Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
GOROSPE
HELD: NO.
G.R. No. 152154 July 15, 2003 RA 1379 raises the prima facie
presumption that a property is unlawfully
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
acquired, hence subject to forfeiture, if its
vs. HONORABLE amount or value is manifestly disproportionate
SANDIGANBAYAN (SPECIAL to the official salary and other lawful income of
FIRST DIVISION), Ferdinand E. the public officer who owns it. The following
Marcos (represented by his facts must be established in order that
forfeiture or seizure of the Swiss deposits may
estate/heirs: Imelda R. Marcos,
be effected: (1) ownership by the public officer
Maria Imelda [Imee] Marcos- of money or property acquired during his
Manotoc, Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. incumbency, whether it be in his name or
and Irene Marcos-Araneta) and otherwise, and (2) the extent to which the
Imelda Romualdez Marcos amount of that money or property exceeds, i.
e., is grossly disproportionate to, the
FACTS: legitimate income of the public officer. Herein,
Petitioner Republic, through the the spouses Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos
Presidential Commission on Good Government were public officials during the time material to
(PCGG), represented by the Office of the the present case was never in dispute.
Solicitor General (OSG), filed a petition for The spouses accumulated salary of
forfeiture before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner $304,372.43 should be held as the only known
sought the declaration of the aggregate lawful income of the Marcoses since they did
amount of US$356 million (now estimated to not file any Statement of Assets and Liabilities
be more than US$658 million inclusive of (SAL), as required by law, from which their net
interest) deposited in escrow in the PNB, as ill- worth could be determined. Besides, under the
gotten wealth. The funds were previously held 1935 Constitution, Ferdinand E. Marcos as
by the following five account groups, using President could not receive "any other
various foreign foundations in certain Swiss emolument from the Government or any of its
banks. In addition, the petition sought the subdivisions and instrumentalities". Likewise,
forfeiture of US$25 million and US$5 million in under the 1973 Constitution, Ferdinand E.
treasury notes which exceeded the Marcos Marcos as President could "not receive during
couple’s salaries, other lawful income as well his tenure any other emolument from the
as income from legitimately acquired Government or any other source."
property. Their only known lawful income of
The treasury notes are frozen at the $304,372.43 can therefore legally and fairly
Central Bank of the Philippines by virtue of the serve as basis for determining the existence of
freeze order issued by the PCGG. Before the a prima facie case of forfeiture of the Swiss
case was set for pre-trial, a General Agreement funds. The Republic did not fail to establish a
and the Supplemental Agreement dated prima facie case for the forfeiture of the Swiss
December 28, 1993 were executed by the deposits.
Marcos children and then PCGG Chairman The Swiss deposits which were
Magtanggol Gunigundo for a global settlement transferred to and are deposited in escrow at
of the assets of the Marcos family to identify, the Philippine National Bank in the estimated
collate, cause the inventory of and distribute aggregate amount of US$658,175,373.60 as of
all assets presumed to be owned by the Marcos 31 January 2002, plus interest, were forfeited
family under the conditions contained therein. in favor of the Republic.
FACTS: FACTS:
Petitioner Reagan, a civilian employee Respondent Lance Corporal (L/CPL)
of an American corporation providing technical Daniel Smith is a member of the US Armed
assistance to the US Air Force in the Forces. He was charged with the crime of rape
Philippines, questioned the payment of the committed against a Filipina, petitioner herein,
income tax assessed on him by respondent CIR sometime on November 1, 2005. Pursuant to
on an amount realized by him on a sale of his the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between
automobile to a member of the US Marine the Republic of the Philippines and the US
Corps, the transaction having taken place at entered into, the US, at its request, was
the Clark Field Air Base at Pampanga. It is his granted custody of Smith. The RTC of Makati
contention, that in legal contemplation the sale rendered a decision finding defendant Smith
was made outside Philippine territory and guilty due to sufficient evidence.
therefore beyond our jurisdictional power to Defendant Smith was taken out of the
tax. He seeks that an amount of P2,979.00 as Makati jail by a contingent of Philippine law
the income tax paid by him be refunded. enforcement agents, purportedly acting under
orders of the DILG and brought to a facility for
ISSUE: WON the Clark Field Air Base is a detention under the control of the US
foreign property therefore excluded from the government under the new agreements
power of Philippine taxation. between the Philippines and the US, referred to
as the Romulo-Kenney Agreement.
HELD: NO. Petitioners contend that
By the [Military Bases] Agreement, it the Philippines should have custody of
should be noted, the Philippine Government defendant L/CPL Smith because, first of all, the
merely consents that the United States VFA is void and unconstitutional.
exercise jurisdiction in certain cases. The
consent was given purely as a matter of ISSUE: WON the VFA is void and
comity, courtesy, or expediency over the bases unconstitutional.
as part of the Philippine territory or divested
itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses HELD: NO.
committed therein. This provision is not and Art. XVIII, Sec. 25 states:
can not on principle or authority be construed Sec. 25. After the expiration in 1991
as a limitation upon the rights of the Philippine of the Agreement between the
Government. Philippines and the United States of
The State is not precluded from America concerning Military Bases,
allowing another power to participate in the foreign military bases, troops, or
company received a letter which was signed by or registered in the name of private
William I. Collins of Department of the Navy of respondent Benedicto, or of corporations in
the United States, also one of the petitioners which he appeared to have controlling or
herein informing that the company did not majority interest due to his involvement in
qualify to receive an award for the projects cases of ill-gotten wealth. Among the
because of its previous unsatisfactory properties thus sequestered and taken over by
performance rating in repairs, and that the PCGG fiscal agents were the 227 shares in
projects were awarded to third parties. The NOGCCI owned by and registered under the
company filed a complaint against the name of private respondent. As sequester of
defendants herein demanding specific the 227 shares formerly owned by Benedicto,
performance that the company be allowed to PCGG did not pay the monthly membership
perform the work on the projects and, in the fee. Later on, the shares were declared to be
event that specific performance was no longer delinquent to be put into an auction sale.
possible, to order the defendants to pay Despite filing a writ of injunction, it was
damages. nevertheless dismissed. So petitioner Republic
and private respondent Benedicto entered into
ISSUE: WON the US is immune from suit a Compromise Agreement which contains a
having dealt with a private corporation. general release clause where petitioner agreed
and bound itself to lift the sequestration on the
HELD: YES. 227 NOGCCI shares acknowledging that it was
A State may be said to have descended within private respondent’s capacity to acquire
the the level of an individual and can thus be the same shares out of his income from
deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be business and the exercise of his
sued only when it enters into business profession. Implied in this undertaking is the
contracts. It does not apply where the contract recognition by petitioner that the subject
relates to the exercise of its sovereign shares of stock could not have been ill-gotten
functions. In this case the projects are an Benedicto filed a Motion for Release
integral part of the naval base which is from Sequestration and Return of Sequestered
devoted to the defense of both the United Shares/Dividends praying, inter alia, that his
States and the Philippines, indisputably a NOGCCI shares of stock be specifically
function of the government of the highest released from sequestration and returned,
order, they are not utilized for nor dedicated to delivered or paid to him as part of the parties’
commercial or business purposes. Compromise Agreement in that case. It was
granted but the shares were ordered to be put
under the custody of the Clerk of Court. Along
with this, PCGG was ordered to deliver the
G.R. No. 129406 March 6, shares to the Clerk of Court which it failed to
2006 comply with without any justifiable grounds.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES In a last-ditch attempt to escape
represented by the liability, petitioner Republic, through the
PCGG, invokes state immunity from suit.
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON
GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG) vs. ISSUE: WON the Republic can invoke state
SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND immunity.
DIVISION) and ROBERTO S.
BENEDICTO. HELD: NO.
In fact, by entering into a Compromise
FACTS: Agreement with private respondent Benedicto,
The PCGG issued writs placing under petitioner Republic thereby stripped itself of its
sequestration all business enterprises, entities immunity from suit and placed itself in the
and other properties, real and personal, owned same level of its adversary. When the State
enters into contract, through its officers or incident to its governmental function, there is
agents, in furtherance of a legitimate aim and no waiver thereby of the sovereign immunity
purpose and pursuant to constitutional from suit extended to such government entity.
legislative authority, whereby mutual or The Bureau of Customs, to repeat, is
reciprocal benefits accrue and rights and part of the Department of Finance with no
obligations arise therefrom, the State may be personality of its own apart from that of the
sued even without its express consent, national government. Its primary function is
precisely because by entering into a contract governmental, that of assessing and collecting
the sovereign descends to the level of the lawful revenues from imported articles and all
citizen. Its consent to be sued is implied from other tariff and customs duties, fees, charges,
the very act of entering into such contract, fines and penalties. To this function, arrastre
breach of which on its part gives the service is a necessary incident.
corresponding right to the other party to the
agreement.
G.R. No. L-33112 June 15, 1978
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs.
G.R. No. L-23139 December 17, HON. JUDGE JAVIER PABALAN,
1966 Judge of the Court of First
MOBIL PHILIPPINES Instance, Branch III, La Union,
EXPLORATION, INC. vs. AGOO TOBACCO PLANTERS
CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE ASSOCIATION, INC., PHILIPPINE
and BUREAU of CUSTOMS VIRGINIA TOBACCO
ADMINISTRATION, and PANFILO
FACTS:
P. JIMENEZ, Deputy Sheriff, La
Four cases of rotary drill parts were
shipped from abroad on S.S. "Leoville" Union
consigned to Mobil Philippines Exploration,
Inc., Manila. It was discharged to the custody FACTS:
of the Customs Arrastre Service, the unit of The reliance of petitioner Philippine National
the Bureau of Customs then handling arrastre Bank against respondent Judge Javier Pabalan
operations therein. The Customs Arrastre who issued a writ of execution, followed
Service later delivered to the broker of the thereafter by a notice of garnishment of the
consignee three cases only. Petitioner filed suit funds of respondent Philippine Virginia Tobacco
in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Administration, deposited with it, is on the
the Customs Arrastre Service and the Bureau fundamental constitutional law doctrine of non-
of Customs to recover the value of the suability of a state, it being alleged that such
undelivered case plus other damages. The funds are public in character.
respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that not being persons under the law, ISSUE: WON the funds are public in character,
they cannot be sued. thus immune from suit.
would be a bar to garnishment. Such is not the prosper or be validly entertained by the courts
case here. except with the consent of said Government.
It is well-settled that when the Inasmuch as the State authorizes only
government enters into commercial business, legal acts by its officers, unauthorized acts
it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be of government officials or officers are not
treated like any other corporation. By engaging acts of the State, and an action against the
in a particular business thru the officials or officers by one whose rights have
instrumentality of a corporation, the been invaded or violated by such acts, for the
government divests itself pro hac vice of its protection of his rights, is not a suit against the
sovereign character, so as to render the State within the rule of immunity of the State
corporation subject to the rules of law from suit.
governing private corporations.
duly organized public corporation it performs jeepney driven by Bernardo Balagot (owned by
sovereign functions and the holding of a town the Estate of Macario Nieveras), a gravel and
fiesta was an exercise of its governmental sand truck driven by Jose Manandeg (owned
functions from which no liability can arise to by Tanquilino Velasquez), and a dump truck of
answer for the negligence of any of its agents. the Municipality of San Fernando, La Union and
driven by Alfredo Bislig. Due to the impact,
ISSUE: WON the defendant Municipality was several passengers of the jeepney including
performing sovereign functions therefore Laureano Baniña Sr. died as a result of the
immune from suit. injuries they sustained and four others suffered
varying degrees of physical injuries.
HELD: NO. The private respondents instituted a
Holding a fiesta even if the purpose is complaint for damages against the Estate of
to commemorate a religious or historical event Macario Nieveras and Bernardo Balagot, owner
of the town is in essence an act for the special and driver, respectively, of the passenger
benefit of the community and not for the jeepney. However, the aforesaid defendants
general welfare of the public performed in filed a Third Party Complaint against the
pursuance of a policy of the state. The mere petitioner and the driver of a dump truck of
fact that the celebration, as claimed was not to petitioner.
secure profit or gain but merely to provide Petitioner raised as one of its defenses
entertainment to the town inhabitants is not a the non-suability of the State.
conclusive test. For instance, the maintenance
of parks is not a source of income for the ISSUE: WON the Municipality of San Fernando
nonetheless it is private undertaking as is immune from suit.
distinguished from the maintenance of public
schools, jails, and the like which are for public HELD: YES.
service. Anent the issue of whether or not the
There can be no hard and fast rule for municipality is liable for the torts committed by
purposes of determining the true nature of an its employee, the test of liability of the
undertaking or function of a municipality; the municipality depends on whether or not the
surrounding circumstances of a particular case driver, acting in behalf of the municipality, is
are to be considered and will be decisive. The performing governmental or proprietary
basic element, however beneficial to the public functions.
the undertaking may be, is that it is In the case at bar, the driver of the
governmental in essence, otherwise. the dump truck of the municipality insists that "he
function becomes private or proprietary in was on his way to the Naguilian river to get a
character. Easily, no governmental or public load of sand and gravel for the repair of San
policy of the state is involved in the celebration Fernando's municipal streets." We already
of a town fiesta. 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
G.R. No. L-52179 April 8, 1991 maintenance of roads in which the truck and
MUNICIPALITY OF SAN the driver worked at the time of the accident
FERNANDO, LA UNION vs. are admittedly governmental activities."
We arrive at the conclusion that the
HON. JUDGE ROMEO N. FIRME,
municipality cannot be held liable for the torts
ET. AL. committed by its regular employee, who was
then engaged in the discharge of
FACTS: governmental functions. Hence, the death of
At about 7am of December 16, 1965, a the passenger –– tragic and deplorable though
collision occurred involving a passenger
ISSUE: WON the Republic can invoke immunity advanced payment which was earlier released
from suit. to private respondent.
Petitioner however refused to comply
HELD: with the garnishment despite its having two
It is settled that when the State gives bank accounts in PNB. The first one was
its consent to be sued, it does not thereby dedicated for expropriation proceedings while
necessarily consent to an unrestrained the other was for public funds. The first bank
execution against it. Tersely put, when the account cannot cover the remaining amount
State waives its immunity, all it does, in effect, due, while the other account had more than
is to give the other party an opportunity to enough to satisfy the amount due. Petitioner
prove, if it can, that the state has a liability. reasoned out that its funds at the PNB Buendia
The functions and public services Branch could neither be garnished nor levied
rendered by the State cannot be allowed to upon execution, for to do so would result in the
paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of disbursement of public funds without the
public funds from their legitimate and specific proper appropriation required under the law.
objects, as appropriated by law
ISSUE: WON the Municipality of Makati is
exempt from paying just compensation.
G.R. Nos. 89898-99 October 1,
HELD: NO.
1990
For three years now, petitioner has
MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI vs. enjoyed possession and use of the subject
THE HONORABLE COURT OF property notwithstanding its inexcusable failure
APPEALS, HON. SALVADOR P. DE to comply with its legal obligation to pay just
GUZMAN, JR., as Judge RTC of compensation. Just compensation means not
only the correct determination of the amount
Makati, Branch CXLII ADMIRAL
to be paid to the owner of the land but also the
FINANCE CREDITORS payment of the land within a reasonable time
CONSORTIUM, INC., and from its taking. Without prompt payment,
SHERIFF SILVINO R. PASTRANA compensation cannot be considered "just" for
the property owner is made to suffer the
FACTS: consequence of being immediately deprived of
The present petition for review is an his land while being made to wait for a long
off-shoot of expropriation proceedings initiated period.
by petitioner Municipality of Makati against The State's power of eminent domain
private respondent Admiral Finance Creditors should be exercised within the bounds of fair
Consortium, Inc., Home Building System & play and justice. In the case at bar,
Realty Corporation and one Arceli P. Jo, considering that valuable property has been
involving a parcel of land and improvements taken, the compensation to be paid fixed and
and registered in the name of the latter. the municipality is in full possession and
It was certified that a bank account utilizing the property for public purpose, for
had been opened with the PNB Buendia Branch three (3) years, the Court finds that the
under petitioner's name made pursuant to the municipality has had more than reasonable
provisions of Pres. Decree No. 42. After due time to pay full compensation.
hearing where the parties presented their
respective appraisal reports regarding the
value of the property, respondent RTC judge
rendered a decision fixing the appraised value
of the property at P5,291,666.00, and ordering
petitioner to pay this amount minus the
G.R. No. 164282 October 12, 2005 G.R. No. 77765 August 15, 1988
TERESITA M. YUJUICO vs. SEBASTIAN COSCULLUELA vs.
HON. JOSE L. ATIENZA, ET. AL. THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS and the REPUBLIC OF
FACTS: THE PHILIPPINES, represented by
On 8 December 1995, the City Council NATIONAL IRRIGATION
of Manila enacted an ordinance authorizing the
ADMINISTRATION
City Mayor to acquire by negotiation or
expropriation certain parcels of land for
utilization as a site for the Francisco Benitez FACTS:
Elementary School. Failing to acquire the land The Republic of the Philippines filed a
by negotiation, the City filed a case for complaint with the Court of First Instance of
eminent domain against petitioner as owner of Iloilo to expropriate two parcels of land in the
the property. municipality of Barotac, Iloilo owned by
It is the City School Board which has petitioner Sebastian Cosculluela and one Mita
the authority to pass a resolution allocating Lumampao, for the construction of the canal
funds for the full satisfaction of the just network of the Barotac Irrigation Project.
compensation fixed, the said body is hereby The trial court rendered a decision
given thirty (30) days from receipt to pass the granting the expropriation and ordered the
necessary resolution for the payments of the public respondent to pay Lumampao, the sum
remaining balance due to Yujuico. However, of P20,000 and Cosculluela, the sum of
despite petitioner demanding compliance from P200,000.00.
the CSB after 30 days, the latter still did not The Republic contends that the funds
take action. of the National Irrigation Authority (NIA) are
government funds and therefore, cannot be
ISSUE: WON respondent is justified in not disbursed without a government appropriation.
paying the petitioner her just compensation.
ISSUE: WON the Republic is exempt from
HELD: NO. paying the just compensation demanded by
While this Court recognizes the power the petitioner in view of non-disbursement of
of LGU to expropriate private property for funds without prior public appropriation.
public use, it will not stand idly by while the
expropriating authority maneuvers to evade HELD: NO.
the payment of just compensation of property One of the basic principles enshrined in
already in its possession. our Constitution is that no person shall be
The notion of expropriation is hard deprived of his private property without due
enough to take for a private owner. He is process of law; and in expropriation cases, an
compelled to give up his property for the essential element of due process is that there
common weal. But to give it up and wait in must be just compensation whenever private
vain for the just compensation decreed by the property is taken for public use.
courts is too much to bear. In cases like these, Just compensation means not only the
courts will not hesitate to step in to ensure correct determination of the amount to be paid
that justice and fair play are served. to the owner of the land but also the payment
of the land within a reasonable time from its
taking.
pumps. It is likewise stated therein that the KHOSROW MINUCHER vs. HON.
agreement shall be effective for a period of COURT OF APPEALS and ARTHUR
four years and will renew itself automatically
SCALZO
unless cancelled by either party by giving thirty
days prior written notice from the date of
FACTS:
expiry.
Petitioners claim that sometime prior to Sometime in May 1986, an Information for
the date of expiration of the said agreement, violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425,
or before August 1999, they informed otherwise also known as the “Dangerous Drugs
respondent that the renewal of the agreement
Act of 1972,” was filed against petitioner
shall be at the discretion of the incoming Chief
of Administration. When the Chief of Khosrow Minucher and one Abbas Torabian.
Administration assumed his position, he The criminal charge followed a “buy-bust
allegedly found respondent’s work and services operation” conducted by the Philippine police
unsatisfactory and not in compliance with the narcotic agents in the house of Minucher, an
standards in the Agreement. Hence, the Iranian national, where a quantity of heroin, a
Indonesian Embassy terminated the prohibited drug, was said to have been
agreement. Petitioners claim, that they had
seized. The narcotic agents were accompanied
earlier verbally informed respondent of their
decision to terminate the agreement. by private respondent Arthur Scalzo who
On the other hand, respondent claims that would, in due time, become one of the
the aforesaid termination was arbitrary and principal witnesses for the prosecution. On 08
unlawful. Hence, he filed a complaint against January 1988, Presiding Judge Eutropio Migrino
the petitioners which opposed by invoking rendered a decision acquitting the two
immunity from suit. accused.
words against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal, international functions, is immunity from local
he was charged before the Metropolitan Trial jurisdiction. There is no argument in doctrine or
Court (MeTC) of Mandaluyong City with two practice with the principle that an international
counts of grave oral defamation. official is independent of the jurisdiction of the local
Petitioner was arrested by virtue of a authorities for his official acts. Those acts are not
warrant issued by the MeTC. After fixing his, but are imputed to the organization, and without
waiver the local courts cannot hold him liable for
petitioner’s bail, the MeTC released him to the
them. In strict law, it would seem that even the
custody of the Security Officer of ADB. The
organization itself could have no right to waive
next day, the MeTC judge received an "office of
an official’s immunity for his official acts. This
protocol" from the DFA stating that petitioner
permits local authorities to assume jurisdiction
is covered by immunity from legal process
over and individual for an act which is not, in
under Section 45 of the Agreement between the wider sense of the term, his act at all. It is
the ADB and the Philippine Government the organization itself, as a juristic person,
regarding the Headquarters of the ADB which should waive its own immunity and
(hereinafter Agreement) in the country. Based appear in court, not the individual, except
on the said protocol communication that insofar as he appears in the name of the
petitioner is immune from suit, the MeTC judge organization.
without notice to the prosecution dismissed the
Historically, international officials were granted
two criminal cases.
diplomatic privileges and immunities and were thus
considered immune for both private and official
ISSUE: WON petitioner Liang is immune from
acts. In practice, this wide grant of diplomatic
suit.
prerogatives was curtailed because of practical
necessity and because the proper functioning of the
HELD: NO. organization did not require such extensive
Slandering a person could not possibly immunity for its officials. Thus, the current status
be covered by the immunity agreement of the law does not maintain that states grant
because our laws do not allow the commission jurisdictional immunity to international officials
of a crime, such as defamation, in the name of for acts of their private lives.
official duty. It is well-settled principle of law
that a public official may be liable in his Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
personal private capacity for whatever damage Relations, a diplomatic envoy is immune from
criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State for all
he may have caused by his act done with
acts, whether private or official, and hence he
malice or in bad faith or beyond the scope of
cannot be arrested, prosecuted and punished for
his authority or jurisdiction.
any offense he may commit, unless his diplomatic
immunity is waived.[ On the other hand, officials
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION OF JUSTICE of international organizations enjoy “functional”
PUNO: immunities, that is, only those necessary for the
The Charter of the ADB provides under Article exercise of the functions of the organization
55(i) that officers and employees of the bank shall and the fulfillment of its purposes. This is the
be immune from legal process with respect to acts reason why the ADB Charter and Headquarters
performed by them in their official capacity except Agreement explicitly grant immunity from legal
when the Bank waives immunity. Section 45 (a) of process to bank officers and employees only with
the ADB Headquarters Agreement accords the respect to acts performed by them in their official
same immunity to the officers and staff of the capacity, except when the Bank waives
bank. There can be no dispute that international immunity. In other words, officials and
officials are entitled to immunity only with employees of the ADB are subject to the
respect to acts performed in their official jurisdiction of the local courts for their private
capacity, unlike international organizations acts, notwithstanding the absence of a waiver
which enjoy absolute immunity of immunity.
Clearly, the most important immunity to an Considering that bank officials and employees are
international official, in the discharge of his covered by immunity only for their official acts, the
necessary inference is that the authority of the In response, Nicolay wrote each of the
Department of Affairs, or even of the ADB for private respondents a letter, all similarly
that matter, to certify that they are entitled to worded except for their respective addressees.
immunity is limited only to acts done in their She informed private respondents that they
official capacity. Stated otherwise, it is not within could no longer find any reason to stay with
the power of the DFA, as the agency in charge of the project unless ALL of these issues be
the executive department’s foreign relations, nor addressed immediately and appropriately.
the ADB, as the international organization vested
Under the foregoing premises and
with the right to waive immunity, to invoke immunity
circumstances, it is now imperative that I am
for private acts of bank official and employees,
to accept your resignation, which I expect to
since no such prerogative exists in the first place. If
receive as soon as possible.
the immunity does not exist, there is nothing to
certify. Negotiations ensued between private
respondents and Nicolay, but for naught. Each
of the private respondents received a letter
from Nicolay, informing them of the pre-
G.R. No. 152318 April 16, termination of their contracts of employment
2009 on the grounds of "serious and gross
DEUTSCHE GESELLSCHAFT FÜR insubordination, among others, resulting to
loss of confidence and trust."
TECHNISCHE
ZUSAMMENARBEIT, ET. AL. vs. HELD: NO.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL. This self-description of GTZ in its own
official website gives further cause for pause in
FACTS: adopting petitioners’ argument that GTZ is
The governments of the Federal entitled to immunity from suit because it is "an
Republic of Germany and the Republic of the implementing agency." The above-quoted
Philippines ratified an Agreement called Social statement does not dispute the
Health Insurance—Networking and characterization of GTZ as an "implementing
Empowerment (SHINE which was designed to agency of the Federal Republic of Germany,"
"enable Philippine families–especially poor yet it bolsters the notion that as a company
ones–to maintain their health and secure organized under private law, it has a legal
health care of sustainable quality." Private personality independent of that of the Federal
respondents were engaged as contract Republic of Germany.
employees hired by GTZ to work for SHINE. The Court is thus holds and so rules
Nicolay, a Belgian national, assumed that GTZ consistently has been unable to
the post of SHINE Project Manager. establish with satisfaction that it enjoys the
Disagreements eventually arose between immunity from suit generally enjoyed by its
Nicolay and private respondents in matters parent country, the Federal Republic of
such as proposed salary adjustments, and the Germany.
course Nicolay was taking in the
implementation of SHINE different from her
predecessors.
The dispute culminated in a signed by
the private respondents, addressed to Nicolay,
and copies furnished officials of the DOH,
Philheath, and the director of the Manila office
of GTZ. The letter raised several issues which
private respondents claim had been brought up
several times in the past, but have not been
given appropriate response.