the factual and legal issues through briefs or memoranda. The procedure for review is fixed by law, and is in the very nature of things, exclusive to the courts. 2. Paramount Need to end Litigation at Some Point It is withal of the essence of the judicial function that at some point, litigation must end. Hence, after the procedures and processes for lawsuits have been undergone, and the modes of review set by law have been exhausted, or terminated, no further ventilation of the same subject matter is allowed. To be sure, there may be, on the part of the losing parties, continuing disagreement with the verdict, and the conclusions therein embodied. This is of no moment, indeed, is to be expected; but, it is not their will, but the Court's, which must prevail; and, to repeat, public policy demands that at some definite time, the issues must be laid to rest and the court's dispositions thereon accorded absolute finality. 47 As observed by this Court in Rheem of the Philippines v. Ferrer, a 1967 decision, 48 a party "may think highly of his intellectual endowment. That is his privilege. And he may suffer frustration at what he feels is others' lack of it. This is his misfortune. Some such frame of mind, however, should not be allowed to harden into a belief that he may attack a court's decision in words calculated to jettison the time-honored aphorism that courts are the temples of right." 3. Judgments of Supreme Court Not Reviewable The sound, salutary and self-evident principle prevailing in this as in most jurisdictions, is that judgments of the highest tribunal of the land may not be reviewed by any other agency, branch, department, or official of Government. Once the Supreme Court has spoken, there the matter must rest. Its decision should not and cannot be appealed to or reviewed by any other entity, much less reversed or modified on the ground that it is tainted by error in its findings of fact or conclusions of law, flawed in its logic or language, or otherwise erroneous in some other respect. 49 This, on the indisputable and unshakable foundation of public policy, and constitutional and traditional principle. In an extended Resolution promulgated on March 12, 1987 in In Re: Wenceslao Laureta involving an attempt by a lawyer to prosecute before the Tanod bayan "members of the First Division of this Court collectively with having knowingly and deliberately rendered an 'unjust extended minute Resolution' with deliberate bad faith in violation of Article 204 of the Revised penal Code ". . . and for deliberatly causing "undue injury" to respondent . . . and her coheirs because of the "unjust Resolution" promulgated, in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act . . . the following pronouncements were made in reaffirmation of established doctrine: 50 . . . As aptly declared in the Chief Justice's Statement of December 24, 1986, which the Court hereby adopts in toto, "(I)t is elementary that the Supreme Court is supreme the third great department of government entrusted exclusively with the judicial power to adjudicate with finality all justiciable disputes, public and private. No other department or agency may pass upon its judgments or declare them "unjust." It is elementary that "(A)s has ever been stressed since the early case of Arnedo vs.Llorente (18 Phil. 257, 263 [1911]) "controlling and irresistible reasons of public policy and of sound practice in the courts demand that at the risk of occasional error, judgments of courts determining controversies submitted to them should become final at some definite time fixed by law, or by a rule of practice recognized by law, so as to be thereafter beyond the control even of the court which rendered them for the purpose of correcting errors of fact or of law, into which, in the opinion of the court it may have fallen. The very purpose for which the courts are organized is to put an end to controversy, to decide the questions submitted to the litigants, and to determine the respective rights of the parties. (Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc. vs. Maritime Bldg., Co., Inc., 86 SCRA 305, 316317)

xxx xxx xxx Indeed, resolutions of the Supreme Court as a collegiate court, whether an en banc or division, speak for themselves and are entitled to full faith and credence and are beyond investigation or inquiry under the same principle of conclusiveness of enrolled bills of the legislature. (U.S. vs. Pons, 34 Phil. 729; Gardiner, et al. vs. Paredes, et al., 61 Phil. 118; Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. 1) The Supreme Court's pronouncement of the doctrine that "(I)t is well settled that the enrolled bill . . . is conclusive upon the courts as regards the tenor of the measure passed by Congress and approved by the President. If there has been any mistake in the printing of the bill before it was certified by the officers of Congress and approved by the Executive [as claimed by petitionerimporter who unsuccessfully sought refund of margin fees] on which we cannot speculate, without jeopardizing the principle of separation of powers and undermining one of the cornerstones of our democractic system the remedy is by amendment or curative legislation, not by judicial decree" is fully and reciprocally applicable to Supreme Court orders, resolutions and decisions, mutatis mutandis. (Casco Phil. Chemical Co., Inc. vs. Gimenez, 7 SCRA 347, 350. (Citing Primicias vs. Paredes, 61 Phil. 118, 120; Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. 1; Macias vs. Comelec, 3 SCRA 1). The Court has consistently stressed that the "doctrine of separation of powers calls for the executive, legislative and judicial departments being left alone to discharge their duties as they see fit" (Tan vs. Macapagal, 43 SCRA 677). It has thus maintained in the same way that the judiciary has a right to expect that neither the President nor Congress would cast doubt on the mainspring of its orders or decisions, it should refrain from speculating as to alleged hidden forces at work that could have impelled either coordinate branch into acting the way it did. The concept of separation of powers presupposes mutual respect by and between the three departments of the government. (Tecson vs. Salas, 34 SCRA 275, 286-287). 4. Final and Executory Judgments of Lower Courts Not Reviewable Even by Supreme Court In respect of Courts below the Supreme Court, the ordinary remedies available under law to a party who is adversely affected by their decisions or orders are a motion for new trial (or reconsideration) under Rule 37, and an appeal to either the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, depending on whether questions of both fact and law, or of law only, are raised, in accordance with fixed and familiar rules and conformably with the hierarchy of courts. 51 Exceptionally, a review of a ruling or act of a court on the ground that it was rendered without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, may be had through the special civil action of certiorarior prohibition pursuant to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. However, should judgments of lower courts which may normally be subject to review by higher tribunals become final and executory before, or without, exhaustion of all recourse of appeal, they, too, become inviolable, impervious to modification. They may, then, no longer be reviewed, or in anyway modified directly or indirectly, by a higher court, not even by the Supreme Court, much less by any other official, branch or department of Government. 52 C. Administrative Civil or Criminal Action against Judge. Not Substitute for Appeal; Proscribed by Law and Logic Now, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that there has been of late a regrettable increase in the resort to administrative prosecution or the institution of a civil or criminal action as a substitute for or supplement to appeal. Whether intended or not, such a resort to these remedies operates as a form of threat or intimidation to coerce judges into timorous surrender of their prerogatives, or a reluctance to exercise them. With rising frequency, administrative complaints are being presented to the Office of the Court Administrator; criminal complaints are being filed with the Office of the Ombudsman or the public prosecutor's office; civil actions for recovery of damages commenced in the Regional Trial Courts against trial judges, and justices of the Court of Appeals and even of the Supreme Court.

1. Common Basis of Complaints Against Judges Many of these complaints set forth a common indictment: that the respondent Judges or Justices rendered manifestly unjust judgments or interlocutory orders 53 i.e., judgments or orders which are allegedly not in accord with the evidence, or with law or jurisprudence, or are tainted by grave abuse of discretion thereby causing injustice, and actionable and compensable injury to the complainants (invariably losing litigants). Resolution of complaints of this sort quite obviously entails a common requirement for the fiscal, the Ombudsman or the Trial Court: a review of the decision or order of the respondent Judge or Justice to determine its correctness or erroneousness, as basic premise for a pronouncement of liability. 2. Exclusivity of Specific Procedures for Correction of Judgments and Orders The question then, is whether or not these complaints are proper; whether or not in lieu of the prescribed recourses for appeal or review of judgments and orders of courts, a party may file an administrative or criminal complaint against the judge for rendition of an unjust judgment, or, having opted for appeal, may nonetheless simultaneously seek also such administrative or criminal remedies. Given the nature of the judicial function, the power vested by the Constitution in the Supreme Court and the lower courts established by law, the question submits to only one answer: the administrative or criminal remedies are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review where such review is available, and must wait on the result thereof. Simple reflection will make this proposition amply clear, and demonstrate that any contrary postulation can have only intolerable legal implications. Allowing a party who feels aggrieved by a judicial order or decision not yet final and executory to mount an administrative, civil or criminal prosecution for unjust judgment against the issuing judge would, at a minimum and as an indispensable first step, confer the prosecutor (or Ombudsman) with an incongruous function pertaining, not to him, but to the courts: the determination of whether the questioned disposition is erroneous in its findings of fact or conclusions of law, or both. If he does proceed despite that impediment, whatever determination he makes could well set off a proliferation of administrative or criminal litigation, a possibility here after more fully explored. Such actions are impermissible and cannot prosper. It is not, as already pointed out, within the power of public prosecutors, or the Ombudsman or his deputies, directly or vicariously, to review judgments or final orders or resolutions of the Courts of the land. The power of review by appeal or special civil action is not only lodged exclusively in the Courts themselves but must be exercised in accordance with a well-defined and long established hierarchy, and long-standing processes and procedures. No other review is allowed; otherwise litigation would be interminable, and vexatiously repetitive. These principles were stressed in In Re: Wenceslao Laureta, supra. 54 Respondents should know that the provisions of Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code as to "rendering knowingly unjust judgment," refer to an individual judge who does so "in any case submitted to him for decision" and even then, it is not the prosecutor who would pass judgment on the "unjustness" of the decision rendered by him but the proper appellate court with jurisdiction to review the same, either the Court of Appeals and/or the Supreme Court. Respondents should likewise know that said penal article has no application to the members of a collegiate court such as this Court or its Divisions who reach their conclusions in consultation and accordingly render their collective judgment after due deliberation. It also follows, consequently, that a charge of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act on the ground that such a collective decision is "unjust" cannot prosper. xxx xxx xxx To subject to the threat and ordeal of investigation and prosecution, a judge, more so a member of the Supreme Court for official acts done by him in good faith and in the regular exercise of official

duty and judicial functions is to subvert and undermine that very independence of the judiciary, and subordinate the judiciary to the executive. "For it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself. Liability to answer to everyone who might feel himself aggrieved by the action of the judge would be inconsistent with the possession of this freedom, and would destroy that independence without which no judiciary can be either respectable or useful." (Bradley vs. Fisher, 80 U. S. 335). xxx xxx xxx To allow litigants to go beyond the Court's resolution and claim that the members acted "with deliberate bad faith" and rendered an "unjust resolution" in disregard or violation of the duty of their high office to act upon their own independent consideration and judgment of the matter at hand would be to destroy the authenticity, integrity and conclusiveness of such collegiate acts and resolutions and to disregard utterly the presumption of regular performance of official duty. To allow such collateral attack would destroy the separation of powers and undermine the role of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of all justiciable disputes. Dissatisfied litigants and/or their counsels cannot without violating the separation of powers mandated by the Constitution relitigate in another forum the final judgment of this Court on legal issues submitted by them and their adversaries for final determination to and by the Supreme Court and which fall within the judicial power to determine and adjudicate exclusively vested by the Constitutionin the Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as may be established by law. This is true, too, as regards judgments, otherwise appealable, which have become final and executory. Such judgments, being no longer reviewable by higher tribunals, are certainly not reviewable by any other body or authority. 3. Only Courts Authorized, under Fixed Rules to Declare Judgments or Orders Erroneous or Unjust To belabor the obvious, the determination of whether or not a judgement or order is unjust or was (or was not) rendered within the scope of the issuing judge's authority, or that the judge had exceeded his jurisdiction and powers or maliciously delayed the disposition of a case is an essentially judicial function, lodged by existing law and immemorial practice in a hierarchy of courts and ultimately in the highest court of the land. To repeat, no other entity or official of the Government, not the prosecution or investigation service or any other branch; nor any functionary thereof, has competence to review a judicial order or decision whether final and executory or not and pronounce it erroneous so as to lay the basis for a criminal or administrative complaint for rendering an unjust judgment or order. That prerogative belongs to the courts alone. 4. Contrary Rule Results in Circuitousness and Leads to Absurd Consequences Pragmatic considerations also preclude prosecution for supposed rendition of unjust judgments or interlocutory orders of the type above described, which, at bottom, consist simply of the accusation that the decisions or interlocutory orders are seriously wrong in their conclusions of fact or of law, or are tainted by grave abuse of discretion as distinguished from accusations of corruption, or immorality, or other wrongdoing. To allow institution of such proceedings would not only be legally improper, it would also result in a futile and circuitous exercise, and lead to absurd consequences. Assume that a case goes through the whole gamut of review in the judicial hierarchy; i.e., a judgment is rendered by a municipal trial court; it is reviewed and affirmed by the proper Regional Trial Court; the latter's judgment is appealed to and in due course affirmed by the Court of Appeals; and finally, the appellate court's decision is brought up to and affirmed by the Supreme Court. The prosecution of the municipal trial court judge who rendered the original decision (for knowingly rendering a manifestly unjust judgment) would appear to be out of the question; it would mean that the Office of the Ombudsman or of the public prosecutor would have to find, at the preliminary

investigation, not only that the judge's decision was wrong and unjust, but by necessary implication that the decisions or orders of the Regional Trial Court Judge, as well as the Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court who affirmed the original judgment were also all wrong and unjust most certainly an act of supreme arrogance and very evident supererogation. Pursuing the proposition further, assuming that the public prosecutor or Ombudsman should nevertheless opt to undertake a review of the decision in question despite its having been affirmed at all three (3) appellate levels and thereafter, disagreeing with the verdict of all four (4) courts, file an information in the Regional Trial Court against the Municipal Trial Court Judge, the fate of such an indictment at the hands of the Sandiganbayan or the Regional Trial Court would be fairly predictable. Even if for some reason the Municipal Trial Court Judge is convicted by the Sandiganbayan or a Regional Trial Court, the appeal before the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals would have an inevitable result: given the antecedents, the verdict of conviction would be set aside and the correctness of the judgment in question, already passed upon and finally resolved by the same appellate courts, would necessarily be sustained. Moreover, in such a scenario, nothing would prevent the Municipal Trial Judge, in his turn, from filing a criminal action against the Sandiganbayan Justices, or the Regional Trial Court Judge who should convict him of the offense, for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, or against the Justices of the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court who should affirm his conviction. The situation is ridiculous, however the circumstances of the case may be modified, and regardless of whether it is a civil, criminal or administrative proceeding that is availed of as the vehicle to prosecute the judge for supposedly rendering an unjust decision or order. 5. Primordial Requisites for Administrative Criminal Prosecution This is not to say that it is not possible at all to prosecute judges for this impropriety, of rendering an unjust judgment or interlocutory order; but, taking account of all the foregoing considerations, the indispensable requisites are that there be a final declaration by a competent court in some appropriate proceeding of the manifestly unjust character of the challenged judgment or order, and there be also evidence of malice or bad faith, ignorance or inexcusable negligence, on the part of the judge in rendering said judgement or order. That final declaration is ordinarily contained in the judgment rendered in the appellate proceedings in which the decision of the trial court in the civil or criminal action in question is challenged. What immediately comes to mind in this connection is a decision of acquittal or dismissal in a criminal action, as to which the same being unappealable it would be unreasonable to deny the State or the victim of the crime (or even public-spirited citizens) the opportunity to put to the test of proof such charges as they might see fit to press that it was unjustly rendered, with malice or by deliberate design, through inexcusable ignorance or negligence, etc. Even in this case, the essential requisite is that there be an authoritative judicial pronouncement of the manifestly unjust character of the judgment or order in question. Such a pronouncement may result from either (a) an action of certiorari or prohibition in a higher court impugning the validity of the; judgment, as having been rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion; e.g., there has been a denial of due process to the prosecution; or (b) if this be not proper, an administrative proceeding in the Supreme Court against the judge precisely for promulgating an unjust judgment or order. Until and unless there is such a final, authoritative judicial declaration that the decision or order in question is "unjust," no civil or criminal action against the judge concerned is legally possible or should be entertained, for want of an indispensable requisite. D. Judges Must be Free from Influence or Pressure Judges must be free to judge, without pressure or influence from external forces or factors. They should not be subject to intimidation, the fear of civil, criminal or administrative sanctions for acts they may do and dispositions they may make in the performance of their duties and functions. Hence it is sound rule, which must be recognized independently of statute, that judges are not generally liable for acts done within the scope of their jurisdiction and in good faith.

This Court has repeatedly and uniformly ruled that a judge may not be held administratively accountable for every erroneous order or decision he renders. 55 To hold otherwise would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position doubly unbearable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment. 56 The error must be gross or patent, deliberate and malicious, or incurred with evident bad faith; 57 it is only in these cases that administrative sanctions are called for as an imperative duty of the Supreme Court. As far as civil or criminal liability is concerned, existing doctrine is that "judges of superior and general jurisdiction are not liable to respond in civil action for damages for what they may do in the exercise of their judicial functions when acting within their legal powers and jurisdiction." 58 Based on Section 9, Act No. 190, 59 the doctrine is still good law, not inconsistent with any subsequent legislative issuance or court rule: "No judge, justice of the peace or assessor shall be liable to a civil action for the recovery of damages by reason of any judicial action or judgment rendered by him in good faith, and within the limits of his legal powers and jurisdiction." Exception to this general rule is found in Article 32 of the Civil Code, providing that any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the enumerated rights and liberties of another person which rights are the same as those guaranteed in the Bill of Rights (Article III of the Constitution); shall be liable to the latter for damages. However, such liability is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute. But again, to the extent that the offenses therein described have "unjust judgment or "unjust interlocutory order" for an essential element, it need only be reiterated that prosecution of a judge for any of them is subject to the caveat already mentioned: that such prosecution cannot be initiated, much less maintained, unless there be a final judicial pronouncement of the unjust character of the decision or order in issue. E. Afterword Considering the foregoing antecedents and long standing doctrines, it may well be asked why it took no less than sixteen (16) years and some fifty (50) grossly unfounded cases lodged by respondent Borromeo in the different rungs of the Judiciary before this Court decided to take the present administrative measure. The imposition on the time of the courts and the unnecessary work occasioned by respondent's crass adventurism are self-evident and require no further elaboration. If the Court, however, bore with him with Jobian patience, it was in the hope that the repeated rebuffs he suffered, with the attendant lectures on the error of his ways, would somehow seep into his understanding and deter him from further forays along his misguided path. After all, as has repeatedly been declared, the power of contempt is exercised on the preservative and not the vindictive principle. Unfortunately the Court's forbearance had no effect on him. Instead, the continued leniency and tolerance extended to him were read as signs of weakness and impotence. Worse, respondent's irresponsible audacity appears to have influenced and emboldened others to just as flamboyantly embark on their own groundless and insulting proceedings against the courts, born of affected bravado or sheer egocentrism, to the extent of even involving the legislative and executive departments, the Ombudsman included, in their assaults against the Judiciary in pursuit of personal agendas. But all things, good or bad, must come to an end, and it is time for the Court to now draw the line, with more promptitude, between reasoned dissent and self-seeking pretense. The Court accordingly serves notice to those with the same conceit or delusions that it will henceforth deal with them, decisively and fairly, with a firm and even hand, and resolutely impose such punitive sanctions as may be appropriate to maintain the integrity and independence of the judicial institutions of the country. WHEREFORE, Joaquin T. Borromeo is found and declared GUILTY of constructive contempt repeatedly committed over time, despite warnings and instructions given to him, and to the end that he may ponder his serious errors and grave misconduct and learn due respect for the Courts and their authority, he is hereby sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of TEN (10) DAYS in the City Jail of Cebu City and to pay a fine of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00). He is warned that a repetition of any of the offenses of which he is herein found guilty, or any similar or other offense against courts, judges or court employees, will merit further and more serious sanctions. IT IS SO ORDERED.

[A.M. MTJ-98-1147. July 2, 1998]

JESUS S. CONDUCTO, complainant, vs. JUDGE ILUMINADO C. MONZON, respondent.

DAVIDE, JR., J.: In a sworn letter-complaint dated 14 October 1996,[1] complainant charged respondent Judge Iluminado C. Monzon of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, San Pablo City, with ignorance of law, in that he deliberately refused to suspend a barangay chairman who was charged before his court with the crime of unlawful appointment under Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code. The factual antecedents recited in the letter-complaint are not controverted. On 30 August 1993, complainant filed a complaint with the Sangguniang Panlungsod of San Pablo City against one Benjamin Maghirang, the barangay chairman of Barangay III-E of San Pablo City, for abuse of authority, serious irregularity and violation of law in that, among other things, said respondent Maghirang appointed his sister-in-law, Mrs. Florian Maghirang, to the position of barangay secretary on 17 May 1989 in violation of Section 394 of the Local Government Code. At the same time, complainant filed a complaint for violation of Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code with the Office of the City Prosecutor against Maghirang, which was, however, dismissed[2] on 30 September 1993 on the ground that Maghirangs sister-in-law was appointed before the effectivity of the Local Government Code of 1991, which prohibits a punong barangay from appointing a relative within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity as barangay secretary. The order of dismissal was submitted to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. On 22 October 1993, complainant obtained Opinion No. 246, s. 1993[3] from Director Jacob Montesa of the Department of Interior and Local Government, which declared that the appointment issued by Maghirang to his sister-in-law violated paragraph (2), Section 95 of B.P. Blg. 337, the Local Government Code prior to the Local Government Code of 1991. In its Revised Resolution of 29 November 1993,[4] the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon dismissed the case, but ordered Maghirang to replace his sister-in-law as barangay secretary. On 20 December 1993, complainant moved that the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon reconsider[5] the order of 29 November 1993, in light of Opinion No. 246, s. 1993 of Director Montesa. Acting on the motion, Francisco Samala, Graft Investigation Officer II of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, issued an order[6] on 8 February 1994 granting the motion for reconsideration and recommending the filing of an information for unlawful appointment (Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code) against Maghirang. The recommendation was duly approved by Manuel C. Domingo, Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. In a 3rd indorsement dated 4 March 1994,[7] the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon transmitted the record of the case to the Office of the City Prosecutor of San Pablo City and instructed the latter to file the corresponding information against Maghirang with the proper court and to prosecute the case. The information for violation of Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code was forthwith filed with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities in San Pablo City and docketed as Criminal Case No. 26240. On 11 April 1994, the presiding judge, respondent herein, issued a warrant for the arrest of Maghirang, with a recommendation of a P200.00 bond for his provisional liberty. With prior leave from the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, on 4 May 1995, the City Prosecutor filed, in Criminal Case No. 26240, a motion for the suspension[8] of accused Maghirang pursuant to Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, which reads, in part: SEC. 13. Any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under Title 7, Book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property whether as a single or as complex offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in Court, shall be suspended from office. In his Order of 30 June 1995,[9] respondent judge denied the motion for suspension on the ground that:

[T]he alleged offense of UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENT under Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code was committed on May 17, 1989, during [Maghirangs] terms (sic) of office from 1989 to 1994 and said accused was again re-elected as Barangay Chairman during the last Barangay Election of May 9, 1994, hence, offenses committed during previous term is (sic) not a cause for removal (Lizarez vs. Hechanova, et al., G.R. No. L-22059, May 17, 1965); an order of suspension from office relating to a given term may not be the basis of contempt with respect to ones (sic) assumption of the same office under a new term (Oliveros vs. Villaluz, G.R. No. L-34636, May 30, 1971) and, the Court should never remove a public officer for acts done prior to his present term of office. To do otherwise would deprieve (sic) the people of their right to elect their officer. When the people have elected a man to office, it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and character, and that they disregarded or forgave his fault or misconduct (sic), if he had been guilty if any. (Aguinaldo vs. Santos, et al., G.R. No. 94115, August 21, 1992). The prosecution moved for reconsideration[10] of the order, alleging that the court had confused removal as a penalty in administrative cases and the temporary removal from office (or suspension) as a means of preventing the public official, while the criminal case against him is pending, from exerting undue influence, intimidate (sic) witnesses which may affect the outcome of the case; the former is a penalty or sanction whereas the latter is a mere procedural remedy. Accordingly, while a re-elected public official cannot be administratively punished by removing him from office for offenses committed during his previous term, said public official can be temporarily removed to prevent him from wielding undue influence which will definitely be a hindrance for justice to take its natural course. The prosecution then enumerated the cases decided by this Court reiterating the rule that what a reelection of a public official obliterates are only administrative, not criminal, liabilities, incurred during previous terms.[11] In his order of 3 August 1995,[12] respondent denied the motion for reconsideration, thus: There is no dispute that the suspension sought by the prosecution is premised upon the act charged allegedly committed during the accused [sic] previous term as Barangay Chairman of Brgy. III-E. San Pablo City, who was subsequently re-elected as Barangay Chairman again during the last Barangay Election of May 9, 1994. Certainly, had not the accused been re-elected the prosecution will not file the instant motion to suspend him as there is no legal basis or the issue has become academic. The instant case run [sic] parallel with the case of Lizares vs. Hechanova, et al., L-22059, May 17, 1966, 17 SCRA 58, wherein the Supreme Court subscribed to the rule denying the right to remove from office because of misconduct during a prior term. It is opined by the Court that preventive suspension is applicable only if there is [sic] administrative case filed against a local official who is at the same time criminally charged in Court. At present, the records of the Court shows [sic] that there is no pending administrative case existing or filed against the accused. It was held in the concluding paragraph of the decision by the Honorable Supreme Court in Lizares vs. Hechanova, et al., that Since petitioner, having been duly re-elected, is no longer amenable to administrative sanctions for any acts committed during his former tenure, the determination whether the respondent validly acted in imposing upon him one months suspension for act [sic] done during his previous term as mayor is now merely of theoretical interest. Complainant then moved that respondent inhibit himself from Criminal Case No. 26240. In his order of 21 September 1995,[13] respondent voluntarily inhibited himself. The case was assigned to Judge Adelardo S. Escoses per order of Executive Judge Bienvenido V. Reyes of the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City. On 15 October 1996, complainant filed his sworn letter-complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator. In his comment dated 14 February 1997, filed in compliance with the resolution of this Court of 27 January 1997, respondent asserted that he had been continuously keeping abreast of legal and jurisprudential development [sic] in the law since he passed the 1955 Bar Examinations; and that he issued the two challenged orders only after due appreciation of prevailing jurisprudence on the matter, citing authorities in suppo rt thereof. He thus prayed for dismissal of this case, arguing that to warrant a finding of ignorance of law and abuse of authority, the error must be so gross and patent as to produce an inference of ignorance or bad faith or that the judge knowingly rendered an unjust decision.[14] He emphasized, likewise, that the error had to be so grave and on so fundamental a point as to warrant condemnation of the judge as patently ignorant or negligent;[15] otherwise, to hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and that would be intolerable.[16]

Respondent further alleged that he earned complainants ire after denying the latters Motion for the Suspension of Barangay Chairman Maghirang, which was filed only after Maghirang was re-elected in 1994; and that complainant made inconsistent claims, concretely, while in his letter of 4 September 1995 requesting respondent to inhibit from the case, complainant declared that he believed in respondents integrity, competence and dignity, after he denied the request, complainant branded respondent as a judge of poor caliber and understanding of the law, very incompetent and has no place in Court of Justice. Finally, respondent Judge avowed that he would not dare soil his judicial robe at this time, for he had only three (3) years and nine (9) months more before reaching the compulsory age of retirement of seventy (70); and that for the last 25 years as municipal judge in the seven (7) towns of Laguna and as presiding judge of the MTCC, San Pablo City, he had maintained his integrity. In compliance with the Courts resolution of 9 March 1998, the parties, by way of separate letters, informed the Court that they agreed to have this case decided on the basis of the pleadings already filed, with respondent explicitly specifying that only the complaint and the comment thereon be considered. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommends that this Court hold respondent liable for ignorance of the law and that he be reprimanded with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. In support thereof, the OCA makes the following findings and conclusions: The claim of respondent Judge that a local official who is criminally charged can be preventively suspended only if there is an administrative case filed against him is without basis. Section 13 of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) states that: Suspension and loss of benefits Any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under Title 7, Book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property whether as a simple or as a complex offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. It is well settled that Section 13 of RA 3019 makes it mandatory for the Sandiganbayan (or the Court) to suspend any public officer against whom a valid information charging violation of this law, Book II, Title 7 of the RPC, or any offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or property is filed in court. The court trying a case has neither discretion nor duty to determine whether preventive suspension is required to prevent the accused from using his office to intimidate witnesses or frustrate his prosecution or continue committing malfeasance in office. All that is required is for the court to make a finding that the accused stands charged under a valid information for any of the above-described crimes for the purpose of granting or denying the sought for suspension. (Bolastig vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 110503 [August 4, 1994], 235 SCRA 103). In the same case, the Court held that as applied to criminal prosecutions under RA 3019, preventive suspension will last for less than ninety (90) days only if the case is decided within that period; otherwise, it will continue for ninety (90) days. Barangay Chairman Benjamin Maghirang was charged with Unlawful Appointment, punishable under Article 244, Title 7, Book II of the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, it was mandatory on Judge Monzons part, considering the Motion filed, to order the suspension of Maghirang for a maximum period of ninety (90) days. This, he failed and refused to do. Judge Monzons contention denying complainants Motion for Suspension because offenses committed during the previous term (is) not a cause for removal during the present term is untenable. In the case of Rodolfo E. Aguinaldo vs. Hon. Luis Santos and Melvin Vargas, 212 SCRA 768, the Court held that the rule is that a public official cannot be removed for administrative misconduct committed during a prior term since his re-election to office operates as a condonation of the officers previous misconduct committed during a prior term, to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefor. The foregoing rule, however, finds no application to criminal cases x x x (Underscoring supplied) Likewise, it was specifically declared in the case of Ingco vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. L-23220, 18 December 1967, 21 SCRA 1292, that The ruling, therefore, that when the people have elected a man to office it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and character and that they disregarded or forgave his faults or misconduct if he had been guilty of any refers only to an action for removal from office and does not apply to a criminal case. (Underscoring ours)

Clearly, even if the alleged unlawful appointment was committed during Maghirangs first term as barangay chairman and the Motion for his suspension was only filed in 1995 during his second term, his re-election is not a bar to his suspension as the suspension sought for is in connection with a criminal case. Respondents denial of complainants Motion for Reconsideration left the complainant with no other judicial remedy. Since a case for Unlawful Appointment is covered by Summary Procedure, complainant is prohibited from filing a petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition involving an interlocutory order issued by the court. Neither can he file an appeal from the courts adverse final judgment, incorporating in his appeal the grounds assailing the interlocutory orders, as this will put the accused in double jeopardy. All things considered, while concededly, respondent Judge manifested his ignorance of the law in denying complainants Motion for Suspension of Brgy. Chairman Maghirang, there was nothing shown however to indicate that he acted in bad faith or with malice. Be that as it may, it would also do well to note that good faith and lack of malicious intent cannot completely free respondent from liability. This Court, in the case of Libarios and Dabalos, 199 SCRA 48, ruled: In the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge done in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts may be erroneous. But, while judges should not be disciplined for inefficiency on account merely of occasional mistakes or errors of judgment, yet, it is highly imperative that they should be conversant with basic principles. A judge owes it to the public and the administration of justice to know the law he is supposed to apply to a given controversy. He is called upon to exhibit more than a cursory acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules. There will be faith in the administration of justice only if there be a belief on the part of litigants that the occupants of the bench cannot justly be accused of a deficiency in their grasp of legal principles. The findings and conclusions of the Office of the Court Administrator are in order. However, the penalty recommended, i.e., reprimand, is too light, in view of the fact that despite his claim that he has been continuously keeping abreast of legal and jurisprudential development [sic] in law ever since he passed th e Bar Examinations in 1995, respondent, wittingly or otherwise, failed to recall that as early as 18 December 1967 in Ingco v. Sanchez,[17] this Court explicitly ruled that the re-election of a public official extinguishes only the administrative, but not the criminal, liability incurred by him during his previous term of office, thus: The ruling, therefore, that -- when the people have elected a man to his office it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and character and that they disregarded or forgave his faults or misconduct if he had been guilty of any -- refers only to an action for removal from office and does not apply to a criminal case, because a crime is a public wrong more atrocious in character than mere misfeasance or malfeasance committed by a public officer in the discharge of his duties, and is injurious not only to a person or group of persons but to the State as a whole. This must be the reason why Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, which enumerates the grounds for extinction of criminal liability, does not include reelection to office as one of them, at least insofar as a public officer is concerned. Also, under the Constitution, it is only the President who may grant the pardon of a criminal offense. In Ingco, this Court did not yield to petitioners insistence that he was benefited by the ruling in Pascual v. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija[18] that a public officer should never be removed for acts done prior to his present term of office, as follows: There is a whale of a difference between the two cases. The basis of the investigation which has been commenced here, and which is sought to be restrained, is a criminal accusation the object of which is to cause the indictment and punishment of petitioner-appellant as a private citizen; whereas in the cases cited, the subject of the investigation was an administrative charge against the officers therein involved and its object was merely to cause his suspension or removal from public office. While the criminal cases involves the character of the mayor as a private citizen and the People of the Philippines as a community is a party to the case, an administrative case involves only his actuations as a public officer as [they] affect the populace of the municipality where he serves.[19] Then on 20 June 1969, in Luciano v. The Provincial Governor, et al.,[20] this Court likewise categorically declared that criminal liabilities incurred by an elective public official during his previous term of office were not extinguished by his re-election, and that Pascual v. Provincial Governor and Lizares v. Hechanova referred only to administrative liabilities committed during the previous term of an elective official, thus:

1. The first problem we are to grapple with is the legal effect of the reelection of respondent municipal officials. Said respondents would want to impress upon us the fact that in the last general elections of November 14,1967 the Makati electorate reelected all of them, except that Vice-Mayor Teotimo Gealogo, a councilor prior thereto, was elevated to vice-mayor. These respondents contend that their reelection erected a bar to their removal from office for misconduct committed prior to November 14, 1967. It is to be recalled that the acts averred in the criminal information in Criminal Case 18821 and for which they were convicted allegedly occurred on or about July 26, 1967, or prior to the 1967 elections. They ground their position on Pascual vs. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, 106 Phil. 466, and Lizares vs. Hechanova, 17 SCRA 58. A circumspect view leaves us unconvinced of the soundness of respondents' position. The two cases relied upon have laid down the precept that a reelected public officer is no longer amenable to administrativesanctions for acts committed during his former tenure. But the present case rests on an entirely different factual and legal setting. We are not here confronted with administrative charges to which the two cited cases refer. Here involved is a criminal prosecution under a special statute, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act 3019). Then again, on 30 May 1974, in Oliveros v. Villaluz,[21] this Court held: I The first question presented for determination is whether a criminal offense for violation of Republic Act 3019 committed by an elective officer during one term may be the basis of his suspension in a subsequent term in the event of his reelection to office. Petitioner concedes that "the power and authority of respondent judge to continue trying the criminal case against petitioner may not in any way be affected by the fact of petitioner's reelection," but contends that "said respondent's power to preventively suspend petitioner under section 13 of Republic Act 3019 became inefficacious upon petitioner's reelection" arguing that the power of the courts cannot be placed over that of sovereign and supreme people who ordained his return to office. Petitioner's reliance on the loose language used in Pascual vs. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija that "each term is separate from other terms and that the reelection to office operates as a condonation of the officer's previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefor" is misplaced. The Court has in subsequent cases made it clear that the Pascual ruling (which dealt with administrative liability) applies exclusively to administrative and not to criminal liability and sanctions. Thus, in Ingco vs. Sanchez the Court ruled that the reelection of a public officer for a new term does not in any manner wipe out the criminal liability incurred by him in a previous term. In Luciano vs. Provincial Governor the Court stressed that the cases of Pascual and Lizares are authority for the precept that "a reelected public officer is no longer amenable to administrative sanctions for acts committed during his former tenure" but that as to criminal prosecutions, particularly, for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as in the case at bar, the same are not barred by reelection of the public officer, since, inter alia, one of the penalties attached to the offense is perpetual disqualification from public office and it "is patently offensive to the objectives and the letter of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practice Act . . . that an official may amass wealth thru graft and corrupt practices and thereafter use the same to purchase reelection and thereby launder his evil acts." Punishment for a crime is a vindication for an offense against the State and the body politic. The small segment of the national electorate that constitutes the electorate of the municipality of Antipolo has no power to condone a crime against the public justice of the State and the entire body politic. Reelection to public office is not provided for in Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code as a mode of extinguishing criminal liability incurred by a public officer prior to his reelection. On the contrary, Article 9 of the Anti-Graft Act imposes as one of the penalties in case of conviction perpetual disqualification from public office and Article 30 of the Revised Penal Code declares that such penalty of perpetual disqualification entails "the deprivation of the public offices and employments which the offender may have held, even if conferred by popular election." It is manifest then, that such condonation of an officer's fault or misconduct during a previous expired term by virtue of his reelection to office for a new term can be deemed to apply only to his administrativeand not to his criminal guilt. As succinctly stated in then Solicitor General (now Associate Justice) Felix Q. Antonio's memorandum for the State, "to hold that petitioner's reelection erased his criminal liability would

in effect transfer the determination of the criminal culpability of an erring official from the court to which it was lodged by law into the changing and transient whim and caprice of the electorate. This cannot be so, for while his constituents may condone the misdeed of a corrupt official by returning him back to office, a criminal action initiated against the latter can only be heard and tried by a court of justice, his nefarious act having been committed against the very State whose laws he had sworn to faithfully obey and uphold. A contrary rule would erode the very system upon which our government is based, which is one of laws and not of men." Finally, on 21 August 1992, in Aguinaldo v. Santos,[22] this Court stated: Clearly then, the rule is that a public official cannot be removed from administrative misconduct committed during a prior term, since his re-election to office operates as a condonation of the officers previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefor. The foregoing rule, however, finds no application to criminal cases pending against petitioner for acts he may have committed during the failed coup. Thus far, no ruling to the contrary has even rippled the doctrine enunciated in the above-mentioned cases. If respondent has truly been continuously keeping abreast of legal and jurisprudential development [sic] in the law, it was impossible for him to have missed or misread these cases. What detracts from his claim of assiduity is the fact that he even cited the cases ofOliveros v. Villaluz and Aguinaldo v. Santos in support of his 30 June 1995 order. What is then evident is that respondent either did not thoroughly read these cases or that he simply miscomprehended them. The latter, of course, would only manifest either incompetence, since both cases were written in plain and simple language thereby foreclosing any possibility of misunderstanding or confusion; or deliberate disregard of a long settled doctrine pronounced by this Court. While diligence in keeping up-to-date with the decisions of this Court is a commendable virtue of judges -- and, of course, members of the Bar -- comprehending the decisions is a different matter, for it is in that area where ones competence may then be put to the test and proven. Thus, it has been said that a judge is called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules; it is imperative that he be conversant with basic legal principles and aware of well-settled and authoritative doctrines.[23] He should strive for excellence, exceeded only by his passion for truth, to the end that he be the personification of justice and the Rule of Law.[24] Needless to state, respondent was, in this instance, wanting in the desired level of mastery of a revered doctrine on a simple issue. On the other hand, if respondent judge deliberately disregarded the doctrine laid down in Ingco v. Sanchez and reiterated in the succeeding cases of Luciano v. Provincial Governor, Oliveros v. Villaluz and Aguinaldo v. Santos, it may then be said that he simply wished to enjoy the privilege of overruling this Courts doctrinal pronouncements. On this point, and as a reminder to all judges, it is apropos to quote what this Court said sixty-one years ago in People v. Vera:[25] As already observed by this Court in Shioji vs. Harvey [1922], 43 Phil., 333, 337), and reiterated in subsequent cases if each and every Court of First Instance could enjoy the privilege of overruling decisions of the Supreme Court, there would be no end to litigation, and judicial chaos would result. A becoming modesty of inferior courts demands conscious realization of the position that they occupy in the interrelation and operation of the integrated judicial system of the nation. Likewise, in Luzon Stevedoring Corp. v. Court of Appeals:[26] The spirit and initiative and independence on the part of men of the robe may at times be commendable, but certainly not when this Court, not once but at least four times, had indicated what the rule should be. We had spoken clearly and unequivocally. There was no ambiguity in what we said. Our meaning was clear and unmistakable. We did take pains to explain why it must be thus. We were within our power in doing so. It would not be too much to expect, then, that tribunals in the lower rungs of the judiciary would at the very least, take notice and yield deference. Justice Laurel had indicated in terms too clear for misinterpretation what is expected of them. Thus: A becoming modesty of inferior court[s] demands conscious realization of the position that they occupy in the interrelation and operation of the integrated judicial system of the nation.[27] In the constitutional sense, respondent Court is not excluded from such a category. The grave abuse of discretion is thus manifest. In Caram Resources Corp. v. Contreras,[28] this Court affirmed that by tradition and in our system of judicial administration, this Court has the last word on what the law is, and that its decisions applying or interpreting the

Constitution and laws form part of this countrys legal system.[29] All other courts should then be guided by the decisions of this Court. To judges who find it difficult to do so, Vivo v. Cloribel[30] warned: Now, if a Judge of a lower Court feels, in the fulfillment of his mission of deciding cases, that the application of a doctrine promulgated by this Superiority is against his way of reasoning, or against his conscience, he may state his opinion on the matter, but rather than disposing of the case in accordance with his personal views he must first think that it is his duty to apply the law as interpreted by the Highest Court of the Land, and that any deviation from the principle laid down by the latter would unavoidably cause, as a sequel, unnecessary inconveniences, delays and expenses to the litigants. And if despite of what is here said, a Judge, still believes that he cannot follow Our rulings, then he has no other alternative than to place himself in the position that he could properly avoid the duty of having to render judgment on the case concerned (Art. 9, C.C.), and he has only one legal way to do that. Finally, the last sentence of Canon 18 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics directs a judge to administer his office with due regard to the integrity of the system of the law itself, remembering that he is not a depository of arbitrary power, but a judge under the sanction of law. That having been said, we cannot but conclude that the recommended penalty of reprimand is not commensurate with the misdeed committed. A fine of P5,000.00, with a warning that a commission of similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely is, at the very least, appropriate, considering respondent is due for compulsory retirement on 29 November 2000 and that this is his first offense. WHEREFORE, for incompetence as a result of ignorance of a settled doctrine interpreting a law, or deliberate disregard of such doctrine in violation of Canon 18 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, respondent Judge Iluminado C. Monzon is hereby FINED in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) and warned that the commission of similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. SO ORDERED.

Macariola vs. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77 (1982) [Adm. Case No. 133-J. May 31, 1982.] BERNARDITA R. MACARIOLA, complainant, vs. HONORABLE ELIAS B. ASUNCION, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, respondent. DECISION MAKASIAR, J p: In a verified complaint dated August 6, 1968 Bernardita R. Macariola charged respondent Judge Elias B. Asuncion of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, with "acts unbecoming a judge." The factual setting of the case is stated in the report dated May 27, 1971 of then Associate Justice Cecilia Muoz Palma of the Court of Appeals now retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, to whom this case was referred on October 28, 1968 for investigation, thus: "Civil Case No. 3010 of the Court of First Instance of Leyte was a complaint for partition filed by Sinforosa R. Bales, Luz R. Bakunawa, Anacorita Reyes, Ruperto Reyes, Adela Reyes, and Priscilla Reyes, plaintiffs, against Bernardita R. Macariola, defendant, concerning the properties left by the deceased Francisco Reyes, the common father of the plaintiff and defendant. "In her defenses to the complaint for partition, Mrs. Macariola alleged among other things that: a) plaintiff Sinforosa R. Bales was not a daughter of the deceased Francisco Reyes; b) the only legal heirs of the deceased were defendant Macariola, she being the only offspring of the first marriage of Francisco Reyes with Felisa Espiras, and the remaining plaintiffs who were the children of the deceased by his second marriage with Irene Ondes; c) the properties left by the deceased were all the conjugal properties of the latter and his first wife, Felisa Espiras, and no properties were acquired by the deceased during his second marriage; d) if there was any partition to be made, those conjugal properties should first be partitioned into two parts, and one part is to be adjudicated solely to defendant it being the share of the latter's deceased mother, Felisa Espiras, and the other half which is the share of the deceased Francisco Reyes was to be divided equally among his children by his two marriages. "On June 8, 1963, a decision was rendered by respondent Judge Asuncion in Civil Case 3010, the dispositive portion of which reads: "'IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the Court, upon a preponderance of evidence, finds and so holds, and hereby renders judgment (1) Declaring the plaintiffs Luz R. Bakunawa, Anacorita Reyes, Ruperto Reyes, Adela Reyes and Priscilla Reyes as the only children legitimated by the subsequent marriage of Francisco Reyes Diaz to Irene Ondez; (2) Declaring the plaintiff Sinforosa R. Bales to have been an illegitimate child of Francisco Reyes Diaz; (3) Declaring Lots Nos. 4474, 4475, 4892, 5265, 4803, 4581, 4506 and 1/4 of Lot 1145 as belonging to the conjugal partnership of the spouses Francisco Reyes Diaz and Felisa Espiras; (4) Declaring Lot No. 2304 and 1/4 of Lot No. 3416 as belonging to the spouses Francisco Reyes Diaz and Irene Ondez in common partnership; (5) Declaring that 1/2 of Lot No. 1184 as belonging exclusively to the deceased Francisco Reyes Diaz; (6) Declaring the defendant Bernardita R. Macariola, being the only legal and forced heir of her mother Felisa Espiras, as the exclusive owner of one-half of each of Lots Nos. 4474, 4475, 4892, 5265, 4803, 4581, 4506; and the remaining one-half (1/2) of each of said Lots Nos. 4474, 4475, 4892, 5265, 4803, 4581, 4506 and one-half (1/2) of one-fourth (1/4) of Lot No. 1154 as belonging to the estate of Francisco Reyes Diaz; (7) Declaring Irene Ondez to be the exclusive owner of one-half (1/2) of Lot No. 2304 and one-half (1/2) of one-fourth (1/4) of Lot No. 3416; the remaining one-half (1/2) of Lot 2304 and the remaining one-half (1/2) of one fourth (1/4) of Lot No. 3416 as belonging to the estate of Francisco Reyes Diaz; (8) Directing the division or partition of the estate of Francisco Reyes Diaz in such a manner as to give or grant to Irene Ondez, as surviving widow of Francisco Reyes Diaz, a hereditary share of one-twelfth (1/12) of the whole estate of Francisco Reyes Diaz (Art. 996 in relation to Art. 892, par 2, New Civil Code), and the remaining portion of the estate to be divided among the plaintiffs Sinforosa R. Bales, Luz R. Bakunawa, Anacorita Reyes, Ruperto Reyes, Adela Reyes, Priscilla Reyes and defendant Bernardita R. Macariola, in such a way that the extent of the total share of plaintiff Sinforosa R. Bales in the hereditary estate shall not exceed the equivalent of two-fifth (2/5) of the total share of any or each of the other plaintiffs and the defendant (Art. 983, New Civil Code), each of the latter to receive equal shares from

the hereditary estate, (Ramirez vs. Bautista, 14 Phil. 528; Diancin vs. Bishop of Jaro, O.G. [3rd Ed.] p. 33); (9) Directing the parties, within thirty days after this judgment shall have become final to submit to this court, for approval, a project of partition of the hereditary estate in the proportion above indicated, and in such manner as the parties may, by agreement, deemed convenient and equitable to them taking into consideration the location, kind, quality, nature and value of the properties involved; (10) Directing the plaintiff Sinforosa R. Bales and defendant Bernardita R. Macariola to pay the costs of this suit, in the proportion of one-third (1/3) by the first named and two-thirds (2/3) by the second named; and (11) Dismissing all other claims of the parties [pp. 27-29 of Exh. C]. "The decision in civil case 3010 became final for lack of an appeal, and on October 16, 1963, a project of partition was submitted to Judge Asuncion which is marked Exh. A. Notwithstanding the fact that the project of partition was not signed by the parties themselves but only by the respective counsel of plaintiffs and defendant, Judge Asuncion approved it in his Order dated October 23, 1963, which for convenience is quoted hereunder in full: 'The parties, through their respective counsels, presented to this Court for approval the following project of partition: 'COMES NOW, the plaintiffs and the defendant in the above-entitled case, to this Honorable Court respectfully submit the following Project of Partition: '1. The whole of Lots Nos. 1154, 2304 and 4506 shall belong exclusively to Bernardita Reyes Macariola; '2. A portion of Lot No. 3416 consisting of 2,373.49 square meters along the eastern part of the lot shall be awarded likewise to Bernardita R. Macariola; '3. Lots Nos. 4803, 4892 and 5265 shall be awarded to Sinforosa Reyes Bales; '4. A portion of Lot No. 3416 consisting of 1,834.55 square meters along the western part of the lot shall likewise be awarded to Sinforosa Reyes-Bales; '5. Lots Nos. 4474 and 4475 shall be divided equally among Luz Reyes Bakunawa, Anacorita Reyes, Ruperto Reyes, Adela Reyes and Priscilla Reyes in equal shares; '6. Lot No. 1184 and the remaining portion of Lot No. 3416 after taking the portions awarded under item (2) and (4) above shall be awarded to Luz Reyes Bakunawa, Anacorita Reyes, Ruperto Reyes, Adela Reyes and Priscilla Reyes in equal shares, provided, however that the remaining portion of Lot No. 3416 shall belong exclusively to Priscilla Reyes. 'WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Project of Partition indicated above which is made in accordance with the decision of the Honorable Court be approved. 'Tacloban City, October 16, 1963. (SGD) BONIFACIO RAMO Atty. for the Defendant Tacloban City '(SGD) ZOTICO A. TOLETE Atty. for the Plaintiff Tacloban City 'While the Court thought it more desirable for all the parties to have signed this Project of Partition, nevertheless, upon assurance of both counsels of the respective parties to this Court that the Project of Partition, as above-quoted, had been made after a conference and agreement of the plaintiffs and the defendant approving the above Project of Partition, and that both lawyers had represented to the Court that they are given full authority to sign by themselves the Project of Partition, the Court, therefore, finding the above-quoted project of Partition to be in accordance with law, hereby approves the same. The parties, therefore, are directed to execute such papers, documents or instrument sufficient in form and substance for the vesting of the rights, interests and participations which were adjudicated to the respective parties, as outlined in the Project of Partition and the delivery of the respective properties adjudicated to each one in view of said Project of Partition, and to perform such other acts as are legal and necessary to effectuate the said Project of Partition. 'SO ORDERED. 'Given in Tacloban City, this 23rd day of October, 1963. '(SGD) ELIAS B. ASUNCION

Judge' "EXH. B. "The above Order of October 23, 1963, was amended on November 11, 1963, only for the purpose of giving authority to the Register of Deeds of the Province of Leyte to issue the corresponding transfer certificates of title to the respective adjudicatees in conformity with the project of partition (see Exh. U). "One of the properties mentioned in the project of partition was Lot 1184 or rather one-half thereof with an area of 15,162.5 sq. meters. This lot, which according to the decision was the exclusive property of the deceased Francisco Reyes, was adjudicated in said project of partition to the plaintiffs Luz, Anacorita, Ruperto, Adela, and Priscilla all surnamed Reyes in equal shares, and when the project of partition was approved by the trial court the adjudicatees caused Lot 1184 to be subdivided into five lots denominated as Lot 1184-A to 1184-E inclusive (Exh. V). "Lot 1184-D was conveyed to Enriqueta D. Anota, a stenographer in Judge Asuncion's court (Exhs. F, F-1 and V-1), while Lot 1184-E which had an area of 2,172.5556 sq. meters was sold on July 31, 1964 to Dr. Arcadio Galapon (Exh. 2) who was issued transfer certificate of title No. 2338 of the Register of Deeds of the city of Tacloban (Exh. 12). "On March 6, 1965, Dr. Arcadio Galapon and his wife sold a portion of Lot 1184-E with an area of around 1,306 sq. meters to Judge Asuncion and his wife, Victoria S. Asuncion (Exh. 11), which particular portion was declared by the latter for taxation purposes (Exh. F). "On August 31, 1966, spouses Asuncion and spouses Galapon conveyed their respective shares and interest in Lot 1184-E to 'The Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries Inc.' (Exh. 15 & 16). At the time of said sale the stockholders of the corporation were Dominador Arigpa Tan, Humilia Jalandoni Tan, Jaime Arigpa Tan, Judge Asuncion, and the latter's wife, Victoria S. Asuncion, with Judge Asuncion as the President and Mrs. Asuncion as the secretary (Exhs. E-4 to E-7). The Articles of Incorporation of 'The Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc.' which we shall henceforth refer to as 'TRADERS' were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission only on January 9, 1967 (Exh. E)" [pp. 378-385, rec.]. Complainant Bernardita R. Macariola filed on August 9, 1968 the instant complaint dated August 6, 1968 alleging four causes of action, to wit: [1] that respondent Judge Asuncion violated Article 1491, paragraph 5, of the New Civil Code in acquiring by purchase a portion of Lot No. 1184-E which was one of those properties involved in Civil Case No. 3010 decided by him; [2] that he likewise violated Article 14, paragraphs 1 and 5 of the Code of Commerce, Section 3, paragraph H, of R.A. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules, and Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, by associating himself with the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc., as a stockholder and a ranking officer while he was a judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte; [3] that respondent was guilty of coddling an impostor and acted in disregard of judicial decorum by closely fraternizing with a certain Dominador Arigpa Tan who openly and publicly advertised himself as a practising attorney when in truth and in fact his name does not appear in the Rolls of Attorneys and is not a member of the Philippine Bar; and [4] that there was a culpable defiance of the law and utter disregard for ethics by respondent Judge (pp. 1-7, rec.). Respondent Judge Asuncion filed on September 24, 1968 his answer to which a reply was filed on October 16, 1968 by herein complainant. In Our resolution of October 28, 1968, We referred this case to then Justice Cecilia Muoz Palma of the Court of Appeals, for investigation, report and recommendation. After hearing, the said Investigating Justice submitted her report dated May 27, 1971 recommending that respondent Judge should be reprimanded or warned in connection with the first cause of action alleged in the complaint, and for the second cause of action, respondent should be warned in case of a finding that he is prohibited under the law to engage in business. On the third and fourth causes of action, Justice Palma recommended that respondent Judge be exonerated. The records also reveal that on or about November 9 or 11, 1968 (pp. 481, 477, rec.), complainant herein instituted an action before the Court of First Instance of Leyte, entitled "Bernardita R. Macariola, plaintiff, versus Sinforosa R. Bales, et al., defendants," which was docketed as Civil Case No. 4235, seeking the annulment of the project of partition made pursuant to the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 and the two orders issued by respondent Judge approving the same, as well as the partition of the estate and the subsequent conveyances with damages. It appears, however, that some defendants were dropped from the civil case. For one, the case against Dr. Arcadio Galapon was dismissed because he was no longer a real party in interest when Civil Case No. 4234 was filed, having already conveyed on March 6, 1965 a portion of lot 1184-E to respondent Judge and on August 31, 1966 the remainder was sold to the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc. Similarly, the case against defendant Victoria Asuncion was dismissed on the ground that she was no longer a real party in interest at the time the aforesaid Civil Case No. 4234 was filed as the portion of Lot 1184 acquired by her and respondent Judge from Dr. Arcadio Galapon was already sold on August 31, 1966 to the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc.

Likewise, the cases against defendants Serafin P. Ramento, Catalina Cabus, Ben Barraza Go, Jesus Perez, Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc., Alfredo R. Celestial and Pilar P. Celestial, Leopoldo Petilla and Remedios Petilla, Salvador Anota and Enriqueta Anota and Atty. Zotico A. Tolete were dismissed with the conformity of complainant herein, plaintiff therein, and her counsel. On November 2, 1970, Judge Jose D. Nepomuceno of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, who was directed and authorized on June 2, 1969 by the then Secretary (now Minister) of Justice and now Minister of National Defense Juan Ponce Enrile to hear and decide Civil Case No. 4234, rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: "A. IN THE CASE AGAINST JUDGE ELIAS B. ASUNCION "(1) declaring that only Branch IV of the Court of First Instance of Leyte has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the issue of the legality and validity of the Project of Partition [Exhibit "B"] and the two Orders [Exhibits 'C' and 'C-3'] approving the partition; "(2) dismissing the complaint against Judge Elias B. Asuncion; "(3) adjudging the plaintiff, Mrs. Bernardita R. Macariola to pay defendant Judge Elias B. Asuncion, "(a) the sum of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS [P400,000.00] for moral damages; "(b) the sum of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS [P200,000.00] for exemplary damages; "(c) the sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS [P50,000.00] for nominal damages; and "(d) the sum of TEN THOUSAND PESOS [P10,000.00] for Attorney's Fees. "B. IN THE CASE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT MARIQUITA VILLASIN, FOR HERSELF AND FOR THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED GERARDO VILLASIN "(1) Dismissing the complaint against the defendants Mariquita Villasin and the heirs of the deceased Gerardo Villasin; "(2) Directing the plaintiff to pay the defendants Mariquita Villasin and the heirs of Gerardo Villasin the cost of the suit. "C. IN THE CASE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT SINFOROSA R. BALES, ET AL., WHO WERE PLAINTIFFS IN CIVIL CASE NO. 3010 "(1) Dismissing the complaint against defendants Sinforosa R. Bales, Adela R. Herrer, Priscilla R. Solis, Luz R. Bakunawa, Anacorita R. Eng and Ruperto O. Reyes. "D. IN THE CASE AGAINST DEFENDANT BONIFACIO RAMO "(1) Dismissing the complaint against Bonifacio Ramo; "(2) Directing the plaintiff to pay the defendant Bonifacio Ramo the cost of the suit. "SO ORDERED" [pp. 531-533, rec.]. It is further disclosed by the record that the aforesaid decision was elevated to the Court of Appeals upon perfection of the appeal on February 22, 1971. I WE find that there is no merit in the contention of complainant Bernardita R. Macariola, under her first cause of action, that respondent Judge Elias B. Asuncion violated Article 1491, paragraph 5, of the New Civil Code in acquiring by purchase a portion of Lot No. 1184-E which was one of those properties involved in Civil Case No. 3010. That Article provides: "Article 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial action, either in person or through the mediation of another: xxx xxx xxx "(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession" [italics supplied]. The prohibition in the aforesaid Article applies only to the sale or assignment of the property which is the subject of litigation to the persons disqualified therein. WE have already ruled that ". . . for the prohibition to operate, the sale or assignment of the property must take place during the pendency of the litigation involving the property" (The Director of Lands vs. Ababa, et al., 88 SCRA 513, 519 [1979]; Rosario vda. de Laig vs. Court of Appeals, 86 SCRA 641, 646 [1978]). In the case at bar, when the respondent Judge purchased on March 6, 1965 a portion of Lot 1184-E, the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 which he rendered on June 8, 1963 was already final because none of the parties therein filed

an appeal within the reglementary period; hence, the lot in question was no longer subject of the litigation. Moreover, at the time of the sale on March 6, 1965, respondent's order dated October 23, 1963 and the amended order dated November 11, 1963 approving the October 16, 1963 project of partition made pursuant to the June 8, 1963 decision, had long become final for there was no appeal from said orders. Furthermore, respondent Judge did not buy the lot in question on March 6, 1965 directly from the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3010 but from Dr. Arcadio Galapon who earlier purchased on July 31, 1964 Lot 1184-E from three of the plaintiffs, namely, Priscilla Reyes, Adela Reyes, and Luz R. Bakunawa after the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 3010. It may be recalled that Lot 1184 or more specifically one-half thereof was adjudicated in equal shares to Priscilla Reyes, Adela Reyes, Luz Bakunawa, Ruperto Reyes and Anacorita Reyes in the project of partition, and the same was subdivided into five lots denominated as Lot 1184-A to 1184-E. As aforestated, Lot 1184-E was sold on July 31, 1964 to Dr. Galapon for which he was issued TCT No. 2338 by the Register of Deeds of Tacloban City, and on March 6, 1965 he sold a portion of said lot to respondent Judge and his wife who declared the same for taxation purposes only. The subsequent sale on August 31, 1966 by spouses Asuncion and spouses Galapon of their respective shares and interest in said Lot 1184-E to the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc., in which respondent was the president and his wife was the secretary, took place long after the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 and of the subsequent two aforesaid orders therein approving the project of partition. While it appears that complainant herein filed on or about November 9 or 11, 1968 an action before the Court of First Instance of Leyte docketed as Civil Case No. 4234, seeking to annul the project of partition and the two orders approving the same, as well as the partition of the estate and the subsequent conveyances, the same, however, is of no moment. The fact remains that respondent Judge purchased on March 6, 1965 a portion of Lot 1184-E from Dr. Arcadio Galapon; hence, after the finality of the decision which he rendered on June 8, 1963 in Civil Case No. 3010 and his two questioned orders dated October 23, 1963 and November 11, 1963. Therefore, the property was no longer subject of litigation. The subsequent filing on November 9, or 11, 1968 of Civil Case No. 4234 can no longer alter, change or affect the aforesaid facts that the questioned sale to respondent Judge, now Court of Appeals Justice, was effected and consummated long after the finality of the aforesaid decision or orders. Consequently, the sale of a portion of Lot 1184-E to respondent Judge having taken place over one year after the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 as well as the two orders approving the project of partition, and not during the pendency of the litigation, there was no violation of paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the New Civil Code. It is also argued by complainant herein that the sale on July 31, 1964 of Lot 1184-E to Dr. Arcadio Galapon by Priscilla Reyes, Adela Reyes and Luz R. Bakunawa was only a mere scheme to conceal the illegal and unethical transfer of said lot to respondent Judge as a consideration for the approval of the project of partition. In this connection, We agree with the findings of the Investigating Justice thus: "And so we are now confronted with this all-important question whether or not the acquisition by respondent of a portion of Lot 1184-E and the subsequent transfer of the whole lot to 'TRADERS' of which respondent was the President and his wife the Secretary, was intimately related to the Order of respondent approving the project of partition, Exh. A. "Respondent vehemently denies any interest or participation in the transactions between the Reyeses and the Galapons concerning Lot 1184-E, and he insists that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that Dr. Galapon had acted, in the purchase of Lot 1184-E, in mediation for him and his wife. (See p. 14 of Respondent's Memorandum). xxx xxx xxx "On this point, I agree with respondent that there is no evidence in the record showing that Dr. Arcadio Galapon acted as a mere 'dummy' of respondent in acquiring Lot 1184-E from the Reyeses. Dr. Galapon appeared to this investigator as a respectable citizen, credible and sincere, and I believe him when he testified that he bought Lot 1184-E in good faith and for valuable consideration from the Reyeses without any intervention of, or previous understanding with Judge Asuncion" (pp. 391-394, rec.). On the contention of complainant herein that respondent Judge acted illegally in approving the project of partition although it was not signed by the parties, We quote with approval the findings of the Investigating Justice, as follows: "1. I agree with complainant that respondent should have required the signature of the parties more particularly that of Mrs. Macariola on the project of partition submitted to him for approval; however, whatever error was committed by respondent in that respect was done in good faith as according to Judge Asuncion he was assured by Atty. Bonifacio Ramo, the counsel of record of Mrs. Macariola, that he was authorized by his client to submit said project of partition, (See Exh. B and tsn. p. 24, January 20, 1969). While it is true that such written authority if there was any, was not presented by respondent in evidence, nor did Atty. Ramo appear to corroborate the statement of respondent, his

affidavit being the only one that was presented as respondent's Exh. 10, certain actuations of Mrs. Macariola lead this investigator to believe that she knew the contents of the project of partition, Exh. A, and that she gave her conformity thereto. I refer to the following documents: "1) Exh. 9 Certified true copy of OCT No. 19520 covering Lot 1154 of the Tacloban Cadastral Survey in which the deceased Francisco Reyes holds a '1/4 share' (Exh. 9-a). On this certificate of title the Order dated November 11, 1963, (Exh. U) approving the project of partition was duly entered and registered on November 26, 1963 (Exh. 9-D); "2) Exh. 7 Certified copy of a deed of absolute sale executed by Bernardita Reyes Macariola on October 22, 1963, conveying to Dr. Hector Decena the one-fourth share of the late Francisco Reyes-Diaz in Lot 1154. In this deed of sale the vendee stated that she was the absolute owner of said one-fourth share, the same having been adjudicated to her as her share in the estate of her father Francisco Reyes Diaz as per decision of the Court of First Instance of Leyte under case No. 3010 (Exh. 7A). The deed of sale was duly registered and annotated at the back of OCT 19520 on December 3, 1963 (see Exh. 9-e). "In connection with the abovementioned documents it is to be noted that in the project of partition dated October 16, 1963, which was approved by respondent on October 23, 1963, followed by an amending Order on November 11, 1963, Lot 1154 or rather 1/4 thereof was adjudicated to Mrs. Macariola. It is this 1/4 share in Lot 1154 which complainant sold to Dr. Decena on October 22, 1963, several days after the preparation of the project of partition. "Counsel for complainant stresses the view, however, that the latter sold her one-fourth share in Lot 1154 by virtue of the decision in Civil Case 3010 and not because of the project of partition, Exh. A. Such contention is absurd because from the decision, Exh. C, it is clear that one-half of one-fourth of Lot 1154 belonged to the estate of Francisco Reyes Diaz while the other half of said one-fourth was the share of complainant's mother, Felisa Espiras; in other words, the decision did not adjudicate the whole of the one-fourth of Lot 1154 to the herein complainant (see Exhs. C-3 & C-4). Complainant became the owner of the entire one fourth of Lot 1154 only by means of the project of partition, Exh. A. Therefore, if Mrs. Macariola sold Lot 1154 on October 22, 1963, it was for no other reason than that she was well aware of the distribution of the properties of her deceased father as per Exhs. A and B. It is also significant at this point to state that Mrs. Macariola admitted during the crossexamination that she went to Tacloban City in connection with the sale of Lot 1154 to Dr. Decena (tsn. p. 92, November 28, 1968) from which we can deduce that she could not have been kept ignorant of the proceedings in civil case 3010 relative to the project of partition. "Complainant also assails the project of partition because according to her the properties adjudicated to her were insignificant lots and the least valuable. Complainant, however, did not present any direct and positive evidence to prove the alleged gross inequalities in the choice and distribution of the real properties when she could have easily done so by presenting evidence on the area, location, kind, the assessed and market value of said properties. Without such evidence there is nothing in the record to show that there were inequalities in the distribution of the properties of complainant's father" (pp. 386-389, rec.). Finally, while it is true that respondent Judge did not violate paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the New Civil Code in acquiring by purchase a portion of Lot 1184-E which was in litigation in his court, it was, however, improper for him to have acquired the same. He should be reminded of Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics which requires that: "A judge's official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach." And as aptly observed by the Investigating Justice: ". . . it was unwise and indiscreet on the part of respondent to have purchased or acquired a portion of a piece of property that was or had been in litigation in his court and caused it to be transferred to a corporation of which he and his wife were ranking officers at the time of such transfer. One who occupies an exalted position in the judiciary has the duty and responsibility of maintaining the faith and trust of the citizenry in the courts of justice, so that not only must he be truly honest and just, but his actuations must be such as not give cause for doubt and mistrust in the uprightness of his administration of justice. In this particular case of respondent, he cannot deny that the transactions over Lot 1184-E are damaging and render his actuations open to suspicion and distrust. Even if respondent honestly believed that Lot 1184-E was no longer in litigation in his court and that he was purchasing it from a third person and not from the parties to the litigation, he should nonetheless have refrained from buying it for himself and transferring it to a corporation in which he and his wife were financially involved, to avoid possible suspicion that his acquisition was related in one way or another to his official actuations in civil case 3010. The conduct of respondent gave cause for the litigants in civil case 3010, the

lawyers practising in his court, and the public in general to doubt the honesty and fairness of his actuations and the integrity of our courts of justice" (pp. 395-396, rec.). LexLib II With respect to the second cause of action, the complainant alleged that respondent Judge violated paragraphs 1 and 5, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce when he associated himself with the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc. as a stockholder and a ranking officer, said corporation having been organized to engage in business. Said Article provides that: "Article 14 The following cannot engage in commerce, either in person or by proxy, nor can they hold any office or have any direct, administrative, or financial intervention in commercial or industrial companies within the limits of the districts, provinces, or towns in which they discharge their duties: "1. Justices of the Supreme Court, judges and officials of the department of public prosecution in active service. This provision shall not be applicable to mayors, municipal judges, and municipal prosecuting attorneys nor to those who by chance are temporarily discharging the functions of judge or prosecuting attorney. xxx xxx xxx "5. Those who by virtue of laws or special provisions may not engage in commerce in a determinate territory." It is Our considered view that although the aforestated provision is incorporated in the Code of Commerce which is part of the commercial laws of the Philippines, it, however, partakes of the nature of a political law as it regulates the relationship between the government and certain public officers and employees, like justices and judges. Political Law has been defined as that branch of public law which deals with the organization and operation of the governmental organs of the State and define the relations of the state with the inhabitants of its territory (People vs. Perfecto, 43 Phil. 887, 897 [1922]). It may be recalled that political law embraces constitutional law, law of public corporations, administrative law including the law on public officers and elections. Specifically, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce partakes more of the nature of an administrative law because it regulates the conduct of certain public officers and employees with respect to engaging in business; hence, political in essence. It is significant to note that the present Code of Commerce is the Spanish Code of Commerce of 1885, with some modifications made by the "Comision de Codificacion de las Provincias de Ultramar," which was extended to the Philippines by the Royal Decree of August 6, 1888, and took effect as law in this jurisdiction on December 1, 1888. Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the United States and later on from the United States to the Republic of the Philippines, Article 14 of this Code of Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated because where there is change of sovereignty, the political laws of the former sovereign, whether compatible or not with those of the new sovereign, are automatically abrogated, unless they are expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign. Thus, We held in Roa vs. Collector of Customs (23 Phil. 315, 330, 311 [1912]) that: "'By well-settled public law, upon the cession of territory by one nation to another, either following a conquest or otherwise, . . . those laws which are political in their nature and pertain to the prerogatives of the former government immediately cease upon the transfer of sovereignty.' (Opinion, Atty. Gen., July 10, 1899). "While municipal laws of the newly acquired territory not in conflict with the laws of the new sovereign continue in force without the express assent or affirmative act of the conqueror, the political laws do not. (Halleck's Int. Law, chap. 34, par. 14). However, such political laws of the prior sovereignty as are not in conflict with the constitution or institutions of the new sovereign, may be continued in force if the conqueror shall so declare by affirmative act of the commander-in-chief during the war, or by Congress in time of peace. (Ely's Administrator vs. United States, 171 U.S. 220, 43 L. Ed. 142). In the case of American and Ocean Ins. Cos. vs. 356 Bales of Cotton (1 Pet. [26 U.S.] 511, 542, 7 L. Ed. 242), Chief Justice Marshall said: 'On such transfer (by cession) of territory, it has never been held that the relations of the inhabitants with each other undergo any change. Their relations with their former sovereign are dissolved, and new relations are created between them and the government which has acquired their territory. The same act which transfers their country, transfers the allegiance of those who remain in it; and the law which may be denominated political, is necessarily changed, although that which regulates the intercourse and general conduct of individuals, remains in force, until altered by the newly-created power of the State.'" Likewise, in People vs. Perfecto (43 Phil. 887, 897 [1922]), this Court stated that: "It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations of the ceded region are totally abrogated." There appears no enabling or affirmative act that continued the effectivity of the aforestated provision of the Code of Commerce after the change of sovereignty from Spain to the United States and then to the Republic of the

Philippines. Consequently, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce has no legal and binding effect and cannot apply to the respondent, then Judge of the Court of First Instance, now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals. It is also argued by complainant herein that respondent Judge violated paragraph H, Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which provides that: "Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: xxx xxx xxx "(h) Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest." Respondent Judge cannot be held liable under the aforestated paragraph because there is no showing that respondent participated or intervened in his official capacity in the business or transactions of the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc. In the case at bar, the business of the corporation in which respondent participated has obviously no relation or connection with his judicial office. The business of said corporation is not that kind where respondent intervenes or takes part in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance. As was held in one case involving the application of Article 216 of the Revised Penal Code which has a similar prohibition on public officers against directly or indirectly becoming interested in any contract or business in which it is his official duty to intervene, "(I)t is not enough to be a public official to be subject to this crime: it is necessary that by reason of his office, he has to intervene in said contracts or transactions; and, hence, the official who intervenes in contracts or transactions which have no relation to his office cannot commit this crime" (People vs. Meneses, C.A. 40 O.G. 11th Supp. 134, cited by Justice Ramon C. Aquino; Revised Penal Code, p. 1174, Vol. II [1976]). It does not appear also from the records that the aforesaid corporation gained any undue advantage in its business operations by reason of respondent's financial involvement in it, or that the corporation benefited in one way or another in any case filed by or against it in court. It is undisputed that there was no case filed in the different branches of the Court of First Instance of Leyte in which the corporation was either party plaintiff or defendant except Civil Case No. 4234 entitled "Bernardita R. Macariola, plaintiff, versus Sinforosa O. Bales, et al.," wherein the complainant herein sought to recover Lot 1184-E from the aforesaid corporation. It must be noted, however, that Civil Case No. 4234 was filed only on November 9 or 11, 1968 and decided on November 2, 1970 by CFI Judge Jose D. Nepomuceno when respondent Judge was no longer connected with the corporation, having disposed of his interest therein on January 31, 1967. Furthermore, respondent is not liable under the same paragraph because there is no provision in both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions of the Philippines, nor is there an existing law expressly prohibiting members of the Judiciary from engaging or having interest in any lawful business. It may be pointed out that Republic Act No. 296, as amended, also known as the Judiciary Act of 1948, does not contain any prohibition to that effect. As a matter of fact, under Section 77 of said law, municipal judges may engage in teaching or other vocation not involving the practice of law after office hours but with the permission of the district judge concerned. Likewise, Article 14 of the Code of Commerce which prohibits judges from engaging in commerce is, as heretofore stated, deemed abrogated automatically upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to America, because it is political in nature. Moreover, the prohibition in paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the New Civil Code against the purchase by judges of a property in litigation before the court within whose jurisdiction they perform their duties, cannot apply to respondent Judge because the sale of the lot in question to him took place after the finality of his decision in Civil Case No. 3010 as well as his two orders approving the project of partition; hence, the property was no longer subject of litigation. In addition, although Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules made pursuant to the Civil Service Act of 1959 prohibits an officer or employee in the civil service from engaging in any private business, vocation, or profession or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural or industrial undertaking without a written permission from the head of department, the same, however, may not fall within the purview of paragraph h, Section 3 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act because the last portion of said paragraph speaks of a prohibition by the Constitution or law on any public officer from having any interest in any business and not by a mere administrative rule or regulation. Thus, a violation of the aforesaid rule by any officer or employee in the civil service, that is, engaging in private business without a written permission from the Department Head may not constitute graft and corrupt practice as defined by law. On the contention of complainant that respondent Judge violated Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules, We hold that the Civil Service Act of 1959 (R.A. No. 2260) and the Civil Service Rules promulgated thereunder, particularly Section 12 of Rule XVIII, do not apply to the members of the Judiciary. Under said Section 12: "No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business, vocation, or profession or be connected with any

commercial, credit, agricultural or industrial undertaking without a written permission from the Head of Department . . ." It must be emphasized at the outset that respondent, being a member of the Judiciary, is covered by Republic Act No. 296, as amended, otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948 and by Section 7, Article X, 1973 Constitution. Under Section 67 of said law, the power to remove or dismiss judges was then vested in the President of the Philippines, not in the Commissioner of Civil Service, and only on two grounds, namely, serious misconduct and inefficiency, and upon the recommendation of the Supreme Court, which alone is authorized, upon its own motion, or upon information of the Secretary (now Minister) of Justice to conduct the corresponding investigation. Clearly, the aforesaid section defines the grounds and prescribes the special procedure for the discipline of judges. And under Sections 5, 6 and 7, Article X of the 1973 Constitution, only the Supreme Court can discipline judges of inferior courts as well as other personnel of the Judiciary. It is true that under Section 33 of the Civil Service Act of 1959: "The Commissioner may, for . . . violation of the existing Civil Service Law and rules or of reasonable office regulations, or in the interest of the service, remove any subordinate officer or employee from the service, demote him in rank, suspend him for not more than one year without pay or fine him in an amount not exceeding six months' salary." Thus, a violation of Section 12 of Rule XVIII is a ground for disciplinary action against civil service officers and employees. However, judges cannot be considered as subordinate civil service officers or employees subject to the disciplinary authority of the Commissioner of Civil Service; for, certainly, the Commissioner is not the head of the Judicial Department to which they belong. The Revised Administrative Code (Section 89) and the Civil Service Law itself state that the Chief Justice is the department head of the Supreme Court (Sec. 20, R.A. No. 2260) [1959]); and under the 1973 Constitution, the Judiciary is the only other or second branch of the government (Sec. 1, Art. X, 1973 Constitution). Besides, a violation of Section 12, Rule XVIII cannot be considered as a ground for disciplinary action against judges because to recognize the same as applicable to them, would be adding another ground for the discipline of judges and, as aforestated, Section 67 of the Judiciary Act recognizes only two grounds for their removal, namely, serious misconduct and inefficiency. Moreover, under Section 16(i) of the Civil Service Act of 1959, it is the Commissioner of Civil Service who has original and exclusive jurisdiction "(T)o decide, within one hundred twenty days, after submission to it, all administrative cases against permanent officers and employees in the competitive service, and, except as provided by law, to have final authority to pass upon their removal, separation, and suspension and upon all matters relating to the conduct, discipline, and efficiency of such officers and employees; and prescribe standards, guidelines and regulations governing the administration of discipline" (emphasis supplied). There is no question that a judge belong to the non-competitive or unclassified service of the government as a Presidential appointee and is therefore not covered by the aforesaid provision. WE have already ruled that ". . . in interpreting Section 16(i) of Republic Act No. 2260, we emphasized that only permanent officers and employees who belong to the classified service come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Civil Service" (Villaluz vs. Zaldivar, 15 SCRA 710, 713 [1965l, AngAngco vs. Castillo, 9 SCRA 619 [1963]). Although the actuation of respondent Judge in engaging in private business by joining the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries, Inc. as a stockholder and a ranking officer, is not violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Code of Commerce and Section 3(h) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act as well as Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules promulgated pursuant to the Civil Service Act of 1959, the impropriety of the same is clearly unquestionable because Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics expressly declares that: "A judge should abstain from making personal investments in enterprises which are apt to be involved in litigation in his court; and, after his accession to the bench, he should not retain such investments previously made, longer than a period sufficient to enable him to dispose of them without serious loss. It is desirable that he should, so far as reasonably possible, refrain from all relations which would normally tend to arouse the suspicion that such relations warp or bias his judgment, or prevent his impartial attitude of mind in the administration of his judicial duties. . . ." WE are not, however, unmindful of the fact that respondent Judge and his wife had withdrawn on January 31, 1967 from the aforesaid corporation and sold their respective shares to third parties, and it appears also that the aforesaid corporation did not in anyway benefit in any case filed by or against it in court as there was no case filed in the different branches of the Court of First Instance of Leyte from the time of the drafting of the Articles of Incorporation of the corporation on March 12, 1966, up to its incorporation on January 9, 1967, and the eventual withdrawal of respondent on January 31, 1967 from said corporation. Such disposal or sale by respondent and his wife of their shares in the corporation only 22 days after the in corporation of the corporation, indicates that respondent realized that early that their interest in the corporation contravenes the aforesaid Canon 25. Respondent Judge and his wife therefore deserve the commendation for their immediate withdrawal from the firm after its incorporation and before it became involved in any court litigation. III

With respect to the third and fourth causes of action, complainant alleged that respondent was guilty of coddling an impostor and acted in disregard of judicial decorum, and that there was culpable defiance of the law and utter disregard for ethics. WE agree, however, with the recommendation of the Investigating Justice that respondent Judge be exonerated because the aforesaid causes of action are groundless, and WE quote the pertinent portion of her report which reads as follows: "The basis for complainant's third cause of action is the claim that respondent associated and closely fraternized with Dominador Arigpa Tan who openly and publicly advertised himself as a practising attorney (see Exhs. I, I-1 and J) when in truth and in fact said Dominador Arigpa Tan does not appear in the Roll of Attorneys and is not a member of the Philippine Bar as certified to in Exh. K. The "respondent denies knowing that Dominador Arigpa Tan was an 'impostor' and claims that all the time he believed that the latter was a bona fide member of the bar. I see no reason for disbelieving this assertion of respondent. It has been shown by complainant that Dominador Arigpa Tan represented himself publicly as an attorney-at-law to the extent of putting up a signboard with his name and the words 'Attorney-at-Law' (Exh. I and I-1) to indicate his office, and it was but natural for respondent and any person for that matter to have accepted that statement on its face value. "Now with respect to the allegation of complainant that respondent is guilty of fraternizing with Dominador Arigpa Tan to the extent of permitting his wife to be a godmother of Mr. Tan's child at baptism (Exh. M & M-1), that fact even if true did not render respondent guilty of violating any canon of judicial ethics as long as his friendly relations with Dominador A. Tan and family did not influence his official actuations as a judge where said persons were concerned. There is no tangible convincing proof that herein respondent gave any undue privileges in his court to Dominador Arigpa Tan or that the latter benefitted in his practice of law from his personal relations with respondent, or that he used his influence, if he had any, on the Judges of the other branches of the Court to favor said Dominador Tan. "Of course it is highly desirable for a member of the judiciary to refrain as much as possible from maintaining close friendly relations with practising attorneys and litigants in his court so as to avoid suspicion 'that his social or business relations or friendship constitute an element in determining his judicial course" (par. 30, Canons of Judicial Ethics), but if a Judge does have social relations, that in itself would not constitute a ground for disciplinary action unless it be clearly shown that his social relations beclouded his official actuations with bias and partiality in favor of his friends" (pp. 403-405, rec.). In conclusion, while respondent Judge Asuncion, now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, did not violate any law in acquiring by purchase a parcel of land which was in litigation in his court and in engaging in business by joining a private corporation during his incumbency as judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, he should be reminded to be more discreet in his private and business activities, because his conduct as a member of the Judiciary must not only be characterized with propriety but must always be above suspicion. WHEREFORE, THE RESPONDENT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS HEREBY REMINDED TO BE MORE DISCREET IN HIS PRIVATE AND BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. SO ORDERED.

[G.R. No. 104768. July 21, 2003] Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Sandiganbayan, Major General Josephus Q. Ramas and Elizabeth Dimaano, respondents.

DECISION

CARPIO, J.:

The Case Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan (First Division)[1] dated 18 November 1991 and 25 March 1992 in Civil Case No. 0037. The first Resolution dismissed petitioners Amended Complaint and ordered the return of the confiscated items to respondent Elizabeth Dimaano, while the second Resolution denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner prays for the grant of the reliefs sought in its Amended Complaint, or in the alternative, for the remand of this case to the Sandiganbayan (First Division) for further proceedings allowing petitioner to complete the presentation of its evidence.

Antecedent Facts Immediately upon her assumption to office following the successful EDSA Revolution, then President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order No. 1 (EO No. 1) creating the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). EO No. 1 primarily tasked the PCGG to recover all ill -gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates. EO No. 1 vested the PCGG with the power (a) to conduct investigation as may be necessary in order to accomplish and carry out the purposes of this order and the power (h) to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of this order. Accordingly, the PCGG, through its then Chairman Jovito R. Salonga, created an AFP Anti -Graft Board (AFP Board) tasked to investigate reports of unexplained wealth and corrupt practices by AFP personnel, whether in the active service or retired.[2] Based on its mandate, the AFP Board investigated various reports of alleged unexplained wealth of respondent Major General Josephus Q. Ramas (Ramas). On 27 July 1987, the AFP Board issued a Resolution on its findings and recommendation on the reported unexplained wealth of Ramas. The relevant part of the Resolution reads: III. FINDINGS and EVALUATION: Evidence in the record showed that respondent is the owner of a house and lot located at 15-Yakan St., La Vista, Quezon City. He is also the owner of a house and lot located in Cebu City. The lot has an area of 3,327 square meters. The value of the property located in Quezon City may be estimated modestly at P700,000.00. The equipment/items and communication facilities which were found in the premises of Elizabeth Dimaano and were confiscated by elements of the PC Command of Batangas were all covered by invoice receipt in the name of CAPT. EFREN SALIDO, RSO Command Coy, MSC, PA. These items could not have been in the possession of Elizabeth Dimaano if not given for her use by respondent Commanding General of the Philippine Army. Aside from the military equipment/items and communications equipment, the raiding team was also able to confiscate money in the amount of P2,870,000.00 and $50,000 US Dollars in the house of Elizabeth Dimaano on 3 March 1986. Affidavits of members of the Military Security Unit, Military Security Command, Philippine Army, stationed at Camp Eldridge, Los Baos, Laguna, disclosed that Elizabeth Dimaano is the mistress of respondent. That respondent usually goes and stays and sleeps in the alleged house of Elizabeth Dimaano in Barangay Tengga, Itaas, Batangas

City and when he arrives, Elizabeth Dimaano embraces and kisses respondent. That on February 25, 1986, a person who rode in a car went to the residence of Elizabeth Dimaano with four (4) attache cases filled with money and owned by MGen Ramas. Sworn statement in the record disclosed also that Elizabeth Dimaano had no visible means of income and is supported by respondent for she was formerly a mere secretary. Taking in toto the evidence, Elizabeth Dimaano could not have used the military equipment/items seized in her house on March 3, 1986 without the consent of respondent, he being the Commanding General of the Philippine Army. It is also impossible for Elizabeth Dimaano to claim that she owns the P2,870,000.00 and $50,000 US Dollars for she had no visible source of income. This money was never declared in the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of respondent. There was an intention to cover the existence of these money because these are all ill-gotten and unexplained wealth. Were it not for the affidavits of the members of the Military Security Unit assigned at Camp Eldridge, Los Baos, Laguna, the existence and ownership of these money would have never been known. The Statement of Assets and Liabilities of respondent were also submitted for scrutiny and analysis by the Boards consultant. Although the amount of P2,870,000.00 and $50,000 US Dollars were not included, still it was disclosed that respondent has an unexplained wealth of P104,134. 60. IV. CONCLUSION: In view of the foregoing, the Board finds that a prima facie case exists against respondent for ill-gotten and unexplained wealth in the amount of P2,974,134.00 and $50,000 US Dollars. V. RECOMMENDATION: Wherefore it is recommended that Maj. Gen. Josephus Q. Ramas (ret.) be prosecuted and tried for violation of RA 3019, as amended, otherwise known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and RA 1379, as amended, otherwise known as The Act for the Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Property.[3] Thus, on 1 August 1987, the PCGG filed a petition for forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379 (RA No. 1379) [4] against Ramas. Before Ramas could answer the petition, then Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez filed an Amended Complaint naming the Republic of the Philippines (petitioner), represented by the PCGG, as plaintiff and Ramas as defendant. The Amended Complaint also impleaded Elizabeth Dimaano (Dimaano) as co-defendant. The Amended Complaint alleged that Ramas was the Commanding General of the Philippine Army until 1986. On the other hand, Dimaano was a confidential agent of the Military Security Unit, Philippine Army, assigned as a clerk-typist at the office of Ramas from 1 January 1978 to February 1979. The Amended Complaint further alleged that Ramas acquired funds, assets and properties manifestly out of proportion to his salary as an army officer and his other income from legitimately acquired property by taking undue advantage of his public office and/or using his power, authority and influence as such officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and as a subordinate and close associate of the deposed President Ferdinand Marcos.[5] The Amended Complaint also alleged that the AFP Board, after a previous inquiry, found reasonable ground to believe that respondents have violated RA No. 1379.[6] The Amended Complaint prayed for, among others, the forfeiture of respondents properties, funds and equipment in favor of the State. Ramas filed an Answer with Special and/or Affirmative Defenses and Compulsory Counterclaim to the Amended Complaint. In his Answer, Ramas contended that his property consisted only of a residential house at La Vista Subdivision, Quezon City, valued at P700,000, which was not out of proportion to his salary and other legitimate income. He denied ownership of any mansion in Cebu City and the cash, communications equipment and other items confiscated from the house of Dimaano.

Dimaano filed her own Answer to the Amended Complaint. Admitting her employment as a clerk-typist in the office of Ramas from January-November 1978 only, Dimaano claimed ownership of the monies, communications equipment, jewelry and land titles taken from her house by the Philippine Constabulary raiding team. After termination of the pre-trial,[7] the court set the case for trial on the merits on 9-11 November 1988. On 9 November 1988, petitioner asked for a deferment of the hearing due to its lack of preparation for trial and the absence of witnesses and vital documents to support its case. The court reset the hearing to 17 and 18 April 1989. On 13 April 1989, petitioner filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint in order to charge the delinquent properties with being subject to forfeiture as having been unlawfully acquired by defendant Dimaano alone x x x.[8] Nevertheless, in an order dated 17 April 1989, the Sandiganbayan proceeded with petitioners presentation of evidence on the ground that the motion for leave to amend complaint did not state when petitioner would file the amended complaint. The Sandiganbayan further stated that the subject matter of the amended complaint was on its face vague and not related to the existing complaint. The Sandiganbayan also held that due to the time that the case had been pending in court, petitioner should proceed to present its evidence. After presenting only three witnesses, petitioner asked for a postponement of the trial. On 28 September 1989, during the continuation of the trial, petitioner manifested its inability to proceed to trial because of the absence of other witnesses or lack of further evidence to present. Instead, petitioner reiterated its motion to amend the complaint to conform to the evidence already presented or to change the averments to show that Dimaano alone unlawfully acquired the monies or properties subject of the forfeiture. The Sandiganbayan noted that petitioner had already delayed the case for over a year mainly because of its many postponements. Moreover, petitioner would want the case to revert to its preliminary stage when in fact the case had long been ready for trial. The Sandiganbayan ordered petitioner to prepare for presentation of its additional evidence, if any. During the trial on 23 March 1990, petitioner again admitted its inability to present further evidence. Giving petitioner one more chance to present further evidence or to amend the complaint to conform to its evidence, the Sandiganbayan reset the trial to 18 May 1990. The Sandiganbayan, however, hinted that the re-setting was without prejudice to any action that private respondents might take under the circumstances. However, on 18 May 1990, petitioner again expressed its inability to proceed to trial because it had no further evidence to present. Again, in the interest of justice, the Sandiganbayan granted petitioner 60 days within which to file an appropriate pleading. The Sandiganbayan, however, warned petitioner that failure to act would constrain the court to take drastic action. Private respondents then filed their motions to dismiss based on Republic v. Migrino.[9] The Court held in Migrino that the PCGG does not have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute military officers by reason of mere position held without a showing that they are subordinates of former President Marcos. On 18 November 1991, the Sandiganbayan rendered a resolution, the dispositive portion of which states: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the Amended Complaint, without pronouncement as to costs. The counterclaims are likewise dismissed for lack of merit, but the confiscated sum of money, communications equipment, jewelry and land titles are ordered returned to Elizabeth Dimaano. The records of this case are hereby remanded and referred to the Hon. Ombudsman, who has primary jurisdiction over the forfeiture cases under R.A. No. 1379, for such appropriate action as the evidence warrants. This case is also referred to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue for a determination of any tax liability of respondent Elizabeth Dimaano in connection herewith. SO ORDERED. On 4 December 1991, petitioner filed its Motion for Reconsideration. In answer to the Motion for Reconsideration, private respondents filed a Joint Comment/Opposition to which petitioner filed its Reply on 10 January 1992. On 25 March 1992, the Sandiganbayan rendered a Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration.

Ruling of the Sandiganbayan The Sandiganbayan dismissed the Amended Complaint on the following grounds: (1.) The actions taken by the PCGG are not in accordance with the rulings of the Supreme Court in Cruz, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan[10] and Republic v. Migrino[11] which involve the same issues. No previous inquiry similar to preliminary investigations in criminal cases was conducted against Ramas and Dimaano. The evidence adduced against Ramas does not constitute a prima facie case against him. There was an illegal search and seizure of the items confiscated.

(2.)

(3.) (4.)

The Issues Petitioner raises the following issues: A. RESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT PETITIONERS EVIDENCE CANNOT MAKE A CASE FOR FORFEITURE AND THAT THERE WAS NO SHOWING OF CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION OR RELATIONSHIP BY CONSANGUINITY OR AFFINITY BY AND BETWEEN RESPONDENT RAMAS AND RESPONDENT DIMAANO NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT SUCH CONCLUSIONS WERE CLEARLY UNFOUNDED AND PREMATURE, HAVING BEEN RENDERED PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER, INCLUDING THE FILING OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT IN LINE WITH THE RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CRUZ, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, 194 SCRA 474 AND REPUBLIC v. MIGRINO, 189 SCRA 289, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT: 1. The cases of Cruz, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, supra, and Republic v. Migrino, supra, are clearly not applicable to this case; Any procedural defect in the institution of the complaint in Civil Case No. 0037 was cured and/or waived by respondents with the filing of their respective answers with counterclaim; and The separate motions to dismiss were evidently improper considering that they were filed after commencement of the presentation of the evidence of the petitioner and even before the latter was allowed to formally offer its evidence and rest its case;

B.

2.

3.

C.

RESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ARTICLES AND THINGS SUCH AS SUMS OF MONEY, COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT, JEWELRY AND LAND TITLES CONFISCATED FROM THE HOUSE OF RESPONDENT DIMAANO WERE ILLEGALLY SEIZED AND THEREFORE EXCLUDED AS EVIDENCE.[12]

The Courts Ruling

First Issue: PCGGs Jurisdiction to Investigate Private Respondents This case involves a revisiting of an old issue already decided by this Court in Cruz, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan[13] and Republic v. Migrino.[14] The primary issue for resolution is whether the PCGG has the jurisdiction to investigate and cause the filing of a forfeiture petition against Ramas and Dimaano for unexplained wealth under RA No. 1379. We hold that PCGG has no such jurisdiction. The PCGG created the AFP Board to investigate the unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of AFP personnel, whether in the active service or retired.[15] The PCGG tasked the AFP Board to make the necessary recommendations to appropriate government agencies on the action to be taken based on its findings.[16] The PCGG gave this task to the AFP Board pursuant to the PCGGs power under Section 3 of EO No. 1 to conduct investigation as may be necessary in order to accomplish and to carry out the purposes of this order. EO No. 1 gave the PCGG specific responsibilities, to wit: SEC. 2. The Commission shall be charged with the task of assisting the President in regard to the following matters: (a) The recovery of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether located in the Philippines or abroad, including the takeover and sequestration of all business enterprises and entities owned or controlled by them, during his administration, directly or through nominees, by taking undue advantage of their public office and/ or using their powers, authority, influence, connections or relationship. The investigation of such cases of graft and corruption as the President may assign to the Commission from time to time. x x x. The PCGG, through the AFP Board, can only investigate the unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of AFP personnel who fall under either of the two categories mentioned in Section 2 of EO No. 1. These are: (1) AFP personnel who have accumulated ill-gotten wealth during the administration of former President Marcos by being the latters immediate family, relative, subordinate or close associate, taking undue advantage of their public office or using their powers, influence x x x;[17] or (2) AFP personnel involved in other cases of graft and corruption provided the President assigns their cases to the PCGG.[18] Petitioner, however, does not claim that the President assigned Ramas case to the PCGG. Therefore, Ramas case should fall under the first category of AFP personnel before the PCGG could exercise its jurisdiction over him. Petitioner argues that Ramas was undoubtedly a subordinate of former President Marcos because of his position as the Commanding General of the Philippine Army. Petitioner claims that Ramas position enabled him to receive orders directly from his commander-in-chief, undeniably making him a subordinate of former President Marcos. We hold that Ramas was not a subordinate of former President Marcos in the sense contempla ted under EO No. 1 and its amendments. Mere position held by a military officer does not automatically make him a subordinate as this term is used in EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A absent a showing that he enjoyed close association with former President Marcos. Migrino discussed this issue in this wise: A close reading of EO No. 1 and related executive orders will readily show what is contemplated within the term subordinate. The Whereas Clauses of EO No. 1 express the urgent need to recover the ill-gotten wealth amassed by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, and close associates both here and abroad.

(b)

EO No. 2 freezes all assets and properties in the Philippines in which former President Marcos and/or his wife, Mrs. Imelda Marcos, their close relatives, subordinates, business associates, dummies, agents, or nominees have any interest or participation. Applying the rule in statutory construction known as ejusdem generis that is[W]here general words follow an enumeration of persons or things by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned [Smith, Bell & Co, Ltd. vs. Register of Deeds of Davao, 96 Phil. 53, 58, citing Black on Interpretation of Laws, 2nd Ed., 203]. [T]he term subordinate as used in EO Nos. 1 & 2 refers to one who enjoys a close association with former President Marcos and/or his wife, similar to the immediate family member, relative, and close associate in EO No. 1 and the close relative, business associate, dummy, agent, or nominee in EO No. 2. xxx It does not suffice, as in this case, that the respondent is or was a government official or employee during the administration of former President Marcos. There must be a prima facie showing that the respondent unlawfully accumulated wealth by virtue of his close association or relation with former Pres. Marcos and/or his wife. (Emphasis supplied) Ramas position alone as Commanding General of the Philippine Army with the rank of Major General [19] does not suffice to make him a subordinate of former President Marcos for purposes of EO No. 1 and its amendments. The PCGG has to provide a prima facie showing that Ramas was a close associate of former President Marcos, in the same manner that business associates, dummies, agents or nominees of former President Marcos were close to him. Such close association is manifested either by Ramas complicity with former President Marcos in the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth by the deposed President or by former President Marcos acquiescence in Ramas own accumulation of ill-gotten wealth if any. This, the PCGG failed to do. Petitioners attempt to differentiate the instant case from Migrino does not convince us. Petitioner argues that unlike in Migrino, the AFP Board Resolution in the instant case states that the AFP Board conducted the investigation pursuant to EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A in relation to RA No. 1379. Petitioner asserts that there is a presumption that the PCGG was acting within its jurisdiction of investigating crony-related cases of graft and corruption and that Ramas was truly a subordinate of the former President. However, the same AFP Board Resolution belies this contention. Although the Resolution begins with such statement, it ends with the following recommendation: V. RECOMMENDATION: Wherefore it is recommended that Maj. Gen. Josephus Q. Ramas (ret.) be prosecuted and tried for violation of RA 3019, as amended, otherwise known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and RA 1379, as amended, otherwise known as The Act for the Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Property.[20] Thus, although the PCGG sought to investigate and prosecute private respondents under EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14A, the result yielded a finding of violation of Republic Acts Nos. 3019 and 1379 without any relation to EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A. This absence of relation to EO No. 1 and its amendments proves fatal to petitioners case. EO No. 1 created the PCGG for a specific and limited purpose, and necessarily its powers must be construed to address such specific and limited purpose. Moreover, the resolution of the AFP Board and even the Amended Complaint do not show that the properties Ramas allegedly owned were accumulated by him in his capacity as a subordinate of his commander-inchief. Petitioner merely enumerated the properties Ramas allegedly owned and suggested that these properties were disproportionate to his salary and other legitimate income without showing that Ramas amassed them because of his close association with former President Marcos. Petitioner, in fact, admits that the AFP Board

resolution does not contain a finding that Ramas accumulated his wealth because of his close association with former President Marcos, thus: 10. While it is true that the resolution of the Anti-Graft Board of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines did not categorically find a prima facie evidence showing that respondent Ramas unlawfully accumulated wealth by virtue of his close association or relation with former President Marcos and/or his wife, it is submitted that such omission was not fatal. The resolution of the Anti-Graft Board should be read in the context of the law creating the same and the objective of the investigation which was, as stated in the above, pursuant to Republic Act Nos. 3019 and 1379 in relation to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-a;[21] (Emphasis supplied) Such omission is fatal. Petitioner forgets that it is precisely a prima facie showing that the ill-gotten wealth was accumulated by a subordinate of former President Marcos that vests jurisdiction on PCGG. EO No. 1[22] clearly premises the creation of the PCGG on the urgent need to recover all ill-gotten wealth amassed by former President Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates. Therefore, to say that such omission was not fatal is clearly contrary to the intent behind the creation of the PCGG. In Cruz, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,[23] the Court outlined the cases that fall under the jurisdiction of the PCGG pursuant to EO Nos. 1, 2,[24] 14,[25] 14-A:[26] A careful reading of Sections 2(a) and 3 of Executive Order No. 1 in relation with Sections 1, 2 and 3 of Executive Order No. 14, shows what the authority of the respondent PCGG to investigate and prosecute covers: (a) the investigation and prosecution of the civil action for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth under Republic Act No. 1379, accumulated by former President Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether located in the Philippines or abroad, including the take-over or sequestration of all business enterprises and entities owned or controlled by them, during his administration, directly or through his nominees, by taking undue advantage of their public office and/or using their powers, authority and influence, connections or relationships; and the investigation and prosecution of such offenses committed in the acquisition of said ill-gotten wealth as contemplated under Section 2(a) of Executive Order No. 1.

(b)

However, other violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act not otherwise falling under the foregoing categories, require a previous authority of the President for the respondent PCGG to investigate and prosecute in accordance with Section 2 (b) of Executive Order No. 1. Otherwise, jurisdiction over such cases is vested in the Ombudsman and other duly authorized investigating agencies such as the provincial and city prosecutors, their assistants, the Chief State Prosecutor and his assistants and the state prosecutors. (Emphasis supplied) The proper government agencies, and not the PCGG, should investigate and prosecute forfeiture petitions not falling under EO No. 1 and its amendments. The preliminary investigation of unexplained wealth amassed on or before 25 February 1986 falls under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, while the authority to file the corresponding forfeiture petition rests with the Solicitor General.[27] The Ombudsman Act or Republic Act No. 6770 (RA No. 6770) vests in the Ombudsman the power to conduct preliminary investigation and to file forfeiture proceedings involving unexplained wealth amassed after 25 February 1986.[28] After the pronouncements of the Court in Cruz, the PCGG still pursued this case despite the absence of a prima facie finding that Ramas was a subordinate of former President Marcos. The petition for forfeiture filed with the Sandiganbayan should be dismissed for lack of authority by the PCGG to investigate respondents since there is no prima facie showing that EO No. 1 and its amendments apply to respondents. The AFP Board Resolution and even the Amended Complaint state that there are violations of RA Nos. 3019 and 1379. Thus, the PCGG should have recommended Ramas case to the Ombudsman who has jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation of ordinary unexplained wealth and graft cases. As stated in Migrino: [But] in view of the patent lack of authority of the PCGG to investigate and cause the prosecution of private respondent for violation of Rep. Acts Nos. 3019 and 1379, the PCGG must also be enjoined from proceeding with

the case, without prejudice to any action that may be taken by the proper prosecutory agency. The rule of law mandates that an agency of government be allowed to exercise only the powers granted to it. Petitioners argument that private respondents have waived any defect in the filing of the forfeiture petition b y submitting their respective Answers with counterclaim deserves no merit as well. Petitioner has no jurisdiction over private respondents. Thus, there is no jurisdiction to waive in the first place. The PCGG cannot exercise investigative or prosecutorial powers never granted to it. PCGGs powers are specific and limited. Unless given additional assignment by the President, PCGGs sole task is only to recover the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses, their relatives and cronies.[29] Without these elements, the PCGG cannot claim jurisdiction over a case. Private respondents questioned the authority and jurisdiction of the PCGG to investigate and prosecute their cases by filing their Motion to Dismiss as soon as they learned of the pronouncement of the Court in Migrino. This case was decided on 30 August 1990, which explains why private respondents only filed their Motion to Dismiss on 8 October 1990. Nevertheless, we have held that the parties may raise lack of jurisdiction at any stage of the proceeding.[30] Thus, we hold that there was no waiver of jurisdiction in this case. Jurisdiction is vested by law and not by the parties to an action.[31] Consequently, the petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the PCGG to conduct the preliminary investigation. The Ombudsman may still conduct the proper preliminary investigation for violation of RA No. 1379, and if warranted, the Solicitor General may file the forfeiture petition with the Sandiganbayan. [32] The right of the State to forfeit unexplained wealth under RA No. 1379 is not subject to prescription, laches or estoppel.[33]

Second Issue: Propriety of Dismissal of Case Before Completion of Presentation of Evidence Petitioner also contends that the Sandiganbayan erred in dismissing the case before completion of the presentation of petitioners evidence. We disagree. Based on the findings of the Sandiganbayan and the records of this case, we find that petitioner has only itself to blame for non-completion of the presentation of its evidence. First, this case has been pending for four years before the Sandiganbayan dismissed it. Petitioner filed its Amended Complaint on 11 August 1987, and only began to present its evidence on 17 April 1989. Petitioner had almost two years to prepare its evidence. However, despite this sufficient time, petitioner still delayed the presentation of the rest of its evidence by filing numerous motions for postponements and extensions. Even before the date set for the presentation of its evidence, petitioner filed, on 13 April 1989, a Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. [34] The motion sought to charge the delinquent properties (which comprise most of petitioners evidence) with being subject to forfeiture as having been unlawfully acquired by defendant Dimaano alone x x x. The Sandiganbayan, however, refused to defer the presentation of petitioners evidence since petitioner did not state when it would file the amended complaint. On 18 April 1989, the Sandiganbayan set the continuation of the presentation of evidence on 28-29 September and 9-11 October 1989, giving petitioner ample time to prepare its evidence. Still, on 28 September 1989, petitioner manifested its inability to proceed with the presentation of its evidence. The Sandiganbayan issued an Order expressing its view on the matter, to wit: The Court has gone through extended inquiry and a narration of the above events because this case has been ready for trial for over a year and much of the delay hereon has been due to the inability of the government to produce on scheduled dates for pre-trial and for trial documents and witnesses, allegedly upon the failure of the military to supply them for the preparation of the presentation of evidence thereon. Of equal interest is the fact that this Court has been held to task in public about its alleged failure to move cases such as this one beyond the preliminary stage, when, in view of the developments such as those of today, this Court is now faced with a situation where a case already in progress will revert back to the preliminary stage, despite a five-month pause where appropriate action could have been undertaken by the plaintiff Republic.[35]

On 9 October 1989, the PCGG manifested in court that it was conducting a preliminary investigation on the unexplained wealth of private respondents as mandated by RA No. 1379.[36] The PCGG prayed for an additional four months to conduct the preliminary investigation. The Sandiganbayan granted this request and scheduled the presentation of evidence on 26-29 March 1990. However, on the scheduled date, petitioner failed to inform the court of the result of the preliminary investigation the PCGG supposedly conducted. Again, the Sandiganbayan gave petitioner until 18 May 1990 to continue with the presentation of its evidence and to inform the court of what lies ahead insofar as the status of the case is concerned x x x.[37] Still on the date set, petitioner failed to present its evidence. Finally, on 11 July 1990, petitioner filed its Re-Amended Complaint.[38] The Sandiganbayan correctly observed that a case already pending for years would revert to its preliminary stage if the court were to accept the Re-Amended Complaint. Based on these circumstances, obviously petitioner has only itself to blame for failure to complete the presentation of its evidence. The Sandiganbayan gave petitioner more than sufficient time to finish the presentation of its evidence. The Sandiganbayan overlooked petitioners delays and yet petitioner ended the long -string of delays with the filing of a Re-Amended Complaint, which would only prolong even more the disposition of the case. Moreover, the pronouncements of the Court in Migrino and Cruz prompted the Sandiganbayan to dismiss the case since the PCGG has no jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute the case against private respondents. This alone would have been sufficient legal basis for the Sandiganbayan to dismiss the forfeiture case against private respondents. Thus, we hold that the Sandiganbayan did not err in dismissing the case before completion of the presentation of petitioners evidence.

Third Issue: Legality of the Search and Seizure Petitioner claims that the Sandiganbayan erred in declaring the properties confiscated from Dimaanos house as illegally seized and therefore inadmissible in evidence. This issue bears a significant effect on petitioners case since these properties comprise most of petitioners evidence against private respondents. Petitioner will not have much evidence to support its case against private respondents if these properties are inadmissible in evidence. On 3 March 1986, the Constabulary raiding team served at Dimaanos residence a search warrant captioned Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. Dimaano was not present during the raid but Dimaanos cousins witnessed the raid. The raiding team seized the items detailed in the seizure receipt together with other items not included in the search warrant. The raiding team seized these items: one baby armalite rifle with two magazines; 40 rounds of 5.56 ammunition; one pistol, caliber .45; communications equipment, cash consisting of P2,870,000 and US$50,000, jewelry, and land titles. Petitioner wants the Court to take judicial notice that the raiding team conducted the search and seizure on March 3, 1986 or five days after the successful EDSA revolution.[39] Petitioner argues that a revolutionary government was operative at that time by virtue of Proclamation No. 1 announcing that President Aquino and Vice President Laurel were taking power in the name and by the will of the Filipino people.[40] Petitioner asserts that the revolutionary government effectively withheld the operation of the 1973 Constitution which guaranteed private respondents exclusionary right. Moreover, petitioner argues that the exclusionary right arising from an illegal search applies only beginning 2 February 1987, the date of ratification of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioner contends that all rights under the Bill of Rights had already reverted to its embryonic stage at the time of the search. Therefore, the government may confiscate the monies and items taken from Dimaano and use the same in evidence against her since at the time of their seizure, private respondents did not enjoy any constitutional right. Petitioner is partly right in its arguments. The EDSA Revolution took place on 23-25 February 1986. As succinctly stated in President Aquinos Proclamation No. 3 dated 25 March 1986, the EDSA Revolution was done in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution.[41] The resulting government was indisputably a revolutionary government bound by no constitution or legal limitations except treaty obligations that the revolutionary government, as the de jure government in the Philippines, assumed under international law.

The correct issues are: (1) whether the revolutionary government was bound by the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution during the interregnum, that is, after the actual and effective take-over of power by the revolutionary government following the cessation of resistance by loyalist forces up to 24 March 1986 (immediately before the adoption of the Provisional Constitution); and (2) whether the protection accorded to individuals under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Covenant) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Declaration) remained in effect during the interregnum. We hold that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was not operative during the interregnum. However, we rule that the protection accorded to individuals under the Covenant and the Declaration remained in effect during the interregnum. During the interregnum, the directives and orders of the revolutionary government were the supreme law because no constitution limited the extent and scope of such directives and orders. With the abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the successful revolution, there was no municipal law higher than the directives and orders of the revolutionary government. Thus, during the interregnum, a person could not invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights during the interregnum. As the Court explained inLetter of Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno:[42] A revolution has been defined as the complete overthrow of the established government in any country or state by those who were previously subject to it or as a sudden, radical and fundamental change in the government or political system, usually effected with violence or at least some acts of violence. In Kelsen's book, General Theory of Law and State, it is defined as that which occurs whenever the legal order of a community is nullified and replaced by a new order . . . a way not prescribed by the first order itself. It was through the February 1986 revolution, a relatively peaceful one, and more popularly known as the people power revolution that the Filipino people tore themselves away from an existing regime. This revolution also saw the unprecedented rise to power of the Aquino government. From the natural law point of view, the right of revolution has been defined as an inherent right of a people to cast out their rulers, change their policy or effect radical reforms in their system of government or institutions by force or a general uprising when the legal and constitutional methods of making such change have proved inadequate or are so obstructed as to be unavailable. It has been said that the locus of positive law-making power lies with the people of the state and from there is derived the right of the people to abolish, to reform and to alter any existing form of government without regard to the existing constitution. xxx It is widely known that Mrs. Aquinos rise to the presidency was not due to constitutional processes; in fact, it was achieved in violation of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution as a Batasang Pambansa resolution had earlier declared Mr. Marcos as the winner in the 1986 presidential election. Thus it can be said that the organization of Mrs. Aquinos Government which was met by little resistance and her control of the state evidenced by the appointment of the Cabinet and other key officers of the administration, the departure of the Marcos Cabinet officials, revamp of the Judiciary and the Military signaled the pointwhere the legal system then in effect, had ceased to be obeyed by the Filipino. (Emphasis supplied) To hold that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution remained operative during the interregnum would render void all sequestration orders issued by the Philippine Commission on Good Government (PCGG) before the adoption of the Freedom Constitution. The sequestration orders, which direct the freezing and even the takeover of private property by mere executive issuance without judicial action, would violate the due process and search and seizure clauses of the Bill of Rights. During the interregnum, the government in power was concededly a revolutionary government bound by no constitution. No one could validly question the sequestration orders as violative of the Bill of Rights because there was no Bill of Rights during the interregnum. However, upon the adoption of the Freedom Constitution, the sequestered companies assailed the sequestration orders as contrary to the Bill of Rights of the Freedom Constitution. In Bataan Shipyard & Engineering Co. Inc. vs. Presidential Commission on Good Government,[43] petitioner Baseco, while conceding there was no Bill of Rights during the interregnum, questioned

the continued validity of the sequestration orders upon adoption of the Freedom Constitution in view of the due process clause in its Bill of Rights. The Court ruled that the Freedom Constitution, and later the 1987 Constitution, expressly recognized the validity of sequestration orders, thus: If any doubt should still persist in the face of the foregoing considerations as to the validity and propriety of sequestration, freeze and takeover orders, it should be dispelled by the fact that these particular remedies and the authority of the PCGG to issue them have received constitutional approbation and sanction. As already mentioned, the Provisional or Freedom Constitution recognizes the power and duty of the President to enact measures to achieve the mandate of the people to . . . (r)ecover ill-gotten properties amassed by the leaders and supporters of the previous regime and protect the interest of the people through orders of sequestration or freezing of assets or accounts. And as also already adverted to, Section 26, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution treats of, and ratifies the authority to issue sequestration or freeze orders under Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986. The framers of both the Freedom Constitution and the 1987 Constitution were fully aware that the sequestration orders would clash with the Bill of Rights. Thus, the framers of both constitutions had to include specific language recognizing the validity of the sequestration orders. The following discourse by Commissioner Joaquin G. Bernas during the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission is instructive: FR. BERNAS: Madam President, there is something schizophrenic about the arguments in defense of the present amendment. For instance, I have carefully studied Minister Salongas lecture in the Gregorio Araneta University Foundation, of which all of us have been given a copy. On the one hand, he argues that everything the Commission is doing is traditionally legal. This is repeated by Commissioner Romulo also. Minister Salonga spends a major portion of his lecture developing that argument. On the other hand, almost as an afterthought, he says that in the end what matters are the results and not the legal niceties, thus suggesting that the PCGG should be allowed to make some legal shortcuts, another word for niceties or exceptions. Now, if everything the PCGG is doing is legal, why is it asking the CONCOM for special protection? The answer is clear. What they are doing will not stand the test of ordinary due process, hence they are asking for protection, for exceptions. Grandes malos, grandes remedios, fine, as the saying stands, but let us not say grandes malos, grande y malos remedios. That is not an allowable extrapolation. Hence, we should not give the exceptions asked for, and let me elaborate and give three reasons: First, the whole point of the February Revolution and of the work of the CONCOM is to hasten constitutional normalization. Very much at the heart of the constitutional normalization is the full effectivity of the Bill of Rights. We cannot, in one breath, ask for constitutional normalization and at the same time ask for a temporary halt to the full functioning of what is at the heart of constitutionalism. That would be hypocritical; that would be a repetition of Marcosian protestation of due process and rule of law. The New Society word for that is backsliding. It is tragic when we begin to backslide even before we get there. Second, this is really a corollary of the first. Habits tend to become ingrained. The committee report asks for extraordinary exceptions from the Bill of Rights for six months after the convening of Congress, and Congress may even extend this longer. Good deeds repeated ripen into virtue; bad deeds repeated become vice. What the committee report is asking for is that we should allow the new government to acquire the vice of disregarding the Bill of Rights. Vices, once they become ingrained, become difficult to shed. The practitioners of the vice begin to think that they have a vested right to its practice, and they will fight tooth and nail to keep the franchise. That would be an unhealthy way of consolidating the gains of a democratic revolution. Third, the argument that what matters are the results and not the legal niceties is an argument that is very disturbing. When it comes from a staunch Christian like Commissioner Salonga, a Minister, and repeated verbatim by another staunch Christian like Commissioner Tingson, it becomes doubly disturbing and even discombobulating. The argument makes the PCGG an auctioneer, placing the Bill of Rights on the auction block. If the price is right, the search and seizure clause will be sold. Open your Swiss bank account to us and we will award you the search and seizure clause. You can keep it in your private safe. Alternatively, the argument looks on the present government as hostage to the hoarders of hidden wealth. The hoarders will release the hidden health if the ransom price is paid and the ransom price is the Bill of Rights, specifically the due process in the search and seizure clauses. So, there is something positively revolving about either argument. The Bill of Rights is not for sale to the highest bidder nor can it be used to ransom captive dollars. This nation will survive and grow strong, only if it would become convinced of the values enshrined in the Constitution of a price that is beyond monetary estimation.

For these reasons, the honorable course for the Constitutional Commission is to delete all of Section 8 of the committee report and allow the new Constitution to take effect in full vigor. If Section 8 is deleted, the PCGG has two options. First, it can pursue the Salonga and the Romulo argument that what the PCGG has been doing has been completely within the pale of the law. If sustained, the PCGG can go on and should be able to go on, even without the support of Section 8. If not sustained, however, the PCGG has only one honorable option, it must bow to the majesty of the Bill of Rights. The PCGG extrapolation of the law is defended by staunch Christians. Let me conclude with what another Christian replied when asked to toy around with the law. From his prison cell, Thomas More said, "I'll give the devil benefit of law for my nations safety sake. I ask the Commission to give the devil benefit of law for our nations sake. And we should delete Section 8. Thank you, Madam President. (Emphasis supplied) Despite the impassioned plea by Commissioner Bernas against the amendment excepting sequestration orders from the Bill of Rights, the Constitutional Commission still adopted the amendment as Section 26,[44] Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution. The framers of the Constitution were fully aware that absent Section 26, sequestration orders would not stand the test of due process under the Bill of Rights. Thus, to rule that the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution remained in force during the interregnum, absent a constitutional provision excepting sequestration orders from such Bill of Rights, would clearly render all sequestration orders void during the interregnum. Nevertheless, even during the interregnum the Filipino people continued to enjoy, under the Covenant and the Declaration, almost the same rights found in the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution. The revolutionary government, after installing itself as the de jure government, assumed responsibility for the States good faith compliance with the Covenant to which the Philippines is a signatory. Article 2(1) of the Covenant requires each signatory State to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights[45] recognized in the present Covenant. Under Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the revolutionary government had the duty to insure that [n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence. The Declaration, to which the Philippines is also a signatory, provides in its Article 17(2) that [n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Although the signatories to the Declaration did not intend it as a legally binding document, being only a declaration, the Court has interpreted the Declaration as part of the generally accepted principles of international law and binding on the State.[46] Thus, the revolutionary government was also obligated under international law to observe the rights[47] of individuals under the Declaration. The revolutionary government did not repudiate the Covenant or the Declaration during the interregnum. Whether the revolutionary government could have repudiated all its obligations under the Covenant or the Declaration is another matter and is not the issue here. Suffice it to say that the Court considers the Declaration as part of customary international law, and that Filipinos as human beings are proper subjects of the rules of international law laid down in the Covenant. The fact is the revolutionary government did not repudiate the Covenant or the Declaration in the same way it repudiated the 1973 Constitution. As the de jure government, the revolutionary government could not escape responsibility for the States good faith compliance with its treaty obligations under international law. It was only upon the adoption of the Provisional Constitution on 25 March 1986 that the directives and orders of the revolutionary government became subject to a higher municipal law that, if contravened, rendered such directives and orders void. The Provisional Constitution adopted verbatim the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution.[48] The Provisional Constitution served as a self-limitation by the revolutionary government to avoid abuses of the absolute powers entrusted to it by the people. During the interregnum when no constitution or Bill of Rights existed, directives and orders issued by government officers were valid so long as these officers did not exceed the authority granted them by the revolutionary government. The directives and orders should not have also violated the Covenant or the Declaration. In this case, the revolutionary government presumptively sanctioned the warrant since the revolutionary government did not repudiate it. The warrant, issued by a judge upon proper application, specified the items to be searched and seized. The warrant is thus valid with respect to the items specifically described in the warrant. However, the Constabulary raiding team seized items not included in the warrant. As admitted by petitioners witnesses, the raiding team confiscated items not included in the warrant, thus:

Direct Examination of Capt. Rodolfo Sebastian AJ AMORES Q. A. Q. According to the search warrant, you are supposed to seize only for weapons. What else, aside from the weapons, were seized from the house of Miss Elizabeth Dimaano? The communications equipment, money in Philippine currency and US dollars, some jewelries, land titles, sir. Now, the search warrant speaks only of weapons to be seized from the house of Elizabeth Dimaano. Do you know the reason why your team also seized other properties not mentioned in said search warrant? During the conversation right after the conduct of said raid, I was informed that the reason why they also brought the other items not included in the search warrant was because the money and other jewelries were contained in attach cases and cartons with markings Sony Trinitron, and I think three (3) vaults or steel safes. Believing that the attach cases and the steel safes were containing firearms, they forced open these containers only to find out that they contained money.

A.

xxx Q. A. You said you found money instead of weapons, do you know the reason why your team seized this money instead of weapons? I think the overall team leader and the other two officers assisting him decided to bring along also the money because at that time it was already dark and they felt most secured if they will bring that because they might be suspected also of taking money out of those items, your Honor.[49]

Cross-examination Atty. Banaag Q. A. Q. A. xxx AJ AMORES Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Before you applied for a search warrant, did you conduct surveillance in the house of Miss Elizabeth Dimaano? The Intelligence Operatives conducted surveillance together with the MSU elements, your Honor. And this party believed there were weapons deposited in the Dimaano? Yes, your Honor. And they so swore before the Municipal Trial Judge? Yes, your Honor. But they did not mention to you, the applicant for the search warrant, any other properties or contraband which could be found in the residence of Miss Elizabeth Dimaano? They just gave us still unconfirmed report about some hidden items, for instance, the communications equipment and money. However, I did not include that in the application for house of Miss Elizabeth Were you present when the search warrant in connection with this case was applied before the Municipal Trial Court of Batangas, Branch 1? Yes, sir. And the search warrant applied for by you was for the search and seizure of five (5) baby armalite rifles M-16 and five (5) boxes of ammunition? Yes, sir.

search warrant considering that we have not established concrete evidence about that. So when Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. So that when you applied for search warrant, you had reason to believe that only weapons were in the house of Miss Elizabeth Dimaano? Yes, your Honor.[50] You stated that a .45 caliber pistol was seized along with one armalite rifle M-16 and how many ammunition? Forty, sir. And this became the subject of your complaint with the issuing Court, with the fiscals office who charged Elizabeth Dimaano for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition? Yes, sir. Do you know what happened to that case? I think it was dismissed, sir. In the fiscals office? Yes, sir. Because the armalite rifle you seized, as well as the .45 caliber pistol had a Memorandum Receipt in the name of Felino Melegrito, is that not correct? I think that was the reason, sir. There were other articles seized which were not included in the search warrant, like for instance, jewelries. Why did you seize the jewelries? I think it was the decision of the overall team leader and his assistant to bring along also the jewelries and other items, sir. I do not really know where it was taken but they brought along also these articles. I do not really know their reason for bringing the same, but I just learned that these were taken because they might get lost if they will just leave this behind. How about the money seized by your raiding team, they were not also included in the search warrant? Yes sir, but I believe they were also taken considering that the money was discovered to be contained in attach cases. These attach cases were suspected to be containing pistols or other high powered firearms, but in the course of the search the contents turned out to be money. So the team leader also decided to take this considering that they believed that if they will just leave the money behind, it might get lost also. That holds true also with respect to the other articles that were seized by your raiding team, like Transfer Certificates of Title of lands? Yes, sir. I think they were contained in one of the vaults that were opened.[51]

Q. A.

Q. A.

It is obvious from the testimony of Captain Sebastian that the warrant did not include the monies, communications equipment, jewelry and land titles that the raiding team confiscated. The search warrant did not particularly describe these items and the raiding team confiscated them on its own authority. The raiding team had no legal basis to seize these items without showing that these items could be the subject of warrantless search and seizure.[52] Clearly, the raiding team exceeded its authority when it seized these items. The seizure of these items was therefore void, and unless these items are contraband per se,[53] and they are not, they must be returned to the person from whom the raiding seized them. However, we do not declare that such person is the lawful owner of these items, merely that the search and seizure warrant could not be used as basis to seize and withhold these items from the possessor. We thus hold that these items should be returned immediately to Dimaano. WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The questioned Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan dated 18 November 1991 and 25 March 1992 in Civil Case No. 0037, remanding the records of this case to the Ombudsman for such appropriate action as the evidence may warrant, and referring this case to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue for a determination of any tax liability of respondent Elizabeth Dimaano, are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

MAGALONA VS. ERMITA, 655 SCRA 476 (2011)

The Case This original action for the writs of certiorari and prohibition assails the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 95221 (RA 9522) adjusting the countrys archipelagic baselines and classifying the baseline regime of nearby territories. The Antecedents In 1961, Congress passed Republic Act No. 3046 (RA 3046)2 demarcating the maritime baselines of the Philippines as an archipelagic State.3 This law followed the framing of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone in 1958 (UNCLOS I),4 codifying, among others, the sovereign right of States parties over their territorial sea, the breadth of which, however, was left undetermined. Attempts to fill this void during the second round of negotiations in Geneva in 1960 (UNCLOS II) proved futile. Thus, domestically, RA 3046 remained unchanged for nearly five decades, save for legislation passed in 1968 (Republic Act No. 5446 [RA 5446]) correcting typographical errors and reserving the drawing of baselines around Sabah in North Borneo. In March 2009, Congress amended RA 3046 by enacting RA 9522, the statute now under scrutiny. The change was prompted by the need to make RA 3046 compliant with the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III),5 which the Philippines ratified on 27 February 1984.6 Among others, UNCLOS III prescribes the water-land ratio, length, and contour of baselines of archipelagic States like the Philippines7 and sets the deadline for the filing of application for the extended continental shelf.8 Complying with these requirements, RA 9522 shortened one baseline, optimized the location of some basepoints around the Philippine archipelago and classified adjacent territories, namely, the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal, as regimes of islands whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones. Petitioners, professors of law, law students and a legislator, in their respective capacities as citizens, taxpayers or x x x legislators,9 as the case may be, assail the constitutionality of RA 9522 on two principal grounds, namely: (1) RA 9522 reduces Philippine maritime territory, and logically, the reach of the Philippine states sovereign power, in violation of Article 1 of the 1987 Constitution,10 embodying the terms of the Treaty of Paris11 and ancillary treaties,12 and (2) RA 9522 opens the countrys waters landward of the baselines to maritime passage by all vessels and aircrafts, undermining Philippine sovereignty and national security, contravening the countrys nuclear-free policy, and damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant constitutional provisions.13 In addition, petitioners contend that RA 9522s treatment of the KIG as regime of islands not only results in the loss of a large maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.14 To buttress their argument of territorial diminution, petitioners facially attack RA 9522 for what it excluded and included its failure to reference either the Treaty of Paris or Sabah and its use of UNCLOS IIIs framework of regime of islands to determine the maritime zones of the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal. Commenting on the petition, respondent officials raised threshold issues questioning (1) the petitions compliance with the case or controversy requirement for judicial review grounded on petitioners alleged lack of locus standi and (2) the propriety of the writs of certiorari and prohibition to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522. On the merits, respondents defended RA 9522 as the countrys compliance with the terms of UNCLOS III, preserving Philippine territory over the KIG or Scarborough Shoal. Respondents add that RA 9522 does not undermine the countrys security, environment and economic interests or relinquish the Philippines claim over Sabah. Respondents also question the normative force, under international law, of petitioners assertion that what Spain ceded to the United States under the Treaty of Paris were the islands and all the waters found within the boundaries of the rectangular area drawn under the Treaty of Paris. We left unacted petitioners prayer for an injunctive writ.

The Issues The petition raises the following issues: 1. 1. 2. Preliminarily Whether petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit; and Whether the writs of certiorari and prohibition are the proper remedies to assail the constitutionality of RA 9522. On the merits, whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional.

2.

The Ruling of the Court On the threshold issues, we hold that (1) petitioners possess locus standi to bring this suit as citizens and (2) the writs of certiorari and prohibition are proper remedies to test the constitutionality of RA 9522. On the merits, we find no basis to declare RA 9522 unconstitutional. On the Threshold Issues Petitioners Possess Locus Standi as Citizens Petitioners themselves undermine their assertion of locus standi as legislators and taxpayers because the petition alleges neither infringement of legislative prerogative15 nor misuse of public funds,16 occasioned by the passage and implementation of RA 9522. Nonetheless, we recognize petitioners locus standi as citizens with constitutionally sufficient interest in the resolution of the merits of the case which undoubtedly raises issues of national significance necessitating urgent resolution. Indeed, owing to the peculiar nature of RA 9522, it is understandably difficult to find other litigants possessing a more direct and specific interest to bring the suit, thus satisfying one of the requirements for granting citizenship standing.17 The Writs of Certiorari and Prohibition Are Proper Remedies to Test the Constitutionality of Statutes In praying for the dismissal of the petition on preliminary grounds, respondents seek a strict observance of the offices of the writs of certiorari and prohibition, noting that the writs cannot issue absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial powers on the part of respondents and resulting prejudice on the part of petitioners.18 Respondents submission holds true in ordinary civil proceedings. When this Court exercises its constitutional power of judicial review, however, we have, by tradition, viewed the writs of certiorari and prohibition as proper remedial vehicles to test the constitutionality of statutes,19 and indeed, of acts of other branches of government.20 Issues of constitutional import are sometimes crafted out of statutes which, while having no bearing on the personal interests of the petitioners, carry such relevance in the life of this nation that the Court inevitably finds itself constrained to take cognizance of the case and pass upon the issues raised, non-compliance with the letter of procedural rules notwithstanding. The statute sought to be reviewed here is one such law. RA 9522 is Not Unconstitutional

RA 9522 is a Statutory Tool to Demarcate the Countrys Maritime Zones and Continental Shelf Under UNCLOS III, not to Delineate Philippine Territory Petitioners submit that RA 9522 dismembers a large portion of the national territory21 because it discards the preUNCLOS III demarcation of Philippine territory under the Treaty of Paris and related treaties, successively encoded in the definition of national territory under the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Petitioners theorize that this constitutional definition trumps any treaty or statutory provision denying the Philippines sovereign control over waters, beyond the territorial sea recognized at the time of the Treaty of Paris, that Spain supposedly ceded to the United States. Petitioners argue that from the Treaty of Paris technical description, Philippine sovereignty over territorial waters extends hundreds of nautical miles around the Philippine archipelago, embracing the rectangular area delineated in the Treaty of Paris.22 Petitioners theory fails to persuade us. UNCLOS III has nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of territory. It is a multilateral treaty regulating, among others, sea-use rights over maritime zones (i.e., the territorial waters [12 nautical miles from the baselines], contiguous zone [24 nautical miles from the baselines], exclusive economic zone [200 nautical miles from the baselines]), and continental shelves that UNCLOS III delimits.23 UNCLOS III was the culmination of decades-long negotiations among United Nations members to codify norms regulating the conduct of States in the worlds oceans and submarine areas, recognizing coastal and archipelagic States graduated authority over a limited span of waters and submarine lands along their coasts. On the other hand, baselines laws such as RA 9522 are enacted by UNCLOS III States parties to mark-out specific basepoints along their coasts from which baselines are drawn, either straight or contoured, to serve as geographic starting points to measure the breadth of the maritime zones and continental shelf. Article 48 of UNCLOS III on archipelagic States like ours could not be any clearer: Article 48. Measurement of the breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf. The breadth of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf shall be measured from archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47. (Emphasis supplied) Thus, baselines laws are nothing but statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS III States parties to delimit with precision the extent of their maritime zones and continental shelves. In turn, this gives notice to the rest of the international community of the scope of the maritime space and submarine areas within which States parties exercise treaty-based rights, namely, the exercise of sovereignty over territorial waters (Article 2), the jurisdiction to enforce customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitation laws in the contiguous zone (Article 33), and the right to exploit the living and non-living resources in the exclusive economic zone (Article 56) and continental shelf (Article 77). Even under petitioners theory that the Philippine territory embraces the islands and all the waters within the rectangular area delimited in the Treaty of Paris, the baselines of the Philippines would still have to be drawn in accordance with RA 9522 because this is the only way to draw the baselines in conformity with UNCLOS III. The baselines cannot be drawn from the boundaries or other portions of the rectangular area delineated in the Treaty of Paris, but from the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago.24 UNCLOS III and its ancillary baselines laws play no role in the acquisition, enlargement or, as petitioners claim, diminution of territory. Under traditional international law typology, States acquire (or conversely, lose) territory through occupation, accretion, cession and prescription,25 not by executing multilateral treaties on the regulations of sea-use rights or enacting statutes to comply with the treatys terms to delimit maritime zones and continental shelves. Territorial claims to land features are outside UNCLOS III, and are instead governed by the rules on general international law.26

RA 9522s Use of the Framework of Regime of Islands to Determine the Maritime Zones of the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal, not Inconsistent with the Philippines Claim of Sovereignty Over these Areas Petitioners next submit that RA 9522s use of UNCLOS IIIs regime of islands framework to draw the baselines, and to measure the breadth of the applicable maritime zones of the KIG, weakens our territorial claim over that area.27 Petitioners add that the KIGs (and Scarborough Shoals) exclusion from the Philippine archipelagic baselines results in the loss of about 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters, prejudicing the livelihood of subsistence fishermen.28 A comparison of the configuration of the baselines drawn under RA 3046 and RA 9522 and the extent of maritime space encompassed by each law, coupled with a reading of the text of RA 9522 and its congressional deliberations, vis--vis the Philippines obligations under UNCLOS III, belie this view. The configuration of the baselines drawn under RA 3046 and RA 9522 shows that RA 9522 merely followed the basepoints mapped by RA 3046, save for at least nine basepoints that RA 9522 skipped to optimize the location of basepoints and adjust the length of one baseline (and thus comply with UNCLOS IIIs limitation on the maximum length of baselines). Under RA 3046, as under RA 9522, the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal lie outside of the baselines drawn around the Philippine archipelago. This undeniable cartographic fact takes the wind out of petitioners argument branding RA 9522 as a statutory renunciation of the Philippines claim over the KIG, assuming that baselines are relevant for this purpose. Petitioners assertion of loss of about 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters under RA 9522 is similarly unfounded both in fact and law. On the contrary, RA 9522, by optimizing the location of basepoints, increased the Philippines total maritime space (covering its internal waters, territorial sea and exclusive economic zone) by 145,216 square nautical miles, as shown in the table below:29 Extent of maritime area using RA 3046, as amended, taking into account the Treaty of Paris delimitation (in square nautical miles) Internal or archipelagic waters Extent of maritime area using RA 9522, taking into account UNCLOS III (in square nautical miles)

166,858

171,435

Territorial Sea

274,136

32,106

Exclusive Economic Zone TOTAL 440,994

382,669 586,210

Thus, as the map below shows, the reach of the exclusive economic zone drawn under RA 9522 even extends way beyond the waters covered by the rectangular demarcation under the Treaty of Paris. Of course, where there are overlapping exclusive economic zones of opposite or adjacent States, there will have to be a delineation of maritime boundaries in accordance with UNCLOS III.30 Further, petitioners argument that the KIG now lies outside Philippine territory because the baselines that RA 9522 draws do not enclose the KIG is negated by RA 9522 itself. Section 2 of the law commits to text the Philippines continued claim of sovereignty and jurisdiction over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal: SEC. 2. The baselines in the following areas over which the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction shall be determined as Regime of Islands under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted under Presidential Decree No. 1596 and b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as Scarborough Shoal. (Emphasis supplied) Had Congress in RA 9522 enclosed the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as part of the Philippine archipelago, adverse legal effects would have ensued. The Philippines would have committed a breach of two provisions of UNCLOS III. First, Article 47 (3) of UNCLOS III requires that [t]he drawing of such baselines shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago. Second, Article 47 (2) of UNCLOS III requires that the length of the baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, save for three per cent (3%) of the total number of baselines which can reach up to 125 nautical miles.31 Although the Philippines has consistently claimed sovereignty over the KIG32 and the Scarborough Shoal for several decades, these outlying areas are located at an appreciable distance from the nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipelago,33 such that any straight baseline loped around them from the nearest basepoint will inevitably depart to an appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago. The principal sponsor of RA 9522 in the Senate, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, took pains to emphasize the foregoing during the Senate deliberations: What we call the Kalayaan Island Group or what the rest of the world call[] the Spratlys and the Scarborough Shoal are outside our archipelagic baseline because if we put them inside our baselines we might be accused of violating the provision of international law which states: The drawing of such baseline shall not depart to any appreciable extent from the general configuration of the archipelago. So sa loob ng ating baseline, dapat magkalapit ang mga islands. Dahil malayo ang Scarborough Shoal, hindi natin masasabing malapit sila sa atin although we are still allowed by international law to claim them as our own. This is called contested islands outside our configuration. We see that our archipelago is defined by the orange line which [we] call[] archipelagic baseline. Ngayon, tingnan ninyo ang maliit na circle doon sa itaas, that is Scarborough Shoal, itong malaking circle sa ibaba, that is Kalayaan Group or the Spratlys. Malayo na sila sa ating archipelago kaya kung ilihis pa natin ang dating archipelagic baselines para lamang masama itong dalawang circles, hindi na sila magkalapit at baka hindi na tatanggapin ng United Nations because of the rule that it should follow the natural configuration of the archipelago.34 (Emphasis supplied) Similarly, the length of one baseline that RA 3046 drew exceeded UNCLOS IIIs limits. The need to shorten this baseline, and in addition, to optimize the location of basepoints using current maps, became imperative as discussed by respondents: [T]he amendment of the baselines law was necessary to enable the Philippines to draw the outer limits of its maritime zones including the extended continental shelf in the manner provided by Article 47 of [UNCLOS III]. As defined by R.A. 3046, as amended by R.A. 5446, the baselines suffer from some technical deficiencies, to wit:

1.

The length of the baseline across Moro Gulf (from Middle of 3 Rock Awash to Tongquil Point) is 140.06 nautical miles x x x. This exceeds the maximum length allowed under Article 47(2) of the [UNCLOS III], which states that The length of such baselines shall not exceed 100 nautical miles, except that up to 3 per cent of the total number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may exceed that length, up to a maximum length of 125 nautical miles. The selection of basepoints is not optimal. At least 9 basepoints can be skipped or deleted from the baselines system. This will enclose an additional 2,195 nautical miles of water. Finally, the basepoints were drawn from maps existing in 1968, and not established by geodetic survey methods. Accordingly, some of the points, particularly along the west coasts of Luzon down to Palawan were later found to be located either inland or on water, not on low-water line and drying reefs as prescribed by Article 47.35

2. 3.

Hence, far from surrendering the Philippines claim over the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal, Congress decision to classify the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal as Regime[s] of Islands under the Republic of the Philippines consistent with Article 12136 of UNCLOS III manifests the Philippine States responsible observance of its pacta sunt servandaobligation under UNCLOS III. Under Article 121 of UNCLOS III, any naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide, such as portions of the KIG, qualifies under the category of regime of islands, whose islands generate their own applicable maritime zones.37 Statutory Claim Over Sabah under RA 5446 Retained Petitioners argument for the invalidity of RA 9522 for its failure to textualize the Philippines claim over Sabah in North Borneo is also untenable. Section 2 of RA 5446, which RA 9522 did not repeal, keeps open the door for drawing the baselines of Sabah: Section 2. The definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Act is without prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea around the territory of Sabah, situated in North Borneo, over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty. (Emphasis supplied) UNCLOS III and RA 9522 not Incompatible with the Constitutions Delineation of Internal Waters As their final argument against the validity of RA 9522, petitioners contend that the law unconstitutionally converts internal waters into archipelagic waters, hence subjecting these waters to the right of innocent and sea lanes passage under UNCLOS III, including overflight. Petitioners extrapolate that these passage rights indubitably expose Philippine internal waters to nuclear and maritime pollution hazards, in violation of the Constitution.38 Whether referred to as Philippine internal waters under Article I of the Constitution39 or as archipelagic waters under UNCLOS III (Article 49 [1]), the Philippines exercises sovereignty over the body of water lying landward of the baselines, including the air space over it and the submarine areas underneath. UNCLOS III affirms this: Article 49. Legal status of archipelagic waters, of the air space over archipelagic waters and of their bed and subsoil. 1. The sovereignty of an archipelagic State extends to the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with article 47, described as archipelagic waters, regardless of their depth or distance from the coast. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the archipelagic waters, as well as to their bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein.

2. xxxx

4. The regime of archipelagic sea lanes passage established in this Part shall not in other respects affect the status of the archipelagic waters, including the sea lanes, or the exercise by the archipelagic State of its sovereignty over such waters and their air space, bed and subsoil, and the resources contained therein. (Emphasis supplied) The fact of sovereignty, however, does not preclude the operation of municipal and international law norms subjecting the territorial sea or archipelagic waters to necessary, if not marginal, burdens in the interest of maintaining unimpeded, expeditious international navigation, consistent with the international law principle of freedom of navigation. Thus, domestically, the political branches of the Philippine government, in the competent discharge of their constitutional powers, may pass legislation designating routes within the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and sea lanes passage.40 Indeed, bills drawing nautical highways for sea lanes passage are now pending in Congress.41 In the absence of municipal legislation, international law norms, now codified in UNCLOS III, operate to grant innocent passage rights over the territorial sea or archipelagic waters, subject to the treatys limitations and conditions for their exercise.42 Significantly, the right of innocent passage is a customary international law,43 thus automatically incorporated in the corpus of Philippine law.44 No modern State can validly invoke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent passage that is exercised in accordance with customary international law without risking retaliatory measures from the international community. The fact that for archipelagic States, their archipelagic waters are subject to both the right of innocent passage and sea lanes passage45 does not place them in lesser footing vis--vis continental coastal States which are subject, in their territorial sea, to the right of innocent passage and the right of transit passage through international straits. The imposition of these passage rights through archipelagic waters under UNCLOS III was a concession by archipelagic States, in exchange for their right to claim all the waters landward of their baselines,regardless of their depth or distance from the coast, as archipelagic waters subject to their territorial sovereignty. More importantly, the recognition of archipelagic States archipelago and the waters enclosed by their baselines as one cohesive entity prevents the treatment of their islands as separate islands under UNCLOS III.46 Separate islands generate their own maritime zones, placing the waters between islands separated by more than 24 nautical miles beyond the States territorial sovereignty, subjecting these waters to the rights of other States under UNCLOS III.47 Petitioners invocation of non-executory constitutional provisions in Article II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies)48 must also fail. Our present state of jurisprudence considers the provisions in Article II as mere legislative guides, which, absent enabling legislation, do not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights x x x.49 Article II provisions serve as guides in formulating and interpreting implementing legislation, as well as in interpreting executory provisions of the Constitution. Although Oposa v. Factoran50 treated the right to a healthful and balanced ecology under Section 16 of Article II as an exception, the present petition lacks factual basis to substantiate the claimed constitutional violation. The other provisions petitioners cite, relating to the protection of marine wealth (Article XII, Section 2, paragraph 251) and subsistence fishermen (Article XIII, Section 752), are not violated by RA 9522. In fact, the demarcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to delimit its exclusive economic zone, reserving solely to the Philippines the exploitation of all living and non-living resources within such zone. Such a maritime delineation binds the international community since the delineation is in strict observance of UNCLOS III. If the maritime delineation is contrary to UNCLOS III, the international community will of course reject it and will refuse to be bound by it. UNCLOS III favors States with a long coastline like the Philippines. UNCLOS III creates a sui generis maritime space the exclusive economic zone in waters previously part of the high seas. UNCLOS III grants new rights to coastal States to exclusively exploit the resources found within this zone up to 200 nautical miles.53 UNCLOS III, however, preserves the traditional freedom of navigation of other States that attached to this zone beyond the territorial sea before UNCLOS III.

RA 9522 and the Philippines Maritime Zones Petitioners hold the view that, based on the permissive text of UNCLOS III, Congress was not bound to pass RA 9522.54 We have looked at the relevant provision of UNCLOS III55 and we find petitioners reading plausible. Nevertheless, the prerogative of choosing this option belongs to Congress, not to this Court. Moreover, the luxury of choosing this option comes at a very steep price. Absent an UNCLOS III compliant baselines law, an archipelagic State like the Philippines will find itself devoid of internationally acceptable baselines from where the breadth of its maritime zones and continental shelf is measured. This is recipe for a two-fronted disaster: first, it sends an open invitation to the seafaring powers to freely enter and exploit the resources in the waters and submarine areas around our archipelago; and second, it weakens the countrys case in any international dispute over Philippine maritime space. These are consequences Congress wisely avoided. The enactment of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for the Philippine archipelago and adjacent areas, as embodied in RA 9522, allows an internationally-recognized delimitation of the breadth of the Philippines maritime zones and continental shelf. RA 9522 is therefore a most vital step on the part of the Philippines in safeguarding its maritime zones, consistent with the Constitution and our national interest. WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition.

G.R. No. L-26379

December 27, 1969

WILLIAM C. REAGAN, ETC., petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent. Quasha, Asperilla, Blanco, Zafra and Tayag for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Felicisimo R. Rosete, Solicitor Lolita O. Gal-lang and Special Attorney Gamaliel H. Mantolino for respondent. FERNANDO, J.: A question novel in character, the answer to which has far-reaching implications, is raised by petitioner William C. Reagan, at one time a civilian employee of an American corporation providing technical assistance to the United States Air Force in the Philippines. He would dispute the payment of the income tax assessed on him by respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue on an amount realized by him on a sale of his automobile to a member of the United States Marine Corps, the transaction having taken place at the Clark Field Air Base at Pampanga. It is his contention, seriously and earnestly expressed, that in legal contemplation the sale was made outside Philippine territory and therefore beyond our jurisdictional power to tax. Such a plea, far-fetched and implausible, on its face betraying no kinship with reality, he would justify by invoking, mistakenly as will hereafter be more fully shown an observation to that effect in a 1951 opinion, 1 petitioner ignoring that such utterance was made purely as a flourish of rhetoric and by way of emphasizing the decision reached, that the trading firm as purchaser of army goods must respond for the sales taxes due from an importer, as the American armed forces being exempt could not be taxed as such under the National Internal Revenue Code.2 Such an assumption, inspired by the commendable aim to render unavailing any attempt at tax evasion on the part of such vendee, found expression anew in a 1962 decision,3 coupled with the reminder however, to render the truth unmistakable, that "the areas covered by the United States Military Bases are not foreign territories both in the political and geographical sense." As thus clarified, it is manifest that such a view amounts at most to a legal fiction and is moreover obiter. It certainly cannot control the resolution of the specific question that confronts us. We declare our stand in an unequivocal manner. The sale having taken place on what indisputably is Philippine territory, petitioner's liability for the income tax due as a result thereof was unavoidable. As the Court of Tax Appeals reached a similar conclusion, we sustain its decision now before us on appeal. In the decision appealed from, the Court of Tax Appeals, after stating the nature of the case, started the recital of facts thus: "It appears that petitioner, a citizen of the United States and an employee of Bendix Radio, Division of Bendix Aviation Corporation, which provides technical assistance to the United States Air Force, was assigned at Clark Air Base, Philippines, on or about July 7, 1959 ... . Nine (9) months thereafter and before his tour of duty expired, petitioner imported on April 22, 1960 a tax-free 1960 Cadillac car with accessories valued at $6,443.83, including freight, insurance and other charges."4 Then came the following: "On July 11, 1960, more than two (2) months after the 1960 Cadillac car was imported into the Philippines, petitioner requested the Base Commander, Clark Air Base, for a permit to sell the car, which was granted provided that the sale was made to a member of the United States Armed Forces or a citizen of the United States employed in the U.S. military bases in the Philippines. On the same date, July 11, 1960, petitioner sold his car for $6,600.00 to a certain Willie Johnson, Jr. (Private first class), United States Marine Corps, Sangley Point, Cavite, Philippines, as shown by a Bill of Sale . . . executed at Clark Air Base. On the same date, Pfc. Willie (William) Johnson, Jr. sold the car to Fred Meneses for P32,000.00 as evidenced by a deed of sale executed in Manila."5 As a result of the transaction thus made, respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue, after deducting the landed cost of the car as well as the personal exemption to which petitioner was entitled, fixed as his net taxable income arising from such transaction the amount of P17,912.34, rendering him liable for income tax in the sum of P2,979.00. After paying the sum, he sought a refund from respondent claiming that he was exempt, but pending action on his request for refund, he filed the case with the Court of Tax Appeals seeking recovery of the sum of P2,979.00 plus the legal rate of interest. As noted in the appealed decision: "The only issue submitted for our resolution is whether or not the said income tax of P2,979.00 was legally collected by respondent for petitioner."6 After discussing the legal issues raised, primarily

the contention that the Clark Air Base "in legal contemplation, is a base outside the Philippines" the sale therefore having taken place on "foreign soil", the Court of Tax Appeals found nothing objectionable in the assessment and thereafter the payment of P2,979.00 as income tax and denied the refund on the same. Hence, this appeal predicated on a legal theory we cannot accept. Petitioner cannot make out a case for reversal. 1. Resort to fundamentals is unavoidable to place things in their proper perspective, petitioner apparently feeling justified in his refusal to defer to basic postulates of constitutional and international law, induced no doubt by the weight he would accord to the observation made by this Court in the two opinions earlier referred to. To repeat, scant comfort, if at all is to be derived from such an obiter dictum, one which is likewise far from reflecting the fact as it is. Nothing is better settled than that the Philippines being independent and sovereign, its authority may be exercised over its entire domain. There is no portion thereof that is beyond its power. Within its limits, its decrees are supreme, its commands paramount. Its laws govern therein, and everyone to whom it applies must submit to its terms. That is the extent of its jurisdiction, both territorial and personal. Necessarily, likewise, it has to be exclusive. If it were not thus, there is a diminution of its sovereignty. It is to be admitted that any state may, by its consent, express or implied, submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights. There may thus be a curtailment of what otherwise is a power plenary in character. That is the concept of sovereignty as auto-limitation, which, in the succinct language of Jellinek, "is the property of a state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-determination and self-restriction."7 A state then, if it chooses to, may refrain from the exercise of what otherwise is illimitable competence. Its laws may as to some persons found within its territory no longer control. Nor does the matter end there. It is not precluded from allowing another power to participate in the exercise of jurisdictional right over certain portions of its territory. If it does so, it by no means follows that such areas become impressed with an alien character. They retain their status as native soil. They are still subject to its authority. Its jurisdiction may be diminished, but it does not disappear. So it is with the bases under lease to the American armed forces by virtue of the military bases agreement of 1947. They are not and cannot be foreign territory. Decisions coming from petitioner's native land, penned by jurists of repute, speak to that effect with impressive unanimity. We start with the citation from Chief Justice Marshall, announced in the leading case of Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon,8 an 1812 decision: "The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction." After which came this paragraph: "All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories, must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source." Chief Justice Taney, in an 1857 decision,9 affirmed the fundamental principle of everyone within the territorial domain of a state being subject to its commands: "For undoubtedly every person who is found within the limits of a government, whether the temporary purposes or as a resident, is bound by its laws." It is no exaggeration then for Justice Brewer to stress that the United States government "is one having jurisdiction over every foot of soil within its territory, and acting directly upon each [individual found therein]; . . ."10 Not too long ago, there was a reiteration of such a view, this time from the pen of Justice Van Devanter. Thus: "It now is settled in the United States and recognized elsewhere that the territory subject to its jurisdiction includes the land areas under its dominion and control the ports, harbors, bays, and other in closed arms of the sea along its coast, and a marginal belt of the sea extending from the coast line outward a marine league, or 3 geographic miles."11 He could cite moreover, in addition to many American decisions, such eminent treatise-writers as Kent, Moore, Hyde, Wilson, Westlake, Wheaton and Oppenheim. As a matter of fact, the eminent commentator Hyde in his three-volume work on International Law, as interpreted and applied by the United States, made clear that not even the embassy premises of a foreign power are to be considered outside the territorial domain of the host state. Thus: "The ground occupied by an embassy is not in fact the territory of the foreign State to which the premises belong through possession or ownership. The lawfulness or unlawfulness of acts there committed is determined by the territorial sovereign. If an attache commits an offense

within the precincts of an embassy, his immunity from prosecution is not because he has not violated the local law, but rather for the reason that the individual is exempt from prosecution. If a person not so exempt, or whose immunity is waived, similarly commits a crime therein, the territorial sovereign, if it secures custody of the offender, may subject him to prosecution, even though its criminal code normally does not contemplate the punishment of one who commits an offense outside of the national domain. It is not believed, therefore, that an ambassador himself possesses the right to exercise jurisdiction, contrary to the will of the State of his sojourn, even within his embassy with respect to acts there committed. Nor is there apparent at the present time any tendency on the part of States to acquiesce in his exercise of it."12 2. In the light of the above, the first and crucial error imputed to the Court of Tax Appeals to the effect that it should have held that the Clark Air Force is foreign soil or territory for purposes of income tax legislation is clearly without support in law. As thus correctly viewed, petitioner's hope for the reversal of the decision completely fades away. There is nothing in the Military Bases Agreement that lends support to such an assertion. It has not become foreign soil or territory. This country's jurisdictional rights therein, certainly not excluding the power to tax, have been preserved. As to certain tax matters, an appropriate exemption was provided for. Petitioner could not have been unaware that to maintain the contrary would be to defy reality and would be an affront to the law. While his first assigned error is thus worded, he would seek to impart plausibility to his claim by the ostensible invocation of the exemption clause in the Agreement by virtue of which a "national of the United States serving in or employed in the Philippines in connection with the construction, maintenance, operation or defense of the bases and residing in the Philippines only by reason of such employment" is not to be taxed on his income unless "derived from Philippine source or sources other than the United States sources."13 The reliance, to repeat, is more apparent than real for as noted at the outset of this opinion, petitioner places more faith not on the language of the provision on exemption but on a sentiment given expression in a 1951 opinion of this Court, which would be made to yield such an unwarranted interpretation at war with the controlling constitutional and international law principles. At any rate, even if such a contention were more adequately pressed and insisted upon, it is on its face devoid of merit as the source clearly was Philippine. In Saura Import and Export Co. v. Meer,14 the case above referred to, this Court affirmed a decision rendered about seven months previously,15 holding liable as an importer, within the contemplation of the National Internal Revenue Code provision, the trading firm that purchased army goods from a United States government agency in the Philippines. It is easily understandable why. If it were not thus, tax evasion would have been facilitated. The United States forces that brought in such equipment later disposed of as surplus, when no longer needed for military purposes, was beyond the reach of our tax statutes. Justice Tuason, who spoke for the Court, adhered to such a rationale, quoting extensively from the earlier opinion. He could have stopped there. He chose not to do so. The transaction having occurred in 1946, not so long after the liberation of the Philippines, he proceeded to discuss the role of the American military contingent in the Philippines as a belligerent occupant. In the course of such a dissertion, drawing on his well-known gift for rhetoric and cognizant that he was making an as if statement, he did say: "While in army bases or installations within the Philippines those goods were in contemplation of law on foreign soil." It is thus evident that the first, and thereafter the controlling, decision as to the liability for sales taxes as an importer by the purchaser, could have been reached without any need for such expression as that given utterance by Justice Tuason. Its value then as an authoritative doctrine cannot be as much as petitioner would mistakenly attach to it. It was clearly obiter not being necessary for the resolution of the issue before this Court.16 It was an opinion "uttered by the way."17 It could not then be controlling on the question before us now, the liability of the petitioner for income tax which, as announced at the opening of this opinion, is squarely raised for the first time.18 On this point, Chief Justice Marshall could again be listened to with profit. Thus: "It is a maxim, not to be disregarded, that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision."19 Nor did the fact that such utterance of Justice Tuason was cited in Co Po v. Collector of Internal Revenue,20 a 1962 decision relied upon by petitioner, put a different complexion on the matter. Again, it was by way of pure embellishment, there being no need to repeat it, to reach the conclusion that it was the purchaser of army goods, this time from military bases, that must respond for the advance sales taxes as importer. Again, the purpose that

animated the reiteration of such a view was clearly to emphasize that through the employment of such a fiction, tax evasion is precluded. What is more, how far divorced from the truth was such statement was emphasized by Justice Barrera, who penned the Co Po opinion, thus: "It is true that the areas covered by the United States Military Bases are not foreign territories both in the political and geographical sense."21 Justice Tuason moreover made explicit that rather than corresponding with reality, what was said by him was in the way of a legal fiction. Note his stress on "in contemplation of law." To lend further support to a conclusion already announced, being at that a confirmation of what had been arrived at in the earlier case, distinguished by its sound appreciation of the issue then before this Court and to preclude any tax evasion, an observation certainly not to be taken literally was thus given utterance. This is not to say that it should have been ignored altogether afterwards. It could be utilized again, as it undoubtedly was, especially so for the purpose intended, namely to stigmatize as without support in law any attempt on the part of a taxpayer to escape an obligation incumbent upon him. So it was quoted with that end in view in the Co Po case. It certainly does not justify any effort to render futile the collection of a tax legally due, as here. That was farthest from the thought of Justice Tuason. What is more, the statement on its face is, to repeat, a legal fiction. This is not to discount the uses of a fictio jurisin the science of the law. It was Cardozo who pointed out its value as a device "to advance the ends of justice" although at times it could be "clumsy" and even "offensive".22 Certainly, then, while far from objectionable as thus enunciated, this observation of Justice Tuason could be misused or misconstrued in a clumsy manner to reach an offensive result. To repeat, properly used, a legal fiction could be relied upon by the law, as Frankfurter noted, in the pursuit of legitimate ends.23 Petitioner then would be well-advised to take to heart such counsel of care and circumspection before invoking not a legal fiction that would avoid a mockery of the law by avoiding tax evasion but what clearly is a misinterpretation thereof, leading to results that would have shocked its originator. The conclusion is thus irresistible that the crucial error assigned, the only one that calls for discussion to the effect that for income tax purposes the Clark Air Force Base is outside Philippine territory, is utterly without merit. So we have said earlier. 3. To impute then to the statement of Justice Tuason the meaning that petitioner would fasten on it is, to paraphrase Frankfurter, to be guilty of succumbing to the vice of literalness. To so conclude is, whether by design or inadvertence, to misread it. It certainly is not susceptible of the mischievous consequences now sought to be fastened on it by petitioner. That it would be fraught with such peril to the enforcement of our tax statutes on the military bases under lease to the American armed forces could not have been within the contemplation of Justice Tuason. To so attribute such a bizarre consequence is to be guilty of a grave disservice to the memory of a great jurist. For his real and genuine sentiment on the matter in consonance with the imperative mandate of controlling constitutional and international law concepts was categorically set forth by him, not as an obiter but as the rationale of the decision, in People v. Acierto24 thus: "By the [Military Bases] Agreement, it should be noted, the Philippine Government merely consents that the United States exercise jurisdiction in certain cases. The consent was given purely as a matter of comity, courtesy, or expediency over the bases as part of the Philippine territory or divested itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed therein." Nor did he stop there. He did stress further the full extent of our territorial jurisdiction in words that do not admit of doubt. Thus: "This provision is not and can not on principle or authority be construed as a limitation upon the rights of the Philippine Government. If anything, it is an emphatic recognition and reaffirmation of Philippine sovereignty over the bases and of the truth that all jurisdictional rights granted to the United States and not exercised by the latter are reserved by the Philippines for itself."25 It is in the same spirit that we approach the specific question confronting us in this litigation. We hold, as announced at the outset, that petitioner was liable for the income tax arising from a sale of his automobile in the Clark Field Air Base, which clearly is and cannot otherwise be other than, within our territorial jurisdiction to tax. 4. With the mist thus lifted from the situation as it truly presents itself, there is nothing that stands in the way of an affirmance of the Court of Tax Appeals decision. No useful purpose would be served by discussing the other

assigned errors, petitioner himself being fully aware that if the Clark Air Force Base is to be considered, as it ought to be and as it is, Philippine soil or territory, his claim for exemption from the income tax due was distinguished only by its futility. There is further satisfaction in finding ourselves unable to indulge petitioner in his plea for reversal. We thus manifest fealty to a pronouncement made time and time again that the law does not look with favor on tax exemptions and that he who would seek to be thus privileged must justify it by words too plain to be mistaken and too categorical to be misinterpreted.26 Petitioner had not done so. Petitioner cannot do so. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals of May 12, 1966 denying the refund of P2,979.00 as the income tax paid by petitioner is affirmed. With costs against petitioner.

[G.R. No. L-9657. November 29, 1956.] LEOPOLDO T. BACANI and MATEO A. MATOTO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants, NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION and BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, Defendants-Appellants. DECISION BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: Plaintiffs herein are court stenographers assigned in Branch VI of the Court of First Instance of Manila. During the pendency of Civil Case No. 2293 of said court, entitled Francisco Sycip vs. National Coconut Corporation, Assistant Corporate Counsel Federico Alikpala, counsel forDefendant, requested said stenographers for copies of the transcript of the stenographic notes taken by them during the hearing. Plaintiffs complied with the request by delivering to Counsel Alikpala the needed transcript containing 714 pages and thereafter submitted to him their bills for the payment of their fees. The National Coconut Corporation paid the amount of P564 to Leopoldo T. Bacani and P150 to Mateo A. Matoto for said transcript at the rate of P1 per page. Upon inspecting the books of this corporation, the Auditor General disallowed the payment of these fees and sought the recovery of the amounts paid. On January 19, 1953, the Auditor General required the Plaintiffs to reimburse said amounts on the strength of a circular of the Department of Justice wherein the opinion was expressed that the National Coconut Corporation, being a government entity, was exempt from the payment of the fees in question. On February 6, 1954, the Auditor General issued an order directing the Cashier of the Department of Justice to deduct from the salary of Leopoldo T. Bacani the amount of P25 every payday and from the salary of Mateo A. Matoto the amount of P10 every payday beginning March 30, 1954. To prevent deduction of these fees from their salaries and secure a judicial ruling that the National Coconut Corporation is not a government entity within the purview of section 16, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, this action was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila. Defendants set up as a defense that the National Coconut Corporation is a government entity within the purview of section 2 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 and, hence, it is exempt from paying the stenographers fees under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. After trial, the court found for the Plaintiffs declaring (1) that Defendant National Coconut Corporation is not a government entity within the purview of section 16, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court; chan roblesvirtualawlibrary(2) that the payments already made by said Defendant to Plaintiffs herein and received by the latter from the former in the total amount of P714, for copies of the stenographic transcripts in question, are valid, just and legal; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand (3) that Plaintiffs are under no obligation whatsoever to make a refund of these payments already received by them. This is an appeal from said decision. Under section 16, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, the Government of the Philippines is exempt from paying the legal fees provided for therein, and among these fees are those which stenographers may charge for the transcript of notes taken by them that may be requested by any interested person (section 8). The fees in question are for the transcript of notes taken during the hearing of a case in which the National Coconut Corporation is interested, and the transcript was requested by its assistant corporate counsel for the use of said corporation. On the other hand, section 2 of the Revised Administrative Code defines the scope of the term Government of the Republic of the Philippines as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary The Government of the Philippine Islands is a term which refers to the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of government are exercised throughout the Philippine Islands, including, save as the contrary appears from the context, the various arms through which political authority is made effective in said Islands, whether pertaining to the central Government or to the provincial or municipal branches or other form of local government. The question now to be determined is whether the National Coconut Corporation may be considered as included in the term Government of the Republic of the Philippines for the purposes of the exemption of the legal fees provided for in Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. As may be noted, the term Government of the Republic of the Philippines refers to a government entity through which the functions of government are exercised, including the various arms through which political authority is made effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the central government or to the provincial or municipal branches or other form of local government. This requires a little digression on the nature and functions of our government as instituted in our Constitution.

To begin with, we state that the term Government may be defined as that institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society makes and carries out those rules of action which are necessary to enable men to live in a social state, or which are imposed upon the people forming that society by those who possess the power or authority of prescribing them (U.S. vs. Dorr, 2 Phil., 332). This institution, when referring to the national government, has reference to what our Constitution has established composed of three great departments, the legislative, executive, and the judicial, through which the powers and functions of government are exercised. These functions are twofold:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary constitute and ministrant. The former are those which constitute the very bonds of society and are compulsory in nature; chan roblesvirtualawlibrarythe latter are those that are undertaken only by way of advancing the general interests of society, and are merely optional. President Wilson enumerates the constituent functions as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (1) The keeping of order and providing for the protection of persons and property from violence and robbery. (2) The fixing of the legal relations between man and wife and between parents and children. (3) The regulation of the holding, transmission, and interchange of property, and the determination of its liabilities for debt or for crime. (4) The determination of contract rights between individuals. (5) The definition and punishment of crime. (6) The administration of justice in civil cases. (7) The determination of the political duties, privileges, and relations of citizens. (8) Dealings of the state with foreign powers:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary the preservation of the state from external danger or encroachment and the advancement of its international interests. (Malcolm, The Government of the Philippine Islands, p. 19.) The most important of the ministrant functions are:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary public works, public education, public charity, health and safety regulations, and regulations of trade and industry. The principles deter mining whether or not a government shall exercise certain of these optional functions are:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (1) that a government should do for the public welfare those things which private capital would not naturally undertake and (2) that a government should do these things which by its very nature it is better equipped to administer for the public welfare than is any private individual or group of individuals. (Malcolm, The Government of the Philippine Islands, pp. 19-20.) From the above we may infer that, strictly speaking, there are functions which our government is required to exercise to promote its objectives as expressed in our Constitution and which are exercised by it as an attribute of sovereignty, and those which it may exercise to promote merely the welfare, progress and prosperity of the people. To this latter class belongs the organization of those corporations owned or controlled by the government to promote certain aspects of the economic life of our people such as the National Coconut Corporation. These are what we call government-owned or controlled corporations which may take on the form of a private enterprise or one organized with powers and formal characteristics of a private corporations under the Corporation Law. The question that now arises is:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Does the fact that these corporation perform certain functions of government make them a part of the Government of the Philippines? The answer is simple:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary they do not acquire that status for the simple reason that they do not come under the classification of municipal or public corporation. Take for instance the National Coconut Corporation. While it was organized with the purpose of adjusting the coconut industry to a position independent of trade preferences in the United States and of providing Facilities for the better curing of copra products and the proper utilization of coconut by-products, a function which our government has chosen to exercise to promote the coconut industry, however, it was given a corporate power separate and distinct from our government, for it was made subject to the provisions of our Corporation Law in so far as its corporate existence and the powers that it may exercise are concerned (sections 2 and 4, Commonwealth Act No. 518). It may sue and be sued in the same manner as any other private corporations, and in this sense it is an entity different from our government. As this Court has aptly said, The mere fact that the Government happens to be a majority stockholder does not make it a public corporation (National Coal Co. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 46 Phil., 586 -587). By becoming a stockholder in the National Coal Company, the Government divested itself of its sovereign character so far as respects the transactions of the corporation cralaw. Unlike the Government, the corporation may be sued without its consent, and is subject to taxation. Yet the National Coal Company remains an agency or instrumentality of government. (Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Springer, 50 Phil., 288.)

To recapitulate, we may mention that the term Government of the Republic of the Philippines used in section 2 of the Revised Administrative Code refers only to that government entity through which the functions of the government are exercised as an attribute of sovereignty, and in this are included those arms through which political authority is made effective whether they be provincial, municipal or other form of local government. These are what we call municipal corporations. They do not include government entities which are given a corporate personality separate and distinct from the government and which are governed by the Corporation Law. Their powers, duties and liabilities have to be determined in the light of that law and of their corporate charters. They do not therefore come within the exemption clause prescribed in section 16, Rule 130 of our Rules of Court. Public corporations are those formed or organized for the government of a portion of the State. (Section 3, Republic Act No. 1459, Corporation Law). The generally accepted definition of a municipal corporation would only include organized cities and towns, and like organizations, with political and legislative powers for the local, civil government and police regulations of the inhabitants of the particular district included in the boundaries of the corporation. Heller vs. Stremmel, 52 Mo. 309, 312. In its more general sense the phrase municipal corporation may include both towns and counties, and other public corporations created by government for political purposes. In its more common and limited signification, it embraces only incorporated villages, towns and cities. Dunn vs. Court of County Revenues, 85 Ala. 144, 146, 4 So. 661. (McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, 2nd ed., Vol. 1, p. 385.) We may, therefore, define a municipal corporation in its historical and strict sense to be the incorporation, by the authority of the government, of the inhabitants of a particular place or district, and authorizing them in their corporate capacity to exercise subordinate specified powers of legislation and regulation with respect to their local and internal concerns. This power of local government is the distinctive purpose and the distinguishing feature of a municipal corporation proper. (Dillon, Municipal Corporations, 5th ed., Vol. I, p. 59.) It is true that under section 8, Rule 130, stenographers may only charge as fees P0.30 for each page of transcript of not less than 200 words before the appeal is taken and P0.15 for each page after the filing of the appeal, but in this case the National Coconut Corporation has agreed and in fact has paid P1.00 per page for the services rendered by the Plaintiffs and has not raised any objection to the amount paid until its propriety was disputed by the Auditor General. The payment of the fees in question became therefore contractual and as such is valid even if it goes beyond the limit prescribed in section 8, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. As regards the question of procedure raised by Appellants, suffice it to say that the same is insubstantial, considering that this case refers not to a money claim disapproved by the Auditor General but to an action of prohibition the purpose of which is to restrain the officials concerned from deducting from Plaintiffs salaries the amount paid to them as stenographers fees. This case does not come under section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court relative to appeals from a decision of the Auditor General. Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs.

G.R. No. L-21484

November 29, 1969

THE AGRICULTURAL CREDIT and COOPERATIVE FINANCING ADMINISTRATION (ACCFA), petitioner, vs. ACCFA SUPERVISORS' ASSOCIATION, ACCFA WORKERS' ASSOCIATION, and THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents.

Deogracias E. Lerma and Esmeraldo U. Guloy for petitioner Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration. Office of the Agrarian Counsel, Department of Justice for petitioner Agricultural Credit Administration J. C. Espinas and Associates for respendents Confederation of Unions in Government Corporations Offices, et al. Mariano B. Tuason for respondent Court of Industrial Relations. MAKALINTAL, J.: These are two separate appeals by certiorari from the decision dated March 25, 1963 (G.R. No. L-21484) and the order dated May 21, 1964 (G.R. No. L-23605) as affirmed by the resolutions en banc, of the Court of Industrial Relations, in Cases Nos. 3450-ULP and 1327-MC, respectively. The parties, except the Confederation of Unions in Government Corporations and Offices (CUGCO), being practically the same and the principal issues involved related, only one decision is now rendered in these two cases. The Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration (ACCFA) was a government agency created under Republic Act No. 821, as amended. Its administrative machinery was reorganized and its name changed to Agricultural Credit Administration (ACA) under the Land Reform Code (Republic Act No. 3844). On the other hand, the ACCFA Supervisors' Association (ASA) and the ACCFA Workers' Association (AWA), hereinafter referred to as the Unions, are labor organizations composed of the supervisors and the rank-and-file employees, respectively, in the ACCFA (now ACA). G.R. No. L-21484 On September 4, 1961 a collective bargaining agreement, which was to be effective for a period of one (1) year from July 1, 1961, was entered into by and between the Unions and the ACCFA. A few months thereafter, the Unions started protesting against alleged violations and non-implementation of said agreement. Finally, on October 25, 1962 the Unions declared a strike, which was ended when the strikers voluntarily returned to work on November 26, 1962. On October 30, 1962 the Unions, together with its mother union, the Confederation of Unions in Government Corporations and Offices (CUGCO), filed a complaint with the Court of Industrial Relations against the ACCFA (Case No. 3450-ULP) for having allegedly committed acts of unfair labor practice, namely: violation of the collective bargaining agreement in order to discourage the members of the Unions in the exercise of their right to selforganization, discrimination against said members in the matter of promotions, and refusal to bargain. The ACCFA denied the charges and interposed as affirmative and special defenses lack of jurisdiction of the CIR over the case, illegality of the bargaining contract, expiration of said contract and lack of approval by the office of the President of the fringe benefits provided for therein. Brushing aside the foregoing defenses, the CIR in its decision dated March 25, 1963 ordered the ACCFA: 1. To cease and desist from committing further acts tending to discourage the members of complainant unions in the exercise of their right to self-organization; 2. To comply with and implement the provision of the collective bargaining contract executed on September 4, 1961, including the payment of P30.00 a month living allowance; 3. To bargain in good faith and expeditiously with the herein complainants. The ACCFA moved to reconsider but was turned down in a resolution dated April 25, 1963 of the CIR en banc. Thereupon it brought this appeal by certiorari. The ACCFA raises the following issues in its petition, to wit: 1. Whether or not the respondent court has jurisdiction over this case, which in turn depends on whether or not ACCFA exercised governmental or proprietary functions.

2. Whether or not the collective bargaining agreement between the petitioner and the respondent union is valid; if valid, whether or not it has already lapsed; and if not, whether or not its (sic) fringe benefits are already enforceable. 3. Whether or not there is a legal and/or factual basis for the finding of the respondent court that the petitioner had committed acts of unfair labor practice. 4. Whether or not it is within the competence of the court to enforce the collective bargaining agreement between the petitioner and the respondent unions, the same having already expired. G.R. No. L-23605 During the pendency of the above mentioned case (G.R. No. L-21484), specifically on August 8, 1963, the President of the Philippines signed into law the Agricultural Land Reform Code (Republic Act No. 3844), which among other things required the reorganization of the administrative machinery of the Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration (ACCFA) and changed its name to Agricultural Credit Administration (ACA). On March 17, 1964 the ACCFA Supervisors' Association and the ACCFA Workers' Association filed a petition for certification election with the Court of Industrial Relations (Case No. 1327-MC) praying that they be certified as the exclusive bargaining agents for the supervisors and rank-and-file employees, respectively, in the ACA. The trial Court in its order dated March 30, 1964 directed the Manager or Officer-in-Charge of the ACA to allow the posting of said order "for the information of all employees and workers thereof," and to answer the petition. In compliance therewith, the ACA, while admitting most of the allegations in the petition, denied that the Unions represented the majority of the supervisors and rank-and-file workers, respectively, in the ACA. It further alleged that the petition was premature, that the ACA was not the proper party to be notified and to answer the petition, and that the employees and supervisors could not lawfully become members of the Unions, nor be represented by them. However, in a joint manifestation of the Unions dated May 7, 1964, with the conformity of the ACA Administrator and of the Agrarian Counsel in his capacity as such and as counsel for the National Land Reform Council, it was agreed "that the union petitioners in this case represent the majority of the employees in their respective bargaining units" and that only the legal issues raised would be submitted for the resolution of the trial Court. Finding the remaining grounds for ACA's opposition to the petition to be without merit, the trial Court in its order dated May 21, 1964 certified "the ACCFA Workers' Association and the ACCFA Supervisors' Association as the sole and exclusive bargaining representatives of the rank-and-file employees and supervisors, respectively, of the Agricultural Credit Administration." Said order was affirmed by the CIR en banc in its resolution dated August 24, 1964. On October 2, 1964 the ACA filed in this Court a petition for certiorari with urgent motion to stay the CIR order of May 21, 1964. In a resolution dated October 6, 1964, this Court dismissed the petition for "lack of adequate allegations," but the dismissal was later reconsidered when the ACA complied with the formal requirement stated in said resolution. As prayed for, this Court ordered the CIR to stay the execution of its order of May 21, 1964. In this appeal, the ACA in effect challenges the jurisdiction of the CIR to entertain the petition of the Unions for certification election on the ground that it (ACA) is engaged in governmental functions. The Unions join the issue on this single point, contending that the ACA forms proprietary functions. Under Section 3 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code the ACA was established, among other governmental agencies,1 to extend credit and similar assistance to agriculture, in pursuance of the policy enunciated in Section 2 as follows: SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is the policy of the State: (1) To establish owner-cultivatorships and the economic family-size farm as the basis of Philippine agriculture and, as a consequence, divert landlord capital in agriculture to industrial development; (2) To achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers free from pernicious institutional restraints and practices;

(3) To create a truly viable social and economic structure in agriculture conducive to greater productivity and higher farm incomes; (4) To apply all labor laws equally and without discrimination to both industrial and agricultural wage earners; (5) To provide a more vigorous and systematic land resettlement program and public land distribution; and (6) To make the small farmers more independent, self-reliant and responsible citizens, and a source of genuine strength in our democratic society. The implementation of the policy thus enunciated, insofar as the role of the ACA therein is concerned, is spelled out in Sections 110 to 118, inclusive, of the Land Reform Code. Section 110 provides that "the administrative machinery of the ACCFA shall be reorganized to enable it to align its activities with the requirements and objective of this Code and shall be known as the Agricultural Credit Administration." Under Section 112 the sum of P150,000,000 was appropriated out of national funds to finance the additional credit functions of the ACA as a result of the land reform program laid down in the Code. Section 103 grants the ACA the privilege of rediscounting with the Central Bank, the Development Bank of the Philippines and the Philippine National Bank. Section 105 directs the loaning activities of the ACA "to stimulate the development of farmers' cooperatives," including those "relating to the production and marketing of agricultural products and those formed to manage and/or own, on a cooperative basis, services and facilities, such as irrigation and transport systems, established to support production and/or marketing of agricultural products." Section 106 deals with the extension by ACA of credit to small farmers in order to stimulate agricultural production. Sections 107 to 112 lay down certain guidelines to be followed in connection with the granting of loans, such as security, interest and supervision of credit. Sections 113 to 118, inclusive, invest the ACA with certain rights and powers not accorded to non-governmental entities, thus: SEC. 113. Auditing of Operations. For the effective supervision of farmers' cooperatives, the head of the Agricultural Credit Administration shall have the power to audit their operations, records and books of account and to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of books, documents and records in the conduct of such audit or of any inquiry into their affairs. Any person who, without lawful cause, fails to obey such subpoena or subpoena duces tecum shall, upon application of the head of Agricultural Credit Administration with the proper court, be liable to punishment for contempt in the manner provided by law and if he is an officer of the Association, to suspension or removal from office. SEC. 114. Prosecution of officials. The Agricultural Credit Administration, through the appropriate provincial or city fiscal, shall have the power to file and prosecute any and all actions which it may have against any and all officials or employees of farmers' cooperatives arising from misfeasance or malfeasance in office. SEC. 115. Free Notarial Service. Any justice of the peace, in his capacity as notary ex-officio, shall render service free of charge to any person applying for a loan under this Code either in administering the oath or in the acknowledgment of instruments relating to such loan. SEC. 116. Free Registration of Deeds. Any register of deeds shall accept for registration, free of charge any instrument relative to a loan made under this Code. SEC. 117. Writing-off Unsecured and Outstanding Loans. Subject to the approval of the President upon recommendation of the Auditor General, the Agricultural Credit Administration may write-off from its books, unsecured and outstanding loans and accounts receivable which may become uncollectible by reason of the death or disappearance of the debtor, should there be no visible means of collecting the same in the foreseeable future, or where the debtor has been verified to have no income or property whatsoever with which to effect payment. In all cases, the writing-off shall be after five years from the date the debtor defaults. SEC. 118. Exemption from Duties, Taxes and Levies. The Agricultural Credit Administration is hereby exempted from the payment of all duties, taxes, levies, and fees, including docket and sheriff's fees, of whatever nature or kind, in the performance of its functions and in the exercise of its powers hereunder.

The power to audit the operations of farmers' cooperatives and otherwise inquire into their affairs, as given by Section 113, is in the nature of the visitorial power of the sovereign, which only a government agency specially delegated to do so by the Congress may legally exercise. On March 19, 1964 Executive Order No. 75 was promulgated. It is entitled: "Rendering in Full Force and Effect the Plan of Reorganization Proposed by the Special Committee on Reorganization of Agencies for Land Reform for the Administrative Machinery of the Agricultural Land Reform Code," and contains the following pertinent provisions: Section 3. The Land Reform Project Administration2 shall be considered a single organization and the personnel complement of the member agencies including the legal officers of the Office of the Agrarian Counsel which shall provide legal services to the LRPA shall be regarded as one personnel pool from which the requirements of the operations shall be drawn and subject only to the civil service laws, rules and regulations, persons from one agency may be freely assigned to positions in another agency within the LRPA when the interest of the service so demands. Section 4. The Land Reform Project Administration shall be considered as one organization with respect to the standardization of job descriptions position classification and wage and salary structures to the end that positions involving the same or equivalent qualifications and equal responsibilities and effort shall have the same remuneration. Section 5. The Civil Service laws, rules and regulations with respect to promotions, particularly in the consideration of person next in rank, shall be made applicable to the Land Reform Project Administration as a single agency so that qualified individuals in one member agency must be considered in considering promotion to higher positions in another member agency. The implementation of the land reform program of the government according to Republic Act No. 3844 is most certainly a governmental, not a proprietary, function; and for that purpose Executive Order No. 75 has placed the ACA under the Land Reform Project Administration together with the other member agencies, the personnel complement of all of which are placed in one single pool and made available for assignment from one agency to another, subject only to Civil Service laws, rules and regulations, position classification and wage structures. The appointing authority in respect of the officials and employees of the ACA is the President of the Philippines, as stated in a 1st indorsement by his office to the Chairman of the National Reform Council dated May 22, 1964, as follows: Appointments of officials and employees of the National Land Reform Council and its agencies may be made only by the President, pursuant to the provisions of Section 79(D) of the Revised Administrative Code. In accordance with the policy and practice, such appointments should be prepared for the signature of the Executive Secretary, "By Authority ofthe President".3 When the Agricultural Reform Code was being considered by the Congress, the nature of the ACA was the subject of the following exposition on the Senate floor: Senator Tolentino: . . . . "The ACA is not going to be a profit making institution. It is supposed to be a public service of the government to the lessees and farmer-owners of the lands that may be bought after expropriation from owners. It is the government here that is the lender. The government should not exact a higher interest than what we are telling a private landowner now in his relation to his tenants if we give to their farmers a higher rate of interest . . . ." (pp. 17 & 18, Senate Journal No. 16, July 3, 1963) The reason is obvious, to pinpoint responsibility for many losses in the government, in order to avoid irresponsible lending of government money to pinpoint responsibility for many losses . . . . Senator Manglapus: ". . . But assuming that hypothesis, that is the reason why we are appropriating P150,000,000.00 for the Agricultural Credit Administration which will go to intensified credit operations on the barrio level . . ." (p. 3, Senate Journal No. 7).

That it is the reason why we are providing for the expansion of the ACCFA and the weeding out of the cooperative activity of the ACCFA and turning this over to the Agricultural Productivity Commission, so that the Agricultural Credit Administration will concentrate entirely on the facilitation of credit on the barrio level with the massive support of 150 million provided by the government. . . . (pp. 4 & 5 of Senate Journal No. 7, July 3, 1963) . . . But by releasing them from this situation, we feel that we are putting them in a much better condition than that in which they are found by providing them with a business-like way of obtaining credit, not depending on a paternalistic system but one which is business-like that is to say, a government office, which on the barrio level will provide them that credit directly . . . . (p. 40, Senate Journal No. 7, July 3, 1963) (emphasis supplied). The considerations set forth above militate quite strongly against the recognition of collective bargaining powers in the respondent Unions within the context of Republic Act No. 875, and hence against the grant of their basic petition for certification election as proper bargaining units. The ACA is a government office or agency engaged in governmental, not proprietary functions. These functions may not be strictly what President Wilson described as "constituent" (as distinguished from "ministrant"),4 such as those relating to the maintenance of peace and the prevention of crime, those regulating property and property rights, those relating to the administration of justice and the determination of political duties of citizens, and those relating to national defense and foreign relations. Under this traditional classification, such constituent functions are exercised by the State as attributes of sovereignty, and not merely to promote the welfare, progress and prosperity of the people these letter functions being ministrant he exercise of which is optional on the part of the government. The growing complexities of modern society, however, have rendered this traditional classification of the functions of government quite unrealistic, not to say obsolete. The areas which used to be left to private enterprise and initiative and which the government was called upon to enter optionally, and only "because it was better equipped to administer for the public welfare than is any private individual or group of individuals,"5 continue to lose their welldefined boundaries and to be absorbed within activities that the government must undertake in its sovereign capacity if it is to meet the increasing social challenges of the times. Here as almost everywhere else the tendency is undoubtedly towards a greater socialization of economic forces. Here of course this development was envisioned, indeed adopted as a national policy, by the Constitution itself in its declaration of principle concerning the promotion of social justice. It was in furtherance of such policy that the Land Reform Code was enacted and the various agencies, the ACA among them, established to carry out its purposes. There can be no dispute as to the fact that the land reform program contemplated in the said Code is beyond the capabilities of any private enterprise to translate into reality. It is a purely governmental function, no less than, say, the establishment and maintenance of public schools and public hospitals. And when, aside from the governmental objectives of the ACA, geared as they are to the implementation of the land reform program of the State, the law itself declares that the ACA is a government office, with the formulation of policies, plans and programs vested no longer in a Board of Governors, as in the case of the ACCFA, but in the National Land Reform Council, itself a government instrumentality; and that its personnel are subject to Civil Service laws and to rules of standardization with respect to positions and salaries, any vestige of doubt as to the governmental character of its functions disappears. In view of the foregoing premises, we hold that the respondent Unions are not entitled to the certification election sought in the Court below. Such certification is admittedly for purposes of bargaining in behalf of the employees with respect to terms and conditions of employment, including the right to strike as a coercive economic weapon, as in fact the said unions did strike in 1962 against the ACCFA (G.R. No. L-21824).6 This is contrary to Section 11 of Republic Act No. 875, which provides: SEC. 11. Prohibition Against Strike in the Government The terms and conditions of employment in the Government, including any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof, are governed by law and it is declared to be the policy of this Act that employees therein shall not strike for the purposes of securing changes or modification in their terms and conditions of employment. Such employees may belong to any labor organization which does not impose the obligation to strike or to join in strike: Provided, However, that this section shall apply only to employees employed in governmental functions of the Government including but not limited to governmental corporations.7 With the reorganization of the ACCFA and its conversion into the ACA under the Land Reform Code and in view of our ruling as to the governmental character of the functions of the ACA, the decision of the respondent Court dated

March 25, 1963, and the resolution en banc affirming it, in the unfair labor practice case filed by the ACCFA, which decision is the subject of the present review in G. R. No. L-21484, has become moot and academic, particularly insofar as the order to bargain collectively with the respondent Unions is concerned. What remains to be resolved is the question of fringe benefits provided for in the collective bargaining contract of September 4, 1961. The position of the ACCFA in this regard is that the said fringe benefits have not become enforceable because the condition that they should first be approved by the Office of the President has not been complied with. The Unions, on the other hand, contend that no such condition existed in the bargaining contract, and the respondent Court upheld this contention in its decision. It is to be listed that under Section 3, Article XIV, of the agreement, the same "shall not become effective unless and until the same is duly ratified by the Board of Governors of the Administration." Such approval was given even before the formal execution of the agreement, by virtue of "Resolution No. 67, Regular Meeting No. 7, FY 1960-61, held on August 17, 1961," but with the proviso that "the fringe benefits contained therein shall take effect only if approved by the office of the President." The condition is, therefore, deemed to be incorporated into the agreement by reference. On October 23, 1962 the Office of the President, in a letter signed by the Executive Secretary, expressed its approval of the bargaining contract "provided the salaries and benefits therein fixed are not in conflict with applicable laws and regulations, are believed to be reasonable considering the exigencies of the service and the welfare of the employees, and are well within the financial ability of the particular corporation to bear." On July 1, 1963 the ACCFA management and the Unions entered into an agreement for the implementation of the decision of the respondent Court concerning the fringe benefits, thus: In the meantime, only Cost of Living Adjustment, Longevity Pay, and Night Differential Benefits accruing from July 1, 1961 to June 30, 1963 shall be paid to all employees entitled thereto, in the following manner: A) The sum of P180,000 shall be set aside for the payment of: 1) Night differential benefits for Security Guards. 2) Cost of Living Adjustment and Longevity Pay. 3) The unpaid balance due employees on Item A (1) and (2) this paragraph shall be paid in monthly installments as finances permit but not beyond December 20, 1963. 3. All benefits accruing after July 1, 1963, shall be allowed to accumulate but payable only after all benefits accruing up to June 30, 1963, as per CIR decision hereinabove referred to shall have been settled in full; provided, however, that commencing July 1, 1963 and for a period of only two (2) months thereafter (during which period the ACCFA and the Unions shall negotiate a new Collective Bargaining Agreement) the provisions of the September 4, 1961 Collective Bargaining Agreement shall be temporarily suspended, except as to Cost of Living Adjustment and "political" or non-economic privileges and benefits thereunder. On July 24, 1963 the ACCFA Board of Governors ratified the agreement thus entered into, pursuant to the provision thereof requiring such ratification, but with the express qualification that the same was "without prejudice to the pending appeal in the Supreme Court . . . in Case No. 3450-ULP." The payment of the fringe benefits agreed upon, to our mind, shows that the same were within the financial capability of the ACCFA then, and hence justifies the conclusion that this particular condition imposed by the Office of the President in its approval of the bargaining contract was satisfied. We hold, therefore, that insofar as the fringe benefits already paid are concerned, there is no reason to set aside the decision of the respondent Court, but that since the respondent Unions have no right to the certification election sought by them nor, consequently, to bargain collectively with the petitioner, no further fringe benefits may be demanded on the basis of any collective bargaining agreement.

The decisions and orders appealed from are set aside and/or modified in accordance with the foregoing pronouncements. No costs. Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Sanchez, Castro, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur. Zaldivar, J., concurs in the result.

Separate Opinions FERNANDO, J., concurring: The decision reached by this Court so ably given expression in the opinion of Justice Makalintal, characterized with vigor, clarity and precision, represents what for me is a clear tendency not to be necessarily bound by our previous pronouncements on what activities partake of a nature that is governmental.1 Of even greater significance, there is a definite rejection of the "constituent-ministrant" criterion of governmental functions, followed in Bacani v. National Coconut Corporation.2 That indeed is cause for gratification. For me at least, there is again full adherence to the basic philosophy of the Constitution as to the extensive and vast power lodged in our government to cope with the social and economic problems that even now sorely beset us. There is therefore full concurrence on my part to the opinion of the Court, distinguished by its high quality of juristic craftsmanship. I feel however that the matter is of such vital importance that a separate concurring opinion is not inappropriate. It will also serve to give expression to my view, which is that of the Court likewise, that our decision today does not pass upon the rights of labor employed in instrumentalities of the state discharging governmental functions. 1. In the above Bacani decision, governmental functions are classified into constituent and ministrant. "The former are those which constitute the very bonds of society and are compulsory in nature; the latter are those that are undertaken only by way of advancing the general interests of society, and are merely optional. President Wilson enumerates the constituent functions as follows: '(1) The keeping of order and providing for the protection of persons and property from violence and robbery. (2) The fixing of the legal relations between man and wife and between parents and children. (3) The regulation of the holding, transmission, and interchange of property, and the determination of its liabilities for debt or for crime. (4) The determination of contract rights between individuals. (5) The definition and punishment of crime. (6) The administration of justice in civil cases. (7) The determination of the political duties, privileges, and relations of citizens. (8) Dealings of the state with foreign powers: the preservation of the state from external danger or encroachment and the advancement of its international interests.' "3 The ministrant functions were then enumerated, followed by a statement of the basis that would justify engaging in such activities. Thus: "The most important of the ministrant functions are: public works, public education, public charity, health and safety regulations, and regulations of trade and industry. The principles determining whether or not a government shall exercise certain of these optional functions are: (1) that a government should do for the public welfare those things which private capital would not naturally undertake and (2) that a government should do these things which by its very nature it is better equipped to administer for the public welfare than is any private individual or group of individuals."4 Reference is made in the Bacani decision to the first of the many publications of Justice Malcolm on the Philippine government, which appeared in 1916,5 adopting the formulation of the then Professor, later President, Woodrow Wilson of the United States, in a textbook on political science the first edition of which was published in 1898. The Wilson classification reflected the primacy of the dominant laissez-faire concept carried into the sphere of government. A most spirited defense of such a view was given by former President Hadley of Yale in a series of three lectures delivered at Oxford University in 1914. According to President Hadley: "I shall begin with a proposition which may sound somewhat startling, but which I believe to be literally true. The whole American political and social system is based on industrial property right, far more completely than has ever been the case in any European country. In every nation of Europe there has been a certain amount of traditional opposition between the government and the industrial classes. In the United States no such tradition exists. In the public law of European communities industrial

freeholding is a comparatively recent development. In the United States, on the contrary, industrial freeholding is the foundation on which the whole social order has been established and built up."6 The view is widely accepted that such a fundamental postulate did influence American court decisions on constitutional law. As was explicitly stated by Justice Cardozo, speaking of that era: "Laissez-faire was not only a counsel of caution which statesmen would do well to heed. It was a categorical imperative which statesmen as well as judges, must obey."7 For a long time, legislation tending to reduce economic inequality foundered on the rock that was the due process clause, enshrining as it did the liberty of contract. To cite only one instance, the limitation of employment in bakeries to sixty hours a week and ten hours a day under a New York statute was stricken down for being tainted with a due process objection in Lochner v. New York.8 It provoked one of the most vigorous dissents of Justice Holmes, who was opposed to the view that the United States Constitution did embody laissez-faire. Thus: "General propositions do not decide concrete cases. The decision will depend on a judgment or intuition more subtle than any articulate major premise. But I think that the proposition just stated, if it is accepted, will carry us far toward the end. Every opinion tends to become a law. I think that the word 'liberty,' in the 14th Amendment, is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion, unless it can be said that a rational and fair man necessarily would admit that the statute proposed would infringe fundamental principles as they have been understood by the traditions of our people and our law. It does not need research to show that no such sweeping condemnation can be passed upon the statute before us. A reasonable man might think it a proper measure on the score of health. Men whom I certainly could not pronounce unreasonable would uphold it as a first installment of a general regulation of the hours of work. Whether in the latter aspect it would be open to the charge of inequality I think it unnecessary to discuss." It was not until 1908, in Muller v. Oregon,9 that the American Supreme Court held valid a ten-hour maximum for women workers in laundries and not until 1917 inBunting v. Oregon10 that such a regulatory ten-hour law applied to men and women passed the constitutional test. Similarly, state legislation fixing minimum wages was deemed offensive to the due process clause in a 1923 decision in Adkins v. Children's Hospital.11 Only in 1937, in the leading case of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish,12 was the Adkins case overruled and a minimum wage law New York statute upheld. The same unsympathetic attitude arising from the laissez-faire concept was manifest in decisions during such period, there being the finely-spun distinctions in the Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations13 decision, as to when certain businesses could be classified as affected with public interest to justify state regulation as to prices. After eleven years, in 1934, in Nebbia v. New York,14 the air of unreality was swept away by this explicit pronouncement from the United States Supreme Court: "The phrase 'affected with a public interest' can, in the nature of things, mean no more than that an industry, for adequate reason, is subject to control for the public good." It is thus apparent that until the administration of President Roosevelt, the laissez-faire principle resulted in the contraction of the sphere where governmental entry was permissible. The object was to protect property even if thereby the needs of the general public would be left unsatisfied. This was emphatically put forth in a work of former Attorney General, later Justice, Jackson, citing an opinion of Judge Van Orsdel. Thus: "It should be remembered that of the three fundamental principles which underlie government, and for which government exists, the protection of life, liberty, and property, the chief of these is property . . . ."15 The above excerpt from Judge Van Orsdel forms part of his opinion in Children's Hospital v. Adkins, when decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals.16 Nonetheless, the social and economic forces at work in the United States to which the new deal administration of President Roosevelt was most responsive did occasion, as of 1937, greater receptivity by the American Supreme Court to a philosophy less rigid in its obeisance to property rights. Earlier legislation deemed offensive to thelaissezfaire concept had met a dismal fate. Their nullity during his first term could, more often than not, be expected.17 As a matter of fact, even earlier, in 1935, Professor Coker of Yale, speaking as a historian, could already discern a contrary drift. Even then he could assert that the range of governmental activity in the United States had indeed expanded. According to him: "Thus both liberals and conservatives approve wide and varied governmental intervention; the latter condemning it, it is true, when the former propose it, but endorsing it, after it has become a fixed part of the status quo, as so beneficial in its effects that no more of it is needed. Our history for the last halfcentury shows that each important governmental intervention we have adopted has been called socialistic or communistic by contemporary conservatives, and has later been approved by equally conservative men who now accept it both for its proved benefits and for the worthy traditions it has come to represent. Both liberal and conservative supporters of our large-scale business under private ownership advocate or concede the amounts and kinds of governmental limitation and aid which they regard as necessary to make the system work efficiently and humanely. Sooner or later, they are willing to have government intervene for the purpose of preventing the system

from being too oppressive to the masses of the people, protecting it from its self-destructive errors, and coming to its help in other ways when it appears not to be able to take care of itself."18 At any rate, by 1943, the United States was reconciled to laissez-faire having lost its dominance. In the language of Justice Jackson in the leading case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette:19 "We must transplant these rights to a soil in which the laissez-faire concept or principle of non-interference has withered at least as to economic affairs, and social advancements are increasingly sought through closer integration of society and through expanded and strengthened governmental controls." 2. The influence exerted by American constitutional doctrines unavoidable when the Philippines was still under American rule notwithstanding, an influence that has not altogether vanished even after independence, thelaissezfaire principle never found full acceptance in this jurisdiction, even during the period of its full flowering in the United States. Moreover, to erase any doubts, the Constitutional Convention saw to it that our fundamental law embodies a policy of the responsibility thrust on government to cope with social and economic problems and an earnest and sincere commitment to the promotion of the general welfare through state action. It would thus follow that the force of any legal objection to regulatory measures adversely affecting property rights or to statutes organizing public corporations that may engage in competition with private enterprise has been blunted. Unless there be a clear showing of any invasion of rights guaranteed by the Constitution, their validity is a foregone conclusion. No fear need be entertained that thereby spheres hitherto deemed outside government domain have been enchroached upon. With our explicit disavowal of the "constituent-ministrant" test, the ghost of the laissez-faire concept no longer stalks the juridical stage. As early as 1919, in the leading case of Rubi V. Provincial Board of Mindoro,20 Justice Malcolm already had occasion to affirm: "The doctrines of laissez-faire and of unrestricted freedom of the individual, as axioms of economic and political theory, are of the past. The modern period has shown a widespread belief in the amplest possible demonstration of governmental activity. The Courts unfortunately have sometimes seemed to trail after the other two branches of the Government in this progressive march." It was to be expected then that when he spoke for the Court in Government of the Philippine Islands v. Springer,21a 1927 decision, he found nothing objectionable in the government itself organizing and investing public funds in such corporations as the National Coal Co., the Phil. National Bank, the National Petroleum Co., the National Development Co., the National Cement Co. and the National Iron Co. There was not even a hint that thereby thelaissez-faire concept was not honored at all. It is true that Justice Malcolm concurred with the majority in People v. Pomar,22 a 1924 opinion, which held invalid under the due process clause a provision providing for maternity leave with pay thirty days before and thirty days after confinement. It could be that he had no other choice as the Philippines was then under the United States, and only recently the year before, the above-cited case of Adkins v. Children's Hospital,23 in line with the laissez-faire principle, did hold that a statute providing for minimum wages was constitutionally infirm on the same ground. Our constitution which took effect in 1935, upon the inauguration of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, erased whatever doubts there might be on that score. Its philosophy is antithetical to the laissez-faire concept. Delegate, later President, Manuel Roxas, one of the leading members of the Constitutional Convention, in answer precisely to an objection of Delegate Jose Reyes of Sorsogon, who noted the "vast extensions in the sphere of governmental functions" and the "almost unlimited power to interfere in the affairs of industry and agriculture as well as to compete with existing business" as "reflections of the fascination exerted by [the then] current tendencies" in other jurisdictions,24 spoke thus: "My answer is that this constitution has a definite and well defined philosophy, not only political but social and economic. A constitution that in 1776 or in 1789 was sufficient in the United States, considering the problems they had at that time, may not now be sufficient with the growing and ever-widening complexities of social and economic problems and relations. If the United States of America were to call a constitutional convention today to draft a constitution for the United States, does any one doubt that in the provisions of that constitution there will be found definite declarations of policy as to economic tendencies; that there will be matters which are necessary in accordance with the experience of the American people during these years when vast organizations of capital and trade have succeeded to a certain degree to control the life and destiny of the American people? If in this constitution the gentleman will find declarations of economic policy, they are there because they are necessary to safeguard the interests and welfare of the Filipino people because we believe that the days have come when in self-defense, a nation may provide in its constitution those safeguards, the patrimony, the freedom to grow, the freedom to develop national aspirations and national interests, not to be hampered by the artificial boundaries which a constitutional provision automatically imposes."25

Delegate Roxas continued further: "The government is the creature of the people and the government exercises its powers and functions in accordance with the will and purposes of the people. That is the first principle, the most important one underlying this document. Second, the government established in this document is, in its form, in our opinion, the most adapted to prevailing conditions, circumstances and the political outlook of the Filipino people. Rizal said, 'Every people has the kind of government that they deserve.' That is just another form of expressing the principle in politics enunciated by the French philosophers when they said: 'Every people has the right to establish the form of government which they believe is most conducive to their welfare and their liberty.' Why have we preferred the government that is established in this draft? Because it is the government with which we are familiar. It is the form of government fundamentally such as it exists today; because it is the only kind of government that our people understand; it is the kind of government we have found to be in consonance with our experience, with the necessary modification, capable of permitting a fair play of social forces and allowing the people to conduct the affairs of that government."26 One of the most prominent delegates, a leading intellectual, former President Rafael Palma of the University of the Philippines, stressed as a fundamental principle in the draft of the Constitution the limitation on the right to property. He pointed out that the then prevailing view allowed the accumulation of wealth in one family down to the last remote descendant, resulting in a grave disequilibrium and bringing in its wake extreme misery side by side with conspicuous luxury. He did invite attention to the few millionaires at one extreme with the vast masses of Filipinos deprived of the necessities of life at the other. He asked the Convention whether the Filipino people could long remain indifferent to such a deplorable situation. For him to speak of a democracy under such circumstances would be nothing but an illusion. He would thus emphasize the urgent need to remedy the grave social injustice that had produced such widespread impoverishment, thus recognizing the vital role of government in this sphere.27 Another delegate, Tomas Confesor of Iloilo, was quite emphatic in his assertion for the need of a social justice provision which is a departure from the laissez-faire principle. Thus: "Take the case of the tenancy system in the Philippines. You have a tenant. There are hundreds of thousands of tenants working day in and day out, cultivating the fields of their landlords. He puts all his time, all his energy, the labor and the assistance of his wife and children, in cultivating a piece of ground for his landlord but when the time comes for the partition of the products of his toil what happens? If he produces 25 cavanes of rice, he gets only perhaps five and the twenty goes to the landlord. Now can he go to court? Has he a chance to go to court in order to secure his just share of the products of his toil? No. Under our present regime of law, under our present regime of justice, you do not give that to the poor tenant. Gentlemen, you go to the Cagayan Valley and see the condition under which those poor farmers are being exploited day in and day out. Can they go to court under our present regime of justice, of liberty, or democracy? The other day, workmen were shot by the police just because they wanted to increase or they desired that their wages be increased from thirty centavos a day to forty or fifty centavos. Is it necessary to spill human blood just to secure an increase of ten centavos in the daily wages of an ordinary laborer? And yet under our present regime of social justice, liberty and democracy, these things are happening; these things, I say, are happening. Are those people getting any justice? No. They cannot get justice now from our courts. For this reason, I say it is necessary that we insert 'social justice' here and that social justice must be established by law. Proper legal provisions, proper legal facilities must be provided in order that there be a regime not of justice alone, because we have that now and we are seeing the oppression arising from such a regime. Consequently, we must emphasize the term 'social justice'."28 Delegate Ventenilla of Pangasinan reflected the attitude of the Convention as to why laissez-faire was no longer acceptable. After speaking of times having changed, he proceeded: "Since then new problems have arisen. The spiritual mission of government has descended to the level of the material. Then its function was primarily to soothe the aching spirit. Now, it appears, it must also appease hunger. Now that we may read history backwards, we know for instance, that the old theory of 'laissez-faire' has degenerated into 'big business affairs' which are gradually devouring the rights of the people the same rights intended to be guarded and protected by the system of constitutional guaranties. Oh, if the Fathers were now alive to see the changes that the centuries have wrought in our life! They might contemplate the sad spectacle of organized exploitation greedily devouring the previous rights of the individual. They might also behold the gradual disintegration of society, the fast disappearance of the bourgeois the middle class, the backbone of the nation and the consequent drifting of the classes toward the opposite extremes the very rich and the very poor."29 Shortly after the establishment of the Commonwealth, the then Justice Jose P. Laurel, himself one of the foremost delegates of the Constitutional Convention, in a concurring opinion, later quoted with approval in the leading case of Antamok Goldfields Mining Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations,30 decided in 1940, explained clearly the need for the repudiation of the laissez-faire doctrine. Thus: "It should be observed at the outset that our Constitution was

adopted in the midst of surging unrest and dissatisfaction resulting from economic and social distress which was threatening the stability of governments the world over. Alive to the social and economic forces at work, the framers of our Constitution boldly met the problems and difficulties which faced them and endeavored to crystallize, with more or less fidelity, the political, social and economic propositions of their age, and this they did, with the consciousness that the political and philosophical aphorism of their generation will, in the language of a great jurist, 'be doubted by the next and perhaps entirely discarded by the third.' . . . Embodying the spirit of the present epoch, general provisions were inserted in the Constitution which are intended to bring about the needed social and economic equilibrium between component elements of society through the application of what may be termed as the justitia communis advocated by Grotius and Leibnits many years ago to be secured through the counterbalancing of economic and social forces and opportunities which should be regulated, if not controlled, by the State or placed, as it were, in custodia societatis. 'The promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all the people' was thus inserted as vital principle in our Constitution. ... ."31 In the course of such concurring opinion and after noting the changes that have taken place stressing that the policy of laissezfaire had indeed given way to the assumption by the government of the right to intervene although qualified by the phrase "to some extent", he made clear that the doctrine in People v. Pomar no longer retain, "its virtuality as a living principle."32 3. It must be made clear that the objection to the "constituent-ministrant" classification of governmental functions is not to its formulation as such. From the standpoint of law as logic, it is not without merit. It has neatness and symmetry. There are hardly any loose ends. It has the virtue of clarity. It may be said in its favor likewise that it reflects all-too-faithfully the laissez-faire notion that government cannot extend its operation outside the maintenance of peace and order, protection against external security, and the administration of justice, with private rights, especially so in the case of property, being safeguarded and a hint that the general welfare is not to be entirely ignored. It must not be lost sight of though that logic and jural symmetry while undoubtedly desirable are not the prime consideration. This is especially so in the field of public law. What was said by Holmes, almost nine decades ago, carry greater conviction now. "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow-men, have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed."33 Then too, there was the warning of Geny cited by Cardozo that undue stress or logic may result in confining the entire system of positive law, "within a limited number of logical categories, predetermined in essence, immovable in basis, governed by inflexible dogmas," thus rendering it incapable of responding to the ever varied and changing exigencies of life.34, It is cause enough for concern if the objection to the Bacani decision were to be premised on the score alone that perhaps there was fidelity to the requirements of logic and jural symmetry carried to excess. What appears to me much more deplorable is that it did fail to recognize that there was a repudiation of the laissez-faire concept in the Constitution. As was set forth in the preceding pages, the Constitution is distinguished precisely by a contrary philosophy. The regime of liberty if provided for, with the realization that under the then prevalent social and economic conditions, it may be attained only through a government with its sphere of activity ranging far and wide, not excluding matters hitherto left to the operation of free enterprise. As rightfully stressed in our decision today in line with what was earlier expressed by Justice Laurel, the government that we have established has as a fundamental principle the promotion of social justice.35 The same jurist gave it a comprehensive and enduring definition as the "promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the component elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments in the time honored principle of salus populi estsuprema lex."36 There is thus from the same distinguished pen, this time writing for the Court, a reiteration of the view of thelaissezfaire doctrine being repugnant to the fundamental law. It must be added though that the reference to extraconstitutional measures being allowable must be understood in the sense that there is no infringement of specific constitutional guarantees. Otherwise, the judiciary will be hard put to sustain their validity if challenged in an appropriate legal proceeding. The regime of liberty contemplated in the Constitution with social justice as a fundamental principle to reinforce the pledge in the preamble of promoting the general welfare reflects traditional concepts of a democratic policy infused

with an awareness of the vital and pressing need for the government to assume a much more active and vigorous role in the conduct of public affairs. The framers of our fundamental law were as one in their strongly-held belief that thereby the grave and serious infirmity then confronting our body-politic, on the whole still with us now, of great inequality of wealth and mass poverty, with the great bulk of our people ill-clad, ill-housed, ill-fed, could be remedied. Nothing else than communal effort, massive in extent and earnestly engaged in, would suffice. To paraphrase Laski, with the necessary modification in line with such worthy constitutional ends, we look upon the state as an organization to promote the happiness of individuals, its authority as a power bound by subordination to that purpose, liberty while to be viewed negatively as absence of restraint impressed with a positive aspect as well to assure individual self-fulfillment in the attainment of which greater responsibility is thrust on government; and rights as boundary marks defining areas outside its domain.37 From which it would follow as Laski so aptly stated that it is the individual's "happiness and not its well-being [that is] the criterion by which its behavior [is] to be judged. His interests, and not its power, set the limits to the authority it [is] entitled to exercise."38 We have under such a test enlarged its field of competence. 4. With the decision reached by us today, the government is freed from the compulsion exerted by the Bacani doctrine of the "constituent-ministrant" test as a criterion for the type of activity in which it may engage. Its constricting effect is consigned to oblivion. No doubts or misgivings need assail us that governmental efforts to promote the public weal, whether through regulatory legislation of vast scope and amplitude or through the undertaking of business activities, would have to face a searching and rigorous scrutiny. It is clear that their legitimacy cannot be challenged on the ground alone of their being offensive to the implications of the laissez-faire concept. Unless there be a repugnancy then to the limitations expressly set forth in the Constitution to protect individual rights, the government enjoys a much wider latitude of action as to the means it chooses to cope with grave social and economic problems that urgently press for solution. For me, at least, that is to manifest deference to the philosophy of our fundamental law. Hence my full concurrence, as announced at the outset. 5. The opinion of Justice Makalintal contains this footnote: "It must be stated, however, that we do not here decide the question not at issue in this case of whether or not a labor organization composed employees discharging governmental functions, which is allowed under the legal provision just quoted, provided such organization does not impose the obligation to strike or to join in strike, may petition for a certification election and compel the employer to bargain collectively with it for purposes other than to secure changes or conditions in the terms and conditions of employment." With such an affirmation as to the scope of our decision there being no holding on the vexing question of the effects on the rights of labor in view of the conclusion reached that the function engaged in is governmental in character, I am in full agreement. The answer to such a vital query must await another day.

[G.R. No. 143377. February 20, 2001] SHIPSIDE INCORPORATED, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS [Special Former Twelfth Division], HON. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26 (San Fernando City, La Union) & The REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

DECISION MELO, J.: Before the Court is a petition for certiorari filed by Shipside Incorporated under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure against the resolutions of the Court of Appeals promulgated on November 4, 1999 and May 23, 2000, which respectively, dismissed a petition for certiorari and prohibition and thereafter denied a motion for reconsideration. The antecedent facts are undisputed: 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 which was inscribed as Entry No. 9115 OCT No. 0-381 on August 10, 1960. Consequently, Transfer Certificate No. T-4304 was issued in favor of the buyers covering Lots No. 1 and 4. Lot No. 1 is described as: A parcel of land (Lot 1, Plan PSU-159621, L. R. Case No. N-361; L. R. C. Record No. N-14012, situated in the Barrio of Poro, Municipality of San Fernando, Province of La Union, bounded on the NE, by the Foreshore; on the SE, by Public Land and property of the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company; on the SW, by properties of Rafael Galvez (US Military Reservation Camp Wallace) and Policarpio Munar; and on the NW, by an old Barrio Road. Beginning at a point marked 1 on plan, being S. 74 deg. 11W. , 2670. 36 from B. L. L. M. 1, San Fernando, thence S. 66 deg. 19E., 134.95 m. to point 2; S. 14 deg. 57W., 11.79 m. to point 3; S. 12 deg. 45W., 27.00 m. to point 4; S. 12 deg. 45W, 6.90 m. to point 5; N. 69 deg., 32W., 106.00 m. to point 6; N. 52 deg., 21W., 36. 85 m. to point 7; N. 21 deg. 31E., 42. 01 m. to the point of beginning; containing an area of SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-ONE (6,571) SQUARE METERS, more or less. All points referred to are indicated on the plan; and marked on the ground; bearings true, date of survey, February 421, 1957. Lot No. 4 has the following technical description: A parcel of land (Lot 4, Plan PSU-159621, L. R. Case No. N-361 L. R. C. Record No. N-14012), situated in the Barrio of Poro, Municipality of San Fernando, La Union. Bounded on the SE by the property of the Benguet Consolidated Mining Company; on the S. by property of Pelagia Carino; and on the NW by the property of Rafael Galvez (US Military Reservation, Camp Wallace). Beginning at a point marked 1 on plan, being S. deg. 24W. 2591. 69 m. from B. L. L. M. 1, San Fernando, thence S. 12 deg. 45W., 73. 03 m. to point 2; N. 79 deg. 59W., 13.92 m. to point 3; N. 23 deg. 26E. , 75.00 m. to the point of beginning; containing an area of FIVE HUNDED AND EIGHT (508) SQUARE METERS, more or less. All points referred to are indicated in the plan and marked on the ground; bearings true, date of survey, February 4-21, 1957. On August 16, 1960, Mamaril, et al. sold Lots No. 1 and 4 to Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company. The deed of sale covering the aforesaid property was inscribed as Entry No. 9173 on TCT No. T-4304. 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 (LRC Record No. N-14012) entitled Rafael Galvez, Applicant, Eliza Bustos, et al., Parties-In-Interest; Republic of the Philippines, Movant declaring OCT No. 0-381 of the Registry of Deeds for the Province of La Union issued in the name of Rafael Galvez, null and void, and ordered the cancellation thereof.

The Order pertinently provided: Accordingly, with the foregoing, and without prejudice on the rights of incidental parties concerned herein to institute their respective appropriate actions compatible with whatever cause they may have, it is hereby declared and this court so holds that both proceedings in Land Registration Case No. N-361 and Original Certificate No. 0-381 of the Registry of Deeds for the province of La Union issued in virtue thereof and registered in the name of Rafael Galvez, are null and void; the Register of Deeds for the Province of La Union is hereby ordered to cancel the said original certificate and / or such other certificates of title issued subsequent thereto having reference to the same parcels of land; without pronouncement as to costs. On October 28, 1963, Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company sold to herein petitioner Lots No. 1 and 4, with the deed being entered in TCT NO. 4314 as entry No. 12381. Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-5710 was thus issued in favor of the 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 trial court declaring OCT No. 0-381 null and void. 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 in CA-G. R. No. 36061-R. 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. On April 22, 1974, the trial court in L. R. C. Case No. N-361 issued a writ of execution of the judgment which 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 in L. R. C. No. N-361 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 Regional Trial Court of the First Judicial Region (Branch 26, San Fernando, La Union) docketed therein as Civil Case No. 6346 entitled, Republic of the Philippines, Plaintiff, versus Heirs of Rafael Ga lvez, represented by Teresita Tan, Reynaldo Mamaril, Elisa Bustos, Erlinda Balatbat, Regina Bustos, Shipside Incorporated and the Register of Deeds of La Union, Defendants. The evidence shows that the impleaded defendants (except the Register of Deeds of the province of La Union) are the successors-in-interest of Rafael Galvez (not Reynaldo Galvez as alleged by the Solicitor General) over the property covered by OCT No. 0-381, namely: (a) Shipside Inc. which is presently the registered owner in fee simple of Lots No. 1 and 4 covered by TCT No. T-5710, with a total area of 7,079 square meters; (b) Elisa Bustos, Jesusito Galvez, and Teresita Tan who are the registered owners of Lot No. 2 of OCT No. 0-381;and (c) Elisa Bustos, Filipina Mamaril, Regina Bustos and Erlinda Balatbat who are the registered owners of Lot No. 3 of OCT No. 0-381, now covered by TCT No. T-4916, with an area of 1,583 square meters. In its complaint in Civil Case No. 6346, the Solicitor General argued that since the trial court in LRC Case No. 361 had ruled and declared OCT No. 0-381 to be null and void, which ruling was subsequently affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the defendants-successors-in-interest of Rafael Galvez have no valid title over the property covered by OCT No. 0-381, and the subsequent Torrens titles issued in their names should be consequently cancelled. 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) plaintiffs 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 petitioners 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, docketed therein as CA-G.R. SP No. 55535, 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 in CA-G.R. SP No. 55535 on the ground that the verification and certification in the petition, under 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 petitioners 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. In support of its petition, Shipside, Inc. asseverates that: 1. The Honorable Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the petition when it made a conclusive legal presumption that Mr. Balbin had no authority to sign the petition despite the clarity of laws, jurisprudence and Secretarys certificate to the contrary; 2. The Honorable Court of Appeals abused its discretion when it dismissed the petition, in effect affirming the grave abuse of discretion committed by the lower court when it refused to dismiss the 1999 Complaint for Revival of a 1973 judgment, in violation of clear laws and jurisprudence. Petitioner likewise adopted the arguments it raised in the petition and comment/reply it filed with the Court of Appeals, attached to its petition as Exhibit L and N, respectively. In his Comment, the Solicitor General moved for the dismissal of the instant petition based on the following considerations: (1) Lorenzo Balbin, who signed for and in behalf of petitioner in the verification and certification of non-forum shopping portion of the petition, failed to show proof of his authorization to institute the petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, thus the latter court acted correctly in dismissing the same; (2) the real party-in-interest in the case at bar being the Republic of the Philippines, its claims are imprescriptible. In order to preserve the rights of herein parties, the Court issued a temporary restraining order on June 26, 2000 enjoining the trial court from conducting further proceedings in Civil Case No. 6346. The issues posited in this case are: (1) whether or not an authorization from petitioners 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; and (2) whether or not the Republic of the Philippines can maintain the action for revival of judgment herein. We find for petitioner. Anent the first issue: The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground that Lorenzo Balbin, the resident manager for petitioner, who was the signatory in the verification and certification on non-forum shopping, failed to show proof that he was authorized by petitioners board of directors to file such a petition. A corporation, such as petitioner, has no power except those expressly conferred on it by the Corporation Code and those that are implied or incidental to its existence. In turn, a corporation exercises said powers through its board of directors and / or its duly authorized officers and agents. Thus, it has been observed that the power of a corporation to sue and be sued in any court is lodged with the board of directors that exercises its corporate powers (Premium Marble Resources, Inc. v. CA, 264 SCRA 11 [1996]). In turn, physical acts of the corporation, like the signing of documents, can be performed only by natural persons duly authorized for the purpose by corporate bylaws or by a specific act of the board of directors. It is undisputed that on October 21, 1999, the time petitioners 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 petitioners board of directors to file said petition. The Court has consistently held that the requirement regarding verification of a pleading is formal, not jurisdictional (Uy v. LandBank, G.R. No. 136100, July 24, 2000). Such requirement is simply a condition affecting the form of the pleading, non-compliance with which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. Verification is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith. The court may order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking or act on the pleading although it is not verified, if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may thereby be served. On the other hand, the lack of certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by the submission thereof after the filing of the petition. Section 5, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the failure of the petitioner to submit the required documents that should accompany the petition, including the certification against forum shopping, shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. The same rule applies to certifications against forum shopping signed by a person on behalf of a corporation which are unaccompanied by proof that said signatory is authorized to file a petition on behalf of the corporation. In certain exceptional circumstances, however, the Court has allowed the belated filing of the certification. In Loyola v. Court of Appeals, et. al. (245 SCRA 477 [1995]), the Court considered the filing of the certification one day after the filing of an election protest as substantial compliance with the requirement. In Roadway Express, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et. al. (264 SCRA 696 [1996]), the Court allowed the filing of the certification 14 days before the dismissal of the petition. In Uy v. LandBank, supra, the Court had dismissed Uys petition for lack of verification and certification against non -forum shopping. However, it subsequently reinstated the petition after Uy submitted a motion to admit certification and non-forum shopping certification. In all these cases, there were special circumstances or compelling reasons that justified the relaxation of the rule requiring verification and certification on non-forum shopping. In the instant case, the merits of petitioners case should be considered special circumstances or compelling reasons that justify tempering the requirement in regard to the certificate of non-forum shopping. Moreover, in Loyola, Roadway, and Uy, the Court excused non-compliance with the requirement as to the certificate of nonforum shopping. With more reason should we allow the instant petition since petitioner herein did submit a certification on non-forum shopping, failing only to show proof that the signatory was authorized to do so. That petitioner subsequently submitted a secretarys certificate attesting that Balbin was authorized to file an action on behalf of petitioner likewise mitigates this oversight. It must also be kept in mind that while the requirement of the certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory, nonetheless the requirements must not be interpreted too literally and thus defeat the objective of preventing the undesirable practice of forum-shopping (Bernardo v. NLRC, 255 SCRA 108 [1996]). Lastly, technical rules of procedure should be used to promote, not frustrate justice. While the swift unclogging of court dockets is a laudable objective, the granting of substantial justice is an even more urgent ideal. Now to the second issue: The action instituted by the Solicitor General in the trial court is one for revival of judgment which is governed by Article 1144(3) of the Civil Code and Section 6, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure. Article 1144(3) provides that an action upon a judgment must be brought within 10 years from the time the right of action accrues." On the other hand, Section 6, Rule 39 provides that a final and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry, but that after the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. Taking these two provisions into consideration, it is plain that an action for revival of judgment must be brought within ten years from the time said judgment becomes final. From the records of this case, it is clear that the judgment sought to be revived became final on October 23, 1973. On the other hand, the action for revival of judgment was instituted only in 1999, or more than twenty-five (25) years after the judgment had become final. Hence, the action is barred by extinctive prescription considering that such an action can be instituted only within ten (10) years from the time the cause of action accrues.

The Solicitor General, nonetheless, argues that the States cause of action in the cancellation of the land title issued to petitioners predecessor-in-interest is imprescriptible because it is included in Camp Wallace, which belongs to the government. The argument is misleading. While it is true that prescription does not run against the State, the same may not be invoked by the government in this case since it is no longer interested in the subject matter. While Camp Wallace may have belonged to the government at the time Rafael Galvezs title was ordered cancelled in Land Registration Case No. N-361, the same no longer holds true today. Republic Act No. 7227, otherwise known as the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992, created the Bases Conversion and Development Authority. Section 4 pertinently provides: Section 4. Purposes of the Conversion Authority. The Conversion Authority shall have the following purposes: (a) To own, hold and/or administer the military reservations of John Hay Air Station, Wallace Air Station, ODonnell Transmitter Station, San Miguel Naval Communications Station, Mt. Sta. Rita Station (Hermosa, Bataan) and those portions of Metro Manila military camps which may be transferred to it by the President; Section 2 of Proclamation No. 216, issued on July 27, 1993, also provides: Section 2. Transfer of Wallace Air Station Areas to the Bases Conversion and Development Authority. All areas covered by the Wallace Air Station as embraced and defined by the 1947 Military Bases Agreement between the Philippines and the United States of America, as amended, excluding those covered by Presidential Proclamations and some 25-hectare area for the radar and communication station of the Philippine Air Force, are hereby transferred to the Bases Conversion Development Authority With the transfer of Camp Wallace to the BCDA, the government no longer has a right or interest to protect. Consequently, the Republic is not a real party in interest and it may not institute the instant action. Nor may it raise the defense of imprescriptibility, the same being applicable only in cases where the government is a party in interest. Under Section 2 of Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest. To qualify a person to be a real party in interest in whose name an action must be prosecuted, he must appear to be the present real owner of the right sought to enforced ( Pioneer Insurance v. CA, 175 SCRA 668 [1989]). A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. And by real interest is meant a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy, or a future, contingent, subordinate or consequential interest (Ibonilla v. Province of Cebu, 210 SCRA 526 [1992]). Being the owner of the areas covered by Camp Wallace, it is the Bases Conversion and Development Authority, not the Government, which stands to be benefited if the land covered by TCT No. T-5710 issued in the name of petitioner is cancelled. Nonetheless, it has been posited that the transfer of military reservations and their extensions to the BCDA is basically for the purpose of accelerating the sound and balanced conversion of these military reservations into alternative productive uses and to enhance the benefits to be derived from such property as a measure of promoting the economic and social development, particularly of Central Luzon and, in general, the countrys goal for enhancement (Section 2, Republic Act No. 7227). It is contended that the transfer of these military reservations to the Conversion Authority does not amount to an abdication on the part of the Republic of its interests, but simply a recognition of the need to create a body corporate which will act as its agent for the realization of its program. It is consequently asserted that the Republic remains to be the real party in interest and the Conversion Authority merely its agent. We, however, must not lose sight of the fact that the BCDA is an entity invested with a personality separate and distinct from the government. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7227 reads: Section 3. Creation of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority. There is hereby created a body corporate to be known as the Conversion Authority which shall have the attribute of perpetual succession and shall be vested with the powers of a corporation.

It may not be amiss to state at this point that the functions of government have been classified into governmental or constituent and proprietary or ministrant. While public benefit and public welfare, particularly, the promotion of the economic and social development of Central Luzon, may be attributable to the operation of the BCDA, yet it is certain that the functions performed by the BCDA are basically proprietary in nature. The promotion of economic and social development of Central Luzon, in particular, and the countrys goal for enhancement, in general, do not make the BCDA equivalent to the Government. Other corporations have been created by government to act as its agents for the realization of its programs, the SSS, GSIS, NAWASA and the NIA, to count a few, and yet, the Court has ruled that these entities, although performing functions aimed at promoting public interest and public welfare, are not government-function corporations invested with governmental attributes. It may thus be said that the BCDA is not a mere agency of the Government but a corporate body performing proprietary functions. Moreover, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7227 provides: Section 5. Powers of the Conversion Authority. To carry out its objectives under this Act, the Conversion Authority is hereby vested with the following powers: (a) To succeed in its corporate name, to sue and be sued in such corporate name and to adopt, alter and use a corporate seal which shall be judicially noticed; Having the capacity to sue or be sued, it should thus be the BCDA which may file an action to cancel petitioners 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]). However, E. B. Marcha Transport Co. , Inc. v. IAC (147 SCRA 276 [1987]) is cited as authority that the Republic is the proper party to sue for the recovery of possession of property which at the time of the institution of the suit was no longer held by the national government but by the Philippine Ports Authority. In E. B. Marcha, the Court ruled: It can be said that in suing for the recovery of the rentals, the Republic of the Philippines, acted as principal of the Philippine Ports Authority, directly exercising the commission it had earlier conferred on the latter as its agent. We may presume that, by doing so, the Republic of the Philippines did not intend to retain the said rentals for its own use, considering that by its voluntary act it had transferred the land in question to the Philippine Ports Authority effective July 11, 1974. The Republic of the Philippines had simply sought to assist, not supplant, the Philippine Ports Authority, whose title to the disputed property it continues to recognize. We may expect then that the said rentals, once collected by the Republic of the Philippines, shall be turned over by it to the Philippine Ports Authority conformably to the purposes of P. D. No. 857. E. B. Marcha is, however, not on all fours with the case at bar. In the former, the Court considered the Republic a proper party to sue since the claims of the Republic and the Philippine Ports Authority against the petitioner therein were the same. To dismiss the complaint in E. B. Marcha would have brought needless delay in the settlement of the matter since the PPA would have to refile the case on the same claim already litigated upon. Such is not the case here since to allow the government to sue herein enables it to raise the issue of imprescriptibility, a claim which is not available to the BCDA. The rule that prescription does not run against the State does not apply to corporations or artificial bodies created by the State for special purposes, it being said that when the title of the Republic has been divested, its grantees, although artificial bodies of its own creation, are in the same category as ordinary persons (Kingston v. LeHigh Valley Coal Co., 241 Pa 469). By raising the claim of imprescriptibility, a claim which cannot be raised by the BCDA, the Government not only assists the BCDA, as it did in E. B. Marcha, it even supplants the latter, a course of action proscribed by said case. Moreover, to recognize the Government as a proper party to sue in this case would set a bad precedent as it would allow the Republic to prosecute, on behalf of government-owned or controlled corporations, causes of action which have already prescribed, on the pretext that the Government is the real party in interest against whom prescription does not run, said corporations having been created merely as agents for the realization of government programs.

Parenthetically, petitioner was not a party to the original suit for cancellation of title commenced by the Republic twenty-seven years for which it is now being made to answer, nay, being made to suffer financial losses. It should also be noted that petitioner is unquestionably a buyer in good faith and for value, having acquired the property in 1963, or 5 years after the issuance of the original certificate of title, as a third transferee. If only not to do violence and to give some measure of respect to the Torrens System, petitioner must be afforded some measure of protection. One more point. Since the portion in dispute now forms part of the property owned and administered by the Bases Conversion and Development Authority, it is alienable and registerable real property. We find it unnecessary to rule on the other matters raised by the herein parties. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby granted and the orders dated August 31, 1999 and October 4, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court of the First National Judicial Region (Branch 26, San Fernando, La Union) in Civil Case No. 6346 entitled Republic of the Philippines, Plaintiff, versus Heirs of Rafael Galvez, et. al., Defendants as well as the resolutions promulgated on November 4, 1999 and May 23, 2000 by the Court of Appeals (Twelfth Division) in CA-G. R. SP No. 55535 entitled Shipside, Inc., Petitioner versus Hon. Alfredo Cajigal, as Judge, RTC, San Fernando, La Union, Branch 26, and the Republic of the Philippines, Respondents are hereby reversed and set aside. The complaint in Civil Case No. 6346, Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, San Fernando City, La Union entitled Republic of the Philippines, Plaintiff, versus Heirs of Rafael Galvez, et al." is ordered dismissed, without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate action by the Bases Development and Conversion Authority. SO ORDERED.

SEPARATE OPINION

VITUG, J.: I find no doctrinal difficulty in adhering to the draft ponencia written by our esteemed Chairman. Mr. Justice JARM, insofar as it declares that an action for revival of judgment is barred by extinctive prescription, if not brought within ten (10) years from the time the right of action accrues, pursuant to Article 1144(3) of the New Civil Code. It appears that the judgment in the instant case has become final on 23 October 1973 or well more than two decades prior to the action for its revival instituted only in 1999. With due respect, however, I still am unable to subscribe to the idea that prescription may not be invoked by the government in this case upon the thesis that the transfer of Camp Wallace to the Bases Conversion Development authority renders the Republic with no right or interest to protect and thus unqualified under the rules of procedure to be the real party-in-interest. While it is true that Republic Act 7227, otherwise known as the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992, authorizes the transfer of the military reservations and their extensions to the conversion Authority, the same, however, is basically for the purpose of accelerating the sound and balanced conversion of these military reservations into alternative productive uses and to enhance the benefits to be derived from such property as a measure of promoting the economic and social development, particularly, of Central Luzon and, in general, the countrys goal for enhancement.[1] The transfer of these military reservations to the Conversion Authority does not amount to an abdication on the part of the Republic of its interests but simply a recognition of the need to create a body corporate which will act as its agent for the realization of its program specified in the Act. It ought to follow that the Republic remains to be the real party-in-interest and the Conversion authority being merely its agent. In E. B. Marcha Transport Co. , Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court,[2] the Court succinctly resolved the issue of whether or not the Republic of the Philippines would be a proper party to sue for the recovery of possession of property which at time of the institution of the suit was no longer being held by the national government but by the Philippine Ports Authority. The Court ruled: More importantly, as we see it, dismissing the complaint on the ground that the Republic of the Philippines is not the proper party would result in needless delay in the settlement of this matter and also in derogation of the policy

against multiplicity of suits. Such a decision would require the Philippine Ports Authority to refile the very same complaint already proved by the Republic of the Philippines and bring back the parties as it were to square one. It can be said that in suing for the recovery of the rentals, the Republic of the Philippines, acted as principal of the Philippine Ports Authority, directly exercising the commission it had earlier conferred on the latter as its agent. We may presume that, by doing so, the republic of the Philippines did not intend to retain the said rentals for its own use, considering that by its voluntary act it had transferred the land in question to the Philippine Ports authority effective July 11, 1974. The Republic of the Philippines had simply sought to assist, not supplant, the Philippine Ports Authority, whose title to the disputed property it continues to recognize. We may expect then that the said rentals, once collected by the Republic of the Philippines, shall be turned over by it to the Philippine Ports Authority conformably to the purposes of P. D. No. 857." There would seem to be no cogent reason for ignoring that rationale specially when taken in light of the fact that the original suit for cancellation of title of petitioners predecessor-in-interest was commenced by the Republic itself, and it was only in 1992 that the subject military camp was transferred to the Conversion Authority.

G.R. No. L-11154

March 21, 1916

E. MERRITT, plaintiff-appellant, vs. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, defendant-appellant. Crossfield and O'Brien for plaintiff. Attorney-General Avancea for defendant.. TRENT, J.: This is an appeal by both parties from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of P14,741, together with the costs of the cause. Counsel for the plaintiff insist that the trial court erred (1) "in limiting the general damages which the plaintiff suffered to P5,000, instead of P25,000 as claimed in the complaint," and (2) "in limiting the time when plaintiff was entirely disabled to two months and twenty-one days and fixing the damage accordingly in the sum of P2,666, instead of P6,000 as claimed by plaintiff in his complaint." The Attorney-General on behalf of the defendant urges that the trial court erred: (a) in finding that the collision between the plaintiff's motorcycle and the ambulance of the General Hospital was due to the negligence of the chauffeur; (b) in holding that the Government of the Philippine Islands is liable for the damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the collision, even if it be true that the collision was due to the negligence of the chauffeur; and (c) in rendering judgment against the defendant for the sum of P14,741. The trial court's findings of fact, which are fully supported by the record, are as follows: It is a fact not disputed by counsel for the defendant that when the plaintiff, riding on a motorcycle, was going toward the western part of Calle Padre Faura, passing along the west side thereof at a speed of ten to twelve miles an hour, upon crossing Taft Avenue and when he was ten feet from the southwestern intersection of said streets, the General Hospital ambulance, upon reaching said avenue, instead of turning toward the south, after passing the center thereof, so that it would be on the left side of said avenue, as is prescribed by the ordinance and the Motor Vehicle Act, turned suddenly and unexpectedly and long before reaching the center of the street, into the right side of Taft Avenue, without having sounded any whistle or horn, by which movement it struck the plaintiff, who was already six feet from the southwestern point or from the post place there. By reason of the resulting collision, the plaintiff was so severely injured that, according to Dr. Saleeby, who examined him on the very same day that he was taken to the General Hospital, he was suffering from a depression in the left parietal region, a would in the same place and in the back part of his head, while blood issued from his nose and he was entirely unconscious. The marks revealed that he had one or more fractures of the skull and that the grey matter and brain was had suffered material injury. At ten o'clock of the night in question, which was the time set for performing the operation, his pulse was so weak and so irregular that, in his opinion, there was little hope that he would live. His right leg was broken in such a way that the fracture extended to the outer skin in such manner that it might be regarded as double and the would be exposed to infection, for which reason it was of the most serious nature. At another examination six days before the day of the trial, Dr. Saleeby noticed that the plaintiff's leg showed a contraction of an inch and a half and a curvature that made his leg very weak and painful at the point of the fracture. Examination of his head revealed a notable readjustment of the functions of the brain and nerves. The patient apparently was slightly deaf, had a light weakness in his eyes and in his mental condition. This latter weakness was always noticed when the plaintiff had to do any difficult mental labor, especially when he attempted to use his money for mathematical calculations.

According to the various merchants who testified as witnesses, the plaintiff's mental and physical condition prior to the accident was excellent, and that after having received the injuries that have been discussed, his physical condition had undergone a noticeable depreciation, for he had lost the agility, energy, and ability that he had constantly displayed before the accident as one of the best constructors of wooden buildings and he could not now earn even a half of the income that he had secured for his work because he had lost 50 per cent of his efficiency. As a contractor, he could no longer, as he had before done, climb up ladders and scaffoldings to reach the highest parts of the building. As a consequence of the loss the plaintiff suffered in the efficiency of his work as a contractor, he had to dissolved the partnership he had formed with the engineer. Wilson, because he was incapacitated from making mathematical calculations on account of the condition of his leg and of his mental faculties, and he had to give up a contract he had for the construction of the Uy Chaco building." We may say at the outset that we are in full accord with the trial court to the effect that the collision between the plaintiff's motorcycle and the ambulance of the General Hospital was due solely to the negligence of the chauffeur. The two items which constitute a part of the P14,741 and which are drawn in question by the plaintiff are (a) P5,000, the award awarded for permanent injuries, and (b) the P2,666, the amount allowed for the loss of wages during the time the plaintiff was incapacitated from pursuing his occupation. We find nothing in the record which would justify us in increasing the amount of the first. As to the second, the record shows, and the trial court so found, that the plaintiff's services as a contractor were worth P1,000 per month. The court, however, limited the time to two months and twenty-one days, which the plaintiff was actually confined in the hospital. In this we think there was error, because it was clearly established that the plaintiff was wholly incapacitated for a period of six months. The mere fact that he remained in the hospital only two months and twenty-one days while the remainder of the six months was spent in his home, would not prevent recovery for the whole time. We, therefore, find that the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff, without any fault on his part, is P18,075. As the negligence which caused the collision is a tort committed by an agent or employee of the Government, the inquiry at once arises whether the Government is legally-liable for the damages resulting therefrom. Act No. 2457, effective February 3, 1915, reads: An Act authorizing E. Merritt to bring suit against the Government of the Philippine Islands and authorizing the Attorney-General of said Islands to appear in said suit. Whereas a claim has been filed against the Government of the Philippine Islands by Mr. E. Merritt, of Manila, for damages resulting from a collision between his motorcycle and the ambulance of the General Hospital on March twenty-fifth, nineteen hundred and thirteen; Whereas it is not known who is responsible for the accident nor is it possible to determine the amount of damages, if any, to which the claimant is entitled; and Whereas the Director of Public Works and the Attorney-General recommended that an Act be passed by the Legislature authorizing Mr. E. Merritt to bring suit in the courts against the Government, in order that said questions may be decided: Now, therefore, By authority of the United States, be it enacted by the Philippine Legislature, that: SECTION 1. E. Merritt is hereby authorized to bring suit in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila against the Government of the Philippine Islands in order to fix the responsibility for the collision between his motorcycle and the ambulance of the General Hospital, and to determine the amount of the damages, if any, to which Mr. E. Merritt is entitled on account of said collision, and the Attorney-General of the Philippine Islands is hereby authorized and directed to appear at the trial on the behalf of the Government of said Islands, to defendant said Government at the same. SEC. 2. This Act shall take effect on its passage.

Enacted, February 3, 1915. Did the defendant, in enacting the above quoted Act, simply waive its immunity from suit or did it also concede its liability to the plaintiff? If only the former, then it cannot be held that the Act created any new cause of action in favor of the plaintiff or extended the defendant's liability to any case not previously recognized. All admit that the Insular Government (the defendant) cannot be sued by an individual without its consent. It is also admitted that the instant case is one against the Government. As the consent of the Government to be sued by the plaintiff was entirely voluntary on its part, it is our duty to look carefully into the terms of the consent, and render judgment accordingly. The plaintiff was authorized to bring this action against the Government "in order to fix the responsibility for the collision between his motorcycle and the ambulance of the General Hospital and to determine the amount of the damages, if any, to which Mr. E. Merritt is entitled on account of said collision, . . . ." These were the two questions submitted to the court for determination. The Act was passed "in order that said questions may be decided." We have "decided" that the accident was due solely to the negligence of the chauffeur, who was at the time an employee of the defendant, and we have also fixed the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the collision. Does the Act authorize us to hold that the Government is legally liable for that amount? If not, we must look elsewhere for such authority, if it exists. The Government of the Philippine Islands having been "modeled after the Federal and State Governments in the United States," we may look to the decisions of the high courts of that country for aid in determining the purpose and scope of Act No. 2457. In the United States the rule that the state is not liable for the torts committed by its officers or agents whom it employs, except when expressly made so by legislative enactment, is well settled. "The Government," says Justice Story, "does not undertake to guarantee to any person the fidelity of the officers or agents whom it employs, since that would involve it in all its operations in endless embarrassments, difficulties and losses, which would be subversive of the public interest." (Claussen vs. City of Luverne, 103 Minn., 491, citing U. S. vs. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat, 720; 6 L. Ed., 199; and Beers vs. States, 20 How., 527; 15 L. Ed., 991.) In the case of Melvin vs. State (121 Cal., 16), the plaintiff sought to recover damages from the state for personal injuries received on account of the negligence of the state officers at the state fair, a state institution created by the legislature for the purpose of improving agricultural and kindred industries; to disseminate information calculated to educate and benefit the industrial classes; and to advance by such means the material interests of the state, being objects similar to those sought by the public school system. In passing upon the question of the state's liability for the negligent acts of its officers or agents, the court said: No claim arises against any government is favor of an individual, by reason of the misfeasance, laches, or unauthorized exercise of powers by its officers or agents. (Citing Gibbons vs. U. S., 8 Wall., 269; Clodfelter vs. State, 86 N. C., 51, 53; 41 Am. Rep., 440; Chapman vs. State, 104 Cal., 690; 43 Am. St. Rep., 158; Green vs. State, 73 Cal., 29; Bourn vs. Hart, 93 Cal., 321; 27 Am. St. Rep., 203; Story on Agency, sec. 319.) As to the scope of legislative enactments permitting individuals to sue the state where the cause of action arises out of either fort or contract, the rule is stated in 36 Cyc., 915, thus: By consenting to be sued a state simply waives its immunity from suit. It does not thereby concede its liability to plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his favor, or extend its liability to any cause not previously recognized. It merely gives a remedy to enforce a preexisting liability and submits itself to the jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right to interpose any lawful defense. In Apfelbacher vs. State (152 N. W., 144, advanced sheets), decided April 16, 1915, the Act of 1913, which authorized the bringing of this suit, read: SECTION 1. Authority is hereby given to George Apfelbacher, of the town of Summit, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, to bring suit in such court or courts and in such form or forms as he may be advised for the purpose of settling and determining all controversies which he may now have with the State of Wisconsin, or

its duly authorized officers and agents, relative to the mill property of said George Apfelbacher, the fish hatchery of the State of Wisconsin on the Bark River, and the mill property of Evan Humphrey at the lower end of Nagawicka Lake, and relative to the use of the waters of said Bark River and Nagawicka Lake, all in the county of Waukesha, Wisconsin. In determining the scope of this act, the court said: Plaintiff claims that by the enactment of this law the legislature admitted liability on the part of the state for the acts of its officers, and that the suit now stands just as it would stand between private parties. It is difficult to see how the act does, or was intended to do, more than remove the state's immunity from suit. It simply gives authority to commence suit for the purpose of settling plaintiff's controversies with the estate. Nowhere in the act is there a whisper or suggestion that the court or courts in the disposition of the suit shall depart from well established principles of law, or that the amount of damages is the only question to be settled. The act opened the door of the court to the plaintiff. It did not pass upon the question of liability, but left the suit just where it would be in the absence of the state's immunity from suit. If the Legislature had intended to change the rule that obtained in this state so long and to declare liability on the part of the state, it would not have left so important a matter to mere inference, but would have done so in express terms. (Murdock Grate Co. vs. Commonwealth, 152 Mass., 28; 24 N.E., 854; 8 L. R. A., 399.) In Denning vs. State (123 Cal., 316), the provisions of the Act of 1893, relied upon and considered, are as follows: All persons who have, or shall hereafter have, claims on contract or for negligence against the state not allowed by the state board of examiners, are hereby authorized, on the terms and conditions herein contained, to bring suit thereon against the state in any of the courts of this state of competent jurisdiction, and prosecute the same to final judgment. The rules of practice in civil cases shall apply to such suits, except as herein otherwise provided. And the court said: This statute has been considered by this court in at least two cases, arising under different facts, and in both it was held that said statute did not create any liability or cause of action against the state where none existed before, but merely gave an additional remedy to enforce such liability as would have existed if the statute had not been enacted. (Chapman vs. State, 104 Cal., 690; 43 Am. St. Rep., 158; Melvin vs. State, 121 Cal., 16.) A statute of Massachusetts enacted in 1887 gave to the superior court "jurisdiction of all claims against the commonwealth, whether at law or in equity," with an exception not necessary to be here mentioned. In construing this statute the court, in Murdock Grate Co. vs. Commonwealth (152 Mass., 28), said: The statute we are discussing disclose no intention to create against the state a new and heretofore unrecognized class of liabilities, but only an intention to provide a judicial tribunal where well recognized existing liabilities can be adjudicated. In Sipple vs. State (99 N. Y., 284), where the board of the canal claims had, by the terms of the statute of New York, jurisdiction of claims for damages for injuries in the management of the canals such as the plaintiff had sustained, Chief Justice Ruger remarks: "It must be conceded that the state can be made liable for injuries arising from the negligence of its agents or servants, only by force of some positive statute assuming such liability." It being quite clear that Act No. 2457 does not operate to extend the Government's liability to any cause not previously recognized, we will now examine the substantive law touching the defendant's liability for the negligent acts of its officers, agents, and employees. Paragraph 5 of article 1903 of the Civil Code reads: The state is liable in this sense when it acts through a special agent, but not when the damage should have been caused by the official to whom properly it pertained to do the act performed, in which case the provisions of the preceding article shall be applicable. The supreme court of Spain in defining the scope of this paragraph said:

That the obligation to indemnify for damages which a third person causes to another by his fault or negligence is based, as is evidenced by the same Law 3, Title 15, Partida 7, on that the person obligated, by his own fault or negligence, takes part in the act or omission of the third party who caused the damage. It follows therefrom that the state, by virtue of such provisions of law, is not responsible for the damages suffered by private individuals in consequence of acts performed by its employees in the discharge of the functions pertaining to their office, because neither fault nor even negligence can be presumed on the part of the state in the organization of branches of public service and in the appointment of its agents; on the contrary, we must presuppose all foresight humanly possible on its part in order that each branch of service serves the general weal an that of private persons interested in its operation. Between these latter and the state, therefore, no relations of a private nature governed by the civil law can arise except in a case where the state acts as a judicial person capable of acquiring rights and contracting obligations. (Supreme Court of Spain, January 7, 1898; 83 Jur. Civ., 24.) That the Civil Code in chapter 2, title 16, book 4, regulates the obligations which arise out of fault or negligence; and whereas in the first article thereof. No. 1902, where the general principle is laid down that where a person who by an act or omission causes damage to another through fault or negligence, shall be obliged to repair the damage so done, reference is made to acts or omissions of the persons who directly or indirectly cause the damage, the following articles refers to this persons and imposes an identical obligation upon those who maintain fixed relations of authority and superiority over the authors of the damage, because the law presumes that in consequence of such relations the evil caused by their own fault or negligence is imputable to them. This legal presumption gives way to proof, however, because, as held in the last paragraph of article 1903, responsibility for acts of third persons ceases when the persons mentioned in said article prove that they employed all the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the damage, and among these persons, called upon to answer in a direct and not a subsidiary manner, are found, in addition to the mother or the father in a proper case, guardians and owners or directors of an establishment or enterprise, the state, but not always, except when it acts through the agency of a special agent, doubtless because and only in this case, the fault or negligence, which is the original basis of this kind of objections, must be presumed to lie with the state. That although in some cases the state might by virtue of the general principle set forth in article 1902 respond for all the damage that is occasioned to private parties by orders or resolutions which by fault or negligence are made by branches of the central administration acting in the name and representation of the state itself and as an external expression of its sovereignty in the exercise of its executive powers, yet said article is not applicable in the case of damages said to have been occasioned to the petitioners by an executive official, acting in the exercise of his powers, in proceedings to enforce the collections of certain property taxes owing by the owner of the property which they hold in sublease. That the responsibility of the state is limited by article 1903 to the case wherein it acts through a special agent (and a special agent, in the sense in which these words are employed, is one who receives a definite and fixed order or commission, foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special official) so that in representation of the state and being bound to act as an agent thereof, he executes the trust confided to him. This concept does not apply to any executive agent who is an employee of the acting administration and who on his own responsibility performs the functions which are inherent in and naturally pertain to his office and which are regulated by law and the regulations." (Supreme Court of Spain, May 18, 1904; 98 Jur. Civ., 389, 390.) That according to paragraph 5 of article 1903 of the Civil Code and the principle laid down in a decision, among others, of the 18th of May, 1904, in a damage case, the responsibility of the state is limited to that which it contracts through a special agent, duly empowered by a definite order or commission to perform some act or charged with some definite purpose which gives rise to the claim, and not where the claim is based on acts or omissions imputable to a public official charged with some administrative or technical office who can be held to the proper responsibility in the manner laid down by the law of civil responsibility. Consequently, the trial court in not so deciding and in sentencing the said entity to the payment of damages, caused by an official of the second class referred to, has by erroneous interpretation infringed the provisions of articles 1902 and 1903 of the Civil Code. (Supreme Court of Spain, July 30, 1911; 122 Jur. Civ., 146.) It is, therefore, evidence that the State (the Government of the Philippine Islands) is only liable, according to the above quoted decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain, for the acts of its agents, officers and employees when they

act as special agents within the meaning of paragraph 5 of article 1903, supra, and that the chauffeur of the ambulance of the General Hospital was not such an agent. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from must be reversed, without costs in this instance. Whether the Government intends to make itself legally liable for the amount of damages above set forth, which the plaintiff has sustained by reason of the negligent acts of one of its employees, by legislative enactment and by appropriating sufficient funds therefor, we are not called upon to determine. This matter rests solely with the Legislature and not with the courts.

G.R. No. L-35645 May 22, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CAPT. JAMES E. GALLOWAY, WILLIAM I. COLLINS and ROBERT GOHIER,petitioners, vs. HON. V. M. RUIZ, Presiding Judge of Branch XV, Court of First Instance of Rizal and ELIGIO DE GUZMAN & CO., INC., respondents. Sycip, Salazar, Luna & Manalo & Feliciano Law for petitioners. Albert, Vergara, Benares, Perias & Dominguez Law Office for respondents. ABAD SANTOS, J.: This is a petition to review, set aside certain orders and restrain the respondent judge from trying Civil Case No. 779M of the defunct Court of First Instance of Rizal. The factual background is as follows: At times material to this case, the United States of America had a naval base in Subic, Zambales. The base was one of those provided in the Military Bases Agreement between the Philippines and the United States. Sometime in May, 1972, the United States invited the submission of bids for the following projects 1. Repair offender system, Alava Wharf at the U.S. Naval Station Subic Bay, Philippines. 2. Repair typhoon damage to NAS Cubi shoreline; repair typhoon damage to shoreline revetment, NAVBASE Subic; and repair to Leyte Wharf approach, NAVBASE Subic Bay, Philippines. Eligio de Guzman & Co., Inc. responded to the invitation and submitted bids. Subsequent thereto, the company received from the United States two telegrams requesting it to confirm its price proposals and for the name of its bonding company. The company complied with the requests. [In its complaint, the company alleges that the United States had accepted its bids because "A request to confirm a price proposal confirms the acceptance of a bid pursuant to defendant United States' bidding practices." (Rollo, p. 30.) The truth of this allegation has not been tested because the case has not reached the trial stage.] In June, 1972, the company received a letter which was signed by Wilham I. Collins, Director, Contracts Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest Pacific, Department of the Navy of the United States, who is one of the petitioners herein. The letter said that the company did not qualify to receive an award for the projects because of its previous unsatisfactory performance rating on a repair contract for the sea wall at the boat landings of the U.S. Naval Station in Subic Bay. The letter further said that the projects had been awarded to third parties. In the abovementioned Civil Case No. 779-M, the company sued the United States of America and Messrs. James E. Galloway, William I. Collins and Robert Gohier all members of the Engineering Command of the U.S. Navy. The complaint is to order the defendants to allow the plaintiff to perform the work on the projects and, in the event that specific performance was no longer possible, to order the defendants to pay damages. The company also asked for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the defendants from entering into contracts with third parties for work on the projects. The defendants entered their special appearance for the purpose only of questioning the jurisdiction of this court over the subject matter of the complaint and the persons of defendants, the subject matter of the complaint being acts and omissions of the individual defendants as agents of defendant United States of America, a foreign sovereign which has not given her consent to this suit or any other suit for the causes of action asserted in the complaint." (Rollo, p. 50.) Subsequently the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which included an opposition to the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. The company opposed the motion. The trial court denied the motion and issued the

writ. The defendants moved twice to reconsider but to no avail. Hence the instant petition which seeks to restrain perpetually the proceedings in Civil Case No. 779-M for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court. The petition is highly impressed with merit. The traditional rule of State immunity exempts a State from being sued in the courts of another State without its consent or waiver. This rule is a necessary consequence of the principles of independence and equality of States. However, the rules of International Law are not petrified; they are constantly developing and evolving. And because the activities of states have multiplied, it has been necessary to distinguish them-between sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) and private, commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis). The result is that State immunity now extends only to acts jure imperil The restrictive application of State immunity is now the rule in the United States, the United Kingdom and other states in western Europe. (See Coquia and Defensor Santiago, Public International Law, pp. 207-209 [1984].) The respondent judge recognized the restrictive doctrine of State immunity when he said in his Order denying the defendants' (now petitioners) motion: " A distinction should be made between a strictly governmental function of the sovereign state from its private, proprietary or non- governmental acts (Rollo, p. 20.) However, the respondent judge also said: "It is the Court's considered opinion that entering into a contract for the repair of wharves or shoreline is certainly not a governmental function altho it may partake of a public nature or character. As aptly pointed out by plaintiff's counsel in his reply citing the ruling in the case of Lyons, Inc., [104 Phil. 594 (1958)], and which this Court quotes with approval, viz.: It is however contended that when a sovereign state enters into a contract with a private person, the state can be sued upon the theory that it has descended to the level of an individual from which it can be implied that it has given its consent to be sued under the contract. ... xxx xxx xxx We agree to the above contention, and considering that the United States government, through its agency at Subic Bay, entered into a contract with appellant for stevedoring and miscellaneous labor services within the Subic Bay Area, a U.S. Naval Reservation, it is evident that it can bring an action before our courts for any contractual liability that that political entity may assume under the contract. The trial court, therefore, has jurisdiction to entertain this case ... (Rollo, pp. 20-21.) The reliance placed on Lyons by the respondent judge is misplaced for the following reasons: In Harry Lyons, Inc. vs. The United States of America, supra, plaintiff brought suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila to collect several sums of money on account of a contract between plaintiff and defendant. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over defendant and over the subject matter of the action. The court granted the motion on the grounds that: (a) it had no jurisdiction over the defendant who did not give its consent to the suit; and (b) plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies provided in the contract. The order of dismissal was elevated to this Court for review. In sustaining the action of the lower court, this Court said: It appearing in the complaint that appellant has not complied with the procedure laid down in Article XXI of the contract regarding the prosecution of its claim against the United States Government, or, stated differently, it has failed to first exhaust its administrative remedies against said Government, the lower court acted properly in dismissing this case.(At p. 598.) It can thus be seen that the statement in respect of the waiver of State immunity from suit was purely gratuitous and, therefore, obiter so that it has no value as an imperative authority. The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs. Stated differently, a State may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly 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 this case the projects are an integral part of the naval base which is devoted to the defense of both the United States and the Philippines, indisputably a function of the government of the highest order; they are not utilized for nor dedicated to commercial or business purposes. That the correct test for the application of State immunity is not the conclusion of a contract by a State but the legal nature of the act is shown in Syquia vs. Lopez, 84 Phil. 312 (1949). In that case the plaintiffs leased three apartment buildings to the United States of America for the use of its military officials. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of the premises on the ground that the term of the leases had expired. They also asked for increased rentals until the apartments shall have been vacated. The defendants who were armed forces officers of the United States moved to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction in the part of the court. The Municipal Court of Manila granted the motion to dismiss; sustained by the Court of First Instance, the plaintiffs went to this Court for review on certiorari. In denying the petition, this Court said: On the basis of the foregoing considerations we are of the belief and we hold that the real party defendant in interest is the Government of the United States of America; that any judgment for back or Increased rentals or damages will have to be paid not by defendants Moore and Tillman and their 64 co-defendants but by the said U.S. Government. On the basis of the ruling in the case of Land vs. Dollar already cited, and on what we have already stated, the present action must be considered as one against the U.S. Government. It is clear hat the courts of the Philippines including the Municipal Court of Manila have no jurisdiction over the present case for unlawful detainer. The question of lack of jurisdiction was raised and interposed at the very beginning of the action. The U.S. Government has not , given its consent to the filing of this suit which is essentially against her, though not in name. Moreover, this is not only a case of a citizen filing a suit against his own Government without the latter's consent but it is of a citizen filing an action against a foreign government without said government's consent, which renders more obvious the lack of jurisdiction of the courts of his country. The principles of law behind this rule are so elementary and of such general acceptance that we deem it unnecessary to cite authorities in support thereof. (At p. 323.) In Syquia,the United States concluded contracts with private individuals but the contracts notwithstanding the States was not deemed to have given or waived its consent to be sued for the reason that the contracts were forjure imperii and not for jure gestionis. WHEREFORE, the petition is granted; the questioned orders of the respondent judge are set aside and Civil Case No. is dismissed. Costs against the private respondent. Separate Opinions

MAKASIAR, J., dissenting: The petition should be dismissed and the proceedings in Civil Case No. 779-M in the defunct CFI (now RTC) of Rizal be allowed to continue therein. In the case of Lyons vs. the United States of America (104 Phil. 593), where the contract entered into between the plaintiff (Harry Lyons, Inc.) and the defendant (U.S. Government) involved stevedoring and labor services within the Subic Bay area, this Court further stated that inasmuch as ". . . the United States Government. through its agency at Subic Bay, entered into a contract with appellant for stevedoring and miscellaneous labor services within the Subic Bay area, a U.S. Navy Reservation, it is evident that it can bring an action before our courts for any contractual liability that that political entity may assume under the contract." When the U.S. Government, through its agency at Subic Bay, confirmed the acceptance of a bid of a private company for the repair of wharves or shoreline in the Subic Bay area, it is deemed to have entered into a contract and thus waived the mantle of sovereign immunity from suit and descended to the level of the ordinary citizen. Its consent to be sued, therefore, is implied from its act of entering into a contract (Santos vs. Santos, 92 Phil. 281, 284).

Justice and fairness dictate that a foreign government that commits a breach of its contractual obligation in the case at bar by the unilateral cancellation of the award for the project by the United States government, through its agency at Subic Bay should not be allowed to take undue advantage of a party who may have legitimate claims against it by seeking refuge behind the shield of non-suability. A contrary view would render a Filipino citizen, as in the instant case, helpless and without redress in his own country for violation of his rights committed by the agents of the foreign government professing to act in its name. Appropriate are the words of Justice Perfecto in his dissenting opinion in Syquia vs. Almeda Lopez, 84 Phil. 312, 325: Although, generally, foreign governments are beyond the jurisdiction of domestic courts of justice, such rule is inapplicable to cases in which the foreign government enters into private contracts with the citizens of the court's jurisdiction. A contrary view would simply run against all principles of decency and violative of all tenets of morals. Moral principles and principles of justice are as valid and applicable as well with regard to private individuals as with regard to governments either domestic or foreign. Once a foreign government enters into a private contract with the private citizens of another country, such foreign government cannot shield its non-performance or contravention of the terms of the contract under the cloak of non-jurisdiction. To place such foreign government beyond the jurisdiction of the domestic courts is to give approval to the execution of unilateral contracts, graphically described in Spanish as 'contratos leoninos', because one party gets the lion's share to the detriment of the other. To give validity to such contract is to sanctify bad faith, deceit, fraud. We prefer to adhere to the thesis that all parties in a private contract, including governments and the most powerful of them, are amenable to law, and that such contracts are enforceable through the help of the courts of justice with jurisdiction to take cognizance of any violation of such contracts if the same had been entered into only by private individuals. Constant resort by a foreign state or its agents to the doctrine of State immunity in this jurisdiction impinges unduly upon our sovereignty and dignity as a nation. Its application will particularly discourage Filipino or domestic contractors from transacting business and entering into contracts with United States authorities or facilities in the Philippines whether naval, air or ground forces-because the difficulty, if not impossibility, of enforcing a validly executed contract and of seeking judicial remedy in our own courts for breaches of contractual obligation committed by agents of the United States government, always, looms large, thereby hampering the growth of Filipino enterprises and creating a virtual monopoly in our own country by United States contractors of contracts for services or supplies with the various U.S. offices and agencies operating in the Philippines. The sanctity of upholding agreements freely entered into by the parties cannot be over emphasized. Whether the parties are nations or private individuals, it is to be reasonably assumed and expected that the undertakings in the contract will be complied with in good faith. One glaring fact of modern day civilization is that a big and powerful nation, like the United States of America, can always overwhelm small and weak nations. The declaration in the United Nations Charter that its member states are equal and sovereign, becomes hollow and meaningless because big nations wielding economic and military superiority impose upon and dictate to small nations, subverting their sovereignty and dignity as nations. Thus, more often than not, when U.S. interest clashes with the interest of small nations, the American governmental agencies or its citizens invoke principles of international law for their own benefit. In the case at bar, the efficacy of the contract between the U.S. Naval authorities at Subic Bay on one hand, and herein private respondent on the other, was honored more in the breach than in the compliance The opinion of the majority will certainly open the floodgates of more violations of contractual obligations. American authorities or any foreign government in the Philippines for that matter, dealing with the citizens of this country, can conveniently seek protective cover under the majority opinion. The result is disastrous to the Philippines. This opinion of the majority manifests a neo-colonial mentality. It fosters economic imperialism and foreign political ascendancy in our Republic.

The doctrine of government immunity from suit cannot and should not serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen (Amigable vs. Cuenca, L-26400, February 29, 1972, 43 SCRA 360; Ministerio vs. Court of First Instance, L-31635, August 31, 1971, 40 SCRA 464). Under the doctrine of implied waiver of its non-suability, the United States government, through its naval authorities at Subic Bay, should be held amenable to lawsuits in our country like any other juristic person. The invocation by the petitioner United States of America is not in accord with paragraph 3 of Article III of the original RP-US Military Bases Agreement of March 14, 1947, which states that "in the exercise of the abovementioned rights, powers and authority, the United States agrees that the powers granted to it will not be used unreasonably. . ." (Emphasis supplied). Nor is such posture of the petitioners herein in harmony with the amendment dated May 27, 1968 to the aforesaid RP-US Military Bases Agreement, which recognizes "the need to promote and maintain sound employment practices which will assure equality of treatment of all employees ... and continuing favorable employer-employee relations ..." and "(B)elieving that an agreement will be mutually beneficial and will strengthen the democratic institutions cherished by both Governments, ... the United States Government agrees to accord preferential employment of Filipino citizens in the Bases, thus (1) the U.S. Forces in the Philippines shall fill the needs for civilian employment by employing Filipino citizens, etc." (Par. 1, Art. I of the Amendment of May 27, 1968). Neither does the invocation by petitioners of state immunity from suit express fidelity to paragraph 1 of Article IV of the aforesaid amendment of May 2 7, 1968 which directs that " contractors and concessionaires performing work for the U.S. Armed Forces shall be required by their contract or concession agreements to comply with all applicable Philippine labor laws and regulations, " even though paragraph 2 thereof affirms that "nothing in this Agreement shall imply any waiver by either of the two Governments of such immunity under international law." Reliance by petitioners on the non-suability of the United States Government before the local courts, actually clashes with No. III on respect for Philippine law of the Memorandum of Agreement signed on January 7, 1979, also amending RP-US Military Bases Agreement, which stresses that "it is the duty of members of the United States Forces, the civilian component and their dependents, to respect the laws of the Republic of the Philippines and to abstain from any activity inconsistent with the spirit of the Military Bases Agreement and, in particular, from any political activity in the Philippines. The United States shag take all measures within its authority to insure that they adhere to them (Emphasis supplied). The foregoing duty imposed by the amendment to the Agreement is further emphasized by No. IV on the economic and social improvement of areas surrounding the bases, which directs that "moreover, the United States Forces shall procure goods and services in the Philippines to the maximum extent feasible" (Emphasis supplied). Under No. VI on labor and taxation of the said amendment of January 6, 1979 in connection with the discussions on possible revisions or alterations of the Agreement of May 27, 1968, "the discussions shall be conducted on the basis of the principles of equality of treatment, the right to organize, and bargain collectively, and respect for the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines" (Emphasis supplied) The majority opinion seems to mock the provision of paragraph 1 of the joint statement of President Marcos and Vice-President Mondale of the United States dated May 4, 1978 that "the United States re-affirms that Philippine sovereignty extends over the bases and that Its base shall be under the command of a Philippine Base Commander, " which is supposed to underscore the joint Communique of President Marcos and U.S. President Ford of December 7, 1975, under which "they affirm that sovereign equality, territorial integrity and political independence of all States are fundamental principles which both countries scrupulously respect; and that "they confirm that mutual respect for the dignity of each nation shall characterize their friendship as well as the alliance between their two countries. " The majority opinion negates the statement on the delineation of the powers, duties and responsibilities of both the Philippine and American Base Commanders that "in the performance of their duties, the Philippine Base Commander and the American Base Commander shall be guided by full respect for Philippine sovereignty on the one hand and the assurance of unhampered U.S. military operations on the other hand and that "they shall promote cooperation understanding and harmonious relations within the Base and with the general public in the proximate

vicinity thereof" (par. 2 & par. 3 of the Annex covered by the exchange of notes, January 7, 1979, between Ambassador Richard W. Murphy and Minister of Foreign Affairs Carlos P. Romulo, Emphasis supplied). Separate Opinions MAKASIAR, J., dissenting: The petition should be dismissed and the proceedings in Civil Case No. 779-M in the defunct CFI (now RTC) of Rizal be allowed to continue therein. In the case of Lyons vs. the United States of America (104 Phil. 593), where the contract entered into between the plaintiff (Harry Lyons, Inc.) and the defendant (U.S. Government) involved stevedoring and labor services within the Subic Bay area, this Court further stated that inasmuch as ". . . the United States Government. through its agency at Subic Bay, entered into a contract with appellant for stevedoring and miscellaneous labor services within the Subic Bay area, a U.S. Navy Reservation, it is evident that it can bring an action before our courts for any contractual liability that that political entity may assume under the contract." When the U.S. Government, through its agency at Subic Bay, confirmed the acceptance of a bid of a private company for the repair of wharves or shoreline in the Subic Bay area, it is deemed to have entered into a contract and thus waived the mantle of sovereign immunity from suit and descended to the level of the ordinary citizen. Its consent to be sued, therefore, is implied from its act of entering into a contract (Santos vs. Santos, 92 Phil. 281, 284). Justice and fairness dictate that a foreign government that commits a breach of its contractual obligation in the case at bar by the unilateral cancellation of the award for the project by the United States government, through its agency at Subic Bay should not be allowed to take undue advantage of a party who may have legitimate claims against it by seeking refuge behind the shield of non-suability. A contrary view would render a Filipino citizen, as in the instant case, helpless and without redress in his own country for violation of his rights committed by the agents of the foreign government professing to act in its name. Appropriate are the words of Justice Perfecto in his dissenting opinion in Syquia vs. Almeda Lopez, 84 Phil. 312, 325: Although, generally, foreign governments are beyond the jurisdiction of domestic courts of justice, such rule is inapplicable to cases in which the foreign government enters into private contracts with the citizens of the court's jurisdiction. A contrary view would simply run against all principles of decency and violative of all tenets of morals. Moral principles and principles of justice are as valid and applicable as well with regard to private individuals as with regard to governments either domestic or foreign. Once a foreign government enters into a private contract with the private citizens of another country, such foreign government cannot shield its non-performance or contravention of the terms of the contract under the cloak of non-jurisdiction. To place such foreign government beyond the jurisdiction of the domestic courts is to give approval to the execution of unilateral contracts, graphically described in Spanish as 'contratos leoninos', because one party gets the lion's share to the detriment of the other. To give validity to such contract is to sanctify bad faith, deceit, fraud. We prefer to adhere to the thesis that all parties in a private contract, including governments and the most powerful of them, are amenable to law, and that such contracts are enforceable through the help of the courts of justice with jurisdiction to take cognizance of any violation of such contracts if the same had been entered into only by private individuals. Constant resort by a foreign state or its agents to the doctrine of State immunity in this jurisdiction impinges unduly upon our sovereignty and dignity as a nation. Its application will particularly discourage Filipino or domestic contractors from transacting business and entering into contracts with United States authorities or facilities in the Philippines whether naval, air or ground forces-because the difficulty, if not impossibility, of enforcing a validly executed contract and of seeking judicial remedy in our own courts for breaches of contractual obligation committed by agents of the United States government, always, looms large, thereby hampering the growth of Filipino

enterprises and creating a virtual monopoly in our own country by United States contractors of contracts for services or supplies with the various U.S. offices and agencies operating in the Philippines. The sanctity of upholding agreements freely entered into by the parties cannot be over emphasized. Whether the parties are nations or private individuals, it is to be reasonably assumed and expected that the undertakings in the contract will be complied with in good faith. One glaring fact of modern day civilization is that a big and powerful nation, like the United States of America, can always overwhelm small and weak nations. The declaration in the United Nations Charter that its member states are equal and sovereign, becomes hollow and meaningless because big nations wielding economic and military superiority impose upon and dictate to small nations, subverting their sovereignty and dignity as nations. Thus, more often than not, when U.S. interest clashes with the interest of small nations, the American governmental agencies or its citizens invoke principles of international law for their own benefit. In the case at bar, the efficacy of the contract between the U.S. Naval authorities at Subic Bay on one hand, and herein private respondent on the other, was honored more in the breach than in the compliance The opinion of the majority will certainly open the floodgates of more violations of contractual obligations. American authorities or any foreign government in the Philippines for that matter, dealing with the citizens of this country, can conveniently seek protective cover under the majority opinion. The result is disastrous to the Philippines. This opinion of the majority manifests a neo-colonial mentality. It fosters economic imperialism and foreign political ascendancy in our Republic. The doctrine of government immunity from suit cannot and should not serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen (Amigable vs. Cuenca, L-26400, February 29, 1972, 43 SCRA 360; Ministerio vs. Court of First Instance, L-31635, August 31, 1971, 40 SCRA 464). Under the doctrine of implied waiver of its non-suability, the United States government, through its naval authorities at Subic Bay, should be held amenable to lawsuits in our country like any other juristic person. The invocation by the petitioner United States of America is not in accord with paragraph 3 of Article III of the original RP-US Military Bases Agreement of March 14, 1947, which states that "in the exercise of the abovementioned rights, powers and authority, the United States agrees that the powers granted to it will not be used unreasonably. . ." (Emphasis supplied). Nor is such posture of the petitioners herein in harmony with the amendment dated May 27, 1968 to the aforesaid RP-US Military Bases Agreement, which recognizes "the need to promote and maintain sound employment practices which will assure equality of treatment of all employees ... and continuing favorable employer-employee relations ..." and "(B)elieving that an agreement will be mutually beneficial and will strengthen the democratic institutions cherished by both Governments, ... the United States Government agrees to accord preferential employment of Filipino citizens in the Bases, thus (1) the U.S. Forces in the Philippines shall fill the needs for civilian employment by employing Filipino citizens, etc." (Par. 1, Art. I of the Amendment of May 27, 1968). Neither does the invocation by petitioners of state immunity from suit express fidelity to paragraph 1 of Article IV of the aforesaid amendment of May 2 7, 1968 which directs that " contractors and concessionaires performing work for the U.S. Armed Forces shall be required by their contract or concession agreements to comply with all applicable Philippine labor laws and regulations, " even though paragraph 2 thereof affirms that "nothing in this Agreement shall imply any waiver by either of the two Governments of such immunity under international law." Reliance by petitioners on the non-suability of the United States Government before the local courts, actually clashes with No. III on respect for Philippine law of the Memorandum of Agreement signed on January 7, 1979, also amending RP-US Military Bases Agreement, which stresses that "it is the duty of members of the United States Forces, the civilian component and their dependents, to respect the laws of the Republic of the Philippines and to abstain from any activity inconsistent with the spirit of the Military Bases Agreement and, in particular, from any political activity in the Philippines. The United States shag take all measures within its authority to insure that they adhere to them (Emphasis supplied).

The foregoing duty imposed by the amendment to the Agreement is further emphasized by No. IV on the economic and social improvement of areas surrounding the bases, which directs that "moreover, the United States Forces shall procure goods and services in the Philippines to the maximum extent feasible" (Emphasis supplied). Under No. VI on labor and taxation of the said amendment of January 6, 1979 in connection with the discussions on possible revisions or alterations of the Agreement of May 27, 1968, "the discussions shall be conducted on the basis of the principles of equality of treatment, the right to organize, and bargain collectively, and respect for the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines" (Emphasis supplied) The majority opinion seems to mock the provision of paragraph 1 of the joint statement of President Marcos and Vice-President Mondale of the United States dated May 4, 1978 that "the United States re-affirms that Philippine sovereignty extends over the bases and that Its base shall be under the command of a Philippine Base Commander, " which is supposed to underscore the joint Communique of President Marcos and U.S. President Ford of December 7, 1975, under which "they affirm that sovereign equality, territorial integrity and political independence of all States are fundamental principles which both countries scrupulously respect; and that "they confirm that mutual respect for the dignity of each nation shall characterize their friendship as well as the alliance between their two countries. " The majority opinion negates the statement on the delineation of the powers, duties and responsibilities of both the Philippine and American Base Commanders that "in the performance of their duties, the Philippine Base Commander and the American Base Commander shall be guided by full respect for Philippine sovereignty on the one hand and the assurance of unhampered U.S. military operations on the other hand and that "they shall promote cooperation understanding and harmonious relations within the Base and with the general public in the proximate vicinity thereof" (par. 2 & par. 3 of the Annex covered by the exchange of notes, January 7, 1979, between Ambassador Richard W. Murphy and Minister of Foreign Affairs Carlos P. Romulo, Emphasis supplied).

G.R. No. 129406

March 6, 2006

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES represented by the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION) and ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO, Respondents. DECISION GARCIA, J.: Before the Court is this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to nullify and set aside the March 28, 19951 and March 13, 19972 Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan, Second Division, in Civil Case No. 0034, insofar as said resolutions ordered the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) to pay private respondent Roberto S. Benedicto or his corporations the value of 227 shares of stock of the Negros Occidental Golf and Country Club, Inc. (NOGCCI) at P150,000.00 per share, registered in the name of said private respondent or his corporations. The facts: Civil Case No. 0034 entitled Republic of the Philippines, plaintiff, v. Roberto S. Benedicto, et al., defendants, is a complaint for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, reconstitution and damages. The case is one of several suits involving ill-gotten or unexplained wealth that petitioner Republic, through the PCGG, filed with the Sandiganbayan against private respondent Roberto S. Benedicto and others pursuant to Executive Order (EO) No. 14,3 series of 1986. Pursuant to its mandate under EO No. 1,4 series of 1986, the PCGG issued writs placing under sequestration all business enterprises, entities and other properties, real and personal, owned or registered in the name of private respondent Benedicto, or of corporations in which he appeared to have controlling or majority interest. Among the properties thus sequestered and taken over by PCGG fiscal agents were the 227 shares in NOGCCI owned by private respondent Benedicto and registered in his name or under the names of corporations he owned or controlled. Following the sequestration process, PCGG representatives sat as members of the Board of Directors of NOGCCI, which passed, sometime in October 1986, a resolution effecting a corporate policy change. The change consisted of assessing a monthly membership due of P150.00 for each NOGCCI share. Prior to this resolution, an investor purchasing more than one NOGCCI share was exempt from paying monthly membership due for the second and subsequent shares that he/she owned. Subsequently, on March 29, 1987, the NOGCCI Board passed another resolution, this time increasing the monthly membership due from P150.00 to P250.00 for each share. As sequestrator of the 227 shares of stock in question, PCGG did not pay the corresponding monthly membership due thereon totaling P2,959,471.00. On account thereof, the 227 sequestered shares were declared delinquent to be disposed of in an auction sale. Apprised of the above development and evidently to prevent the projected auction sale of the same shares, PCGG filed a complaint for injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City, thereat docketed as Civil Case No. 5348. The complaint, however, was dismissed, paving the way for the auction sale for the delinquent 227 shares of stock. On August 5, 1989, an auction sale was conducted. On November 3, 1990, petitioner Republic and private respondent Benedicto entered into a Compromise Agreement in Civil Case No. 0034. The agreement contained a general release clause5 whereunder petitioner Republic agreed and bound itself to lift the sequestration on the 227 NOGCCI shares, among other Benedictos properties, petitioner Republic acknowledging that it was within private respondent Benedictos capacity to acquire the same shares out of his income from business and the exercise of his profession.6 Implied in this undertaking is the recognition by petitioner Republic that the subject shares of stock could not have been ill-gotten.

In a decision dated October 2, 1992, the Sandiganbayan approved the Compromise Agreement and accordingly rendered judgment in accordance with its terms. In the process of implementing the Compromise Agreement, either of the parties would, from time to time, move for a ruling by the Sandiganbayan on the proper manner of implementing or interpreting a specific provision therein. On February 22, 1994, Benedicto filed in Civil Case No. 0034 a "Motion for Release from Sequestration and Return of Sequestered Shares/Dividends" praying, inter alia, that his NOGCCI shares of stock be specifically released from sequestration and returned, delivered or paid to him as part of the parties Compromise Agreement in that case. In a Resolution7 promulgated on December 6, 1994, the Sandiganbayan granted Benedictos aforementioned motion but placed the subject shares under the custody of its Clerk of Court, thus: WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the said "Motion for Release From Sequestration and Return of Sequestered Shares/Dividends" is hereby GRANTED and it is directed that said shares/dividends be delivered/placed under the custody of the Clerk of Court, Sandiganbayan, Manila subject to this Courts disposition. On March 28, 1995, the Sandiganbayan came out with the herein first assailed Resolution,8 which clarified its aforementioned December 6, 1994 Resolution and directed the immediate implementation thereof by requiring PCGG, among other things: (b) To deliver to the Clerk of Court the 227 sequestered shares of [NOGCCI] registered in the name of nominees of ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO free from all liens and encumbrances, or in default thereof, to pay their value at P150,000.00 per share which can be deducted from [the Republics] cash share in the Compromise Agreement. [Words in bracket added] (Emphasis Supplied). Owing to PCGGs failure to comply with the above directive, Benedicto filed in Civil Case No. 0034 a Motion for Compliance dated July 25, 1995, followed by an Ex-Parte Motion for Early Resolution dated February 12, 1996. Acting thereon, the Sandiganbayan promulgated yet another Resolution9 on February 23, 1996, dispositively reading: WHEREFORE, finding merit in the instant motion for early resolution and considering that, indeed, the PCGG has not shown any justifiable ground as to why it has not complied with its obligation as set forth in the Order of December 6, 1994 up to this date and which Order was issued pursuant to the Compromise Agreement and has already become final and executory, accordingly, the Presidential Commission on Good Government is hereby given a final extension of fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof within which to comply with the Order of December 6, 1994 as stated hereinabove. On April 1, 1996, PCGG filed a Manifestation with Motion for Reconsideration,10 praying for the setting aside of the Resolution of February 23, 1996. On April 11, 1996, private respondent Benedicto filed a Motion to Enforce Judgment Levy. Resolving these two motions, the Sandiganbayan, in its second assailed Resolution11 dated March 13, 1997, denied that portion of the PCGGs Manifestation with Motion for Reconsideration concerning the subject 227 NOGCCI shares and granted Benedictos Motion to Enforce Judgment Levy. Hence, the Republics present recourse on the sole issue of whether or not the public respondent Sandiganbayan, Second Division, gravely abused its discretion in holding that the PCGG is at fault for not paying the membership dues on the 227 sequestered NOGCCI shares of stock, a failing which eventually led to the foreclosure sale thereof. The petition lacks merit. To begin with, PCGG itself does not dispute its being considered as a receiver insofar as the sequestered 227 NOGCCI shares of stock are concerned.12 PCGG also acknowledges that as such receiver, one of its functions is to pay outstanding debts pertaining to the sequestered entity or property,13 in this case the 227 NOGCCI shares in question. It contends, however, that membership dues owing to a golf club cannot be considered as an outstanding debt for which PCGG, as receiver, must pay. It also claims to have exercised due diligence to prevent the loss through delinquency sale of the subject NOGCCI shares, specifically inviting attention to the injunctive suit, i.e., Civil Case No. 5348, it filed before the RTC of Bacolod City to enjoin the foreclosure sale of the shares.

The filing of the injunction complaint adverted to, without more, cannot plausibly tilt the balance in favor of PCGG. To the mind of the Court, such filing is a case of acting too little and too late. It cannot be over-emphasized that it behooved the PCGGs fiscal agents to preserve, like a responsible father of the family, the value of the shares of stock under their administration. But far from acting as such father, what the fiscal agents did under the premises was to allow the element of delinquency to set in before acting by embarking on a tedious process of going to court after the auction sale had been announced and scheduled. The PCGGs posture that to the owner of the sequestered shares rests the burden of paying the membership dues is untenable. For one, it lost sight of the reality that such dues are basically obligations attached to the shares, which, in the final analysis, shall be made liable, thru delinquency sale in case of default in payment of the dues. For another, the PCGG as sequestrator-receiver of such shares is, as stressed earlier, duty bound to preserve the value of such shares. Needless to state, adopting timely measures to obviate the loss of those shares forms part of such duty and due diligence. The Sandiganbayan, to be sure, cannot plausibly be faulted for finding the PCGG liable for the loss of the 227 NOGCCI shares. There can be no quibbling, as indeed the graft court so declared in its assailed and related resolutions respecting the NOGCCI shares of stock, that PCGGs fiscal agents, while sitting in the NOGCCI Board of Directors agreed to the amendment of the rule pertaining to membership dues. Hence, it is not amiss to state, as did the Sandiganbayan, that the PCGG-designated fiscal agents, no less, had a direct hand in the loss of the sequestered shares through delinquency and their eventual sale through public auction. While perhaps anticlimactic to so mention it at this stage, the unfortunate loss of the shares ought not to have come to pass had those fiscal agents prudently not agreed to the passage of the NOGCCI board resolutions charging membership dues on shares without playing representatives. Given the circumstances leading to the auction sale of the subject NOGCCI shares, PCGGs lament about public respondent Sandiganbayan having erred or, worse still, having gravely abused its discretion in its determination as to who is at fault for the loss of the shares in question can hardly be given cogency. For sure, even if the Sandiganbayan were wrong in its findings, which does not seem to be in this case, it is a wellsettled rule of jurisprudence that certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. Corollarily, errors of procedure or mistakes in the courts findings and conclusions are beyond the corrective hand of certiorari.14 The extraordinary writ of certiorari may be availed only upon a showing, in the minimum, that the respondent tribunal or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.15 The term "grave abuse of discretion" connotes capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to excess, or a lack of jurisdiction.16 The abuse must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility.17 Sadly, this is completely absent in the present case. For, at bottom, the assailed resolutions of the Sandiganbayan did no more than to direct PCGG to comply with its part of the bargain under the compromise agreement it freely entered into with private respondent Benedicto. Simply put, the assailed resolutions of the Sandiganbayan have firm basis in fact and in law. Lest it be overlooked, the issue of liability for the shares in question had, as both public and private respondents asserted, long become final and executory. Petitioners narration of facts in its present petition is even misleading as it conveniently fails to make reference to two (2) resolutions issued by the Sandiganbayan. We refer to that courts resolutions of December 6, 199418 and February 23, 199619 as well as several intervening pleadings which served as basis for the decisions reached therein. As it were, the present petition questions only and focuses on the March 28, 199520 and March 13, 199721 resolutions, which merely reiterated and clarified the graft courts underlying resolution of December 6, 1994. And to place matters in the proper perspective, PCGGs failure to comply with the December 6, 1994 resolution prompted the issuance of the clarificatory and/or reiteratory resolutions aforementioned. In a last-ditch attempt to escape liability, petitioner Republic, through the PCGG, invokes state immunity from suit.22 As argued, the order for it to pay the value of the delinquent shares would fix monetary liability on a government agency, thus necessitating the appropriation of public funds to satisfy the judgment claim.23 But, as private respondent Benedicto correctly countered, the PCGG fails to take stock of one of the exceptions to the state immunity principle, i.e., when the government itself is the suitor, as in Civil Case No. 0034. Where, as here, the

State itself is no less the plaintiff in the main case, immunity from suit cannot be effectively invoked.24 For, as jurisprudence teaches, when the State, through its duly authorized officers, takes the initiative in a suit against a private party, it thereby descends to the level of a private individual and thus opens itself to whatever counterclaims or defenses the latter may have against it.25 Petitioner Republics act of filing its complaint in Civil Case No. 0034 constitutes a waiver of its immunity from suit. Being itself the plaintiff in that case, petitioner Republic cannot set up its immunity against private respondent Benedictos prayers in the same case. In fact, by entering into a Compromise Agreement with private respondent Benedicto, petitioner Republic thereby stripped itself of its immunity from suit and placed itself in the same level of its adversary. When the State enters into contract, through its officers or agents, in furtherance of a legitimate aim and purpose and pursuant to constitutional legislative authority, whereby mutual or reciprocal benefits accrue and rights and obligations arise therefrom, the State may be sued even without its express consent, precisely because by entering into a contract the sovereign descends to the level of the citizen. Its consent to be sued is implied from the very act of entering into such contract,26 breach of which on its part gives the corresponding right to the other party to the agreement. Finally, it is apropos to stress that the Compromise Agreement in Civil Case No. 0034 envisaged the immediate recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth without further litigation by the government, and buying peace on the part of the aging Benedicto.27 Sadly, that stated objective has come to naught as not only had the litigation continued to ensue, but, worse, private respondent Benedicto passed away on May 15, 2000,28 with the trial of Civil Case No. 0034 still in swing, so much so that the late Benedicto had to be substituted by the administratrix of his estate.29 WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-23139

December 17, 1966

MOBIL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION, INC., plaintiff-appellant, vs. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE and BUREAU of CUSTOMS, defendants-appellees. Alejandro Basin, Jr. and Associates for plaintiff-appellant. Felipe T. Cuison for defendants-appellees. BENGZON, J.P., J.: Four cases of rotary drill parts were shipped from abroad on S.S. "Leoville" sometime in November of 1962, consigned to Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc., Manila. The shipment arrived at the Port of Manila on April 10, 1963, and was discharged to the custody of the Customs Arrastre Service, the unit of the Bureau of Customs then handling arrastre operations therein. The Customs Arrastre Service later delivered to the broker of the consignee three cases only of the shipment. On April 4, 1964 Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc., filed suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Customs Arrastre Service and the Bureau of Customs to recover the value of the undelivered case in the amount of P18,493.37 plus other damages. On April 20, 1964 the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that not being persons under the law, defendants cannot be sued. After plaintiff opposed the motion, the court, on April 25, 1964, dismissed the complaint on the ground that neither the Customs Arrastre Service nor the Bureau of Customs is suable. Plaintiff appealed to Us from the order of dismissal. Raised, therefore, in this appeal is the purely legal question of the defendants' suability under the facts stated. Appellant contends that not all government entities are immune from suit; that defendant Bureau of Customs as operator of the arrastre service at the Port of Manila, is discharging proprietary functions and as such, can be sued by private individuals. The Rules of Court, in Section 1, Rule 3, provide: SECTION 1. Who may be parties.Only natural or juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. Accordingly, 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. Neither the Bureau of Customs nor (a fortiori) its function unit, the Customs Arrastre Service, is a person. They are merely parts of the machinery of Government. The Bureau of Customs is a bureau under the Department of Finance (Sec. 81, Revised Administrative Code); and as stated, the Customs Arrastre Service is a unit of the Bureau of Custom, set up under Customs Administrative Order No. 8-62 of November 9, 1962 (Annex "A" to Motion to Dismiss, pp. 13-15, Record an Appeal). It follows that the defendants herein cannot he sued under the first two abovementioned categories of natural or juridical persons. Nonetheless it is urged that by authorizing the Bureau of Customs to engage in arrastre service, the law therebyimpliedly authorizes it to be sued as arrastre operator, for the reason that the nature of this function (arrastre service) is proprietary, not governmental. Thus, insofar as arrastre operation is concerned, appellant would put defendants under the third category of "entities authorized by law" to be sued. Stated differently, it is argued that while there is no law expressly authorizing the Bureau of Customs to sue or be sued, still its capacity to be sued is implied from its very power to render arrastre service at the Port of Manila, which it is alleged, amounts to the transaction of a private business.

The statutory provision on arrastre service is found in Section 1213 of Republic Act 1937 (Tariff and Customs Code, effective June 1, 1957), and it states: SEC. 1213. Receiving, Handling, Custody and Delivery of Articles.The Bureau of Customs shall have exclusive supervision and control over the receiving, handling, custody and delivery of articles on the wharves and piers at all ports of entry and in the exercise of its functions it is hereby authorized to acquire, take over, operate and superintend such plants and facilities as may be necessary for the receiving, handling, custody and delivery of articles, and the convenience and comfort of passengers and the handling of baggage; as well as to acquire fire protection equipment for use in the piers: Provided, That whenever in his judgment the receiving, handling, custody and delivery of articles can be carried on by private parties with greater efficiency, the Commissioner may, after public bidding and subject to the approval of the department head, contract with any private party for the service of receiving, handling, custody and delivery of articles, and in such event, the contract may include the sale or lease of government-owned equipment and facilities used in such service. In Associated Workers Union, et al. vs. Bureau of Customs, et al., L-21397, resolution of August 6, 1963, this Court indeed held "that the foregoing statutory provisions authorizing the grant by contract to any private party of the right to render said arrastre services necessarily imply that the same is deemed by Congress to be proprietary or nongovernmental function." The issue in said case, however, was whether laborers engaged in arrastre service fall under the concept of employees in the Government employed in governmental functions for purposes of the prohibition in Section 11, Republic Act 875 to the effect that "employees in the Government . . . shall not strike," but "may belong to any labor organization which does not impose the obligation to strike or to join in strike," which prohibition "shall apply only to employees employed in governmental functions of the Government . . . . Thus, the ruling therein was that the Court of Industrial Relations had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, but not that the Bureau of Customs can be sued. Said issue of suability was not resolved, the resolution stating only that "the issue on the personality or lack of personality of the Bureau of Customs to be sued does not affect the jurisdiction of the lower court over the subject matter of the case, aside from the fact that amendment may be made in the pleadings by the inclusion as respondents of the public officers deemed responsible, for the unfair labor practice acts charged by petitioning Unions". Now, the fact that a non-corporate government entity performs a function proprietary in nature does not necessarily result in its being suable. If said non-governmental function is undertaken as an incident to its governmental function, there is no waiver thereby of the sovereign immunity from suit extended to such government entity. This is the doctrine recognized in Bureau of Printing, et al. vs. Bureau of Printing Employees Association, et al., L-15751, January 28, 1961: The Bureau of Printing is an office of the Government created by the Administrative Code of 1916 (Act No. 2657). 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 . . . ." (Sec. 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. . . . 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 emoloyed in its general governmental functions. 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. (See Metran

vs. Paredes, 45 Off. Gaz. 2835; Angat River Irrigation System, et al. vs. Angat River Workers Union, et al., G.R. Nos. L-10943-44, December 28, 1957.) The situation here is not materially different. The Bureau of Customs, to repeat, is part of the Department of Finance (Sec. 81, Rev. Adm. Code), with no personality of its own apart from that of the national government. Its primary function is governmental, that of assessing and collecting lawful revenues from imported articles and all other tariff and customs duties, fees, charges, fines and penalties (Sec. 602, R.A. 1937). To this function, arrastre service is a necessary incident. For practical reasons said revenues and customs duties can not be assessed and collected by simply receiving the importer's or ship agent's or consignee's declaration of merchandise being imported and imposing the duty provided in the Tariff law. Customs authorities and officers must see to it that the declaration tallies with the merchandise actually landed. And this checking up requires that the landed merchandise be hauled from the ship's side to a suitable place in the customs premises to enable said customs officers to make it, that is, it requires arrastre operations.1 Clearly, therefore, although said arrastre function may be deemed proprietary, it is a necessary incident of the primary and governmental function of the Bureau of Customs, so that engaging in the same does not necessarily render said Bureau liable to suit. For otherwise, it could not perform its governmental function without necessarily exposing itself to suit. Sovereign immunity, granted as to the end, should not be denied as to the necessary means to that end. And herein lies the distinction between the present case and that of National Airports Corporation vs. Teodoro, 91 Phil. 203, on which appellant would rely. For there, the Civil Aeronautics Administration was found have for its prime reason for existence not a governmental but a proprietary function, so that to it the latter was not a mere incidental function: Among the general powers of the Civil Aeronautics Administration are, under Section 3, to execute contracts of any kind, to purchase property, and to grant concessions rights, and under Section 4, to charge landing fees, royalties on sales to aircraft of aviation gasoline, accessories and supplies, and rentals for the use of any property under its management. These provisions confer upon the Civil Aeronautics Administration, in our opinion, the power to sue and be sued. The power to sue and be sued is implied from the power to transact private business. . . . The Civil Aeronautics Administration comes under the category of a private entity. Although not a body corporate it was created, like the National Airports Corporation, not to maintain a necessary function of government, but to run what is essentially a business, even if revenues be not its prime objective but rather the promotion of travel and the convenience of the travelling public. . . . Regardless of the merits of the claim against it, the State, for obvious reasons of public policy, cannot be sued without its consent. Plaintiff should have filed its present claim to the General Auditing Office, it being for money under the provisions of Commonwealth Act 327, which state the conditions under which money claims against the Government may be filed. It must be remembered that statutory provisions waiving State immunity from suit are strictly construed and that waiver of immunity, being in derogation of sovereignty, will not be lightly inferred. (49 Am. Jur., States, Territories and Dependencies, Sec. 96, p. 314; Petty vs. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Com., 359 U.S. 275, 3 L. Ed. 804, 79 S. Ct. 785). From the provision authorizing the Bureau of Customs to lease arrastre operations to private parties, We see no authority to sue the said Bureau in the instances where it undertakes to conduct said operation itself. The Bureau of Customs, acting as part of the machinery of the national government in the operation of the arrastre service, pursuant to express legislative mandate and as a necessary incident of its prime governmental function, is immune from suit, there being no statute to the contrary. WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant. So ordered.

G.R. No. L-33112 June 15, 1978 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE JAVIER PABALAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance, Branch III, La Union, AGOO TOBACCO PLANTERS ASSOCIATION, INC., PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION, and PANFILO P. JIMENEZ, Deputy Sheriff, La Union, respondents. Conrado E. Medina, Edgardo M. Magtalas & Walfrido Climaco for petitioner. Felimon A. Aspirin fit respondent Agoo 'Tobacco Planters Association, Inc. Virgilio C. Abejo for respondent Phil. Virginia Tobacco Administration.

FERNANDO, Acting C.J.: The reliance of petitioner Philippine National Bank in this certiorari and prohibition proceeding against respondent Judge Javier Pabalan who issued a writ of execution, 1 followed thereafter by a notice of garnishment of the funds of respondent Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration, 2 deposited with it, is on the fundamental constitutional law doctrine of non-suability of a state, it being alleged that such funds are public in character. This is not the first time petitioner raised that issue. It did so before in Philippine National Bank v. Court of industrial Relations, 3decided only last January. It did not meet with success, this Court ruling in accordance with the two previous cases of National Shipyard and Steel Corporation 4 and Manila Hotel Employees Association v. Manila Hotel Company, 5that funds of public corporations which can sue and be sued were not exempt from garnishment. As respondent Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration is likewise a public corporation possessed of the same attributes, 6 a similar outcome is indicated. This petition must be dismissed. It is undisputed that the judgment against respondent Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration had reached the stage of finality. A writ of execution was, therefore, in order. It was accordingly issued on December 17, 1970. 7There was a notice of garnishment for the full amount mentioned in such writ of execution in the sum of P12,724,66. 8 In view of the objection, however, by petitioner Philippine National Bank on the above ground, coupled with an inquiry as to whether or not respondent Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration had funds deposited with petitioner's La Union branch, it was not until January 25, 1971 that the order sought to be set aside in this certiorari proceeding was issued by respondent Judge. 9 Its dispositive portion reads as follows: Conformably with the foregoing, it is now ordered, in accordance with law, that sufficient funds of the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration now deposited with the Philippine National Bank, La Union Branch, 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 of November 16, 1970." 10 Hence this certiorari and prohibition proceeding. As noted at the outset, petitioner Philippine National Bank would invoke the doctrine of non-suability. It is to be admitted that under the present Constitution, what was formerly implicit as a fundamental doctrine in constitutional law has been set forth in express terms: "The State may not be sued without its consent." 11 If the funds appertained to one of the regular departments or offices in the government, then, certainly, such a provision would be a bar to garnishment. Such is not the case here. Garnishment would lie. Only last January, as noted in the opening paragraph of this decision, this Court, in a case brought by the same petitioner precisely invoking such a doctrine, left no doubt that the funds of public corporations could properly be made the object of a notice of garnishment. Accordingly, this petition must fail. 1. The alleged grave abuse of discretion, the basis of this certiorari proceeding, was sought to be justified on the failure of respondent Judge to set aside the notice of garnishment of funds belonging to respondent Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration. This excerpt from the aforecited decision of Philippine National Bank v. Court of Industrial Relations makes manifest why such an argument is far from persuasive. "The premise that the funds could be spoken as public character may be accepted in the sense that the People Homesite and Housing Corporation was a government-owned entity. It does not follow though that they were exempt. from garnishment. National Shipyard and Steel Corporation v. Court of Industrial Relations is squarely in point. As was explicitly stated

in the opinion of the then Justice, later Chief Justice, Concepcion: "The allegation to the effect that the funds of the NASSCO are public funds of the government, and that, as such, the same may not be garnished, attached or levied upon, is untenable for, as a government owned and controlled corporation, the NASSCO has a personality of its own. distinct and separate from that of the Government. It has pursuant to Section 2 of Executive Order No. 356, dated October 23, 1950 ... , pursuant to which The NASSCO has been established all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law ... ." Accordingly, it may be sue and be sued and may be subjected to court processes just like any other corporation (Section 13, Act No. 1459, as amended.)" ... To repeat, the ruling was the appropriate remedy for the prevailing party which could proceed against the funds of a corporate entity even if owned or controlled by the government." 12 2. The National Shipyard and Steel Corporation decision was not the first of its kind. The ruling therein could be inferred from the judgment announced in Manila Hotel Employees Association v. Manila Hotel Company, decided as far back as 1941. 13 In the language of its ponente Justice Ozaeta "On the other hand, it is well-settled that when the government enters into commercial business, it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation. (Bank of the United States v. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat. 904, 6 L.ed. 244). By engaging in a particular business thru the instrumentality of a corporation, the government divests itself pro hac vice of its sovereign character, so as to render the corporation subject to the rules of law governing private corporations." 14It is worth mentioning that Justice Ozaeta could find support for such a pronouncement from the leading American Supreme Court case of united States v. Planters' Bank, 15 with the opinion coming from the illustrious Chief Justice Marshall. It was handed down more than one hundred fifty years ago, 1824 to be exact. It is apparent, therefore, that petitioner Bank could it legally set forth as a bar or impediment to a notice of garnishment the doctrine of non-suability. WHEREFORE, this petition for certiorari and prohibition is dismissed. No costs.

G.R. No. L-31635 August 31, 1971 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. FERNANDO, J.: What is before this Court for determination in this appeal by certiorari to review a decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu is the question of 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 Highway Commissioner and the Auditor General, in their capacity as public officials without thereby violating the principle of government immunity from suit without its consent. The lower court, relying on what it considered to be authoritative precedents, held that they could not and dismissed the suit. The matter was then elevated to us. After a careful consideration and with a view to avoiding the grave inconvenience, not to say possible injustice contrary to the constitutional mandate, that would be the result if no such suit were permitted, this Court arrives at a different conclusion, and sustains the right of the plaintiff to file a suit of this character. Accordingly, we reverse. Petitioners as plaintiffs 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 it 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 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 the registered owners of Lot 647-B of the Banilad estate described in the Survey plan RS-600 GLRO Record No. 5988 and more particularly described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-5963 containing an area of 1,045 square meters; That the National Government in 1927 took possession of Lot 647-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 as yet paid the value of the land which is being utilized for public use." 1 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 its consent having been manifested met with a favorable response. Thus: "It is uncontroverted 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 and the original owner and whether 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 be sued in this case. It may be contended that the present case is brought against the Public Highway Commissioner and the Auditor General and not against the National Government. 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." 2 Then came this petition for certiorari to review the above decision. The principal error assigned would impugn the holding that the case being against the national government which was sued without its consent should be dismissed, as it was in fact dismissed. As was indicated in the opening paragraph of this opinion, this assignment of error is justified. The decision of the lower court cannot stand. We shall proceed to explain why.

1. The government is immune from suit without its consent. 3 Nor is it indispensable that it be the party proceeded against. If it appears that the action, would in fact hold it liable, the doctrine calls for application. It follows then that even if the defendants named were public officials, such a principle could still be an effective bar. This is clearly so where a litigation would result in a financial responsibility for the government, whether in the disbursements of funds or loss of property. Under such circumstances, the liability of the official sued is not personal. The party that could be adversely affected is government. Hence the defense of non-suability may be interposed. 4 So it has been categorically set forth in Syquia v. Almeda Lopez: 5 "However, and this is important, where the judgment in such a case would result not only in the recovery of possession of the property in favor of said citizen but also in a charge against or financial liability to the Government, then the suit should be regarded as one against the government itself, and, consequently, it cannot prosper or be validly entertained by the courts except with the consent of said Government." 6 2. 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 plaintiff. As was clearly set forth by Justice Zaldivar in Director of the Bureau of Telecommunications v. Aligean: 7 "Inasmuch as the State authorizes only legal acts by its officers, 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." 8 3. It would follow then that the prayer in the amended complaint of petitioners being in the alternative, the lower court, instead of dismissing the same, could have passed upon the claim of plaintiffs there, now petitioners, for the recovery of the possession of the disputed lot, since no proceeding for eminent domain, as required by the then Code of Civil Procedure, was instituted. 9 However, as noted in Alfonso v. Pasay City, 10 this Court speaking through Justice Montemayor, restoration would be "neither convenient nor feasible because it is now and has been used for road purposes." 11 The only relief, in the opinion of this Court, would be for the government "to make due compensation, ..." 12 It was made clear in such decision that compensation should have been made "as far back as the date of the taking." Does it result, therefore, that petitioners would be absolutely remediless since recovery of possession is in effect barred by the above decision? If the constitutional mandate that the owner be compensated for property taken for public use 13 were to be respected, as it should, then a suit of this character should not be summarily dismissed. The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. Had the government followed the procedure indicated by the governing law at the time, a complaint would have been filed by it, and only upon payment of the compensation fixed by the judgment, or after tender to the party entitled to such payment of the amount fixed, may it "have the right to enter in and upon the land so condemned" to appropriate the same to the public use defined in the judgment." 14 If there were an observance of procedural regularity, petitioners would not be in the sad plaint they are now. It is unthinkable then that precisely because there was a failure to abide by what the law requires, the government would stand to benefit. It is just as important, if not more so, that there be fidelity to legal norms on the part of officialdom if the rule of law were to be maintained. It is not too much to say that when the government takes any property for public use, which is conditioned upon the payment of just compensation, to be judicially ascertained, it makes manifest that it submits to the jurisdiction of a court. There is no thought then that the doctrine of immunity from suit could still be appropriately invoked. 15 Accordingly, the lower court decision is reversed so that the court may proceed with the complaint and determine the compensation to which petitioners are entitled, taking into account the ruling in the above Alfonso case: "As to the value of the property, although the plaintiff claims the present market value thereof, the rule is that to determine due compensation for lands appropriated by the Government, the basis should be the price or value at the time that it was taken from the owner and appropriated by the Government." 16 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.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH vs. PHIL. PHARMAWEALTH, INC. 518 SCRA 240 CARPIO MORALES, J.: Assailed via petition for review are issuances of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 84457, to wit: a) Decision[1] dated May 12, 2005 which affirmed the order issued by Judge Leoncio M. Janolo, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 264 denying petitioners motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 68208; and b) Resolution[2] dated August 9, 2005 which denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. Phil. Pharmawealth, Inc. (respondent) is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying pharmaceutical products to government hospitals in the Philippines. On December 22, 1998, then Secretary of Health Alberto G. Romualdez, Jr. issued Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 27,[3] Series of 1998, outlining the guidelines and procedures on the accreditation of government suppliers for pharmaceutical products. A.O. No. 27 was later amended by A.O. No. 10,[4] Series of 2000, providing for additional guidelines for accreditation of drug suppliers aimed at ensuring that only qualified bidders can transact business with petitioner Department of Health (DOH). Part V of A.O. No. 10 reads, in part:

1. Drug Manufacturer, Drug Trader and Drug Importer shall be allowed to apply for accreditation. 2. 3. products. Accreditation shall be done by the Central Office-Department of Health. A separate accreditation is required for the drug suppliers and for their specific

12. Only products accredited by the Committee shall be allowed to be procured by the DOH and all other entities under its jurisdiction.[5] (Underscoring supplied) On May 9, 2000[6] and May 29, 2000,[7] respondent submitted to petitioner DOH a request for the inclusion of additional items in its list of accredited drug products, including the antibiotic Penicillin G Benzathine. Based on the schedule provided by petitioner DOH, it appears that processing of and release of the result of respondents request were due on September 2000, the last month of the quarter following the date of its filing.[8] Sometime in September 2000, petitioner DOH, through petitioner Antonio M. Lopez, chairperson of the prequalifications, bids and awards committee, issued an Invitation for Bids[9] for the procurement of 1.2 million units vials of Penicillin G Benzathine (Penicillin G Benzathine contract). Despite the lack of response from petitioner DOH regarding respondents request for inclusion of additional items in its list of accredited products, respondent submitted its bid for the Penicillin G Benzathine contract. When the bids were opened on October 11, 2000, only two companies participated, with respondent submitting the lower bid atP82.24 per unit, compared to Cathay/YSS Laboratories (YSS) bid of P95.00 per unit. In view, however, of the non-accreditation of respondents Penicillin G Benzathine product, the contract was awarded to YSS. Respondent thus filed a complaint[10] for injunction, mandamus and damages with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City praying, inter alia, that the trial court nullify the award of the Penicillin G Benzathine contract (IFB No. 2000 -10-11 [14]) to YSS Laboratories, Inc. and direct defendant DOH, defendant Romualdez, defendant Galon and defendant Lopez to declare plaintiff Pharmawealth as the lowest complying responsible bidder for the Benzathine contract, and that they accordingly award the same to plaintiff company and adjudge defendants Romualdez, Galon and Lopez liable, jointly and severally to plaintiff, for [the therein specified damages].[11] In their Comment,[12] petitioner DOH, Secretary Alberto Romualdez, Jr. who was later succeeded by petitioner Secretary Manuel M. Dayrit, and individual petitioners Undersecretaries Margarita Galon and Antonio Lopez argued for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit in view of the express reservation made by

petitioner DOH to accept or reject any or all bids without incurring liability to the bidders, they positing that government agencies have such full discretion. Petitioners subsequently filed a Manifestation and Motion[13] (motion to dismiss) praying for the outright dismissal of the complaint based on the doctrine of state immunity. Additionally, they alleged that respondents representative was not duly authorized by its board of directors to file the complaint. To petitioners motion to dismiss, respondent filed its comment/opposition[14] contending, in the main, that the doctrine of state immunity is not applicable considering that individual petitioners are being sued both in their official and personal capacities, hence, they, not the state, would be liable for damages. By Order of December 8, 2003, the trial court[15] denied petitioners motion to dismiss. Their motion for reconsideration having been denied,[16] petitioners filed a petition for certiorari[17] with the Court of Appeals, before which they maintained that the suit is against the state. By the assailed Decision[18] of May 12, 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts Order. And by Resolution of August 9, 2005, it denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. Hence, the instant petition for review which raises the sole issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the denial of petitioners motion to dismiss. The petition fails. The suability of a government official depends on whether the official concerned was acting within his official or jurisdictional capacity, and whether the acts done in the performance of official functions will result in a charge or financial liability against the government. In the first case, the Constitution itself assures the availability of judicial review,[19] and it is the official concerned who should be impleaded as the proper party.[20] In its complaint, respondent sufficiently imputes grave abuse of discretion against petitioners in their official capacity. Since judicial review of acts alleged to have been tainted with grave abuse of discretion is guaranteed by the Constitution, it necessarily follows that it is the official concerned who should be impleaded as defendant or respondent in an appropriate suit.[21] Moreover, part of the reliefs prayed for by respondent is the enjoinment of the implementation, as well as the nullification of the award to YSS, the grant of which may not be enforced against individual petitioners and their successors except in their official capacities as officials of the DOH.[22] As regards petitioner DOH, the defense of immunity from suit will not avail despite its being an unincorporated agency of the government, for the only causes of action directed against it are preliminary injunction and mandamus. Under Section 1, Rule 58[23] of the Rules of Court, preliminary injunction may be directed against a party or a court, agency or a person. Moreover, the defense of state immunity from suit does not apply in causes of action which do not seek to impose a charge or financial liability against the State.[24] As regards individual petitioners suability for damages, the following discussion on the applicability of the defense of state immunity from suit is relevant. The rule that a state may not be sued without its consent, now embodied in Section 3, Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution, is one of the generally accepted principles of international law, which we have now adopted as part of the law of the land.[25] While the doctrine of state immunity appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent, it is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties.[26] The suit is regarded as one against the state where satisfaction of the judgment against the officials will require the state itself to perform a positive act, such as the appropriation of the amount necessary to pay the damages awarded against them.[27] The rule, however, is not so all-encompassing as to be applicable under all circumstances. Shauf v. Court of Appeals[28] elucidates:

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 plaintiff. As was clearly set forth by Justice Zaldivar in Director of the Bureau of Telecommunications, et al. vs. Aligaen, etc., et al.,[29] Inasmuch as the State authorizes only legal acts by its officers, 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. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Hence, the rule does not apply where the public official is charged in his official capacity for acts that are unauthorized or unlawful and injurious to the rights of others. Neither does it apply where the public official is clearly being sued not in his official capacity but in his personal capacity, although the acts complained of may have been committed while he occupied a public position.[30] In the present case, suing individual petitioners in their personal capacities for damages in connection with their alleged act of illegal[ly] abus[ing] their official positions to make sure that plaintiff Pharmawealth would not be awarded the Benzathine contract [which act was] done in bad faith and with full knowledge of the limits and breadth of their powers given by law[31] is permissible, in consonance with the foregoing principles. For an officer who exceeds the power conferred on him by law cannot hide behind the plea of sovereign immunity and must bear the liability personally.[32] It bears stressing, however, that the statements in the immediately foregoing paragraph in no way reflect a ruling on the actual liability of petitioners to respondent. The mere allegation that a government official is being sued in his personal capacity does not automatically remove the same from the protection of the doctrine of state immunity. Neither, upon the other hand, does the mere invocation of official character suffice to insulate such official from suability and liability for an act committed without or in excess of his or her authority.[33] These are matters of evidence which should be presented and proven at the trial. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated May 12, 2005 and Resolution dated August 9, 2005 issued by the Court of Appeals areAFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-29993 October 23, 1978 LAUDENCIO TORIO, GUILLERMO EVANGELISTA, MANUEL DE GUZMAN, ALFONSO R. MAGSANOC, JESUS MACARANAS, MAXIMO MANANGAN, FIDEL MONTEMAYOR, MELCHOR VIRAY, RAMON TULAGAN, all Members of the Municipal Council of Malasiqui in 1959, Malasiqui, Pangasinan, petitioners, vs. ROSALINA, ANGELINA, LEONARDO, EDUARDO, ARTEMIO, ANGELITA, ANITA, ERNESTO, NORMA, VIRGINIA, REMEDIOS and ROBERTO, all surnamed FONTANILLA, and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,respondents. G.R. No. L-30183 October 23, 1978 MUNICIPALITY OF MALASIQUI, petitioner, vs. ROSALINA, ANGELINA, LEONARDO, EDUARDO, ARTEMIO, ANGELITA, ANITA, ERNESTO, NORMA, VIRGINIA, REMEDIOS and ROBERTO, all surnamed FONTANILLA, and the Honorable COURT OF APPEALS,respondents. MUOZ PALMA, J.: These Petitions for review present the issue of whether or not the celebration of a town fiesta authorized by a municipal council under Sec. 2282 of the Municipal Law as embodied in the Revised Administrative Code is a governmental or a corporate or proprietary function of the municipality. A resolution of that issue will lead to another, viz the civil liability for damages of the Municipality of Malasiqui, and the members of the Municipal Council of Malasiqui, province of Pangasinan, for a death which occurred during the celebration of the town fiesta on January 22, 1959, and which was attributed to the negligence of the municipality and its council members. The following facts are not in dispute: 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" which in turn organized a sub-committee on entertainment and stage, with Jose Macaraeg as Chairman. the council appropriated the amount of P100.00 for the construction of 2 stages, one for the "zarzuela" and another for the cancionan Jose Macaraeg supervised the construction of the stage and as constructed the stage for the "zarzuela" was "5- meters by 8 meters in size, had a wooden floor high at the rear and was supported by 24 bamboo posts 4 in a row in front, 4 in the rear and 5 on each side with bamboo braces." 1 The "zarzuela" entitled "Midas Extravaganza" was donated by an association of Malasiqui employees of the Manila Railroad Company in Caloocan, Rizal. The troupe arrived in the evening of January 22 for the performance and one of the members of the group was Vicente Fontanilla. The program started at about 10:15 o'clock that evening with some speeches, and many persons went up the stage. The "zarzuela" then began but before the dramatic part of the play was reached, the stage collapsed and Vicente Fontanilla who was at the rear of the stage was pinned underneath. Fontanilia was taken to tile San Carlos General Hospital where he died in the afternoon of the following day. The heirs of Vicente Fontanilia filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Manila on September 11, 1959 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 in 1959. Answering the complaint defendant municipality invoked inter alia the principal defense that as a legally and duly organized public corporation it performs sovereign functions and the holding of a town fiesta was an exercise of its governmental functions from which no liability can arise to answer for the negligence of any of its agents.

The defendant councilors inturn maintained that they merely acted as agents of the municipality in carrying out the municipal ordinance providing for the management of the town fiesta celebration and as such they are likewise not liable for damages as the undertaking was not one for profit; furthermore, they had exercised due care and diligence in implementing the municipal ordinance. 2 After trial, the Presiding Judge, Hon. Gregorio T. Lantin narrowed the issue to whether or not the defendants exercised due diligence 'm the construction of the stage. From his findings he arrived at the conclusion that the Executive Committee appointed by the municipal council had exercised due diligence and care like a good father of the family in selecting a competent man to construct a stage strong enough for the occasion and that if it collapsed that was due to forces beyond the control of the committee on entertainment, consequently, the defendants were not liable for damages for the death of Vicente Fontanilla. The complaint was accordingly dismissed in a decision dated July 10, 1962. 3 The Fontanillas appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a decision Promulgated on October 31, 1968, the Court of Appeals through its Fourth Division composed at the time of Justices Salvador V. Esguerra, Nicasio A. Yatco and Eulogio S. Serrano reversed the trial court's decision and ordered all the defendants-appellees to pay jointly and severally the heirs of Vicente Fontanilla the sums of P12,000.00 by way of moral and actual damages: P1200.00 its attorney's fees; and the costs. 4 The case is now before Us on various assignments of errors all of which center on the proposition stated at the sentence of this Opinion and which We repeat: Is the celebration of a town fiesta an undertaking in the excercise of a municipality's governmental or public function or is it or a private or proprietary character? 1. Under Philippine laws municipalities are political bodies corporate and as such ag endowed with the faculties of municipal corporations to be exercised by and through their respective municipal governments in conformity with law, and in their proper corporate name, they may inter alia sue and be sued, and contract and be contracted with.5 The powers of a municipality are twofold in character public, governmental or political on the one hand, and corporate, private, or proprietary on the other. Governmental powers are those exercised by the corporation in administering the powers of the state and promoting the public welfare and they include the legislative, judicial public, and political Municipal powers on the other hand are exercised for the special benefit and advantage of the community and include those which are ministerial private and corporate. 6 As to when a certain activity is governmental and when proprietary or private, that is generally a difficult matter to determine. The evolution of the municipal law in American Jurisprudence, for instance, has shown that; none of the tests which have evolved and are stated in textbooks have set down a conclusive principle or rule, so that each case will have to be determined on the basis of attending circumstances. In McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, the rule is stated thus: "A municipal corporation proper has ... a public character as regards the state at large insofar as it is its agent in government, and private (so-called) insofar as it is to promote local necessities and conveniences for its own community. 7 Another statement of the test is given in City of Kokomo v. Loy, decided by the Supreme Court of Indiana in 1916, thus: Municipal corporations exist in a dual capacity, and their functions are two fold. In one they exercise the right springing from sovereignty, and while in the performance of the duties pertaining thereto, their acts are political and governmental Their officers and agents in such capacity, though elected or appointed by the are nevertheless public functionaries performing a public service, and as such they are officers, agents, and servants of the state. In the other capacity the municipalities exercise a private. proprietary or corporate right, arising from their existence as legal persons and not as public agencies. Their officers and agents in the performance of such functions act in behalf of the municipalities in their corporate or in. individual capacity, and not for the state or sovereign power. (112 N. E 994-995)

In the early Philippine case of Mendoza v. de Leon 1916, the Supreme Court, through Justice Grant T. Trent, relying mainly on American Jurisprudence classified certain activities of the municipality as governmental, e.g.: regulations against fire, disease, preservation of public peace, maintenance of municipal prisons, establishment of schools, post-offices, etc. while the following are corporate or proprietary in character, viz: municipal waterwork, slaughter houses, markets, stables, bathing establishments, wharves, ferries, and fisheries. 8 Maintenance of parks, golf courses, cemeteries and airports among others, are also recognized as municipal or city activities of a proprietary character. 9 2. This distinction of powers becomes important for purposes of determining the liability of the municipality for the acts of its agents which result in an injury to third persons. If the injury is caused in the course of the performance of a governmental function or duty no recovery, as a rule, can be. had from the municipality unless there is an existing statute on the matter, 10 nor from its officers, so long as they performed their duties honestly and in good faith or that they did not act wantonly and maliciously. 11 InPalafox, et al., v. Province of Ilocos Norte, et al., 1958, a truck driver employed by the provincial government of Ilocos Norte ran over Proceto Palafox in the course of his work at the construction of a road. The Supreme Court in affirming the trial court's dismissal of the complaint for damages held that the province could not be made liable because its employee was in the performance of a governmental function the construction and maintenance of roads and however tragic and deplorable it may be, the death of Palafox imposed on the province no duty to pay monetary consideration. 12 With respect to proprietary functions, the settled rule is that a municipal corporation can be held liable to third persons ex contract 13 or ex delicto. 14 Municipal corporations are subject to be sued upon contracts and in tort. ... The rule of law is a general one, that the superior or employer must answer civilly for the negligence or want of skill of its agent or servant in the course or fine of his employment, by which another, who is free from contributory fault, is injured. Municipal corporations under the conditions herein stated, fall within the operation of this rule of law, and are liable, accordingly, to civil actions for damages when the requisite elements of liability co-exist. ... (Dillon on Municipal Corporations, 5th ed. Sec. 1610,1647, cited in Mendoza v. de Leon, supra. 514) 3. Coming to the cam before Us, and applying the general tests given above, We hold that the ho of the town fiesta in 1959 by the municipality of Malsiqui Pangasinan was an exercise of a private or proprietary function of the municipality. Section 2282 of the Chatter on Municipal Law of the Revised Administrative Code provides: Section 2282. Celebration of fiesta. fiesta may be held in each municipality not oftener than once a year upon a date fixed by the municipal council A fiesta s not be held upon any other date than that lawfully fixed therefor, except when, for weighty reasons, such as typhoons, foundations, earthquakes, epidemics, or other public ties, the fiesta cannot be hold in the date fixed in which case it may be held at a later date in the same year, by resolution of the council. This provision simply gives authority to the municipality to accelebrate a yearly fiesta but it does not impose upon it a duty to observe one. Holding a fiesta even if the purpose is to commemorate a religious or historical event of the town is in essence an act for the special benefit of the community and not for the general welfare of the public performed in pursuance of a policy of the state. The mere fact that the celebration, as claimed was not to secure profit or gain but merely to provide entertainment to the town inhabitants is not a conclusive test. For instance, the maintenance of parks is not a source of income for the nonetheless it is private undertaking as distinguished from the maintenance of public schools, jails, and the like which are for public service. As stated earlier, there can be no hard and fast rule for purposes of determining the true nature of an undertaking or function of a municipality; the surrounding circumstances of a particular case are to be considered and will be decisive. The basic element, however beneficial to the public the undertaking may be, is that it is governmental in

essence, otherwise. the function becomes private or proprietary in character. Easily, no overnmental or public policy of the state is involved in the celebration of a town fiesta. 15 4. It follows that under the doctrine of respondent superior, petitioner-municipality is to be held liable for damages for the death of Vicente Fontanilia if that was at- tributable to the negligence of the municipality's officers, employees, or agents. Art. 2176, Civil Code: Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. . . Art. 2180, Civil Code: The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or omission, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. . . On this point, the Court of Appeals found and held that there was negligence. The trial court gave credence to the testimony of Angel Novado, a witness of the defendants (now petitioners), that a member of the "extravaganza troupe removed two principal braces located on the front portion of the stage and u them to hang the screen or "telon", and that when many people went up the stage the latter collapsed. This testimony was not believed however by respondent appellate court, and rightly so. According to said defendants, those two braces were "mother" or "principal" braces located semi-diagonally from the front ends of the stage to the front posts of the ticket booth located at the rear of the stage and were fastened with a bamboo twine. 16 That being the case, it becomes incredible that any person in his right mind would remove those principal braces and leave the front portion of the stage practically unsuported Moreover, if that did happen, there was indeed negligence as there was lack of suspension over the use of the stage to prevent such an occurrence. At any rate, the guitarist who was pointed to by Novado as the person who removed the two bamboo braces denied having done go. The Court of Appeals said "Amor by himself alone could not have removed the two braces which must be about ten meters long and fastened them on top of the stags for the curtain. The stage was only five and a half meters wide. Surely, it, would be impractical and unwieldy to use a ten meter bamboo pole, much more two poles for the stage curtain. 17 The appellate court also found that the stage was not strong enough considering that only P100.00 was appropriate for the construction of two stages and while the floor of the "zarzuela" stage was of wooden planks, the Post and braces used were of bamboo material We likewise observe that although the stage was described by the Petitioners as being supported by "24" posts, nevertheless there were only 4 in front, 4 at the rear, and 5 on each side. Where were the rest? The Court of Appeals thus concluded The court a quo itself attributed the collapse of the stage to the great number of onlookers who mounted the stage. The municipality and/or its agents had the necessary means within its command to prevent such an occurrence. Having filed to take the necessary steps to maintain the safety of the stage for the use of the participants in the stage presentation prepared in connection with the celebration of the town fiesta, particularly, in preventing non participants or spectators from mounting and accumulating on the stage which was not constructed to meet the additional weight- the defendant-appellees were negligent and are liable for the death of Vicente Fontanilla . (pp. 30-31, rollo, L-29993) The findings of the respondent appellate court that the facts as presented to it establish negligence as a matter of law and that the Municipality failed to exercise the due diligence of a good father of the family, will not disturbed by Us in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse of discretion or a gross misapprehension of facts." 18 Liability rests on negligence which is "the want of such care as a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the circumstances of the case." 19 Thus, private respondents argue that the "Midas Extravaganza" which was to be performed during the town fiesta was a "donation" offered by an association of Malasiqui employees of the Manila Railroad Co. in Caloocan, and that

when the Municipality of Malasiqui accepted the donation of services and constructed precisely a "zarzuela stage" for the purpose, the participants in the stage show had the right to expect that the Municipality through its "Committee on entertainment and stage" would build or put up a stage or platform strong enough to sustain the weight or burden of the performance and take the necessary measures to insure the personal safety of the participants. 20 We agree. Quite relevant to that argument is the American case of Sanders v. City of Long Beach, 1942, which was an action against the city for injuries sustained from a fall when plaintiff was descending the steps of the city auditorium. The city was conducting a "Know your City Week" and one of the features was the showing of a motion picture in the city auditorium to which the general public was invited and plaintiff Sanders was one of those who attended. In sustaining the award for Damages in favor of plaintiff, the District Court of Appeal, Second district, California, heldinter alia that the "Know your City Week" was a "proprietary activity" and not a "governmental one" of the city, that defendant owed to plaintiff, an invitee the duty of exercising ordinary care for her safety, and plaintiff was entitled to assume that she would not be exposed to a danger (which in this case consisted of lack of sufficient illumination of the premises) that would come to her through a violation of defendant duty. 21 We can say that the deceased Vicente Fontanilla was similarly situated as Sander The Municipality of Malasiqui resolved to celebrate the town fiesta in January of 1959; it created a committee in charge of the entertainment and stage; an association of Malasiqui residents responded to the call for the festivities and volunteered to present a stage show; Vicente Fontanilla was one of the participants who like Sanders had the right to expect that he would be exposed to danger on that occasion. Lastly, petitioner or appellant Municipality cannot evade ability and/or liability under the c that it was Jose Macaraeg who constructed the stage. The municipality acting through its municipal council appointed Macaraeg as chairman of the sub-committee on entertainment and in charge of the construction of the "zarzuela" stage. Macaraeg acted merely as an agent of the Municipality. Under the doctrine of respondent superior mentioned earlier, petitioner is responsible or liable for the negligence of its agent acting within his assigned tasks. 22 ... when it is sought to render a municipal corporation liable for the act of servants or agents, a cardinal inquiry is, whether they are the servants or agents of the corporation. If the corporation appoints or elects them, can control them in the discharge of their duties, can continue or remove the can hold them responsible for the manner in which they discharge their trust, and if those duties relate to the exercise of corporate powers, and are for the benefit of the corporation in its local or special interest, they may justly be regarded as its agents or servants, and the maxim of respondent superior applies." ... (Dillon on Municipal Corporations, 5th Ed., Vol IV, p. 2879) 5. The remaining question to be resolved centers on the liability of the municipal councilors who enacted the ordinance and created the fiesta committee. The Court of Appeals held the councilors jointly and solidarity liable with the municipality for damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code which provides that d any person suffering ing material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause to perform his official duty may file an action for damages and other relief at the latter. 23 In their Petition for review the municipal councilors allege that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the holding of a town fiesta is not a governmental function and that there was negligence on their part for not maintaining and supervising the safe use of the stage, in applying Article 27 of the Civil Code against them and in not holding Jose Macaraeg liable for the collapse of the stage and the consequent death of Vicente Fontanilla. 24 We agree with petitioners that the Court of Appeals erred in applying Article 27 of the Civil Code against the for this particular article covers a case of nonfeasance or non-performance by a public officer of his official duty; it does not apply to a case of negligence or misfeasance in carrying out an official duty. If We are led to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals insofar as these petitioners are concerned, it is because of a plain error committed by respondent court which however is not invoked in petitioners' brief. In Miguel v. The Court of appeal. et al., the Court, through Justice, now Chief Justice, Fred Ruiz Castro, held that the Supreme Court is vested with ample authority to review matters not assigned as errors in an appeal if it finds

that their consideration and resolution are indispensable or necessary in arriving at a just decision in a given case, and that tills is author under Sec. 7, Rule 51 of the Rules of Court. 25 We believe that this pronouncement can well be applied in the instant case. The Court of Appeals in its decision now under review held that the celebration of a town fiesta by the Municipality of Malasiqui was not a governmental function. We upheld that ruling. The legal consequence thereof is that the Municipality stands on the same footing as an ordinary private corporation with the municipal council acting as its board of directors. It is an elementary principle that a corporation has a personality, separate and distinct from its officers, directors, or persons composing it 26 and the latter are not as a rule co-responsible in an action for damages for tort or negligence culpa aquilla committed by the corporation's employees or agents unless there is a showing of bad faith or gross or wanton negligence on their part. 27 The ordinary doctrine is that a director, merely by reason of his office, is not personally Stable for the torts of his corporation; he Must be shown to have personally voted for or otherwise participated in them ... Fletcher Encyclopedia Corporations, Vol 3A Chapt 11, p. 207) Officers of a corporation 'are not held liable for the negligence of the corporation merely because of their official relation to it, but because of some wrongful or negligent act by such officer amounting to a breach of duty which resulted in an injury ... To make an officer of a corporation liable for the negligence of the corporation there must have been upon his part such a breach of duty as contributed to, or helped to bring about, the injury; that is to say, he must be a participant in the wrongful act. ... (pp. 207-208, Ibid.) Directors who merely employ one to give a fireworks Ambition on the corporate are not personally liable for the negligent acts of the exhibitor. (p. 211, Ibid.) On these people We absolve Use municipal councilors from any liability for the death of Vicente Fontanilla. The records do not show that said petitioners directly participated in the defective construction of the "zarzuela" stage or that they personally permitted spectators to go up the platform. 6. One last point We have to resolve is on the award of attorney's fees by respondent court. Petitioner-municipality assails the award. Under paragraph 11, Art. 2208 of the Civil Code attorney's fees and expenses of litigation may be granted when the court deems it just and equitable. In this case of Vicente Fontanilla, although respondent appellate court failed to state the grounds for awarding attorney's fees, the records show however that attempts were made by plaintiffs, now private respondents, to secure an extrajudicial compensation from the municipality: that the latter gave prorases and assurances of assistance but failed to comply; and it was only eight month after the incident that the bereaved family of Vicente Fontanilla was compelled to seek relief from the courts to ventilate what was believed to be a just cause. 28 We hold, therefore, that there is no error committed in the grant of attorney's fees which after all is a matter of judicial discretion. The amount of P1,200.00 is fair and reasonable. PREMISES CONSIDERED, We AFFIRM in toto the decision of the Court of Appeals insofar as the Municipality of Malasiqui is concerned (L-30183), and We absolve the municipal councilors from liability and SET ASIDE the judgment against them (L-9993). Without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED,

G.R. No. L-52179 April 8, 1991 MUNICIPALITY OF SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION, petitioner vs. HON. JUDGE ROMEO N. FIRME, JUANA RIMANDO-BANIA, IAUREANO BANIA, JR., SOR MARIETA BANIA, MONTANO BANIA, ORJA BANIA, AND LYDIA R. BANIA, respondents. Mauro C. Cabading, Jr. for petitioner. Simeon G. Hipol for private respondent.

MEDIALDEA, J.:p This is a petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction seeking the nullification or modification of the proceedings and the orders issued by the respondent Judge Romeo N. Firme, in his capacity as the presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of La Union, Second Judicial District, Branch IV, Bauang, La Union in Civil Case No. 107-BG, entitled "Juana Rimando Bania, et al. vs. Macario Nieveras, et al." dated November 4, 1975; July 13, 1976; August 23,1976; February 23, 1977; March 16, 1977; July 26, 1979; September 7, 1979; November 7, 1979 and December 3, 1979 and the decision dated October 10, 1979 ordering defendants Municipality of San Fernando, La Union and Alfredo Bislig to pay, jointly and severally, the plaintiffs for funeral expenses, actual damages consisting of the loss of earning capacity of the deceased, attorney's fees and costs of suit and dismissing the complaint against the Estate of Macario Nieveras and Bernardo Balagot. The antecedent facts are as follows: Petitioner Municipality of San Fernando, La Union is a municipal corporation existing under and in accordance with the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. Respondent Honorable Judge Romeo N. Firme is impleaded in his official capacity as the presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of La Union, Branch IV, Bauang, La Union. While private respondents Juana Rimando-Bania, Laureano Bania, Jr., Sor Marietta Bania, Montano Bania, Orja Bania and Lydia R. Bania are heirs of the deceased Laureano Bania Sr. and plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 107Bg before the aforesaid court. At about 7 o'clock in the morning of December 16, 1965, a collision occurred involving a passenger jeepney driven by Bernardo Balagot and owned by the Estate of Macario Nieveras, a gravel and sand truck driven by Jose Manandeg and owned by Tanquilino Velasquez and a dump truck of the Municipality of San Fernando, La Union and driven by Alfredo Bislig. Due to the impact, several passengers of the jeepney including Laureano Bania Sr. died as a result of the injuries they sustained and four (4) others suffered varying degrees of physical injuries. On December 11, 1966, the private respondents instituted a compliant for damages against the Estate of Macario Nieveras and Bernardo Balagot, owner and driver, respectively, of the passenger jeepney, which was docketed Civil Case No. 2183 in the Court of First Instance of La Union, Branch I, San Fernando, La Union. However, the aforesaid defendants filed a Third Party Complaint against the petitioner and the driver of a dump truck of petitioner. Thereafter, the case was subsequently transferred to Branch IV, presided over by respondent judge and was subsequently docketed as Civil Case No. 107-Bg. By virtue of a court order dated May 7, 1975, the private respondents amended the complaint wherein the petitioner and its regular employee, Alfredo Bislig were impleaded for the first time as defendants. Petitioner filed its answer and raised affirmative defenses such as lack of cause of action, non-suability of the State, prescription of cause of action and the negligence of the owner and driver of the passenger jeepney as the proximate cause of the collision. In the course of the proceedings, the respondent judge issued the following questioned orders, to wit: (1) Order dated November 4, 1975 dismissing the cross-claim against Bernardo Balagot;

(2) Order dated July 13, 1976 admitting the Amended Answer of the Municipality of San Fernando, La Union and Bislig and setting the hearing on the affirmative defenses only with respect to the supposed lack of jurisdiction; (3) Order dated August 23, 1976 deferring there resolution of the grounds for the Motion to Dismiss until the trial; (4) Order dated February 23, 1977 denying the motion for reconsideration of the order of July 13, 1976 filed by the Municipality and Bislig for having been filed out of time; (5) Order dated March 16, 1977 reiterating the denial of the motion for reconsideration of the order of July 13, 1976; (6) Order dated July 26, 1979 declaring the case deemed submitted for decision it appearing that parties have not yet submitted their respective memoranda despite the court's direction; and (7) Order dated September 7, 1979 denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration and/or order to recall prosecution witnesses for cross examination. On October 10, 1979 the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive portion is hereunder quoted as follows: IN VIEW OF ALL OF (sic) THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered for the plaintiffs, and defendants Municipality of San Fernando, La Union and Alfredo Bislig are ordered to pay jointly and severally, plaintiffs Juana Rimando-Bania, Mrs. Priscilla B. Surell, Laureano Bania Jr., Sor Marietta Bania, Mrs. Fe B. Soriano, Montano Bania, Orja Bania and Lydia B. Bania the sums of P1,500.00 as funeral expenses and P24,744.24 as the lost expected earnings of the late Laureano Bania Sr., P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P2,500.00 as attorney's fees. Costs against said defendants. The Complaint is dismissed as to defendants Estate of Macario Nieveras and Bernardo Balagot. SO ORDERED. (Rollo, p. 30) Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and for a new trial without prejudice to another motion which was then pending. However, respondent judge issued another order dated November 7, 1979 denying the motion for reconsideration of the order of September 7, 1979 for having been filed out of time. Finally, the respondent judge issued an order dated December 3, 1979 providing that if defendants municipality and Bislig further wish to pursue the matter disposed of in the order of July 26, 1979, such should be elevated to a higher court in accordance with the Rules of Court. Hence, this petition. Petitioner maintains that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in issuing the aforesaid orders and in rendering a decision. Furthermore, petitioner asserts that while appeal of the decision maybe available, the same is not the speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. On the other hand, private respondents controvert the position of the petitioner and allege that the petition is devoid of merit, utterly lacking the good faith which is indispensable in a petition for certiorari and prohibition. (Rollo, p. 42.) In addition, the private respondents stress that petitioner has not considered that every court, including respondent court, has the inherent power to amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conformable to law and justice. (Rollo, p. 43.) The controversy boils down to the main issue of whether or not the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion when it deferred and failed to resolve the defense of non-suability of the State amounting to lack of jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss.

In the case at bar, the respondent judge deferred the resolution of the defense of non-suability of the State amounting to lack of jurisdiction until trial. However, said respondent judge failed to resolve such defense, proceeded with the trial and thereafter rendered a decision against the municipality and its driver. The respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion when in the exercise of its judgment it arbitrarily failed to resolve the vital issue of non-suability of the State in the guise of the municipality. However, said judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction when in his decision dated October 10, 1979 he held the municipality liable for the quasi-delict committed by its regular employee. The doctrine of non-suability of the State is expressly provided for in Article XVI, Section 3 of the Constitution, to wit: "the State may not be sued without its consent." Stated in simple parlance, the general rule is that the State may not be sued except when it gives consent to be sued. Consent takes the form of express or implied consent. Express consent may be embodied in a general law or a special law. The standing consent of the State to be sued in case of money claims involving liability arising from contracts is found in Act No. 3083. A special law may be passed to enable a person to sue the government for an alleged quasi-delict, as in Merritt v. Government of the Philippine Islands (34 Phil 311). (see United States of America v. Guinto, G.R. No. 76607, February 26, 1990, 182 SCRA 644, 654.) Consent is implied when the government enters into business contracts, thereby descending to the level of the other contracting party, and also when the State files a complaint, thus opening itself to a counterclaim. (Ibid) Municipal corporations, for example, like provinces and cities, are agencies of the State when they are engaged in governmental functions and therefore should enjoy the sovereign immunity from suit. Nevertheless, they are subject to suit even in the performance of such functions because their charter provided that they can sue and be sued. (Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1987 Edition, p. 39) A distinction should first be made between suability and liability. "Suability depends on the consent of the state to be sued, liability on the applicable law and the established facts. The circumstance that a state is suable does not necessarily mean that it is liable; on the other hand, it can never be held liable if it does not first consent to be sued. Liability is not conceded by the mere fact that the state has allowed itself to be sued. When the state does waive its sovereign immunity, it is only giving the plaintiff the chance to prove, if it can, that the defendant is liable." (United States of America vs. Guinto, supra, p. 659-660) Anent the issue of whether or not the municipality is liable for the torts committed by its employee, the test of liability of the municipality depends on whether or not the driver, acting in behalf of the municipality, is performing governmental or proprietary functions. As emphasized in the case of Torio vs. Fontanilla (G. R. No. L-29993, October 23, 1978. 85 SCRA 599, 606), the distinction of powers becomes important for purposes of determining the liability of the municipality for the acts of its agents which result in an injury to third persons. Another statement of the test is given in City of Kokomo vs. Loy, decided by the Supreme Court of Indiana in 1916, thus: Municipal corporations exist in a dual capacity, and their functions are twofold. In one they exercise the right springing from sovereignty, and while in the performance of the duties pertaining thereto, their acts are political and governmental. Their officers and agents in such capacity, though elected or appointed by them, are nevertheless public functionaries performing a public service, and as such they are officers, agents, and servants of the state. In the other capacity the municipalities exercise a private, proprietary or corporate right, arising from their existence as legal persons and not as public agencies. Their officers and agents in the performance of such functions act in behalf of the municipalities in their corporate or individual capacity, and not for the state or sovereign power." (112 N.E., 994-995) (Ibid, pp. 605-606.) It has already been remarked that municipal corporations are suable because their charters grant them the competence to sue and be sued. Nevertheless, they are generally not liable for torts committed by them in the

discharge of governmental functions and can be held answerable only if it can be shown that they were acting in a proprietary capacity. In permitting such entities to be sued, the State merely gives the claimant the right to show that the defendant was not acting in its governmental capacity when the injury was committed or that the case comes under the exceptions recognized by law. Failing this, the claimant cannot recover. (Cruz, supra, p. 44.) In the case at bar, the driver of the dump truck of the municipality insists that "he was on his way to the Naguilian river to get a load of sand and gravel for the repair of San Fernando's municipal streets." (Rollo, p. 29.) In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the regularity of the performance of official duty is presumed pursuant to Section 3(m) of Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court. Hence, We rule that the driver of the dump truck was performing duties or tasks pertaining to his office. We already stressed in the case of Palafox, et. al. vs. Province of Ilocos Norte, the District Engineer, and the Provincial Treasurer (102 Phil 1186) that "the construction or maintenance of roads in which the truck and the driver worked at the time of the accident are admittedly governmental activities." After a careful examination of existing laws and jurisprudence, We arrive at the conclusion that the municipality cannot be held liable for the torts committed by its regular employee, who was then engaged in the discharge of governmental functions. Hence, the death of the passenger tragic and deplorable though it may be imposed on the municipality no duty to pay monetary compensation. All premises considered, the Court is convinced that the respondent judge's dereliction in failing to resolve the issue of non-suability did not amount to grave abuse of discretion. But said judge exceeded his jurisdiction when it ruled on the issue of liability. ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED and the decision of the respondent court is hereby modified, absolving the petitioner municipality of any liability in favor of private respondents. SO ORDERED.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HIDALGO, 534 SCRA 619 CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: The instant administrative case arose from the affidavit-complaint[1] dated 19 January 2004 filed by the Republic of the Philippines, represented by Solicitor General Alfredo L. Benipayo, with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), charging Judge Vicente A. Hidalgo with Gross Ignorance of the Law, Manifest Partiality and Conduct Prejudicial to the Interest of the Service relative to Civil Case No. 94075 entitled Tarcila Laperal Mendoza v. The Republic of the Philippines, et al. Facts of the case: On 02 June 1999, Tarcila Laperal Mendoza filed an action for the annulment or declaration of nullity of the title and deed of sale, reconveyance and/or recovery of ownership and possession of a four thousand nine hundred twenty-four-square meter (4,924.60 sq. m. to be exact) property against the Republic of the Philippines (in whose name the title to the property was transferred and registered) in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, and was docketed as Civil Case No. 94075. The property in question is located at 1440 Arlegui Street, San Miguel, Manila. It is also known as the Arlegui Residence which housed two (2) Philippine presidents and which now holds the Office of the Press Secretary and the News Information Bureau. The case was initially dismissed by the presiding Judge of the Manila RTC (Branch 35) on the ground of state immunity. A petition for certiorari was filed with the Court of Appeals which reversed the trial courts ruling and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The Supreme Court sustained the Court of Appeals decision. Upon the inhibition of the presiding Judge of the Manila RTC (Branch 35), the case was re-raffled to the Manila RTC (Branch 37), with respondent Vicente A. Hidalgo as presiding Judge. In an Order dated 07 July 2003, Judge Hidalgo declared the Republic in default for failure of Solicitor Gabriel Francisco Ramirez, the handling solicitor, to file the required Answer within the period prayed for in his motion for extension dated 21 May 2003. The plaintiff was allowed to present her evidence ex parte. On 27 August 2003, Judge Hidalgo rendered a decision[2] in favor of plaintiff Mendoza, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: 1. Declaring the deed of sale dated July 15, 1975, annotated at the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 118527 as PE:2035/T-118911, as non-existent and/or fictitious, and, therefore, null and void from the beginning; Declaring that Transfer Certificate of Title No. 118911 of the defendant Republic of the Philippines has no basis, thereby, making it null and void from beginning; Ordering the defendant Register of Deeds for the City of Manila to reinstate plaintiffs Transfer Certificate of Title No. 118527; Ordering the defendant Republic of the Philippines to pay a just compensation in the sum of ONE HUNDRED FORTY THREE MILLION SIX HUNDRED THOUSAN (P143,600,000.00) PESOS, plus interest at the legal rate, until the whole amount is paid in full for the acquisition of the subject property; Ordering the plaintiff, upon payment of the just compensation for the acquisition of her property, to execute the necessary deed of conveyance in favour of the defendant Republic of the Philippines and, on the other hand, directing the defendant Register of Deeds, upon presentation of the said deed of conveyance, to cancel plaintiffs Transfer Certificate of Title in favour of the defendant Republic of the Philippines; Ordering the defendant Republic of the Philippines to pay the plaintiff the sum of ONE BILLION FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY MILLION SIX HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN

2.

3. 4.

5.

6.

THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY EIGHT (P1,480,627,688.00) PESOS, representing the reasonable rental for the use of the subject property, the interest thereon at the legal rate, and the opportunity cost at the rate of three (3%) per cent per annum, commencing July 1975 continuously up to July 30, 2003, plus, an additional interest at the legal rate, commencing from this date until the whole amount is paid in full; 7. Ordering the defendant Republic of the Philippines to pay the plaintiff attorneys fee, in an amount equivalent to FIFTEEN (15%) PER CENT of the amount due to the plaintiff.

With pronouncement as to the costs of the suit.[3]

Upon receipt by the Office of the Solicitor General of the judgment by default, the Republic moved for new trial on the ground that the gross and inexcusable negligence of Solicitor Ramirez in handling the case does not bind the Republic of the Philippines. It argued that it is entitled to due process of law considering the enormous amount of the alleged obligations involved. It maintained that plaintiffs cause of action has long prescribed and is legally barred by laches, and that the title registered in the name of the Republic has become indefeasible. The respondent Judge denied the motion for new trial[4] and the subsequent motion for reconsideration[5] filed by the Republic. A notice of appeal[6] dated 27 November 2003 was filed, but the same was denied[7] on 17 December 2003 on the ground that it was filed beyond the reglementary period. A certificate of finality[8] of judgment was issued by the Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Michael B. Robles, on 27 November 2003. On 10 December 2003, respondent issued an order[9] directing the issuance of a writ of execution. On 22 December 2003, a writ of execution[10] was issued, which reads, thus: TO: THE BRANCH SHERIFF OF BRANCH 37, RTC, MANILA WE COMMAND you to demand that of the goods and chattels of THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES you cause to be made the sum of ONE HUNDRED FORTY THREE MILLION SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P143,600,000.00) Philippine Currency, as payment for just compensation plus interest at the legal rate, until the whole amount is paid in full for the acquisition of the subject property; and the further sum of ONE BILLION FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY MILLION SIX HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAN SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY EIGHT (P1,480,627,688.00) PESOS, representing the reasonable rental for the use of the subject property, the interest thereon at the legal rate, and the opportunity cost at the rate of three (3%) per cent per annum, commencing July 1975 continuously up to July 30, 2003, plus, an additional interest at the legal rate, commencing from this date until the whole amount is paid in full, the plaintiff attorneys fee, in an amount equivalent to FIFTEEN (15%) PER CENT of the amount due to the plaintiff plus the cost of suit, together with your lawful fees for service of this execution all in money of the Philippines, which the plaintiff recovered in our Court, Regional Trial Court of Manila on the 27thday of August 2003 against the Republic of the Philippines, Inc. with interest and costs, and that you render the same to said Tarcila Laperal aside from your own fees on this execution, and to likewise return this Writ into this Court within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt hereof with your proceedings endorsed thereon.

On 30 December 2003, Sheriff IV Carmelo V. Cachero directed Eduardo Sergio G. Edeza of the National Treasurer of the Bureau of Treasury to effect the payment of the sum stated in the decision, thus: TO: Honorable EDUARDO SERGIO G. EDEZA National Treasurer of the Philippines, Bureau of Treasury Palacio del Gobernador, Intramuros Manila G R E E TI N G S:

Attached herewith you will find a copy of the WRIT OF EXECUTION issued by the HON. VICENTE A. HIDALGO, Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Manila, in the above-entitled case for your ready reference. By virtue of the said Writ you are hereby directed to cause and or effect the payment of the sum of ONE HUNDRED FORTY THREE MILLION SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P143,600,000.00), Philippine Currency, as payment for just compensation, plus interest at the legal rate, until the whole amount is paid in full and the further sum of ONE BILLION FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY MILLION SIX HUNDRED TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY EIGHT PESOS (P1,480,627,688.00) representing the reasonable rental for the use of the subject property, the interest thereon at the legal rate, and the opportunity cost at the rate of three (3%) per annum, commencing July 1975 continuously up to July 30, 2003, plus, an additional interest at the legal rate, commencing from this date until the whole amount is paid in full, the plaintifs attorneys fee, in an amount equivalent to FIFTEEN (15%) PERCENT of the amount due to the plaintiff plus costs of suit together with all the lawful fees and expenses for the service of the Writ of Execution in favor of the above-named plaintiff.[11]

On 07 January 2004, Sheriff Cachero further directed the National Treasurer to cause payment of P1,942,576,312.45, thus: TO: Honorable EDUARDO SERGIO G. EDEZA National Treasurer of the Philippines, Bureau of Treasury Palacio del Gobernador, Intramuros, M a n i l a S i r: Pursuant to the WRIT OF EXECUTION issued by the Hon. VICENTE A. HIDALGO, Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Manila, in the above-entitled case, which was served upon your good office on December 30, 2003, kindly effect and/or cause the payment of the total amount of ONE BILLION NINE HUNDRED FORTY TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWELVE PESOS AND FORTY FIVE CENTAVOS (P1,942,576,312.45), Philippine Currency, made payable to: 1. TARCILA I. MENDOZA and/or FORTUNATO I. MENDOZA P828,356,119.86 to be deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines, Main Office, M.H. del Pilar St., Ermita, Manila under CURRENT ACCOUNT NO. 003402-0014-95; 2. TARCILA I. MENDOZA and/or APOLONIA C. SOGUILON P1,065,555,684.78 to be deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines, Main Office, M.H. del Pilar St., Ermita, Manila under CURRENT ACCOUNT NO. 0034020015-17; 3. CLERK OF COURT, RTC MANILA P38,851,606.25 to be deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines, YMCA Branch, Arroceros St., Ermita, Manila under ACCOUNT NO. 0591-0116-34; 4. CLERK OF COURT, RTC MANILA P9,712,901.56 to be deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines, YMCA Branch, Arroceros St., Ermita, Manila under ACCOUNT NO. 0591-1744-28.[12]

The foregoing antecedents begot the instant administrative complaint[13] raising the following allegations against respondent Judge: a. The respondent judge assumed jurisdiction and took cognizance of the plaintiffs complaint despite a clear showing that the action had long prescribed and is already barred by laches.

The Republic contends that since the complaint showed on its face that the action had prescribed and that the plaintiffs inaction for a period of almost twenty-four years undoubtedly amounts to laches, the respondent judge was duty bound to dismiss it motu proprio; b. The money judgment by default rendered by the respondent judge in the colossal amount of almost two billion pesos (P2,000,000,000.00) is grossly in excess of the claim alleged in the complaint in patent violation of Section 3(d), Rule 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and grossly disproportionate to the total amount of docket fees paid; The respondent judge violated the Constitution and the fundamental rule that government funds are exempt from execution or garnishment; The respondent judge ordered the Republic to pay the plaintiffs attorneys fees with pronouncement as to the costs of the suit in violation of the clear provision of Section 1, Rule 142 which provides that no costs shall be allowed against the Republic of the Philippines unless otherwise provided by law; The respondent judge condemned the Republic to suffer the obligation of almost two billion (P2,000,000,000.00) in violation of its right to due process; Awarding the amount of two billion pesos (P2,000,000,000.00) when the property involved is only valued at more than two million pesos (P2,000,000.00) and the amount of claim alleged in the complaint is more or less three hundred seventy-one million (P371,000,000.00) shows that the respondent judge had been partial in favor of the plaintiff; The certificate of finality of the judgment by default was hastily issued on 27 November 2003, the very same day the Republic filed a notice of appeal; The Republic had until 20 December 2003 to submit its opposition to the motion for the issuance of the writ of execution, yet the respondent judge denied the Republics notice of appeal on 17 December 2003 for being allegedly filed out of time; The Republic filed its opposition to the motion for the issuance of a writ of execution on 19 December 2003 and on the same day, the respondent judge with astonishing speed granted the plaintiffs motion to issue a writ of execution.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

i.

The Republic avers that the respondent Judge is liable for these unjustified and irregular acts which constitute gross ignorance of the law, manifest partiality and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. On 12 February 2004, OCA required[14] respondent Judge to submit his comment within ten (10) days from receipt. In his COMMENT[15] dated 15 March 2004, respondent Judge Vicente A. Hidalgo claims that the instant administrative complaint was instituted against him in order to hide from view a monstrous fiasco. The respondent Judge maintains that the Office of the Solicitor General, having failed to fulfil its duty as counsel for the defendant, is trying to escape criticism and responsibility for bungling the case by the simple expedient smokescreen of making the respondent a convenient scapegoat for its ineptitude and inefficiency. The Office of the Solicitor General faults Judge Hidalgo in failing to dismiss the civil case on the grounds of prescription and laches. The respondent Judge counters that such grounds do not apply since the deed of sale upon which the Republics title to the property is based is inexistent and absolutely simulated or fictitious. With respect to the money judgment granted, the respondent Judge maintains that the amount awarded to the plaintiff was based on testimonies of experts. The amount of damages given, the respondent explains, is within the four corners of the prayer made in the complaint, i.e., such other relief, just and equitable, under the premises.

The Office of the Solicitor General insists that the motion for new trial should be granted because the gross and inexcusable negligence of Solicitor Ramirez has impaired the rights of the Republic, depriving it of its property without due process of law. The respondent Judge contends that the Office of the Solicitor General is no ordinary advocate which, due to various constraints and limitations, can be conceded to commit acts constitutive of negligence, mistake or lack of competence. He notes that all pleadings bear at least three (3) signatures - that of the handling solicitor, the assistant solicitor general and the solicitor general, showing that pleadings go through the rung of the ladder of authority ensuring their conformity to existing jurisprudence and compliance with procedural rules. It is also contended by the Republic that the certificate of finality of the judgment by default was hastily issued, showing the manifest partiality of the respondent Judge for the plaintiff. The respondent Judge avers that upon the denial of the motion for new trial which the Office of the Solicitor General received on 09 October 2003, the Republic had only one (1) day left or until 10 October 2003 to file its appeal. Instead of filing its appeal, it filed a motion for reconsideration on 24 October 2003 which the respondent denied in an order dated 25 November 2003. This is contrary to the provision in the Rules of Court that (a)n order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration is not appealable, the remedy being an appeal from the judgment or final order (Sec. 9, Rule 37, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). The respondent Judge argues that the filing of the notice of appeal on 27 November 2003, forty-eight (48) days from the last day to perfect appeal, was made too late because the decision had already become final and executory. In its REPLY[16] dated 03 March 2004, the Republic reiterates its charges of gross ignorance of the law, manifest partiality, violation of due process and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service against Judge Hidalgo. The Republic insists that the respondent Judge deserves to be dismissed from the service for being guilty of the foregoing offenses. The Republic asserts that the motion for new trial was filed to rectify the grossly negligent act of the handling solicitor which gravely prejudiced its interest. It maintains that the Judge violated its right to due process when he proceeded to hold it liable for the omissions and negligence of a lawyer who had ceased to be the authorized agent of the government. It is also contended that the respondent Judge violated the Constitution and the fundamental rule that government funds are exempt from execution or garnishment when he caused the issuance of the writ of execution against the Republic. It is likewise asserted that in ordering the Republic to pay the attorneys fees of plaintiff and the cost of the suit, the respondent violated the clear provision of Section 1, Rule 142 of the Rules of Court heretofore cited. In these two issues, the Republic observes that the respondent is conspicuously silent because he cannot offer any defense, as his actions are glaringly illegal. Anent the accusation of the respondent that he is being used by the Office of the Solicitor General as a scapegoat for allegedly bungling the case, the Republic counters that the respondent himself cannot justify his actions by hiding under the cloak of speedy disposition of the case as prescribed by the Court. On 14 April 2005, the OCA issued its recommendation,[17] thus: In view of the foregoing, we respectfully submit for the consideration of the Honorable Court the following recommendation: 1. That the instant administrative complaint be RE DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter; That Judge Vicente A. Hidalgo, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court (Branch 37), Manila be found administratively liable for GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW OR PROCEDURE under Sec. 8 (9), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court; and That Judge Hidalgo be FINED in the amount of forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00) and be WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

2.

3.

The recommendation of the OCA is well-taken.

In the present case, respondent Judge patently committed two inexcusable procedural errors the pronouncement of costs against the government and the subsequent issuance of the writ of execution, in violation of settled rules and jurisprudence. In the decision dated 27 August 2003, respondent Judge declared the Republic liable for payment of attorneys fees and cost of suit, pertinent portion of which reads: 7. Ordering the defendant Republic of the Philippines to pay the plaintiff attorneys fee, in an amount equivalent to FIFTEEN (15%) PER CENT of the amount due to the plaintiff.

With pronouncement as to the costs of the suit.[18]

In declaring the government answerable to the attorneys fees of the plaintiff and other costs of the suit, the respondent utterly disregarded the well-established rule that costs of suit are not recoverable against the government (Section 1, Rule 142, Rules of Court). As early as 15 November 1918, we ruled in the case of Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation v. Rafferty[19] that no costs shall be allowed against the government of the Philippine Islands where the government is the unsuccessful party. This was reiterated in the case of Philippines Veterans Affairs Office v. Anover[20] and The Philippine Veterans Affairs Office v. Tamayo,[21] when we ruled that court costs are not recoverable from a government agency. Upon finality of the decision dated 27 August 2003, respondent Judge directed the issuance of the writ of execution and subsequently issued the writ of execution on 22 December 2003. It is settled that when the State gives its consent to be sued, it does not thereby necessarily consent to an unrestrained execution against it. Tersely put, when the State waives its immunity, all it does, in effect, is to give the other party an opportunity to prove, if it can, that the state has a liability. In Republic v. Villasor[22] this Court, in nullifying the issuance of an alias writ of execution directed against the funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to satisfy a final and executory judgment, has explained, thus . . . 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 stage 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. Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the correspondent appropriation as required by law. The functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law.[23]

In Administrative Circular No. 10-2000 dated 25 October 2000, all judges of lower courts were advised to exercise utmost caution, prudence and judiciousness in the issuance of writs of execution to satisfy money judgments against government agencies and local government units. Judges, thus, cannot indiscriminately issue writs of execution against the government to enforce money judgments. It is clear that respondent Judge ought to be sanctioned for his failure to properly apply the court procedure. As can be seen, the law involved is simple and elementary. When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply apply it, and anything less than that would be constitutive of gross ignorance of the law. In short, when the law is so elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.[24] When the inefficiency springs from a failure to consider so basic and elementary a rule, a law or principle in the discharge of his duties, a judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the position and title he holds or is too vicious that the oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave abuse of judicial authority.[25] Canon 4 of the Canon of Judicial Ethics requires that a judge should be studious of the principles of law; while Canon 18 mandates that he should administer his office with due regard to the integrity of the system of the

law itself, remembering that he is not a depositary of arbitrary power, but a judge under the sanction of law.[26] The maxim ignorance of the law excuses no one has special application to judges, who, under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence. Competence is a mark of a good judge. When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the pu blics confidence in the competence of our courts.[27] It is highly imperative that judges be conversant with the law and basic legal principles.[28] Basic legal procedures must be at the palm of a judges hands.[29] In the case at bar, respondent Judge not only failed to perform his duties in accordance with the Rules, but he also acted wilfully and in gross disregard of the law and controlling jurisprudence. He was ignorant of the basic and simple procedural rules by issuing the writ of execution and pronouncing the costs of suit against the government. Verily, respondent Judges actions visibly indicate his lack of sufficient grasp of the law. For issuing the writ of execution and pronouncing the costs of the suit against the government, we deem that the respondent Judge is liable for gross ignorance of the law or procedure under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Under Rule 140, Section 8, of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10 SC, gross ignorance of the law or procedure is classified as a serious charge. As to the penalty imposed, Section 11 of the same Rule provides: SEC. 11. Sanctions. - A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed: 1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations: Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.

2. 3.

Taking into consideration the length of service[30] rendered by respondent Judge and following our rulings in Gamas v. Oco,[31] and Sule v. Biteng,[32] a fine ofP20,000.00 is justified. The other charges against Judge Hidalgo and the issues arising therefrom are judicial matters not subject to administrative scrutiny. The Republic has, in fact, filed a petition for certiorari on 30 January 2004 against the respondent, docketed as G.R. No. 161657, and remains pending before the Third Division. The present administrative case is without prejudice to any other action which may be taken on said petition. All told, this Court once again seizes the moment to remind judges to keep abreast of the rules and recent pronouncements of this Court, so they may evolve into more effective dispensers of justice -- magistrates of the law in the truest sense of the word.[33] WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Vicente A. Hidalgo administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and is accordingly fined the amount ofTWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) PESOS with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. SO ORDERED.

G.R. Nos. 89898-99 October 1, 1990 MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR., as Judge RTC of Makati, Branch CXLII ADMIRAL FINANCE CREDITORS CONSORTIUM, INC., and SHERIFF SILVINO R. PASTRANA,respondents. Defante & Elegado for petitioner. Roberto B. Lugue for private respondent Admiral Finance Creditors' Consortium, Inc. RESOLUTION CORTS, J.: The present petition for review is an off-shoot of expropriation proceedings initiated by petitioner Municipality of Makati against private respondent Admiral Finance Creditors Consortium, Inc., Home Building System & Realty Corporation and one Arceli P. Jo, involving a parcel of land and improvements thereon located at Mayapis St., San Antonio Village, Makati and registered in the name of Arceli P. Jo under TCT No. S-5499. It appears that the action for eminent domain was filed on May 20, 1986, docketed as Civil Case No. 13699. Attached to petitioner's complaint was a certification that a bank account (Account No. S/A 265-537154-3) had been opened with the PNB Buendia Branch under petitioner's name containing the sum of P417,510.00, made pursuant to the provisions of Pres. Decree No. 42. After due hearing where the parties presented their respective appraisal reports regarding the value of the property, respondent RTC judge rendered a decision on June 4, 1987, fixing the appraised value of the property at P5,291,666.00, and ordering petitioner to pay this amount minus the advanced payment of P338,160.00 which was earlier released to private respondent. After this decision became final and executory, private respondent moved for the issuance of a writ of execution. This motion was granted by respondent RTC judge. After issuance of the writ of execution, a Notice of Garnishment dated January 14, 1988 was served by respondent sheriff Silvino R. Pastrana upon the manager of the PNB Buendia Branch. However, respondent sheriff was informed that a "hold code" was placed on the account of petitioner. As a result of this, private respondent filed a motion dated January 27, 1988 praying that an order be issued directing the bank to deliver to respondent sheriff the amount equivalent to the unpaid balance due under the RTC decision dated June 4, 1987. Petitioner filed a motion to lift the garnishment, on the ground that the manner of payment of the expropriation amount should be done in installments which the respondent RTC judge failed to state in his decision. Private respondent filed its opposition to the motion. Pending resolution of the above motions, petitioner filed on July 20, 1988 a "Manifestation" informing the court that private respondent was no longer the true and lawful owner of the subject property because a new title over the property had been registered in the name of Philippine Savings Bank, Inc. (PSB) Respondent RTC judge issued an order requiring PSB to make available the documents pertaining to its transactions over the subject property, and the PNB Buendia Branch to reveal the amount in petitioner's account which was garnished by respondent sheriff. In compliance with this order, PSB filed a manifestation informing the court that it had consolidated its ownership over the property as mortgagee/purchaser at an extrajudicial foreclosure sale held on April 20, 1987. After several conferences, PSB and private respondent entered into a compromise agreement whereby they agreed to divide between themselves the compensation due from the expropriation proceedings. Respondent trial judge subsequently issued an order dated September 8, 1988 which: (1) approved the compromise agreement; (2) ordered PNB Buendia Branch to immediately release to PSB the sum of P4,953,506.45 which corresponds to the balance of the appraised value of the subject property under the RTC decision dated June 4, 1987, from the garnished account of petitioner; and, (3) ordered PSB and private respondent to execute the necessary deed of conveyance over the subject property in favor of petitioner. Petitioner's motion to lift the garnishment was denied.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was duly opposed by private respondent. On the other hand, for failure of the manager of the PNB Buendia Branch to comply with the order dated September 8, 1988, private respondent filed two succeeding motions to require the bank manager to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. During the hearings conducted for the above motions, the general manager of the PNB Buendia Branch, a Mr. Antonio Bautista, informed the court that he was still waiting for proper authorization from the PNB head office enabling him to make a disbursement for the amount so ordered. For its part, petitioner contended that its funds at the PNB Buendia Branch could neither be garnished nor levied upon execution, for to do so would result in the disbursement of public funds without the proper appropriation required under the law, citing the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Palacio [G.R. No. L-20322, May 29, 1968, 23 SCRA 899]. Respondent trial judge issued an order dated December 21, 1988 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration on the ground that the doctrine enunciated in Republic v. Palacio did not apply to the case because petitioner's PNB Account No. S/A 265-537154-3 was an account specifically opened for the expropriation proceedings of the subject property pursuant to Pres. Decree No. 42. Respondent RTC judge likewise declared Mr. Antonio Bautista guilty of contempt of court for his inexcusable refusal to obey the order dated September 8, 1988, and thus ordered his arrest and detention until his compliance with the said order. Petitioner and the bank manager of PNB Buendia Branch then filed separate petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which were eventually consolidated. In a decision promulgated on June 28, 1989, the Court of Appeals dismissed both petitions for lack of merit, sustained the jurisdiction of respondent RTC judge over the funds contained in petitioner's PNB Account No. 265-537154-3, and affirmed his authority to levy on such funds. Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by the Court of Appeals, petitioner now files the present petition for review with prayer for preliminary injunction. On November 20, 1989, the Court resolved to issue a temporary restraining order enjoining respondent RTC judge, respondent sheriff, and their representatives, from enforcing and/or carrying out the RTC order dated December 21, 1988 and the writ of garnishment issued pursuant thereto. Private respondent then filed its comment to the petition, while petitioner filed its reply. Petitioner not only reiterates the arguments adduced in its petition before the Court of Appeals, but also alleges for the first time that it has actually two accounts with the PNB Buendia Branch, to wit: xxx xxx xxx (1) Account No. S/A 265-537154-3 exclusively for the expropriation of the subject property, with an outstanding balance of P99,743.94. (2) Account No. S/A 263-530850-7 for statutory obligations and other purposes of the municipal government, with a balance of P170,098,421.72, as of July 12, 1989. xxx xxx xxx [Petition, pp. 6-7; Rollo, pp. 11-12.] Because the petitioner has belatedly alleged only in this Court the existence of two bank accounts, it may fairly be asked whether the second account was opened only for the purpose of undermining the legal basis of the assailed orders of respondent RTC judge and the decision of the Court of Appeals, and strengthening its reliance on the doctrine that public funds are exempted from garnishment or execution as enunciated in Republic v. Palacio[supra.] At any rate, the Court will give petitioner the benefit of the doubt, and proceed to resolve the principal issues presented based on the factual circumstances thus alleged by petitioner. Admitting that its PNB Account No. S/A 265-537154-3 was specifically opened for expropriation proceedings it had initiated over the subject property, petitioner poses no objection to the garnishment or the levy under execution of the funds deposited therein amounting to P99,743.94. However, it is petitioner's main contention that inasmuch as the assailed orders of respondent RTC judge involved the net amount of 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 obligations, are exempted from execution without the proper appropriation required under the law. There is merit in this contention. The funds deposited in the second PNB Account No. S/A 263-530850-7 are public funds of the municipal government. In this jurisdiction, well-settled is the rule that public funds are not subject to levy and execution, unless otherwise provided for by statute [Republic v. Palacio, supra.; The Commissioner of Public Highways v. San Diego, G.R. No. L-30098, February 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 616]. More particularly, the properties of a municipality, whether real or personal, which are necessary for public use cannot be attached and sold at execution sale to satisfy a money judgment against the municipality. 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 [See Viuda De Tan Toco v. The Municipal Council of Iloilo, 49 Phil. 52 (1926): The Municipality of Paoay, Ilocos Norte v. Manaois, 86 Phil. 629 (1950); Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 61744, June 25, 1984, 130 SCRA 56]. The foregoing rule finds application in the case at bar. 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 dated June 4, 1987, less the sum of P99,743.94 deposited in Account No. S/A 265-537154-3, no levy under execution may be validly effected on the public funds of petitioner deposited in Account No. S/A 263-530850-7. 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 reason, 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 therefor [SeeViuda De Tan Toco v. The Municipal Council of Iloilo, supra; Baldivia v. Lota, 107 Phil. 1099 (1960); Yuviengco v. Gonzales, 108 Phil. 247 (1960)]. In the case at bar, the validity of the RTC decision dated June 4, 1987 is not disputed by petitioner. No appeal was taken therefrom. For three years now, petitioner has enjoyed possession and use of the subject property notwithstanding its inexcusable failure to comply with its legal obligation to pay just compensation. Petitioner has benefited from its possession of the property since the same has been the site of Makati West High School since the school year 1986-1987. This Court will not condone petitioner's blatant refusal to settle its legal obligation arising from expropriation proceedings it had in fact initiated. It cannot be over-emphasized that, within the context of the State's inherent power of eminent domain, . . . [j]ust compensation means not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owner of the land but also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered "just" for the property owner is made to suffer the consequence of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss [Cosculluela v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77765, August 15, 1988, 164 SCRA 393, 400. See also Provincial Government of Sorsogon v. Vda. de Villaroya, G.R. No. 64037, August 27, 1987, 153 SCRA 291]. The State's power of eminent domain should be exercised within the bounds of fair play and justice. In the case at bar, considering that valuable property has been taken, the compensation to be paid fixed and the municipality is in full possession and utilizing the property for public purpose, for three (3) years, the Court finds that the municipality has had more than reasonable time to pay full compensation. WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to ORDER petitioner Municipality of Makati to immediately pay Philippine Savings Bank, Inc. and private respondent the amount of P4,953,506.45. Petitioner is hereby required to submit to this Court a report of its compliance with the foregoing order within a non-extendible period of SIXTY (60) DAYS from the date of receipt of this resolution. The order of respondent RTC judge dated December 21, 1988, which was rendered in Civil Case No. 13699, is SET ASIDE and the temporary restraining order issued by the Court on November 20, 1989 is MADE PERMANENT. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 77765 August 15, 1988 SEBASTIAN COSCULLUELA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION, respondents. GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: This is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals nullifying the orders of the trial court on the ground that said orders in effect, sought the enforcement of a writ of execution against government funds. The petitioner contends that to set aside the writ of execution would be an abridgment of his right to just compensation and due process of law. The public respondents on the other hand, state that government funds cannot be disbursed without proper appropriation and that a writ of execution cannot legally issue against the State. On March 8, 1976, the Republic of the Philippines filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Iloilo to expropriate two parcels of land in the municipality of Barotac, Iloilo owned by petitioner Sebastian Cosculluela and one Mita Lumampao, for the construction of the canal network of the Barotac Irrigation Project. On April 4, 1976, the trial court rendered a decision granting the expropriation and ordered the public respondent to pay the following amounts: 1. To Mita Lumampao, the sum of P20,000 minus P4,001.82 which she had already withdrawn plus P3,000 attorney's fees; and 2. Sebastian Cosculluela, the sum of P200,000.00 which is the reasonable estimate of his actual and consequential loss by reason of the taking of his 3 hectares of land, destruction of the sugarcane therein and the reduce in the yield of his sugarcane farm due to water lagging and seepage; plus attorney's fees of P10,000 and litigation expenses of P5,000.00. (p. 36, Rollo) On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the trial court's decision in that the attorney's fees and litigation expenses were reduced from P10,000.00 and P5,000.00 to P5,000.00 and P2,500.00 respectively. The decision became final and executory on September 21, 1985. On May 7, 1986, on motion of the petitioner, the trial court ordered the issuance of a writ of execution to implement the judgment of the appellate court. On August 11, 1986, the respondent Republic filed a motion to set aside the order of May 7, 1986 as well as the writ of execution issued pursuant thereto, contending that the funds of the National Irrigation Authority (NIA) are government funds and therefore, cannot be disbursed without a government appropriation. On October 6, 1986, the lower court issued an order modifying its order of May 7, 1986, directing instead that the respondenit Republic deposit with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) in the name of the petitioner, the amount adjudged in favor of the latter. The respondent filed a petition with the Court of Appeals to annul the orders of May 7 and October 6, 1986. On November 25, 1986, the appellate court rendered the questioned decision setting aside the aforementioned orders of the trial court on the ground that public or government funds are not subject to levy and execution. In this instant petition, the petitioner assails the decision of the appellate court as being violative of his right to just compensation and due process of law. He maintains that these constitutional guarantees transcend all administrative and procedural laws and jurisprudence for as between these said laws and the constitutional rights of private citizens, the latter must prevail. As admitted by the respondent Republic, the NIA took possession of the expropriated property in 1975 and for around ten (10) years already, it has been servicing the farmers on both sides of the Barotac Viejo Irrigation Project in Iloilo Province and has been collecting fees therefor by way of taxes at the expense of the petitioner. On the other

hand, the petitioner, who is already more than eighty (80) years old and sickly, is undergoing frequent hospitalization, and is made to suffer further by the unconscionable delay in the payment of just compensation based on a final and executory judgment. The respondent Republic, on the other hand, argues that while it has no intention of keeping the land and dishonoring the judgment, the manner by which the same will have to be satisfied must not be inconsistent with prevailing jurisprudence, and that is, that public funds such as those of the respondent NIA cannot be disbursed without the proper appropriation. We rule for the petitioner. One of the basic principles enshrined in our Constitution is that no person shall be deprived of his private property without due process of law; and in expropriation cases, an essential element of due process is that there must be just compensation whenever private property is taken for public use. Thus, in the case of Province of Pangasinan v. CFI Judge of Pangasinan, Branch VIII (80 SCRA 117, 120-121), this Court speaking through then Chief Justice Fernando ruled: There is full and ample recognition of the power of eminent domain by Justice Street in a leading case of Visayan Refining Co. v. Camus (4C) Phil. 550 [1919]) decided prior to the Commonwealth, the matter being governed by the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916, otherwise known as the Jones Law. It was characterized as "inseparable from sovereignty being essential to the existence of the State and inherent in government even in its most primitive forms." (Ibid, 558) Nonetheless, he was careful to point out: "In other words, the provisions now generally found in the modern laws of constitutions of civilized countries to the effect that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation have their origin in the recognition of a necessity for restraining the sovereign and protecting the individual. (Ibid, 559) Moreover, he did emphasize: "Nevertheless it should be noted that the whole problem of expropriation is resolvable in its ultimate analysis into a constitutional question of due process of law. ... Even were there no organic or constitutional provision in force requiring compensation to be paid, the seizure of one's property without payment, even though intended for a public use, would undoubtedly be held to be a taking without due process of law and a denial of the equal protection of the laws. That aspect of the matter was stressed in the recent case of J. M. Tuason and Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration. (31 SCRA 413) Conformably to such a fundamental principle then, in accordance with a constitutional mandate, this Court has never hesitated to assure that there be just compensation. If it were otherwise, the element of arbitrariness certainly would enter. It is bad enough that an owner of a property, in the event of the exercise of this sovereign prerogative, has no choice but to yield to such a taking. It is infinitely worse if thereafter, he is denied all these years the payment to which he is entitled. This is one of the instances where law and morals speak to the same effect. (Cf. Province of Tayabas v. Perez, 66 Phil. 467 [1938] and other related cases). The property of the petitioner was taken by the government in 1975. The following year, respondent NIA made the required deposit of P2,097.30 with the Philippine National Bank and within the same year, the Barotac Viejo Irrigation Project was finished. Since then, for more than a period of ten (10) years, the project has been of service to the farmers nearby in the province of Iloilo. It is, thus, inconceivable how this project could have been started without the necessary appropriation for just compensation. Needless to state, no government instrumentality, agency, or subdivision has any business initiating expropriation proceedings unless it has adequate funds, supported by proper appropriation acts, to pay for the property to be seized from the owner. Not only was the government able to make an initial deposit of P2,097.30 but the project was finished in only a year's time. We agree with the petitioner that before the respondent NIA undertook the construction of the Barotac Viejo Irrigation Project, the same was duly authorized, with the corresponding funds appropriated for the payment of expropriated land and to pay for equipment, salaries of personnel, and other expenses incidental to the project. The NIA officials responsible for the project have to do plenty of explaining as to where they misdirected the funds intended for the expropriated property. The present case must be distinguished from earlier cases where payment for property expropriated by the National Government may not be realized upon execution. As a rule, the legislature must first appropriate the additional amount to pay the award. (See Commissioner of Public Highways v. San Diego, 31 SCRA 616 and Visayan Refining Co. v. Camus & Paredes, 40 Phil. 550).

In the present case, the Barotac Viejo Project was a package project of government. Money was allocated for an entire project. Before bulldozers and ditch diggers tore up the place and before millions of pesos were put into the development of the project, the basic responsibility of paying the owners for property seized from them should have been met. Another distinction lies in the fact that the NIA collects fees for the use of the irrigation system constructed on the petitioner's land. It does not have to await an express act of Congress to locate funds for this specific purpose. The rule in earlier precedents that the functions and public services rendered by the state cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects (Commissioner of Public Highways v. San Diego, supra, at p. 625) is not applicable here. There is no showing of any public service to be disrupted if the fees collected from the farmers of Iloilo for the use of irrigation water from the disrupted property were utilized to pay for that property. We must emphasize that nowhere in any expropriation case has there been a deviation from the rule that the Government must pay for expropriated property. In the Commissioner of Public Highways case, the Court stressed that it is incumbent upon the legislature to appropriate the necessary amount because it cannot keep the land and dishonor the judgment. This case illustrates the expanded meaning of "public use" in the eminent domain clause. (Constitution, Article III, Section 9.) The petitioner's land was not taken for the construction of a road, bridge, school, public buildings, or other traditional objects of expropriation. When the National Housing Authority expropriates raw land to convert into housing projects for rent or sale to private persons or the NIA expropriates land to construct irrigation systems and sells water rights to farmers, it would be the height of abuse and ignominy for the agencies to start earning from those properties while ignoring final judgments ordering the payment of just compensation to the former owners. Just compensation means not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owner of the land but also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered "just" for the property owner is made to suffer the consequence of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss. Thus, in the case of Provincial Government of Sorsogon v. Rosa E. Vda. de Villaroyo (153 SCRA 291), we ruled: The petitioners have been waiting for more than thirty years to be paid for their land which was taken for use as a public high school. As a matter of fair procedure, it is the duty of the Government whenever it takes property from private persons against their will to supply all required documentation and facilitate payment of just compensation. The imposition of unreasonable requirements and vexatious delays before effecting payment is not only galling and arbitrary but a rich source of discontent with government. There should be some kind of swift and effective recourse against unfeeling and uncaring acts of middle or lower level bureaucrats. Under ordinary circumstances, immediate return to the owners of the unpaid property is the obvious remedy. ln cases where land is taken for public use, public interest, however, must, be considered. The children of Gubat, Sorsogon have been using the disputed land as their high school athletic grounds for thirty years. (Emphasis supplied) In the present case, the irrigation project was completed and has been in operation since 1976. The project is benefitting the farmers specifically and the community in general. Obviously, the petitioner's land cannot be returned to him. However, it is high time that the petitioner be paid what was due him eleven years ago. It is arbitrary and capricious for a government agency to initiate expropriation proceedings, seize a person's property, allow the judgment of the court to become final and executory and then refuse to pay on the ground that there are no appropriations for the property earlier taken and profitably used. We condemn in the strongest possible terms the cavalier attitude of government officials who adopt such a despotic and irresponsible stance. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision and order of the respondent appellate court dated November 25, 1987 and February 16, 1987 respectively are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City is ordered to immediately execute the final judgment in Civil Case No. 10530 and effect payment of P200,000.00 as just compensation deducting therefrom the partial payment already deposited by the respondent at

the institution of the action below with legal interest from September 21, 1985, plus P5,000.00 attorney's fees and P2,500.00 litigation expenses. SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 101949 December 1, 1994 THE HOLY SEE, petitioner, vs. THE HON. ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, JR., as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 61 and STARBRIGHT SALES ENTERPRISES, INC., respondents. QUIASON, J.: This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to reverse and set aside the Orders dated June 20, 1991 and September 19, 1991 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Makati, Metro Manila in Civil Case No. 90-183. The Order dated June 20, 1991 denied the motion of petitioner to dismiss the complaint in Civil Case No. 90-183, while the Order dated September 19, 1991 denied the motion for reconsideration of the June 20,1991 Order. Petitioner is the Holy See who exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City in Rome, Italy, and is represented in the Philippines by the Papal Nuncio. Private respondent, Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc., is a domestic corporation engaged in the real estate business. This petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of land consisting of 6,000 square meters (Lot 5-A, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 390440) located in the Municipality of Paraaque, Metro Manila and registered in the name of petitioner. Said Lot 5-A is contiguous to Lots 5-B and 5-D which are covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 271108 and 265388 respectively and registered in the name of the Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC). The three lots were sold to Ramon Licup, through Msgr. Domingo A. Cirilos, Jr., acting as agent to the sellers. Later, Licup assigned his rights to the sale to private respondent. In view of the refusal of the squatters to vacate the lots sold to private respondent, a dispute arose as to who of the parties has the responsibility of evicting and clearing the land of squatters. Complicating the relations of the parties was the sale by petitioner of Lot 5-A to Tropicana Properties and Development Corporation (Tropicana). I On January 23, 1990, private respondent filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Makati, Metro Manila for annulment of the sale of the three parcels of land, and specific performance and damages against petitioner, represented by the Papal Nuncio, and three other defendants: namely, Msgr. Domingo A. Cirilos, Jr., the PRC and Tropicana (Civil Case No. 90-183). The complaint alleged that: (1) on April 17, 1988, Msgr. Cirilos, Jr., on behalf of petitioner and the PRC, agreed to sell to Ramon Licup Lots 5-A, 5-B and 5-D at the price of P1,240.00 per square meters; (2) the agreement to sell was made on the condition that earnest money of P100,000.00 be paid by Licup to the sellers, and that the sellers clear the said lots of squatters who were then occupying the same; (3) Licup paid the earnest money to Msgr. Cirilos; (4) in the same month, Licup assigned his rights over the property to private respondent and informed the sellers of the said assignment; (5) thereafter, private respondent demanded from Msgr. Cirilos that the sellers fulfill their undertaking and clear the property of squatters; however, Msgr. Cirilos informed private respondent of the squatters' refusal to vacate the lots, proposing instead either that private respondent undertake the eviction or that the earnest money be returned to the latter; (6) private respondent counterproposed that if it would undertake the eviction of the squatters, the purchase price of the lots should be reduced from P1,240.00 to P1,150.00 per square meter; (7) Msgr. Cirilos returned the earnest money of P100,000.00 and wrote private respondent giving it seven days from receipt of the letter to pay the original purchase price in cash; (8) private respondent sent the earnest money back to the sellers, but later discovered that on March 30, 1989, petitioner and the PRC, without notice to

private respondent, sold the lots to Tropicana, as evidenced by two separate Deeds of Sale, one over Lot 5-A, and another over Lots 5-B and 5-D; and that the sellers' transfer certificate of title over the lots were cancelled, transferred and registered in the name of Tropicana; (9) Tropicana induced petitioner and the PRC to sell the lots to it and thus enriched itself at the expense of private respondent; (10) private respondent demanded the rescission of the sale to Tropicana and the reconveyance of the lots, to no avail; and (11) private respondent is willing and able to comply with the terms of the contract to sell and has actually made plans to develop the lots into a townhouse project, but in view of the sellers' breach, it lost profits of not less than P30,000.000.00. Private respondent thus prayed for: (1) the annulment of the Deeds of Sale between petitioner and the PRC on the one hand, and Tropicana on the other; (2) the reconveyance of the lots in question; (3) specific performance of the agreement to sell between it and the owners of the lots; and (4) damages. On June 8, 1990, petitioner and Msgr. Cirilos separately moved to dismiss the complaint petitioner for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity from suit, and Msgr. Cirilos for being an improper party. An opposition to the motion was filed by private respondent. On June 20, 1991, the trial court issued an order denying, among others, petitioner's motion to dismiss after finding that petitioner "shed off [its] sovereign immunity by entering into the business contract in question" (Rollo, pp. 2021). On July 12, 1991, petitioner moved for reconsideration of the order. On August 30, 1991, petitioner filed a "Motion for a Hearing for the Sole Purpose of Establishing Factual Allegation for claim of Immunity as a Jurisdictional Defense." So as to facilitate the determination of its defense of sovereign immunity, petitioner prayed that a hearing be conducted to allow it to establish certain facts upon which the said defense is based. Private respondent opposed this motion as well as the motion for reconsideration. On October 1, 1991, the trial court issued an order deferring the resolution on the motion for reconsideration until after trial on the merits and directing petitioner to file its answer (Rollo, p. 22). Petitioner forthwith elevated the matter to us. In its petition, petitioner invokes the privilege of sovereign immunity only on its own behalf and on behalf of its official representative, the Papal Nuncio. On December 9, 1991, a Motion for Intervention was filed before us by the Department of Foreign Affairs, claiming that it has a legal interest in the outcome of the case as regards the diplomatic immunity of petitioner, 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 from suit" (Rollo, p. 87). Private respondent opposed the intervention of the Department of Foreign Affairs. In compliance with the resolution of this Court, both parties and the Department of Foreign Affairs submitted their respective memoranda. II A preliminary matter to be threshed out is the procedural issue of whether the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court can be availed of to question the order denying petitioner's motion to dismiss. The general rule is that an order denying a motion to dismiss is not reviewable by the appellate courts, the remedy of the movant being to file his answer and to proceed with the hearing before the trial court. But the general rule admits of exceptions, and one of these is when it is very clear in the records that the trial court has no alternative but to dismiss the complaint (Philippine National Bank v. Florendo, 206 SCRA 582 [1992]; Zagada v. Civil Service Commission, 216 SCRA 114 [1992]. In such a case, it would be a sheer waste of time and energy to require the parties to undergo the rigors of a trial. The other procedural question raised by private respondent is the personality or legal interest of the Department of Foreign Affairs to intervene in the case in behalf of the Holy See (Rollo, pp. 186-190). In Public International Law, when a state or international agency wishes to plead sovereign or diplomatic immunity in a foreign court, it requests the Foreign Office of the state where it is sued to convey to the court that said defendant is entitled to immunity.

In the United States, the procedure followed is the process of "suggestion," where the foreign state or the international organization sued in an American court requests the Secretary of State to make a determination as to whether it is entitled to immunity. If the Secretary of State finds that the defendant is immune from suit, he, in turn, asks the Attorney General to submit to the court a "suggestion" that the defendant is entitled to immunity. In England, a similar procedure is followed, only the Foreign Office issues a certification to that effect instead of submitting a "suggestion" (O'Connell, I International Law 130 [1965]; Note: Immunity from Suit of Foreign Sovereign Instrumentalities and Obligations, 50 Yale Law Journal 1088 [1941]). In the Philippines, the practice is for the foreign government or the international organization to first secure an executive endorsement of its claim of sovereign or diplomatic immunity. But how the Philippine Foreign Office conveys its endorsement to the courts varies. In International Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja, 190 SCRA 130 (1990), the Secretary of Foreign Affairs just sent a letter directly to the Secretary of Labor and Employment, informing the latter that the respondent-employer could not be sued because it enjoyed diplomatic immunity. InWorld Health Organization v. Aquino, 48 SCRA 242 (1972), the Secretary of Foreign Affairs sent the trial court a telegram to that effect. In Baer v. Tizon, 57 SCRA 1 (1974), the U.S. Embassy asked the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to request the Solicitor General to make, in behalf of the Commander of the United States Naval Base at Olongapo City, Zambales, a "suggestion" to respondent Judge. The Solicitor General embodied the "suggestion" in a Manifestation and Memorandum as amicus curiae. In the case at bench, the Department of Foreign Affairs, through the Office of Legal Affairs moved with this Court to be allowed to intervene on the side of petitioner. The Court allowed the said Department to file its memorandum in support of petitioner's claim of sovereign immunity. In some cases, the defense of sovereign immunity was submitted directly to the local courts by the respondents through their private counsels (Raquiza v. Bradford, 75 Phil. 50 [1945]; Miquiabas v. Philippine-Ryukyus Command, 80 Phil. 262 [1948]; United States of America v. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644 [1990] and companion cases). In cases where the foreign states bypass the Foreign Office, the courts can inquire into the facts and make their own determination as to the nature of the acts and transactions involved. III The burden of the petition is that respondent trial court has no jurisdiction over petitioner, being a foreign state enjoying sovereign immunity. On the other hand, private respondent insists that the doctrine of non-suability is not anymore absolute and that petitioner has divested itself of such a cloak when, of its own free will, it entered into a commercial transaction for the sale of a parcel of land located in the Philippines. A. The Holy See Before we determine the issue of petitioner's non-suability, a brief look into its status as a sovereign state is in order. Before the annexation of the Papal States by Italy in 1870, the Pope was the monarch and he, as the Holy See, was considered a subject of International Law. With the loss of the Papal States and the limitation of the territory under the Holy See to an area of 108.7 acres, the position of the Holy See in International Law became controversial (Salonga and Yap, Public International Law 36-37 [1992]). In 1929, Italy and the Holy See entered into the Lateran Treaty, where Italy recognized the exclusive dominion and sovereign jurisdiction of the Holy See over the Vatican City. It also recognized the right of the Holy See to receive foreign diplomats, to send its own diplomats to foreign countries, and to enter into treaties according to International Law (Garcia, Questions and Problems In International Law, Public and Private 81 [1948]). The Lateran Treaty established the statehood of the Vatican City "for the purpose of assuring to the Holy See absolute and visible independence and of guaranteeing to it indisputable sovereignty also in the field of international relations" (O'Connell, I International Law 311 [1965]). In view of the wordings of the Lateran Treaty, it is difficult to determine whether the statehood is vested in the Holy See or in the Vatican City. Some writers even suggested that the treaty created two international persons the Holy See and Vatican City (Salonga and Yap, supra, 37).

The Vatican City fits into none of the established categories of states, and the attribution to it of "sovereignty" must be made in a sense different from that in which it is applied to other states (Fenwick, International Law 124-125 [1948]; Cruz, International Law 37 [1991]). In a community of national states, the Vatican City represents an entity organized not for political but for ecclesiastical purposes and international objects. Despite its size and object, the Vatican City has an independent government of its own, with the Pope, who is also head of the Roman Catholic Church, as the Holy See or Head of State, in conformity with its traditions, and the demands of its mission in the world. Indeed, the world-wide interests and activities of the Vatican City are such as to make it in a sense an "international state" (Fenwick, supra., 125; Kelsen, Principles of International Law 160 [1956]). One authority wrote that the recognition of the Vatican City as a state has significant implication that it is possible for any entity pursuing objects essentially different from those pursued by states to be invested with international personality (Kunz, The Status of the Holy See in International Law, 46 The American Journal of International Law 308 [1952]). Inasmuch as the Pope prefers to conduct foreign relations and enter into transactions as the Holy See and not in the name of the Vatican City, one can conclude that in the Pope's own view, it is the Holy See that is the international person. The Republic of the Philippines has accorded the Holy See the status of a foreign sovereign. The Holy See, through its Ambassador, the Papal Nuncio, has had diplomatic representations with the Philippine government since 1957 (Rollo, p. 87). This appears to be the universal practice in international relations. B. Sovereign Immunity As expressed in Section 2 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution, we have adopted the generally accepted principles of International Law. Even without this affirmation, such principles of International Law are deemed incorporated as part of the law of the land as a condition and consequence of our admission in the society of nations (United States of America v. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644 [1990]). There are two conflicting concepts of sovereign immunity, each widely held and firmly established. According to the classical or absolute theory, a sovereign cannot, without its consent, be made a respondent in the courts of another sovereign. According to the newer or restrictive theory, the immunity of the sovereign is recognized only with regard to public acts or acts jure imperii of a state, but not with regard to private acts or acts jure gestionis (United States of America v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487 [1987]; Coquia and Defensor-Santiago, Public International Law 194 [1984]). Some states passed legislation to serve as guidelines for the executive or judicial determination when an act may be considered as jure gestionis. The United States passed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, which defines a commercial activity as "either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction or act." Furthermore, the law declared that the "commercial character of the activity shall be determined by reference to the nature of the course of conduct or particular transaction or act, rather than by reference to its purpose." The Canadian Parliament enacted in 1982 an Act to Provide For State Immunity in Canadian Courts. The Act defines a "commercial activity" as any particular transaction, act or conduct or any regular course of conduct that by reason of its nature, is of a "commercial character." The restrictive theory, which is intended to be a solution to the host of problems involving the issue of sovereign immunity, has created problems of its own. Legal treatises and the decisions in countries which follow the restrictive theory have difficulty in characterizing whether a contract of a sovereign state with a private party is an act jure gestionis or an act jure imperii. The restrictive theory came about because of the entry of sovereign states into purely commercial activities remotely connected with the discharge of governmental functions. This is particularly true with respect to the Communist states which took control of nationalized business activities and international trading. This Court has considered the following transactions by a foreign state with private parties as acts jure imperii: (1) the lease by a foreign government of apartment buildings for use of its military officers (Syquia v. Lopez, 84 Phil. 312 [1949]; (2) the conduct of public bidding for the repair of a wharf at a United States Naval Station (United States

of America v. Ruiz, supra.); and (3) the change of employment status of base employees (Sanders v. Veridiano, 162 SCRA 88 [1988]). On the other hand, this Court has considered the following transactions by a foreign state with private parties as acts jure gestionis: (1) the hiring of a cook in the recreation center, consisting of three restaurants, a cafeteria, a bakery, a store, and a coffee and pastry shop at the John Hay Air Station in Baguio City, to cater to American servicemen and the general public (United States of America v. Rodrigo, 182 SCRA 644 [1990]); and (2) the bidding for the operation of barber shops in Clark Air Base in Angeles City (United States of America v. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644 [1990]). The operation of the restaurants and other facilities open to the general public is undoubtedly for profit as a commercial and not a governmental activity. By entering into the employment contract with the cook in the discharge of its proprietary function, the United States government impliedly divested itself of its sovereign immunity from suit. In the absence of legislation defining what activities and transactions shall be considered "commercial" and as constituting acts jure gestionis, we have to come out with our own guidelines, tentative they may be. Certainly, the mere entering into a contract by a foreign state with a private party cannot be the ultimate test. Such an act can only be the start of the inquiry. The logical question is whether the foreign state is engaged in the activity in the regular course of business. If the foreign state is not engaged regularly in a business or trade, the particular act or transaction must then be tested by its nature. If the act is in pursuit of a sovereign activity, or an incident thereof, then it is an act jure imperii, especially when it is not undertaken for gain or profit. As held in United States of America v. Guinto, (supra): There is no question that the United States of America, like any other state, will be deemed to have impliedly waived its non-suability if it has entered into a contract in its proprietary or private capacity. It is only when the contract involves its sovereign or governmental capacity that no such waiver may be implied. In the case at bench, if petitioner has bought and sold lands in the ordinary course of a real estate business, surely the said transaction can be categorized as an act jure gestionis. However, petitioner has denied that the acquisition and subsequent disposal of Lot 5-A were made for profit but claimed that it acquired said property for the site of its mission or the Apostolic Nunciature in the Philippines. Private respondent failed to dispute said claim. Lot 5-A was acquired by petitioner as a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila. The donation was made not for commercial purpose, but for the use of petitioner to construct thereon the official place of residence of the Papal Nuncio. 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 (Arts. 20-22). This treaty was concurred in by the Philippine Senate and entered into force in the Philippines on November 15, 1965. In Article 31(a) of the Convention, a diplomatic envoy is granted immunity from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over any real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving state which the envoy holds on behalf of the sending state for the purposes of the mission. If this immunity is provided for a diplomatic envoy, with all the more reason should immunity be recognized as regards the sovereign itself, which in this case is the Holy See. The decision to transfer the property and the subsequent disposal thereof are likewise clothed with a governmental character. Petitioner did not sell Lot 5-A 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. The fact that squatters have occupied and are still occupying the lot, and that they stubbornly refuse to leave the premises, has been admitted by private respondent in its complaint (Rollo, pp. 26, 27). The issue of petitioner's non-suability can be determined by the trial court without going to trial in the light of the pleadings, particularly the admission of private respondent. Besides, the privilege of sovereign immunity in this case was sufficiently established by the Memorandum and Certification of the Department of Foreign Affairs. As the

department tasked with the conduct of the Philippines' foreign relations (Administrative Code of 1987, Book IV, Title I, Sec. 3), the Department of Foreign Affairs has formally intervened in this case and officially certified that the Embassy of the Holy See is a duly accredited diplomatic mission to the Republic of the Philippines exempt from local jurisdiction and entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of a diplomatic mission or embassy in this country (Rollo, pp. 156-157). The determination of the executive arm of government that a state or instrumentality is entitled to sovereign or diplomatic immunity is a political question that is conclusive upon the courts (International Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja, 190 SCRA 130 [1990]). Where the plea of immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch, it is the duty of the courts to accept this claim so as not to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting the country's foreign relations (World Health Organization v. Aquino, 48 SCRA 242 [1972]). As in International Catholic Migration Commission and in World Health Organization, we abide by the certification of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Ordinarily, the procedure would be to remand the case and order the trial court to conduct a hearing to establish the facts alleged by petitioner in its motion. In view of said certification, such procedure would however be pointless and unduly circuitous (Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Tirso Velasco, G.R. No. 109645, July 25, 1994). IV Private respondent is not left without any legal remedy for the redress of its grievances. Under both Public International Law and Transnational Law, a person who feels aggrieved by the acts of a foreign sovereign can ask his own government to espouse his cause through diplomatic channels. Private respondent can ask the Philippine government, through the Foreign Office, to espouse its claims against the Holy See. Its first task is to persuade the Philippine government to take up with the Holy See the validity of its claims. Of course, the Foreign Office shall first make a determination of the impact of its espousal on the relations between the Philippine government and the Holy See (Young, Remedies of Private Claimants Against Foreign States, Selected Readings on Protection by Law of Private Foreign Investments 905, 919 [1964]). Once the Philippine government decides to espouse the claim, the latter ceases to be a private cause. According to the Permanent Court of International Justice, the forerunner of the International Court of Justice: By taking up the case of one of its subjects and by reporting to diplomatic action or international judicial proceedings on his behalf, a State is in reality asserting its own rights its right to ensure, in the person of its subjects, respect for the rules of international law (The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, 1 Hudson, World Court Reports 293, 302 [1924]). WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED and the complaint in Civil Case No. 90-183 against petitioner is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED.

[G.R. No. 154705. June 26, 2003] THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA, HIS EXCELLENCY AMBASSADOR SOERATMIN, and MINISTER COUNSELLOR AZHARI KASIM, petitioners, vs.JAMES VINZON, doing business under the name and style of VINZON TRADE AND SERVICES, respondent.

DECISION AZCUNA, J: This is a petition for review on certiorari to set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 30, 2002 and its Resolution dated August 16, 2002, in CA-G.R. SP No. 66894 entitledThe Republic of Indonesia, His Excellency Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counselor Azhari Kasim v. Hon. Cesar Santamaria, Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 145, Makati City, and James Vinzon, doing business under the name and style of Vinzon Trade and Services. Petitioner, Republic of Indonesia, represented by its Counsellor, Siti Partinah, entered into a Maintenance Agreement in August 1995 with respondent James Vinzon, sole proprietor of Vinzon Trade and Services. The Maintenance Agreement stated that respondent shall, for a consideration, maintain specified equipment at the Embassy Main Building, Embassy Annex Building and the Wisma Duta, the official residence of petitioner Ambassador Soeratmin. The equipment covered by the Maintenance Agreement are air conditioning units, generator sets, electrical facilities, water heaters, and water motor pumps. It is likewise stated therein that the agreement shall be effective for a period of four years and will renew itself automatically unless cancelled by either party by giving thirty days prior written notice from the date of expiry.[1] Petitioners claim that sometime prior to the date of expiration of the said agreement, or before August 1999, they informed respondent that the renewal of the agreement shall be at the discretion of the incoming Chief of Administration, Minister Counsellor Azhari Kasim, who was expected to arrive in February 2000. When Minister Counsellor Kasim assumed the position of Chief of Administration in March 2000, he allegedly found respondents work and services unsatisfactory and not in compliance with the standards set in the Maintenance Agreement. Hence, the Indonesian Embassy terminated the agreement in a letter dated August 31, 2000.[2] Petitioners claim, moreover, that they had earlier verbally informed respondent of their decision to terminate the agreement. On the other hand, respondent claims that the aforesaid termination was arbitrary and unlawful. Respondent cites various circumstances which purportedly negated petitioners alleged dissatisfaction over respondents services: (a) in July 2000, Minister Counsellor Kasim still requested respondent to assign to the embassy an additional full-time worker to assist one of his other workers; (b) in August 2000, Minister Counsellor Kasim asked respondent to donate a prize, which the latter did, on the occasion of the Indonesian Independence Day golf tournament; and (c) in a letter dated August 22, 2000, petitioner Ambassador Soeratmin thanked respondent for sponsoring a prize and expressed his hope that the cordial relations happily existing between them will continue to prosper and be strengthened in the coming years. Hence, on December 15, 2000, respondent filed a complaint[3] against petitioners docketed as Civil Case No. 18203 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 145. On February 20, 2001, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging that the Republic of Indonesia, as a foreign sovereign State, has sovereign immunity from suit and cannot be sued as a party-defendant in the Philippines. The said motion further alleged that Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim are diplomatic agents as defined under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and therefore enjoy diplomatic immunity.[4] In turn, respondent filed on March 20, 2001, an Opposition to the said motion alleging that the Republic of Indonesia has expressly waived its immunity from suit. He based this claim upon the following provision in the Maintenance Agreement: Any legal action arising out of this Maintenance Agreement shall be settled according to the laws of the Philippines and by the proper court of Makati City, Philippines. Respondents Opposition likewise alleged that Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim can be sued and held liable in their private capacities for tortious acts done with malice and bad faith.[5] On May 17, 2001, the trial court denied herein petitioners Motion to Dismiss. It likewise denied the Motion for Reconsideration subsequently filed.

The trial courts denial of the Motion to Dismiss was brought up to the Court of A ppeals by herein petitioners in a petition for certiorari and prohibition. Said petition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 66894, alleged that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in ruling that the Republic of Indonesia gave its consent to be sued and voluntarily submitted itself to the laws and jurisdiction of Philippine courts and that petitioners Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim waived their immunity from suit. On May 30, 2002, the Court of Appeals rendered its assailed decision denying the petition for lack of merit.[6] On August 16, 2002, it denied herein petitioners motion for reconsideration.[7] Hence, this petition. In the case at bar, petitioners raise the sole issue of whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the trial courts decision that petitioners have waived their immunity from suit by using as its basis the abovementioned provision in the Maintenance Agreement. The petition is impressed with merit. International law is founded largely upon the principles of reciprocity, comity, independence, and equality of States which were adopted as part of the law of our land under Article II, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.[8] The rule that a State may not be sued without its consent is a necessary consequence of the principles of independence and equality of States.[9] As enunciated in Sanders v. Veridiano II,[10] the practical justification for the doctrine of sovereign immunity is that there can be no legal right against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. In the case of foreign States, the rule is derived from the principle of the sovereign equality of States, as expressed in the maxim par in parem non habet imperium. All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another.[11] A contrary attitude would unduly vex the peace of nations.[12] The rules of International Law, however, are neither unyielding nor impervious to change. The increasing need of sovereign States to enter into purely commercial activities remotely connected with the discharge of their governmental functions brought about a new concept of sovereign immunity. This concept, the restrictive theory, holds that the immunity of the sovereign is recognized only with regard to public acts or acts jure imperii, but not with regard to private acts or acts jure gestionis.[13] In United States v. Ruiz,[14] for instance, we held that the conduct of public bidding for the repair of a wharf at a United States Naval Station is an act jure imperii. On the other hand, we considered as an act jure gestionis the hiring of a cook in the recreation center catering to American servicemen and the general public at the John Hay Air Station in Baguio City,[15] as well as the bidding for the operation of barber shops in Clark Air Base in Angeles City.[16] Apropos the present case, the mere entering into a contract by a foreign State with a private party cannot be construed as the ultimate test of whether or not it is an act jure imperii or jure gestionis. Such act is only the start of the inquiry. Is the foreign State engaged in the regular conduct of a business? If the foreign State is not engaged regularly in a business or commercial activity, and in this case it has not been shown to be so engaged, the particular act or transaction must then be tested by its nature. If the act is in pursuit of a sovereign activity, or an incident thereof, then it is an act jure imperii.[17] Hence, the existence alone of a paragraph in a contract stating that any legal action arising out of the agreement shall be settled according to the laws of the Philippines and by a specified court of the Philippines is not necessarily a waiver of sovereign immunity from suit. The aforesaid provision contains language not necessarily inconsistent with sovereign immunity. On the other hand, such provision may also be meant to apply where the sovereign party elects to sue in the local courts, or otherwise waives its immunity by any subsequent act. The applicability of Philippine laws must be deemed to include Philippine laws in its totality, including the principle recognizing sovereign immunity. Hence, the proper court may have no proper action, by way of settling the case, except to dismiss it. Submission by a foreign state to local jurisdiction must be clear and unequivocal. It must be given explicitly or by necessary implication. We find no such waiver in this case. Respondent concedes that the establishment of a diplomatic mission is a sovereign function. On the other hand, he argues that the actual physical maintenance of the premises of the diplomatic mission, such as the upkeep of its furnishings and equipment, is no longer a sovereign function of the State.[18] We disagree. There is no dispute that the establishment of a diplomatic mission is an act jure imperii. A sovereign State does not merely establish a diplomatic mission and leave it at that; the establishment of a diplomatic mission encompasses its maintenance and upkeep. Hence, the State may enter into contracts with private entities

to maintain the premises, furnishings and equipment of the embassy and the living quarters of its agents and officials. It is therefore clear that petitioner Republic of Indonesia was acting in pursuit of a sovereign activity when it entered into a contract with respondent for the upkeep or maintenance of the air conditioning units, generator sets, electrical facilities, water heaters, and water motor pumps of the Indonesian Embassy and the official residence of the Indonesian ambassador. The Solicitor General, in his Comment, submits the view that, the Maintenance Agreement was entered into by the Republic of Indonesia in the discharge of its governmental functions. In such a case, it cannot be deemed to have waived its immunity from suit. As to the paragraph in the agreement relied upon by respondent, the Solicitor General states that it was not a waiver of their immunity from suit but a mere stipulation that in the event they do waive their immunity, Philippine laws shall govern the resolution of any legal action arising out of the agreement and the proper court in Makati City shall be the agreed venue thereof.[19] On the matter of whether or not petitioners Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim may be sued herein in their private capacities, Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations provides: xxx 1. A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisidiction of the receiving State. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction, except in the case of: (a) a real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving State, unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission; (b) an action relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent is involved as executor, administrator, heir or legatee as a private person and not on behalf of the sending State; (c) an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions. xxx The act of petitioners Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim in terminating the Maintenance Agreement is not covered by the exceptions provided in the abovementioned provision. The Solicitor General believes that said act may fall under subparagraph (c) thereof,[20] but said provision clearly applies only to a situation where the diplomatic agent engages in any professional or commercial activity outside official functions, which is not the case herein. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 66894 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the complaint in Civil Case No. 18203 against petitioners is DISMISSED. No costs. SO ORDERED.

[G.R. No. 142396. February 11, 2003] KHOSROW MINUCHER, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ARTHUR SCALZO, respondents. DECISION 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 Regional Trial Court, Branch 151, 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. On 08 January 1988, Presiding Judge Eutropio Migrino rendered a decision acquitting the two accused. On 03 August 1988, Minucher filed Civil Case No. 88-45691 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19, of Manila for damages on account of what he claimed to have been trumped-up charges of drug trafficking made by Arthur Scalzo. The Manila RTC detailed what it had found to be the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. "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 Attach for the Iranian Embassies in Tokyo, Japan and Manila, Philippines. When the Shah of Iran was deposed by Ayatollah Khomeini, plaintiff became a refugee of the United Nations and continued to stay in the Philippines. He headed the Iranian National Resistance Movement in the Philippines. He came to know the defendant on May 13, 1986, when the latter was brought to his house and introduced to him by a certain Jose Iigo, an informer of the Intelligence Unit of the military. Jose Iigo, on the other hand, was met by plaintiff at the office of Atty. Crisanto Saruca, a lawyer for several Iranians whom plaintiff assisted as head of the anti-Khomeini movement in the Philippines. During his first meeting with the defendant on May 13, 1986, upon the introduction of Jose Iigo, 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. At the back of the card appears a telephone number in defendants own handwriting, the number of which he can also be contacted. 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. Their conversation, however, was more concentrated on politics, carpets and caviar. Thereafter, the defendant promised to see plaintiff again. On May 19, 1986, 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. Plaintiff brought the merchandize but for the reason that the defendant was not yet there, he requested the restaurant people to x x x place the same in the refrigerator. Defendant, however, came and plaintiff gave him the caviar for which he was paid. Then their conversation was again focused on politics and business. On May 26, 1986, 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 attach 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. Plaintiff was not told why he was being handcuffed and why the privacy of his house, especially his bedroom was invaded by defendant. He was not allowed to use the telephone. In fact, his telephone was unplugged. He asked for any warrant, but the defendant told him to `shut up. He was nevertheless told that he would be able to call for his lawyer who can defend him. 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. That his arrest as a heroin trafficker x x x had been well publicized throughout the world, in various newspapers, particularly in Australia, America, Central Asia and in the Philippines. He was identified in the papers as an international drug trafficker. x x x In fact, the arrest of defendant and Torabian was likewise on television, not only in the Philippines, but also in America and in Germany. His friends in said places informed him that they saw him on TV with said news. After the arrest made on plaintiff and Torabian, they were brought to Camp Crame handcuffed together, where they were detained for three days without food and water."[1] During the trial, the law firm of Luna, Sison and Manas, filed a special appearance for Scalzo and moved for extension of time to file an answer pending a supposed advice from the United States Department of State and Department of Justice on the defenses to be raised. The trial court granted the motion. On 27 October 1988, Scalzo filed another special appearance to quash the summons on the ground that he, not being a resident of the Philippines and the action being one in personam, was beyond the processes of the court. The motion was denied by the court, in its order of 13 December 1988, holding that the filing by Scalzo of a motion for extension of time to file an answer to the complaint was a voluntary appearance equivalent to service of summons which could likewise be construed a waiver of the requirement of formal notice. Scalzo filed a motion for reconsideration of the court order, contending that a motion for an extension of time to file an answer was not a voluntary appearance equivalent to service of summons since it did not seek an affirmative relief. Scalzo argued that in cases involving the United States government, as well as its agencies and officials, a motion for extension was peculiarly unavoidable due to the need (1) for both the Department of State and the Department of Justice to agree on the defenses to be raised and (2) to refer the case to a Philippine lawyer who would be expected to first review the case. The court a quo denied the motion for reconsideration in its order of 15 October 1989. Scalzo filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, there docketed CA-G.R. No. 17023, assailing the denial. In a decision, dated 06 October 1989, the appellate court denied the petition and affirmed the ruling of the trial court. Scalzo then elevated the incident in a petition for review on certiorari, docketed G.R. No. 91173, to this Court. The petition, however, was denied for its failure to comply with SC Circular No. 1-88; in any event, the Court added, Scalzo had failed to show that the appellate court was in error in its questioned judgment. Meanwhile, at the court a quo, an order, dated 09 February 1990, was issued (a) declaring Scalzo in default for his failure to file a responsive pleading (answer) and (b) setting the case for the reception of evidence. On 12 March 1990, Scalzo filed a motion to set aside the order of default and to admit his answer to the complaint. Granting the

motion, the trial court set the case for pre-trial. In his answer, Scalzo denied the material allegations of the complaint and raised the affirmative defenses (a) of Minuchers failure to state a cause of action in his complaint and (b) that Scalzo had acted in the discharge of his official duties as being merely an agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States Department of Justice. Scalzo interposed a counterclaim of P100,000.00 to answer for attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation. 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. He attached to his motion Diplomatic Note No. 414 of the United States Embassy, dated 29 May 1990, addressed to the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines and a Certification, dated 11 June 1990, of Vice Consul Donna Woodward, certifying that the note is a true and faithful copy of its original. In an order of 25 June 1990, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss. On 27 July 1990, Scalzo filed a petition for certiorari with injunction with this Court, docketed G.R. No. 94257 and entitled "Arthur W. Scalzo, Jr., vs. Hon. Wenceslao Polo, et al.," asking that the complaint in Civil Case No. 8845691 be ordered dismissed. The case was referred to the Court of Appeals, there docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 22505, per this Courts resolution of 07 August 1990. On 31 October 1990, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision sustaining the diplomatic immunity of Scalzo and ordering the dismissal of the complaint against him. Minucher filed a petition for review with this Court, docketed G.R. No. 97765 and entitled "Khosrow Minucher vs. the Honorable Court of Appeals, et. al. (cited in 214 SCRA 242), appealing the judgment of the Court of Appeals. In a decision, dated 24 September 1992, penned by Justice (now Chief Justice) Hilario Davide, Jr., this Court reversed the decision of the appellate court and remanded the case to the lower court for trial. The remand was ordered on the theses (a) that the Court of Appeals erred in granting the motion to dismiss of Scalzo for lack of jurisdiction over his person without even considering the issue of the authenticity of Diplomatic Note No. 414 and (b) that the complaint contained sufficient allegations to the effect that Scalzo committed the imputed acts in his personal capacity and outside the scope of his official duties and, absent any evidence to the contrary, the issue on Scalzos diplomatic immunity could not be taken up. The Manila RTC thus continued with its hearings on the case. On 17 November 1995, the trial court reached a decision; it adjudged: WHEREFORE, and in view of all the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered for the plaintiff, who successfully established his claim by sufficient evidence, against the defendant in the manner following: "`Adjudging defendant liable to plaintiff in actual and compensatory damages of P520,000.00; moral damages in the sum of P10 million; exemplary damages in the sum of P100,000.00; attorney's fees in the sum of P200,000.00 plus costs. `The Clerk of the Regional Trial Court, Manila, is ordered to take note of the lien of the Court on this judgment to answer for the unpaid docket fees considering that the plaintiff in this case instituted this action as a pauper litigant."[2] 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. Hence, this recourse by Minucher. The instant petition for review raises a two-fold issue: (1) whether or not the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, following the decision rendered by this Court in G.R. No. 97765, should have precluded the Court of Appeals from resolving the appeal to it in an entirely different manner, and (2) whether or not Arthur Scalzo is indeed entitled to diplomatic immunity. The doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, or its kindred rule of res judicata, would require 1) the finality of the prior judgment, 2) a valid jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties on the part of the court that renders it, 3) a judgment on the merits, and 4) an identity of the parties, subject matter and causes of action. [3] Even while one of the issues submitted in G.R. No. 97765 - "whether or not public respondent Court of Appeals erred in ruling that private respondent Scalzo is a diplomat immune from civil suit conformably with the Vienna Convention on

Diplomatic Relations" - is also a pivotal question raised in the instant petition, the ruling in G.R. No. 97765, however, has not resolved that point with finality. Indeed, the Court there has made this observation "It may be mentioned in this regard that private respondent himself, in his Pre-trial Brief filed on 13 June 1990, unequivocally states that he would present documentary evidence consisting of DEA records on his investigation and surveillance of plaintiff and on his position and duties as DEA special agent in Manila. Having thus reserved his right to present evidence in support of his position, which is the basis for the alleged diplomatic immunity, the barren self-serving claim in the belated motion to dismiss cannot be relied upon for a reasonable, intelligent and fair resolution of the issue of diplomatic immunity."[4] Scalzo contends that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, to which the Philippines is a signatory, grants him absolute immunity from suit, describing his functions as an agent of the United States Drugs Enforcement Agency as conducting surveillance operations on suspected drug dealers in the Philippines believed to be the source of prohibited drugs being shipped to the U.S., (and) having ascertained the target, (he then) would inform the Philippine narcotic agents (to) make the actual arrest." Scalzo has submitted to the trial court a number of documents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Exh. '2' Exh. '1' Exh. '5' Exh. '6' Exh. '7' Diplomatic Note No. 414 dated 29 May 1990; Certification of Vice Consul Donna K. Woodward dated 11 June 1990; Diplomatic Note No. 757 dated 25 October 1991; Diplomatic Note No. 791 dated 17 November 1992; and Diplomatic Note No. 833 dated 21 October 1988.

6. Exh. '3' 1st Indorsement of the Hon. Jorge R. Coquia, Legal Adviser, Department of Foreign Affairs, dated 27 June 1990 forwarding Embassy Note No. 414 to the Clerk of Court of RTC Manila, Branch 19 (the trial court); 7. Exh. '4' Diplomatic Note No. 414, appended to the 1st Indorsement (Exh. '3'); and

8. Exh. '8' Letter dated 18 November 1992 from the Office of the Protocol, Department of Foreign Affairs, through Asst. Sec. Emmanuel Fernandez, addressed to the Chief Justice of this Court.[5] The documents, according to Scalzo, would show that: (1) the United States Embassy accordingly advised the Executive Department of the Philippine Government that Scalzo was a member of the diplomatic staff of the United States diplomatic mission from his arrival in the Philippines on 14 October 1985 until his departure on 10 August 1988; (2) that the United States Government was firm from the very beginning in asserting the diplomatic immunity of Scalzo with respect to the case pursuant to the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations; and (3) that the United States Embassy repeatedly urged the Department of Foreign Affairs to take appropriate action to inform the trial court of Scalzos diplomatic immunity. The other documentary exhibits were presented to indicate that: (1) the Philippine government itself, through its Executive Department, recognizing and respecting the diplomatic status of Scalzo, formally advised the Judicial Department of his diplomatic status and his entitlement to all diplomatic privileges and immunities under the Vienna Convention; and (2) the Department of Foreign Affairs itself authenticated Diplomatic Note No. 414. Scalzo additionally presented Exhibits "9" to "13" consisting of his reports of investigation on the surveillance and subsequent arrest of Minucher, the certification of the Drug Enforcement Administration of the United States Department of Justice that Scalzo was a special agent assigned to the Philippines at all times relevant to the complaint, and the special power of attorney executed by him in favor of his previous counsel[6] to show (a) that the United States Embassy, affirmed by its Vice Consul, acknowledged Scalzo to be a member of the diplomatic staff of the United States diplomatic mission from his arrival in the Philippines on 14 October 1985 until his departure on 10 August 1988, (b) that, on May 1986, with the cooperation of the Philippine law enforcement officials and in the exercise of his functions as member of the mission, he investigated Minucher for alleged trafficking in a prohibited drug, and (c) that the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs itself recognized that Scalzo during his tour of duty in the Philippines (14 October 1985 up to 10 August 1988) was listed as being an Assistant Attach of the United States diplomatic mission and accredited with

diplomatic status by the Government of the Philippines. In his Exhibit 12, Scalzo described the functions of the overseas office of the United States Drugs Enforcement Agency, i.e., (1) to provide criminal investigative expertise and assistance to foreign law enforcement agencies on narcotic and drug control programs upon the request of the host country, 2) to establish and maintain liaison with the host country and counterpart foreign law enforcement officials, and 3) to conduct complex criminal investigations involving international criminal conspiracies which affect the interests of the United States. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations was a codification of centuries-old customary law and, by the time of its ratification on 18 April 1961, its rules of law had long become stable. Among the city states of ancient Greece, among the peoples of the Mediterranean before the establishment of the Roman Empire, and among the states of India, the person of the herald in time of war and the person of the diplomatic envoy in time of peace were universally held sacrosanct.[7] By the end of the 16th century, when the earliest treatises on diplomatic law were published, the inviolability of ambassadors was firmly established as a rule of customary international law.[8] Traditionally, the exercise of diplomatic intercourse among states was undertaken by the head of state himself, as being the preeminent embodiment of the state he represented, and the foreign secretary, the official usually entrusted with the external affairs of the state. Where a state would wish to have a more prominent diplomatic presence in the receiving state, it would then send to the latter a diplomatic mission. Conformably with the Vienna Convention, the functions of the diplomatic mission involve, by and large, the representation of the interests of the sending state and promoting friendly relations with the receiving state.[9] The Convention lists the classes of heads of diplomatic missions to include (a) ambassadors or nuncios accredited to the heads of state,[10] (b) envoys,[11] ministers or internunciosaccredited to the heads of states; and (c) charges d' affairs[12] accredited to the ministers of foreign affairs.[13] 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, particularly in his Exhibits 9 to 13, that he was an Assistant Attach of the United States diplomatic mission and was accredited as such by the Philippine Government. An attach 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.[14] These officials are not generally regarded as members of the diplomatic mission, nor are they normally designated as having diplomatic rank. In an attempt to prove his diplomatic status, Scalzo presented Diplomatic Notes Nos. 414, 757 and 791, all issued post litem motam, respectively, on 29 May 1990, 25 October 1991 and 17 November 1992. The presentation did nothing much to alleviate the Court's initial reservations in G.R. No. 97765, viz: "While the trial court denied the motion to dismiss, the public respondent gravely abused its discretion in dismissing Civil Case No. 88-45691 on the basis of an erroneous assumption that simply because of the diplomatic note, the private respondent is clothed with diplomatic immunity, thereby divesting the trial court of jurisdiction over his person. And now, to the core issue - the alleged diplomatic immunity of the private respondent. Setting aside for the moment the issue of authenticity raised by the petitioner and the doubts that surround such claim, in view of the fact

that it took private respondent one (1) year, eight (8) months and seventeen (17) days from the time his counsel filed on 12 September 1988 a Special Appearance and Motion asking for a first extension of time to file the Answer because the Departments of State and Justice of the United States of America were studying the case for the purpose of determining his defenses, before he could secure the Diplomatic Note from the US Embassy in Manila, and even granting for the sake of argument that such note is authentic, the complaint for damages filed by petitioner cannot be peremptorily dismissed. "There is of course the claim of private respondent that the acts imputed to him were done in his official capacity. Nothing supports this self-serving claim other than the so-called Diplomatic Note. x x x. The public respondent then should have sustained the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss. Verily, it should have been the most proper and appropriate recourse. It should not have been overwhelmed by the self-serving Diplomatic Note whose belated issuance is even suspect and whose authenticity has not yet been proved. The undue haste with which respondent Court yielded to the private respondent's claim is arbitrary." A significant document would appear to be Exhibit No. 08, dated 08 November 1992, issued by the Office of Protocol of the Department of Foreign Affairs and signed by Emmanuel C. Fernandez, Assistant Secretary, certifying that "the records of the Department (would) show that Mr. Arthur W. Scalzo, Jr., during his term of office in the Philippines (from 14 October 1985 up to 10 August 1988) was listed as an Assistant Attach of the United States diplomatic mission and was, therefore, accredited diplomatic status by the Government of the Philippines." No certified true copy of such "records," the supposed bases for the belated issuance, was presented in evidence. Concededly, vesting a person with diplomatic immunity is a prerogative of the executive branch of the government. In World Health Organization vs. Aquino,[15] the Court has recognized that, in such matters, the hands of the courts are virtually tied. Amidst apprehensions of indiscriminate and incautious grant of immunity, designed to gain exemption from the jurisdiction of courts, it should behoove the Philippine government, specifically its Department of Foreign Affairs, to be most circumspect, that should particularly be no less than compelling, in its post litem motamissuances. It might be recalled that the privilege is not an immunity from the observance of the law of the territorial sovereign or from ensuing legal liability; it is, rather, an immunity from the exercise of territorial jurisdiction.[16] The government of the United States itself, which Scalzo claims to be acting for, has formulated its standards for recognition of a diplomatic agent. The State Department policy is to only concede diplomatic status to a person who possesses an acknowledged diplomatic title and performs duties of diplomatic nature.[17] Supplementary criteria for accreditation are the possession of a valid diplomatic passport or, from States which do not issue such passports, a diplomatic note formally representing the intention to assign the person to diplomatic duties, the holding of a non-immigrant visa, being over twenty-one years of age, and performing diplomatic functions on an essentially full-time basis.[18] Diplomatic missions are requested to provide the most accurate and descriptive job title to that which currently applies to the duties performed. The Office of the Protocol would then assign each individual to the appropriate functional category.[19] 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[20] 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.[21] 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. The proscription is not accorded for the benefit of an individual but for the State, in whose service he is, under the maxim - par in parem, non habet imperium - that all states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another.[22] The implication, in broad terms, is that if the judgment against an official would require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the award, such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages decreed against him, the suit must be regarded as being against the state itself, although it has not been formally impleaded.[23]

In United States of America vs. Guinto,[24] involving officers of the United States Air Force and special officers of the Air Force Office of Special Investigators charged with the duty of preventing the distribution, possession and use of prohibited drugs, this Court has ruled "While the doctrine (of state immunity) appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent, it is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. x x x. It cannot for a moment be imagined that they were acting in their private or unofficial capacity when they apprehended and later testified against the complainant. It follows that for discharging their duties as agents of the United States, they cannot be directly impleaded for acts imputable to their principal, which has not given its consent to be sued. x x x As they have acted on behalf of the government, and within the scope of their authority, it is that government, and not the petitioners personally, [who were] responsible for their acts."[25] This immunity principle, however, has its limitations. Thus, Shauf vs. Court of Appeals[26] 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. As was clearly set forth by Justice Zaldivar in Director of the Bureau of Telecommunications, et al., vs. Aligaen, et al. (33 SCRA 368): `Inasmuch as the State authorizes only legal acts by its officers, 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. This situation usually arises where the public official acts without authority or in excess of the powers vested in him. It is a well-settled principle of law that a public official may be liable in his personal private capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice and in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority and jurisdiction.[27] 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. Guinto and Shauf both involve officers and personnel of the United States, stationed within Philippine territory, under the RP-US Military Bases Agreement. While evidence is wanting to show any similar agreement between the governments of the Philippines and of the United States (for the latter to send its agents and to conduct surveillance and related activities of suspected drug dealers in the Philippines), the consent or imprimatur of the Philippine government to the activities of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, however, can be gleaned from the facts heretofore elsewhere mentioned. 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. All told, this Court is constrained to rule that respondent Arthur Scalzo, 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 from suit. WHEREFORE, on the foregoing premises, the petition is DENIED. No costs. SO ORDERED.

CHINA NATIONAL MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT CORP. vs. SANTAMARIA 2012 DECISION SERENO, J.: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Preliminary Injunction assailing the 30 September 2008 Decision and 5 December 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. SP No. 103351. [1] On 14 September 2002, petitioner China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) (CNMEG), represented by its chairperson, Ren Hongbin, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the North Luzon Railways Corporation (Northrail), represented by its president, Jose L. Cortes, Jr. for the conduct of a feasibility study on a possible railway line from Manila to San Fernando, La Union (the Northrail Project).[2] On 30 August 2003, the Export Import Bank of China (EXIM Bank) and the Department of Finance of the Philippines (DOF) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (Aug 30 MOU), wherein China agreed to extend Preferential Buyers Credit to the Philippine government to finance the Northrail Project. [3] The Chinese government designated EXIM Bank as the lender, while the Philippine government named the DOF as the borrower.[4] Under the Aug 30 MOU, EXIM Bank agreed to extend an amount not exceeding USD 400,000,000 in favor of the DOF, payable in 20 years, with a 5-year grace period, and at the rate of 3% per annum.[5] On 1 October 2003, the Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines, Wang Chungui (Amb. Wang), wrote a letter to DOF Secretary Jose Isidro Camacho (Sec. Camacho) informing him of CNMEGs designation as the Prime Contractor for the Northrail Project.[6] On 30 December 2003, Northrail and CNMEG executed a Contract Agreement for the construction of Section I, Phase I of the North Luzon Railway System from Caloocan to Malolos on a turnkey basis (the Contract Agreement).[7] The contract price for the Northrail Project was pegged at USD 421,050,000.[8] On 26 February 2004, the Philippine government and EXIM Bank entered into a counterpart financial agreement Buyer Credit Loan Agreement No. BLA 04055 (the Loan Agreement).[9] In the Loan Agreement, EXIM Bank agreed to extend Preferential Buyers Credit in the amount of USD 400,000,000 in favor of the Philippine government in order to finance the construction of Phase I of the Northrail Project.[10] On 13 February 2006, respondents filed a Complaint for Annulment of Contract and Injunction with Urgent Motion for Summary Hearing to Determine the Existence of Facts and Circumstances Justifying the Issuance of Writs of Preliminary Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction and/or TRO against CNMEG, the Office of the Executive Secretary, the DOF, the Department of Budget and Management, the National Economic Development Authority and Northrail.[11] The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 06-203 before the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Makati City, Branch 145 (RTC Br. 145). In the Complaint, respondents alleged that the Contract Agreement and the Loan Agreement were void for being contrary to (a) the Constitution; (b) Republic Act No. 9184 (R.A. No. 9184), otherwise known as the Government Procurement Reform Act; (c) Presidential Decree No. 1445, otherwise known as the Government Auditing Code; and (d) Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code.[12] RTC Br. 145 issued an Order dated 17 March 2006 setting the case for hearing on the issuance of injunctive reliefs.[13] On 29 March 2006, CNMEG filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of this Order.[14] Before RTC Br. 145 could rule thereon, CNMEG filed a Motion to Dismiss dated 12 April 2006, arguing that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over (a) its person, as it was an agent of the Chinese government, making it immune from suit, and (b) the subject matter, as the Northrail Project was a product of an executive agreement.[15] On 15 May 2007, RTC Br. 145 issued an Omnibus Order denying CNMEGs Motion to Dismiss and setting the case for summary hearing to determine whether the injunctive reliefs prayed for should be issued. [16] CNMEG then filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[17] which was denied by the trial court in an Order dated 10 March 2008.[18]Thus, CNMEG filed before the CA a Petition for Certiorari with Prayer for the Issuance of TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated 4 April 2008.[19] In the assailed Decision dated 30 September 2008, the appellate court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari.[20] Subsequently, CNMEG filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[21] which was denied by the CA in a

Resolution dated 5 December 2008.[22] Thus, CNMEG filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari dated 21 January 2009, raising the following issues: [23] Whether or not petitioner CNMEG is an agent of the sovereign Peoples Republic of China. Whether or not the Northrail contracts are products of an executive agreement between two sovereign states. Whether or not the certification from the Department of Foreign Affairs is necessary under the foregoing circumstances. Whether or not the act being undertaken by petitioner CNMEG is an act jure imperii. Whether or not the Court of Appeals failed to avoid a procedural limbo in the lower court. Whether or not the Northrail Project is subject to competitive public bidding. Whether or not the Court of Appeals ignored the ruling of this Honorable Court in the Neri case.

CNMEG prays for the dismissal of Civil Case No. 06-203 before RTC Br. 145 for lack of jurisdiction. It likewise requests this Court for the issuance of a TRO and, later on, a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain public respondent from proceeding with the disposition of Civil Case No. 06-203. The crux of this case boils down to two main issues, namely: 1. 2. Whether CNMEG is entitled to immunity, precluding it from being sued before a local court. Whether the Contract Agreement is an executive agreement, such that it cannot be questioned by or before a local court.

First issue: Whether CNMEG is entitled to immunity This Court explained the doctrine of sovereign immunity in Holy See v. Rosario,[24] to wit: There are two conflicting concepts of sovereign immunity, each widely held and firmly established. According to the classical or absolute theory, a sovereign cannot, without its consent, be made a respondent in the courts of another sovereign. According to the newer or restrictive theory, the immunity of the sovereign is recognized only with regard to public acts or acts jure imperii of a state, but not with regard to private acts or acts jure gestionis. (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.) The restrictive theory came about because of the entry of sovereign states into purely commercial activities remotely connected with the discharge of governmental functions. This is particularly true with respect to the Communist states which took control of nationalized business activities and international trading. In JUSMAG v. National Labor Relations Commission,[25] this Court affirmed the Philippines adherence to the restrictive theory as follows: The doctrine of state immunity from suit has undergone further metamorphosis. The view evolved that the existence of a contract does not, per se, mean that sovereign states may, at all times, be sued in local courts. The complexity of relationships between sovereign states, brought about by their increasing commercial activities, mothered a more restrictive application of the doctrine. As it stands now, the application of the doctrine of immunity from suit has been restricted to sovereign or governmental activities (jure imperii). The mantle of state

immunity cannot be extended to commercial, private and proprietary acts (jure gestionis).[26] (Emphasis supplied.) Since the Philippines adheres to the restrictive theory, it is crucial to ascertain the legal nature of the act involved whether the entity claiming immunity performs governmental, as opposed to proprietary, functions. As held in United States of America v. Ruiz [27] The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs. Stated differently, a State may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly 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.[28] A.CNMEG is engaged in a proprietary activity. A threshold question that must be answered is whether CNMEG performs governmental or proprietary functions. A thorough examination of the basic facts of the case would show that CNMEG is engaged in a proprietary activity. The parties executed the Contract Agreement for the purpose of constructing the Luzon Railways, viz:[29] WHEREAS the Employer (Northrail) desired to construct the railways form Caloocan to Malolos, section I, Phase I of Philippine North Luzon Railways Project (hereinafter referred to as THE PROJECT); AND WHEREAS the Contractor has offered to provide the Project on Turnkey basis, including design, manufacturing, supply, construction, commissioning, and training of the Employers personnel; AND WHEREAS the Loan Agreement of the Preferential Buyers Credit between Export-Import Bank of China and Department of Finance of Republic of the Philippines; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to sign this Contract for the Implementation of the Project. The above-cited portion of the Contract Agreement, however, does not on its own reveal whether the construction of the Luzon railways was meant to be a proprietary endeavor. In order to fully understand the intention behind and the purpose of the entire undertaking, the Contract Agreement must not be read in isolation. Instead, it must be construed in conjunction with three other documents executed in relation to the Northrail Project, namely: (a) the Memorandum of Understanding dated 14 September 2002 between Northrail and CNMEG;[30] (b) the letter of Amb. Wang dated 1 October 2003 addressed to Sec. Camacho;[31] and (c) the Loan Agreement.[32]

1.

Memorandum of Understanding dated 14 September 2002

The Memorandum of Understanding dated 14 September 2002 shows that CNMEG sought the construction of the Luzon Railways as a proprietary venture. The relevant parts thereof read: WHEREAS, CNMEG has the financial capability, professional competence and technical expertise to assess the state of the [Main Line North (MLN)] and recommend implementation plans as well as undertake its rehabilitation and/or modernization; WHEREAS, CNMEG has expressed interest in the rehabilitation and/or modernization of the MLN from Metro Manila to San Fernando, La Union passing through the provinces of Bulacan, Pampanga, Tarlac, Pangasinan and La Union (the Project); WHEREAS, the NORTHRAIL CORP. welcomes CNMEGs proposal to undertake a Feasibility Study (the Study) at no cost to NORTHRAIL CORP.;

WHEREAS, the NORTHRAIL CORP. also welcomes CNMEGs interest in undertaking the Project with Suppliers Credit and intends to employ CNMEG as the Contractor for the Project subject to compliance with Philippine and Chinese laws, rules and regulations for the selection of a contractor; WHEREAS, the NORTHRAIL CORP. considers CNMEGs proposal advantageous to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and has therefore agreed to assist CNMEG in the conduct of the aforesaid Study; II. APPROVAL PROCESS 2.1 As soon as possible after completion and presentation of the Study in accordance with Paragraphs 1.3 and 1.4 above and in compliance with necessary governmental laws, rules, regulations and procedures required from both parties, the parties shall commence the preparation and negotiation of the terms and conditions of the Contract (the Contract) to be entered into between them on the implementation of the Project. The parties shall use their best endeavors to formulate and finalize a Contract with a view to signing the Contract within one hundred twenty (120) days from CNMEGs presentation of the Study.[33] (Emphasis supplied)

Clearly, it was CNMEG that initiated the undertaking, and not the Chinese government. The Feasibility Study was conducted not because of any diplomatic gratuity from or exercise of sovereign functions by the Chinese government, but was plainly a business strategy employed by CNMEG with a view to securing this commercial enterprise.

2.

Letter dated 1 October 2003

That CNMEG, and not the Chinese government, initiated the Northrail Project was confirmed by Amb. Wang in his letter dated 1 October 2003, thus: 1. CNMEG has the proven competence and capability to undertake the Project as evidenced by the ranking of 42 given by the ENR among 225 global construction companies. 2. CNMEG already signed an MOU with the North Luzon Railways Corporation last September 14, 2000 during the visit of Chairman Li Peng. Such being the case, they have already established an initial working relationship with your North Luzon Railways Corporation. This would categorize CNMEG as the state corporation within the Peoples Republic of China which initiated our Governments involvement in the Project. 3. Among the various state corporations of the Peoples Republic of China, only CNMEG has the advantage of being fully familiar with the current requirements of the Northrail Project having already accomplished a Feasibility Study which was used as inputs by the North Luzon Railways Corporation in the approvals (sic) process required by the Republic of the Philippines.[34](Emphasis supplied.) Thus, the desire of CNMEG to secure the Northrail Project was in the ordinary or regular course of its business as a global construction company. The implementation of the Northrail Project was intended to generate profit for CNMEG, with the Contract Agreement placing a contract price of USD 421,050,000 for the venture.[35] The use of the term state corporation to refer to CNMEG was only descriptive of its nature as a government-owned and/or -controlled corporation, and its assignment as the Primary Contractor did not imply that it was acting on behalf of China in the performance of the latters sovereign functions. To imply otherwise would result in an absurd situation, in which all Chinese corporations owned by the state would be automatically considered as performing governmental activities, even if they are clearly engaged in commercial or proprietary pursuits.

3.

The Loan Agreement

CNMEG claims immunity on the ground that the Aug 30 MOU on the financing of the Northrail Project was signed by the Philippine and Chinese governments, and its assignment as the Primary Contractor meant that it was bound to perform a governmental function on behalf of China. However, the Loan Agreement, which originated from the same Aug 30 MOU, belies this reasoning, viz: Article 11. xxx (j) Commercial Activity The execution and delivery of this Agreement by the Borrower constitute, and the Borrowers performance of and compliance with its obligations under this Agreement will constitute, private and commercial acts done and performed for commercial purposes under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines and neither the Borrower nor any of its assets is entitled to any immunity or privilege (sovereign or otherwise) from suit, execution or any other legal process with respect to its obligations under this Agreement, as the case may be, in any jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Borrower does not waive any immunity with respect of its assets which are (i) used by a diplomatic or consular mission of the Borrower and (ii) assets of a military character and under control of a military authority or defense agency and (iii) located in the Philippines and dedicated to public or governmental use (as distinguished from patrimonial assets or assets dedicated to commercial use). (Emphasis supplied.)

(k) Proceedings to Enforce Agreement In any proceeding in the Republic of the Philippines to enforce this Agreement, the choice of the laws of the Peoples Republic of China as the governing law hereof will be recognized and such law will be applied. The waiver of immunity by the Borrower, the irrevocable submissions of the Borrower to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Peoples Republic of China and the appointment of the Borrowers Chinese Process Agent is legal, valid, binding and enforceable and any judgment obtained in the Peoples Republic of China will be if introduced, evidence for enforcement in any proceedings against the Borrower and its assets in the Republic of the Philippines provided that (a) the court rendering judgment had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action in accordance with its jurisdictional rules, (b) the Republic had notice of the proceedings, (c) the judgment of the court was not obtained through collusion or fraud, and (d) such judgment was not based on a clear mistake of fact or law.[36]

Further, the Loan Agreement likewise contains this express waiver of immunity: 15.5 Waiver of Immunity The Borrower irrevocably and unconditionally waives, any immunity to which it or its property may at any time be or become entitled, whether characterized as sovereign immunity or otherwise, from any suit, judgment, service of process upon it or any agent, execution on judgment, set-off, attachment prior to judgment, attachment in aid of execution to which it or its assets may be entitled in any legal action or proceedings with respect to this Agreement or any of the transactions contemplated hereby or hereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Borrower does not waive any immunity in respect of its assets which are (i) used by a diplomatic or consular mission of the Borrower, (ii) assets of a military character and under control of a military authority or defense agency and (iii) located in the Philippines and dedicated to a public or governmental use (as distinguished from patrimonial assets or assets dedicated to commercial use).[37] Thus, despite petitioners claim that the EXIM Bank extended financial assistance to Northrail because th e bank was mandated by the Chinese government, and not because of any motivation to do business in the Philippines,[38] it is clear from the foregoing provisions that the Northrail Project was a purely commercial transaction. Admittedly, the Loan Agreement was entered into between EXIM Bank and the Philippine government, while the Contract Agreement was between Northrail and CNMEG. Although the Contract Agreement is silent on the classification of the legal nature of the transaction, the foregoing provisions of the Loan Agreement, which is an inextricable part of the entire undertaking, nonetheless reveal the intention of the parties to the Northrail Project to classify the whole venture as commercial or proprietary in character.

Thus, piecing together the content and tenor of the Contract Agreement, the Memorandum of Understanding dated 14 September 2002, Amb. Wangs letter dated 1 October 2003, and the Loan Agr eement would reveal the desire of CNMEG to construct the Luzon Railways in pursuit of a purely commercial activity performed in the ordinary course of its business. B. CNMEG failed to adduce evidence that it is immune from suit under Chinese law. Even assuming arguendo that CNMEG performs governmental functions, such claim does not automatically vest it with immunity. This view finds support in Malong v. Philippine National Railways, in which this Court held that (i)mmunity from suit is determined by the character of the objects for which the entity was organized.[39] In this regard, this Courts ruling in Deutsche Gesellschaft Fr Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) v. CA[40] must be examined. In Deutsche Gesellschaft, Germany and the Philippines entered into a Technical Cooperation Agreement, pursuant to which both signed an arrangement promoting the Social Health Insurance Networking and Empowerment (SHINE) project. The two governments named their respective implementing organizations: the Department of Health (DOH) and the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC) for the Philippines, and GTZ for the implementation of Germanys contributions. In ruling that GTZ was not immune from suit, this Court held: The arguments raised by GTZ and the [Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)] are rooted in several indisputable facts. The SHINE project was implemented pursuant to the bilateral agreements between the Philippine and German governments. GTZ was tasked, under the 1991 agreement, with the implementation of the contributions of the German government. The activities performed by GTZ pertaining to the SHINE project are governmental in nature, related as they are to the promotion of health insurance in the Philippines. The fact that GTZ entered into employment contracts with the private respondents did not disqualify it from invoking immunity from suit, as held in cases such as Holy See v. Rosario, Jr., which set forth what remains valid doctrine: Certainly, the mere entering into a contract by a foreign state with a private party cannot be the ultimate test. Such an act can only be the start of the inquiry. The logical question is whether the foreign state is engaged in the activity in the regular course of business. If the foreign state is not engaged regularly in a business or trade, the particular act or transaction must then be tested by its nature. If the act is in pursuit of a sovereign activity, or an incident thereof, then it is an act jure imperii, especially when it is not undertaken for gain or profit. Beyond dispute is the tenability of the comment points (sic) raised by GTZ and the OSG that GTZ was not performing proprietary functions notwithstanding its entry into the particular employment contracts. Yet there is an equally fundamental premise which GTZ and the OSG fail to address, namely: Is GTZ, by conception, able to enjoy the Federal Republics immunity from suit? The principle of state immunity from suit, whether a local state or a foreign state, is reflected in Section 9, Article XVI of the Constitution, which states that the State may not be sued without its consent. Who or what consists of the State? For one, the doctrine is available to foreign States insofar as they are sought to be sued in the courts of the local State, necessary as it is to avoid unduly vexing the peace of nations. If the instant suit had been brought directly against the Federal Republic of Germany, there would be no doubt that it is a suit brought against a State, and the only necessary inquiry is whether said State had consented to be sued. However, the present suit was brought against GTZ. It is necessary for us to understand what precisely are the parameters of the legal personality of GTZ. Counsel for GTZ characterizes GTZ as the implementing agency of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, a depiction similarly adopted by the OSG. Assuming that the characterization is correct, it does not automatically invest GTZ with the ability to invoke State immunity from suit. The distinction lies in whether the agency is incorporated or unincorporated.

State immunity from suit may be waived by general or special law. The special law can take the form of the original charter of the incorporated government agency. Jurisprudence is replete with examples of incorporated government agencies which were ruled not entitled to invoke immunity from suit, owing to provisions in their charters manifesting their consent to be sued.

It is useful to note that on the part of the Philippine government, it had designated two entities, the Department of Health and the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC), as the implementing agencies in behalf of the Philippines. The PHIC was established under Republic Act No. 7875, Section 16 (g) of which grants the corporation the power to sue and be sued in court. Applying the previously cited jurisprudence, PHIC would not enjoy immunity from suit even in the performance of its functions connected with SHINE, however, (sic) governmental in nature as (sic) they may be. Is GTZ an incorporated agency of the German government? There is some mystery surrounding that question. Neither GTZ nor the OSG go beyond the claim that petitioner is the implementing agency of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany. On the other hand, private respondents asserted before the Labor Arbiter that GTZ was a private corporation engaged in the implementation of development projects. The Labor Arbiter accepted that claim in his Order denying the Motion to Dismiss, though he was silent on that point in his Decision. Nevertheless, private respondents argue in their Comment that the finding that GTZ was a private corporation was never controverted, and is therefore deemed admitted. In its Reply, GTZ controverts that finding, saying that it is a matter of public knowledge that the status of petitioner GTZ is that of the implementing agency, and not that of a private corporation. In truth, private respondents were unable to adduce any evidence to substantiate their claim that GTZ was a private corporation, and the Labor Arbiter acted rashly in accepting such claim without explanation. But neither has GTZ supplied any evidence defining its legal nature beyond that of the bare descriptive implementing agency. There is no doubt that the 1991 Agreement designated GTZ as the implementing agency in behalf of the German government. Yet the catch is that such term has no precise definition that is responsive to our concerns. Inherently, an agent acts in behalf of a principal, and the GTZ can be said to act in behalf of the German state. But that is as far as implementing agency could take us. The term by itself does not supply whether GTZ is incorporated or unincorporated, whether it is owned by the German state or by private interests, whether it has juridical personality independent of the German government or none at all. Again, we are uncertain of the corresponding legal implications under German law surrounding a private company owned by the Federal Republic of Germany. Yet taking the description on face value, the apparent equivalent under Philippine law is that of a corporation organized under the Corporation Code but owned by the Philippine government, or a government-owned or controlled corporation without original charter. And it bears notice that Section 36 of the Corporate Code states that [e]very corporation incorporated under this Code has the power and capacity x x x to sue and be sued in its corporate name. It is entirely possible that under German law, an entity such as GTZ or particularly GTZ itself has not been vested or has been specifically deprived the power and capacity to sue and/or be sued. Yet in the proceedings below and before this Court, GTZ has failed to establish that under German law, it has not consented to be sued despite it being owned by the Federal Republic of Germany. We adhere to the rule that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, foreign laws on a particular subject are presumed to be the same as those of the Philippines, and following the most intelligent assumption we can gather, GTZ is akin to a governmental owned or controlled corporation without original charter which, by virtue of the Corporation Code, has expressly consented to be sued. At the very least, like the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals, this Court has no basis in fact to conclude or presume that GTZ enjoys immunity from suit.[41](Emphasis supplied.)

Applying the foregoing ruling to the case at bar, it is readily apparent that CNMEG cannot claim immunity from suit, even if it contends that it performs governmental functions. Its designation as the Primary Contractor does not automatically grant it immunity, just as the term implementing agency has no precise definition for purposes of ascertaining whether GTZ was immune from suit. Although CNMEG claims to be a government-owned corporation, it failed to adduce evidence that it has not consented to be sued under Chinese law. Thus, following this Courts ruli ng in Deutsche Gesellschaft, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, CNMEG is to be presumed to be a governmentowned and -controlled corporation without an original charter. As a result, it has the capacity to sue and be sued under Section 36 of the Corporation Code. C. CNMEG failed to present a certification from the Department of Foreign Affairs. In Holy See,[42] this Court reiterated the oft-cited doctrine that the determination by the Executive that an entity is entitled to sovereign or diplomatic immunity is a political question conclusive upon the courts, to wit: In Public International Law, when a state or international agency wishes to plead sovereign or diplomatic immunity in a foreign court, it requests the Foreign Office of the state where it is sued to convey to the court that said defendant is entitled to immunity. In the Philippines, the practice is for the foreign government or the international organization to first secure an executive endorsement of its claim of sovereign or diplomatic immunity. But how the Philippine Foreign Office conveys its endorsement to the courts varies. In International Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja, 190 SCRA 130 (1990), the Secretary of Foreign Affairs just sent a letter directly to the Secretary of Labor and Employment, informing the latter that the respondent-employer could not be sued because it enjoyed diplomatic immunity. In World Health Organization v. Aquino, 48 SCRA 242 (1972), the Secretary of Foreign Affairs sent the trial court a telegram to that effect. In Baer v. Tizon, 57 SCRA 1 (1974), the U.S. Embassy asked the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to request the Solicitor General to make, in behalf of the Commander of the United States Naval Base at Olongapo City, Zambales, a suggestion to respondent Judge. The Solicitor General embodied the suggestion in a Manifestation and Memorandum as amicus curiae. In the case at bench, the Department of Foreign Affairs, through the Office of Legal Affairs moved with this Court to be allowed to intervene on the side of petitioner. The Court allowed the said Department to file its memorandum in support of petitioners claim of sovereign immunity. In some cases, the defense of sovereign immunity was submitted directly to the local courts by the respondents through their private counsels (Raquiza v. Bradford, 75 Phil. 50 [1945]; Miquiabas v. Philippine-Ryukyus Command, 80 Phil. 262 [1948]; United States of America v. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644 [1990] and companion cases). In cases where the foreign states bypass the Foreign Office, the courts can inquire into the facts and make their own determination as to the nature of the acts and transactions involved.[43] (Emphasis supplied.)

The question now is whether any agency of the Executive Branch can make a determination of immunity from suit, which may be considered as conclusive upon the courts. This Court, in Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) v. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),[44] emphasized the DFAs competence and authority to provide such necessary determination, to wit: The DFAs function includes, among its other mandates, the determination of persons and institutions covered by diplomatic immunities, a determination which, when challenge, (sic) entitles it to seek relief from the court so as not to seriously impair the conduct of the country's foreign relations. The DFA must be allowed to plead its case whenever necessary or advisable to enable it to help keep the credibility of the Philippine government before the international community. When international agreements are concluded, the parties thereto are deemed to have likewise accepted the responsibility of seeing to it that their agreements are duly regarded. In our country, this task falls principally of (sic) the DFA as being the highest executive department with the competence and authority to so act in this aspect of the international arena.[45] (Emphasis supplied.)

Further, the fact that this authority is exclusive to the DFA was also emphasized in this Courts ruling in Deutsche Gesellschaft: It is to be recalled that the Labor Arbiter, in both of his rulings, noted that it was imperative for petitioners to secure from the Department of Foreign Affairs a certification of respondents diplomatic status and entitlement to diplomatic privileges including immunity from suits. The requirement might not necessarily be imperative. However, had GTZ obtained such certification from the DFA, it would have provided factual basis for its claim of immunity that would, at the very least, establish a disputable evidentiary presumption that the foreign party is indeed immune which the opposing party will have to overcome with its own factual evidence. We do not see why GTZ could not have secured such certification or endorsement from the DFA for purposes of this case. Certainly, it would have been highly prudential for GTZ to obtain the same after the Labor Arbiter had denied the motion to dismiss. Still, even at this juncture, we do not see any evidence that the DFA, the office of the executive branch in charge of our diplomatic relations, has indeed endorsed GTZs claim of immunity. It may be possible that GTZ tried, but failed to secure such certification, due to the same concerns that we have discussed herein. Would the fact that the Solicitor General has endorsed GTZs claim of States immunity from suit before this Court sufficiently substitute for the DFA certification? Note that the rule in public international law quoted in Holy See referred to endorsement by the Foreign Office of the State where the suit is filed, such foreign office in the Philippines being the Department of Foreign Affairs. Nowhere in the Comment of the OSG is it manifested that the DFA has endorsed GTZs claim, or that the OSG had solicited the DFAs views on the issue. The arguments raised by the OSG are virtually the same as the arguments raised by GTZ without any indication of any special and distinct perspective maintained by the Philippine government on the issue. The Comment filed by the OSG does not inspire the same degree of confidence as a certification from the DFA would have elicited.[46] (Emphasis supplied.)

In the case at bar, CNMEG offers the Certification executed by the Economic and Commercial Office of the Embassy of the Peoples Republic of China, stating that the Northrail Project is in pursuit of a sovereign activity.[47] Surely, this is not the kind of certification that can establish CNMEGs entitlement to immunity from suit, as Holy Seeunequivocally refers to the determination of the Foreign Office of the state where it is sued. Further, CNMEG also claims that its immunity from suit has the executive endorsement of both the OSG and the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), which must be respected by the courts. However, as expressly enunciated in Deutsche Gesellschaft, this determination by the OSG, or by the OGCC for that matter, does not inspire the same degree of confidence as a DFA certification. Even with a DFA certification, however, it must be remembered that this Court is not precluded from making an inquiry into the intrinsic correctness of such certification. D. An agreement to submit any dispute to arbitration may be construed as an implicit waiver of immunity from suit. In the United States, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 provides for a waiver by implication of state immunity. In the said law, the agreement to submit disputes to arbitration in a foreign country is construed as an implicit waiver of immunity from suit. Although there is no similar law in the Philippines, there is reason to apply the legal reasoning behind the waiver in this case. The Conditions of Contract,[48] which is an integral part of the Contract Agreement,[49] states: 33. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES AND ARBITRATION 33.1. Amicable Settlement Both parties shall attempt to amicably settle all disputes or controversies arising from this Contract before the commencement of arbitration.

33.2. Arbitration All disputes or controversies arising from this Contract which cannot be settled between the Employer and the Contractor shall be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules at present in force and as may be amended by the rest of this Clause. The appointing authority shall be Hong Kong International Arbitration Center. The place of arbitration shall be in Hong Kong at Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC). Under the above provisions, if any dispute arises between Northrail and CNMEG, both parties are bound to submit the matter to the HKIAC for arbitration. In case the HKIAC makes an arbitral award in favor of Northrail, its enforcement in the Philippines would be subject to the Special Rules on Alternative Dispute Resolution (Special Rules). Rule 13 thereof provides for the Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Arbitral Award. Under Rules 13.2 and 13.3 of the Special Rules, the party to arbitration wishing to have an arbitral award recognized and enforced in the Philippines must petition the proper regional trial court (a) where the assets to be attached or levied upon is located; (b) where the acts to be enjoined are being performed; (c) in the principal place of business in the Philippines of any of the parties; (d) if any of the parties is an individual, where any of those individuals resides; or (e) in the National Capital Judicial Region. From all the foregoing, it is clear that CNMEG has agreed that it will not be afforded immunity from suit. Thus, the courts have the competence and jurisdiction to ascertain the validity of the Contract Agreement.

Second issue: Whether the Contract Agreement is an executive agreement Article 2(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna Convention) defines a treaty as follows: [A]n international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation. In Bayan Muna v. Romulo, this Court held that an executive agreement is similar to a treaty, except that the former (a) does not require legislative concurrence; (b) is usually less formal; and (c) deals with a narrower range of subject matters.[50] Despite these differences, to be considered an executive agreement, the following three requisites provided under the Vienna Convention must nevertheless concur: (a) the agreement must be between states; (b) it must be written; and (c) it must governed by international law. The first and the third requisites do not obtain in the case at bar. A. agency. CNMEG is neither a government nor a government

The Contract Agreement was not concluded between the Philippines and China, but between Northrail and CNMEG.[51] By the terms of the Contract Agreement, Northrail is a government-owned or -controlled corporation, while CNMEG is a corporation duly organized and created under the laws of the Peoples Republic of China.[52] Thus, both Northrail and CNMEG entered into the Contract Agreement as entities with personalities distinct and separate from the Philippine and Chinese governments, respectively. Neither can it be said that CNMEG acted as agent of the Chinese government. As previously discussed, the fact that Amb. Wang, in his letter dated 1 October 2003,[53]described CNMEG as a state corporation and declared its designation as the Primary Contractor in the Northrail Project did not mean it was to perform sovereign functions on behalf of China. That label was only descriptive of its nature as a state-owned corporation, and did not preclude it from engaging in purely commercial or proprietary ventures. B. law. The Contract Agreement is to be governed by Philippine

Article 2 of the Conditions of Contract,[54] which under Article 1.1 of the Contract Agreement is an integral part of the latter, states: APPLICABLE LAW AND GOVERNING LANGUAGE The contract shall in all respects be read and construed in accordance with the laws of the Philippines. The contract shall be written in English language. All correspondence and other documents pertaining to the Contract which are exchanged by the parties shall be written in English language. Since the Contract Agreement explicitly provides that Philippine law shall be applicable, the parties have effectively conceded that their rights and obligations thereunder are not governed by international law. It is therefore clear from the foregoing reasons that the Contract Agreement does not partake of the nature of an executive agreement. It is merely an ordinary commercial contract that can be questioned before the local courts. WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is DENIED. Petitioner China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) is not entitled to immunity from suit, and the Contract Agreement is not an executive agreement. CNMEGs prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction is DENIED for being moot and academic. This case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 145, for further proceedings as regards the validity of the contracts subject of Civil Case No. 06-203. No pronouncement on costs of suit. SO ORDERED.

[G.R. No. 125865. January 28, 2000] JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. DECISION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Petitioner is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Sometime in 1994, for allegedly uttering defamatory words against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal, he was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Mandaluyong City with two counts of grave oral defamation docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 53170 and 53171. Petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the MeTC. After fixing petitioners bail at P2,400.00 per criminal charge, the MeTC released him to the custody of the Security Officer of ADB. The next day, the MeTC judge received an "office of protocol" from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) stating that petitioner is covered by immunity from legal process under Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government regarding the Headquarters of the ADB (hereinafter Agreement) in the country. Based on the said protocol communication that petitioner is immune from suit, the MeTC judge without notice to the prosecution dismissed the two criminal cases. The latter filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed by the DFA. When its motion was denied, the prosecution filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City which set aside the MeTC rulings and ordered the latter court to enforce the warrant of arrest it earlier issued. After the motion for reconsideration was denied, petitioner elevated the case to this Court via a petition for review arguing that he is covered by immunity under the Agreement and that no preliminary investigation was held before the criminal cases were filed in court. The petition is not impressed with merit. First, courts cannot blindly adhere and take on its face the communication from the DFA that petitioner is covered by any immunity. The DFAs determination that a certain person is covered by immunity is only preliminary which has no binding effect in courts. In receiving ex-parte the DFAs advice and in motu proprio dismissing the two criminal cases without notice to the prosecution, the latters right to due process was violated. It should be noted that due process is a right of the accused as much as it is of the prosecution. The needed inquiry in what capacity petitioner was acting at the time of the alleged utterances requires for its resolution evidentiary basis that has yet to be presented at the proper time.[1] At any rate, it has been ruled that the mere invocation of the immunity clause does not ipso facto result in the dropping of the charges.[2] Second, under Section 45 of the Agreement which provides: Jksm "Officers and staff of the Bank including for the purpose of this Article experts and consultants performing missions for the Bank shall enjoy the following privileges and immunities: a.).......immunity from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except when the Bank waives the immunity." the immunity mentioned therein is not absolute, but subject to the exception that the act was done in "official capacity." It is therefore necessary to determine if petitioners case falls within the ambit of Section 45(a). Thus, the prosecution should have been given the chance to rebut the DFA protocol and it must be accorded the opportunity to present its controverting evidence, should it so desire. Third, slandering a person could not possibly be covered by the immunity agreement because our laws do not allow the commission of a crime, such as defamation, in the name of official duty.[3] The imputation of theft isultra vires and cannot be part of official functions. It is well-settled principle of law that a public official may be liable in his personal private capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice or in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction.[4] It appears that even the governments chief legal counsel, the Solicitor General, does not support the stand taken by petitioner and that of the DFA. Fourth, under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic agent, assuming petitioner is such, enjoys immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state except in the case of an action relating to any

professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving state outside his official functions.[5] As already mentioned above, the commission of a crime is not part of official duty. Finally, on the contention that there was no preliminary investigation conducted, suffice it to say that preliminary investigation is not a matter of right in cases cognizable by the MeTC such as the one at bar.[6] Being purely a statutory right, preliminary investigation may be invoked only when specifically granted by law.[7] The rule on criminal procedure is clear that no preliminary investigation is required in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the MeTC.[8] Besides, the absence of preliminary investigation does not affect the courts jurisdiction nor does it impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective.[9] WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. SO ORDERED. [G.R. No. 125865. March 26, 2001] JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG),, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. RESOLUTION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: This resolves petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of our Decision dated January 28, 2000, denying the petition for review. The Motion is anchored on the following arguments: 1) THE DFAS DETERMINATION OF IMMUNITY IS A POLITICAL QUESTION TO BE MADE BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT AND IS CONCLUSIVE UPON THE COURTS. 2) THE IMMUNITY OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IS ABSOLUTE. 3) THE IMMUNITY EXTENDS TO ALL STAFF OF THE ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK (ADB). 4) DUE PROCESS WAS FULLY AFFORDED THE COMPLAINANT TO REBUT THE DFA PROTOCOL. 5) THE DECISION OF JANUARY 28, 2000 ERRONEOUSLY MADE A FINDING OF FACT ON THE MERITS, NAMELY, THE SLANDERING OF A PERSON WHICH PREJUDGED PETITIONERS CASE BEFORE THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT (MTC)-MANDALUYONG. 6) THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE. This case has its origin in two criminal Informations [1 for grave oral defamation filed against petitioner, a Chinese national who was employed as an Economist by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), alleging that on separate occasions on January 28 and January 31, 1994, petitioner allegedly uttered defamatory words to Joyce V. Cabal, a member of the clerical staff of ADB. On April 13, 1994, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, acting pursuant to an advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs that petitioner enjoyed immunity from legal processes, dismissed the criminal Informations against him. On a petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by the People, the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 160, annulled and set aside the order of the Metropolitan Trial Court dismissing the criminal cases. [2 Petitioner, thus, brought a petition for review with this Court. On January 28, 2000, we rendered the assailed Decision denying the petition for review. We ruled, in essence, that the immunity granted to officers and staff of the ADB is not absolute; it is limited to acts performed in an official capacity. Furthermore, we held that the immunity cannot cover the commission of a crime such as slander or oral defamation in the name of official duty.

On October 18, 2000, the oral arguments of the parties were heard. This Court also granted the Motion for Intervention of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Thereafter, the parties were directed to submit their respective memorandum. For the most part, petitioners Motion for Reconsideration deals with the diplomatic immunity of the ADB, its officials and staff, from legal and judicial processes in the Philippines, as well as the constitutional and political bases thereof. It should be made clear that nowhere in the assailed Decision is diplomatic immunity denied, even remotely. The issue in this case, rather, boils down to whether or not the statements allegedly made by petitioner were uttered while in the performance of his official functions, in order for this case to fall squarely under the provisions of Section 45 (a) of the Agreement Between the Asian Development Bank and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines Regarding the Headquarters of the Asian Development Bank, to wit: Officers ands staff of the Bank, including for the purpose of this Article experts and consultants performing missions for the Bank, shall enjoy the following privileges and immunities: (a) Immunity from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity except when the Bank waives the immunity. After a careful deliberation of the arguments raised in petitioners and intervenors Motions for Reconsideration, we find no cogent reason to disturb our Decision of January 28, 2000. As we have stated therein, the slander of a person, by any stretch, cannot be considered as falling within the purview of the immunity granted to ADB officers and personnel. Petitioner argues that the Decision had the effect of prejudging the criminal case for oral defamation against him. We wish to stress that it did not. What we merely stated therein is that slander, in general, cannot be considered as an act performed in an official capacity. The issue of whether or not petitioners utterances constituted oral defamation is still for the trial court to determine. WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, the Motions for Reconsideration filed by petitioner and intervenor Department of Foreign Affairs are DENIED with FINALITY. SO ORDERED.