The Concept of the State

PVTA vs. CIR, July 25, 1975

Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration vs. Court of Industrial Relations.
Ponente: Fernando
Facts: Appeal by certiorari. This case is concerned with the expanded
role of government necessitated by the increased responsibility to
provide for the general welfare. Dec. 20, 1966, private respondents
filed a petition wherein they are seeking relief for their alleged
overtime services (in excess of their 8 regular hours a day) and the
failure to pay for said compensation in accordance with Commonwealth
Act. No. 444. Petitioner denies allegations for lack of a cause of action
and lack of jurisdiction. Presiding Judge Arsenio Martinez issued an
order, directing petitioner to pay the same (minus what was already
paid). Hence, respondents filed a petition for certiorari on grounds that
the corporation is exercising governmental functions and is therefore
exempt from Commonwealth Act No. 444.
Issue: Whether the PVTA discharges governmental and not proprietary
functions and is exempt from CA No. 444.
Held: RA No. 2265 also provides a distinction between constituent and
ministrant functions which the Chief Justice points out, is irrelevant
considering the needs of the present time: “The growing complexities
of modern society have rendered this traditional classification of the
functions of government obsolete.” The court affirms that the motion
for reconsideration be denied. The contention of petitioner that the 8
Hour Labor Law does not apply to them does not deserve any
consideration.

Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Monte de Piedad, Dec 13, 1916
Ponente: Trent
Facts: This case is one of trusteeship. $400,000 was paid into the treasury of
the Philippine Islands by Spain for the relief of those damaged by an
earthquake. Upon the petition of Monte de Piedad (institution under the
control of the church), the Philippine Government directed its treasurer
to give the former $80,000 of the relief fund in 4 installments. Petitions
of various persons, including heirs of those entitled to allotments,
prayed for the State to bring suit against Monte de Piedad, and to pay
the same with interest. Defendant appealed as funds have been
exhausted on jewelry loans.
Issue: Whether the loan on Monte de Piedad was charity for an ecclesiastical
pious work, and if the government is the proper authority to the cause
of action towards this case (who may sue to recover this loan?).
Held: If such loan was for ecclesiastical pious work, then Spain would not
exercise its civil capacities. The Philippine government as a trustee
towards the funds could maintain action for there has been no change
of sovereignty. The state, as a sovereign, is the parens patriae. These
principles based upon the foundation of a principle of public policy. The
judgment appealed is affirmed.

Lourdes Limkaichong Iway

 Nadeco Development Company vs. Tobias

Facts: Appeal taken by plaintiff, Nadeco, represented by its agent, the

Philippine National Bank, from an order of the CFI of Negros Occidental
dismissing plaintiff’s complaint on grounds of prescription. In complaint,
plaintiff seeks to recover from Jose Yulo Tobias the sum of P6,905.81
under a promissory note. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss upon
grounds that the action upon which complaint is based had prescribed
more than 10 years ago. Plaintiff argues that it is erroneous as the
statute of limitations does not run against the plaintiff because it is an
instrumentality of the government. Plaintiff cites Monte de Piedad case.
Issue: Whether the plaintiff can exercise sovereign powers and can invoke
the exemptions thereof?
Held: Plaintiff does not exercise sovereign powers and can not invoke the
exemptions thereof – it is an agency for the performance of purely
corporate, proprietary or business functions, apparent from its Organic
Act (Commonwealth Act 182, amended by CA 311), which says: “shall
be subject to the provisions of the Corporation Law in so far as they
are not inconsistent”

Republic vs. Purisima

Facts: Failure of Judge Amante Purisima of CFI-Manila to apply the well

known doctrine of non-suability of State including its offices and
agencies from suit without its consent. Rice and Corn Administration
(RCA) filed a motion to dismiss a pending civil suit for the collection of a
money claim arising from a breach of contract.
Issue: Whether or not RCA are applicable to the non-suability doctrine and
can still be sued since they waived immunity?
Held: There is lack of jurisdiction of a court to pass merits on a claim against
any office or entity acting as part of the machinery of the national
government unless consent is shown. However, whatever counsel for
RCA agreed to had no binding force on the government as it was
beyond the scope of its authority. Consent to be sued must come from
the State through a statute. Apparently, the judge was misled by the
terms of the contract between private respondent Yellow Ball Freight
Lines Inc. where RCA anticipated a breach of contract and the suits that
were to arise after.

Sanders vs. Veridiano ii

Facts: Sanders, a special services director of US Naval Station and Moreau, a
commanding officer of Subic Naval Base supervised Rossi & Wyers,
respondents. Respondents filed a complaint for damages against the
petitioners for letters they claimed were libelous in nature (defamatory
remarks). Letters dealt with financial budgeting problems of their
department recommending a solution and a re-designation of the
respondents to temporary working status as respondents alienated co-
workers and were difficult to deal with.
Issue: Whether our courts have jurisdiction?
Held: Under the doctrine of state immunity and sovereign equality of states,
the US employees were acting on their official duties and such a case
would be a suit against the US. Without its consent, the courts have no
jurisdiction over this case.

Lourdes Limkaichong Iway

Lourdes Limkaichong Iway