Agustin, Jalandoni, Metilla

Republic vs. Sandoval 220 SCRA 124

Facts:
Farmer-rallyists marched to Malacanang calling for a genuine land reform program. There was a
marchers-police confrontation which resulted in the death of 12 rallyists and scores were
wounded. As a result, then Pres. Aquino issued AO 11 creating the Citizens Mendiola
Commission for the purpose of conducting an investigation. The most significant
recommendation of the Commission was for the heirs of the deceased and wounded victims to
be compensated by the government. Based on such recommendation, the victims of Mendiola
massacre filed an action for damages against the Republic and the military/police officers
involved in the incident.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not there is a valid waiver of immunity
(2) Whether or not the State is liable for damages
Held:
The Court held that there was no valid waiver of immunity as claimed by the petitioners. The
recommendation made by the Commission to indemnify the heirs of the deceased and the
victims does not in any way mean that liability attaches to the State. AO 11 merely states the
purpose of the creation of the Commission and, therefore, whatever is the finding of the
Commission only serves as the basis for a cause of action in the event any party decides to
litigate the same. Thus, the recommendation of the Commission does not in any way bind the
State.
The State cannot be made liable because the military/police officers who allegedly were
responsible for the death and injuries suffered by the marchers acted beyond the scope of their
authority. It is a settled rule that the State as a person can commit no wrong. The military and
police officers who were responsible for the atrocities can be held personally liable for damages
as they exceeded their authority, hence, the acts cannot be considered official.
The doctrines of immunity of the government from suit is expressly provided in the Constitution under Article XVI,
Section 3. It is provided that the State may not be sued without its consent. Some instances when a suit against
the State is proper are: (1) When the Republic is sued by name; (2) When the suit is against an unincorporated
government agency; (3) When the suit is, on its face, against a government officer but the case is such that
ultimate liability will belong not to the officer but to the government.
The recommendation made by the Mendiola Commission regarding the indemnification of the heirs of the
deceased and the victims of the incident does not in any way mean liability automatically attaches to the State. The
purpose of which is to investigate of the disorders that took place and the recommendation it makes cannot in any
way bind the State. The acts and utterances of President Aquino do not mean admission of the State of its liability.
Moreover, the case does not qualify as suit against the State. While the Republic in this case is sued by name, the
ultimate liability does not pertain to the government. The military officials are held liable for the damages for their
official functions ceased the moment they have exceeded to their authority. They were deployed to ensure that the
rally would be peaceful and orderly and should guarantee the safety of the people. The court has made it quite
clear that even a high position in the government does not confer a license to persecute or recklessly injure
another.