7/23/2019 Mutual Defense Treaty Between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mutual-defense-treaty-between-the-republic-of-the-philippines-and-the-united 1/8

MUTUAL DEFENSE TREATY BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Signed at Washington A!g!st "# $%&$.

 Note: The Ag'ee(ent )as *on*!''ed in +, the Senate S.R. No. - Ma, $/ $%&/. The

Phi0i11ine inst'!(ent o2 'ati2i*ation )as signed +, the P'esident A!g!st /3 $%&/. The

Ag'ee(ent ente'ed into 2o'*e A!g!st /3 $%&/ !1on the e4*hange o2 'ati2i*ation +et)een

the Pa'ties. It )as 1'o*0ai(ed +, the P'esident P'o*. No. "$ S. $%&/

 Reference: This Ag'ee(ent is a0so 1!+0ished in II DFA TS No.$ 1. $"5 $33 UNTS 1. $""5

" UST "%3 and TIAS /&/%. The P'esidentia0 1'o*0a(ation o2 the Ag'ee(ent is 1!+0ished

in - O. 6. // 7A!g. $%&/8.

The Parties of this Treaty

Reaffirming their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and

their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments, and desiring to strengthen

the fabric of peace in the Pacific area.

Recalling with mutual pride the historic relationship which brought their two peoples together 

in a common bond of sympathy and mutual ideals to fight side-by-side against imperialist

aggression during the last war.

esiring to declare publicly and formally their sense of unity and their common determination

to defend themselves against e!ternal armed attac", so that no potential aggressor could be

under the illusion that either of them stands alone in the Pacific area.

esiring further to strengthen their present efforts for collective defense for the preservation of 

 peace and security pending the development of a more comprehensive system of regional

security in the Pacific area.

#greeing that nothing in this present instrument shall be considered or interpreted as in any

way or sense altering or diminishing any e!isting agreements or understandings between the

Republic of the Philippines and the United $tates of #merica

%ave agreed as follows&

#RT'C() '. The parties underta"e, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle

any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner 

that international peace and endangered and to refrain in their international relation from the of 

force in any the purposes of the United Nations.

#RT'C() ''. 'n order more effectively to achieve the ob*ective of this Treaty, the Parties

separately and *ointly by self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual

and collective capacity to resist armed attac".

#RT'C() '''. The Parties, through their +oreign inisters or their deputies, will consult

together from time to time regarding the implementation of this Treaty and whenever in the

opinion of either of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of either of 

the Parties is threatened by e!ternal armed attac" in the Pacific.

#RT'C() '. )ach Party recognies that an armed attac" in the Pacific area on either of the

Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet

the common dangers in accordance with its constitutional processes.

#ny such armed attac" and all measures ta"en as a result thereof shall be immediately

reported to the $ecurity Council of the United Nations, $uch measures shall be terminated

when the $ecurity Council has ta"en the measures necessary to restore and maintain

international peace and security.

#RT'C() . +or the purpose of #rticle ', an armed attac" on either of the Parties is deemedto include an armed attac" on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or on the

'sland territories under its *urisdiction in the Pacific /cean, its armed forces, public vessels or 

aircraft in the Pacific.

#RT'C() '. This Treaty does not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way

the rights and obligations of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations or the

responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

#RT'C() ''. This Treaty shall be ratified by the Republic of the Philippines and the United

$tates of #merica in accordance with their respective constitutional processes and will come

into force when instruments of ratification thereof have been e!changed by them at anila.

#RT'C() '''. This Treaty shall remain in force indefinitely. )ither Party may terminate it

one year after notice has been given to the other party.

'N 0'TN)$$ 0%)R)/+ the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty.

/N) in duplicate at 0ashington this thirtieth day of #ugust, 1231.

)C(#R#T'/N /N T%) C/NUCT /+ P#RT')$ 'N T%) $/UT% C%'N# $)#

The 4overnments of the ember $tates of #$)#N and the 4overnment of the People5sRepublic of China,

7/23/2019 Mutual Defense Treaty Between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mutual-defense-treaty-between-the-republic-of-the-philippines-and-the-united 2/8

R)#++'R'N4 their determination to consolidate and develop the friendship andcooperation e!isting between their people and governments with the view to promoting a 61st

century-oriented partnership of good neighbourliness and mutual trust7C/4N'8#NT of the need to promote a peaceful, friendly and harmonious environment in the$outh China $ea between #$)#N and China for the enhancement of peace, stability,economic growth and prosperity in the region7C/'TT) to enhancing the principles and ob*ectives of the 1229 :oint $tatement of the

eeting of the %eads of $tate;4overnment of the ember $tates of #$)#N and President of the People5s Republic of China7

)$'R'N4 to enhance favourable conditions for a peaceful and durable solution of differences and disputes among countries concerned7

%)R)<= )C(#R) the following&1. The Parties reaffirm their commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the 12>6 UN Convention on the (aw of the $ea, the Treaty of #mityand Cooperation in $outheast #sia, the +ive Principles of Peaceful Coe!istence, andother universally recognied principles of international law which shall serve as the

 basic norms governing state-to-state relations76. The Parties are committed to e!ploring ways for building trust and confidence inaccordance with the above-mentioned principles and on the basis of e?uality and mutualrespect7

@. The Parties reaffirm their respect for and commitment to the freedom of navigation inand overflight above the $outh China $ea as provided for by the universally recognied

 principles of international law, including the 12>6 UN Convention on the (aw of the

$ea7A. The Parties concerned underta"e to resolve their territorial and *urisdictional disputes

 by peaceful means, without resorting to the threat or use of force, through friendlyconsultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned, in accordancewith universally recognied principles of international law, including the 12>6 UNConvention on the (aw of the $ea7

3. The Parties underta"e to e!ercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that wouldcomplicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability including, among others,refraining from action of inhabiting on the presently uninhabited islands, reefs, shoals,cays, and other features and to handle their differences in a constructive manner.Pending the peaceful settlement of territorial and *urisdictional disputes, the Parties

concerned underta"e to intensify efforts to see" ways, in the spirit of cooperation andunderstanding, to build trust and confidence between and among them, including&

a. holding dialogues and e!change of views as appropriate between their defenseand military officials7

 b. ensuring *ust and humane treatment of all persons who are either in danger or indistress7c. notifying, on a voluntary basis, other Parties concerned of any impending

 *oint;combined military e!ercise7 andd. e!changing, on a voluntary basis, relevant information.

B. Pending a comprehensive and durable settlement of the disputes, the Partiesconcerned may e!plore or underta"e cooperative activities. These may include thefollowing&

a. marine environmental protection7

 b. marine scientific research7c. safety of navigation and communication at sea7d. search and rescue operation7 and

e. combating transnational crime, including but not limited to traffic"ing in illicitdrugs, piracy and armed robbery at sea, and illegal traffic in arms.

The modalities, scope and locations, in respect of bilateral and multilateralcooperation should be agreed upon by the Parties concerned prior to their actualimplementation.

9. The Parties concerned stand ready to continue their consultations and dialoguesconcerning relevant issues, through modalities to be agreed by them, including regular 

consultations on the observance of this eclaration, for the purpose of promoting goodneighbourliness and transparency, establishing harmony, mutual understanding and

cooperation, and facilitating peaceful resolution of disputes among them7>. The Parties underta"e to respect the provisions of this eclaration and ta"e actions

consistent therewith72. The Parties encourage other countries to respect the principles contained in thiseclaration71. The Parties concerned reaffirm that the adoption of a code of conduct in the $outhChina $ea would further promote peace and stability in the region and agree to wor", on

the basis of consensus, towards the eventual attainment of this ob*ective.one on the +ourth ay of November in the =ear Two Thousand and Two in Phnom Penh, theDingdom of Cambodia.

Cabanas s Pilapil4.R. No. (-63>A@ :uly 63, 129A

+#CT$& The insured, +lorentino Pilapil had a child, illian Pilapil, with a married woman,

the plaintiff, elchora Cabanas. $he was ten years old at the time the complaint was filed on/ctober 1, 12BA. The defendant, +rancisco Pilapil, is the brother of the deceased. Thedeceased insured himself and instituted as beneficiary, his child, with his brother to act astrustee during her minority. Upon his death, the proceeds were paid to him. %ence this

complaint by the mother, with whom the child is living, see"ing the delivery of such sum. $hefiled the bond re?uired by the Civil Code. efendant would *ustify his claim to the retention of the amount in ?uestion by invo"ing the terms of the insurance policy.

'ssue& 0/N the mother is the rightful trustee for the minor beneficiary

%eld& on #rticles @6 and @61 of the Civil Code. The former provides& EThe father, or in his

absence the mother, is the legal administrator of the property pertaining to the child under parental authority. The property which the unemancipated child has ac?uired or may ac?uire

with his wor" or industry, or by any lucrative title, belongs to the child in ownership, and inusufruct to the father or mother under whom he is under parental authority and whosecompany he lives.

0ith the added circumstance that the child stays with the mother, not the uncle, without any

evidence of lac" of maternal care, the decision arrived at can stand the test of the strictestscrutiny. 't is further fortified by the assumption, both logical and natural, that infidelity to thetrust imposed by the deceased is much less in the case of a mother than in the case of an uncle

R)PU<('C $. '((#$/R 4.R. No. (-@B91, November 6> 129@, 3A $CR# >A

+#CT$&

7/23/2019 Mutual Defense Treaty Between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mutual-defense-treaty-between-the-republic-of-the-philippines-and-the-united 3/8

/n :uly @, 12B1, a decision was rendered in $pecial Proceedings No. 613B-R in favor of respondents P. :. Diener Co., (td., 4avino Unchuan, and 'nternational Construction

Corporation, and against the petitioner herein, confirming the arbitration award sub*ect of $pecial Proceedings.

/n :une 6A, 12B2, respondent %onorable 4uillermo P. illasor, issued an /rderdeclaring theaforestated decision of :uly @, 12B1 final and e!ecutory, directingthe $heriffs of Rial

Province, Fueon City Gas well asH anila to e!ecute the said decision. Pursuant to the said/rder, the corresponding #lias 0rit of )!ecution was issued. /n the strength of the afore-

mentioned #lias 0rit of )!ecution, the respondent Provincial $heriff of Rial served noticesof garnishment with several <an"s, specially on the Imonies due the #rmed +orces of the

Philippines in the form of deposits, sufficient to cover the amount mentioned in the said 0ritof)!ecutionJ7 the Philippine eterans <an" received the same notice of garnishment. Thefunds of the #rmed +orces of the Philippines on deposit with the <an"s, particularly, withthe Philippine eterans <an" and the Philippine National <an" GorH their branches are publicfunds duly appropriated and allocated for the payment of pensions of retirees, pay

and allowances of military and civilianpersonnel and for maintenance and operations of the#rmed +orces of the Philippines.

Petitioner then alleged that respondent :udge, %onorable 4uillermo P. illasor, acted in e!cess

of *urisdiction GorH with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac" of *urisdiction in grantingthe issuance of an alias writ of e!ecution against the properties of the #rmed +orces of thePhilippines, hence, the #lias 0rit of)!ecution and notices of garnishment issued pursuant

thereto are null and void.E

'n the answer filed by respondents, the facts set forth were admitted with the only ?ualification being that the total award was in the amount of P6,@96,@@1.A.

'$$U)&

0hether or not the notices of garnishment are null and void.

%)(&The Republic of the Philippines did right in filing this certiorari and prohibition proceeding.0hat was done by respondent :udge is not in conformity with the dictates of the Constitution.

't is a fundamental postulate of constitutionalism flowing from the *uristic concept of 

sovereignty that the state as well as its government is immune from suit unless it gives itsconsent. 't is readily understandable why it must be so. 'n the classic formulation of %olmes&

E# sovereign is e!empt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, buton the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority thatma"es the law on which the right depends.E $ociological *urisprudence supplies an answer notdissimilar.

This fundamental postulate underlying the 12@3 Constitution is now made e!plicit in therevised charter. 't is therein e!pressly provided& EThe $tate may not be sued without itsconsent.E # corollary, both dictated by logic and sound sense from such a basic concept is that

 public funds cannot be the ob*ect of a garnishment proceeding even i f the consent to be suedhad been previously granted and the state liability ad*udged.

Case& D%/$R/0 'NUC%)R v. C# and #RT%UR $C#(8/ K4.R. 1A6@2BLate& +ebruary 11, 6@Ponente&:. itug+acts&

inucher is an 'ranian national who came to study in UP in 129A and was appointed (abor #ttache for the 'ranian)mbasies inTo"yo and anila7 he continued to stay in the Philippines when the $hah of 'ran was deposed byDhomeini, he became a refugee of the UN and he headed the 'ranian National Resistance ovement in thePhilippines./n the other hand, $calo was a special agent of the U$ rugs )nforcement #gency. %e conductssurveillance operations onsuspected drug dealers in the Philippines believed to be the source of prohibited drugs

shipped to the U$ and ma"e the actual arrest.inucher and one #bbas Torabian was charged for a violation of #ct.BA63 Kangerous rugs #ct of 1296L before the PasigRTC, such criminal charge was followed by a buy-bust

operation conducted by the Philippine police narcotic agents to which $calowas a witness for the prosecution. Theywere ac?uitted.(ater on, inucher filed a complaint for damages against $calo. 't was said that inucher and $calo

came to "now of eachother thru :ose 'Migo7 they conducted some business i.e. the former sold to the latter some caviarand Persian carpets. $calo thenrepresented himself as a special agent of the rug )nforcement #dministration, /:of U$.inucher e!pressed his desire to obtain a U$ isa for him and his #bbass wife. $calo told him that he couldhelp him for aO6, fee per visa. #fter a series of business transactions between the two, when $calo came to deliverthe visas to inuchershouse, he told the latter that he would be leaving the Philippines soon and re?uested him to

come out of the house so he can introducehim to his cousin waiting in the cab. To his surprise, @-A armed +ilipinosoldiers came to arrest him.'n his complaint for damages, he said that some of his properties were missing li"e Persiancarpets, a painting together withhis T and betama! sets. There was nothing left in his house. %e averred that his arrestas a heroine traffic"er was well publicied andthat when we got arrested, he was not given any food or water for @

days.'n his defense, $calo asserted his diplomatic immunity as evidenced by a iplomatic Note. %e contended that itwasrecognied by the U$ 4overnment pursuant to the ienna Convention on iplomatic Relations and the Philippinegovernment itself thruits )!ecutive epartment and +#.The courts ruled in favor of $calo on the ground that as a

special agent of the U$ rug )nforcement #dministration, he wasentitled to diplomatic immunity. %ence, the presentrecourse of inucher.

'ssue&0/N $calo is entitled to diplomatic immunity%eld&=es.

Ratio&The Convention lists the classes of heads of diplomatic missions to include KaL ambassadors or nuncios accredited totheheads of state, KbL envoys, ministers orinternunciosaccredited to the heads of states7 and KcL charges d5 affairs accredited to theministers of foreign affairs. Comprising the

Estaff of the KdiplomaticL missionE are the diplomatic staff, the administrative staff and thetechnical and service staff./nly the heads of missions, as well as members of the diplomatic staff, e!cluding the members of theadministrative,

technical and service staff of the mission, are accorded diplomatic ran". )ven while the ienna Conventiononiplomatic Relations provides for immunity to the members of diplomatic missions, it does so, nevertheless, with

an understanding thatthe same be restrictively applied.The main yardstic" in ascertaining whether a person is a diplomat entitled to immunity is thedetermination of whetheror not he performs duties of diplomatic nature.$calo was an #ssistant #ttach of the U$ diplomatic mission. #n attach belongs to a category of officers in thediplomaticestablishment who may be in charge of its cultural, press, administrative or financial affairs. There could also

 be a class of attachesbelonging to certain ministries or departments of the government, other than the foreign ministryor department, who are detailed bytheir respective ministries or departments with the embassies such as the military,naval, air, commercial, agricultural, labor, science,and customs attaches, or the li"e. #ttaches assist a chief of mission in his duties and are administratively under him, but their main function is to

observe, analye and interpret trends and developments in their respective fields in the host country andsubmit reportsto their own ministries or departments in the home government. These officials are not generally regarded asmembersof the diplomatic mission, nor are they normally designated as having diplomatic ran".esting a person withdiplomatic immunity is a prerogative of the e!ecutive branch of the government.

7/23/2019 Mutual Defense Treaty Between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mutual-defense-treaty-between-the-republic-of-the-philippines-and-the-united 4/8

Thegovernment of the United $tates itself, which $calo claims to be acting for, has formulated its standards forrecognition of a diplomaticagent. The $tate epartment policy is to only concede diplomatic status to a person who

 possesses an ac"nowledged diplomatic titleand Eperforms duties of diplomatic nature.E $upplementary criteria foraccreditation are the possession of a valid diplomatic passportor, from $tates which do not issue such passports, adiplomatic note formally representing the intention to assign the person todiplomatic duties, the holding of a non-immigrant visa, being over twenty-one years of age, and performing diplomatic functions on anessentially full-time

 basis. iplomatic missions are re?uested to provide the most accurate and descriptive *ob title to that whichcurrently

applies to the duties performed. The /ffice of the Protocol would then assign each individual to the appropriatefunctionalcategory.

)ldepio (asco et al v United Nations Revolving +und +or Natural Resources )!ploration

KUNR+NR)L4.R. Nos. 1223-1219 +ebruary 6@, 1223

+acts& Petitioners were dismissed from their employment with privaterespondent, the United Nations Revolving +und for NaturalResources)!ploration KUNR+NR)L, which is a special

fund and subsidiary organ of theUnited Nations.The UNR+NR) is involved in a *oint pro*ectof thePhilippine4overnment and the United Nations for e!ploration wor" in inagat'sland.Petitioners are thecomplainants for illegal dismissal and damages.Private respondentalleged that respondent (abor #rbiter had no *urisdiction over its personality since iten*oyed

diplomatic immunity.

'ssue&0/N specialied agencies en*oy diplomatic immunity

%eld&Petition is dismissed. This is not to say that petitioner have no recourse.$ection @1 of the

Convention on the Privileges and 'mmunitiesof the $pecialied#gencies of the United Nationsstates that Qeach specialied agency shall ma"ea provision for appropriate modes of settlementof KaL disputes arising out of contracts or other disputes of private character to whichthespecialied agencyisa party. Private respondent is not engaged in a commercial venture in

thePhilippines.'ts presence is by virtue of a *oint pro*ect entered into by thePhilippine4overnment and theUnited Nations for mineral e!ploration in inagat'sland

ERNESTO CALLADO 9s. INTERNATIONAL RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE 7IRRI8

6.R. No. $#:-" Ma, // $%%&; ROMERO J.:

Fa*ts< )rnesto Callado, petitioner, was employed as a driver at the 'RR'. /ne day while

driving an 'RR' vehicle on an official trip to the N#'# and bac" to the 'RR', petitioner figuredin an accident.

Petitioner was informed of the findings of a preliminary investigation conducted by the 'RR'5s%uman Resource evelopment epartment anager. 'n view of the findings, he was chargedwith&

K1L riving an institute vehicle while on official duty under the influence of li?uor7

K6L $erious misconduct consisting of failure to report to supervisors the failure of the vehicleto start because of a problem with the car battery, and

K@L 4ross and habitual neglect of duties.

Petitioner submitted his answer and defenses to the charges against him.  %owever, 'RR'issued a Notice of Termination to petitioner.

Thereafter, petitioner filed a complaint before the (abor #rbiter for illegal dismissal, illegalsuspension and indemnity pay with moral and e!emplary damages and attorney5s fees.

'RR' wrote the (abor #rbiter to inform him that the 'nstitute en*oys immunity from legal process by virtue of #rticle @ of Presidential ecree No. 1B6, & and that it invo"es suchdiplomatic immunity and privileges as an international organiation in the instant case filed by

 petitioner, not having waived the same.

0hile admitting 'RR'5s defense of immunity, the La+o' A'+ite', nonetheless, cited an /rder 

issued by the 'nstitute to the effect that Ein all cases of termination, respondent 'RR' waives itsimmunity,E and, accordingly, considered the defense of immunity no longer a legal obstacle in

resolving the case.

The NLRC found merit in private respondent5s appeal and, finding that 'RR' did not waive itsimmunity, ordered the aforesaid decision of the (abor #rbiter set aside and the complaintdismissed.

'n this petition petitioner contends that the immunity of the 'RR' as an internationalorganiation granted by #rticle @ of Presidential ecree No. 1B6 may not be invo"ed in thecase at bench inasmuch as it waived the same by virtue of its emorandum on E4uidelines on

the handling of dismissed employees in relation to P.. 1B6.E

Iss!e< id the K'RR'L waive its immunity from suit in this dispute which arose from an

employer-employee relationshipS

He0d< No.

P.. No. 1B6, #rticle @ provides&

 Art. 3. Immunity from Legal Process. The Institute shall enjoy immunity from any penal, civil 

and administrative proceedings, ecept insofar as that immunity has !een epressly "aived !y

the #irector$%eneral of the Institute or his authori&ed representatives.

The $C upholds the constitutionality of the afore?uoted law. There is in this case Eacategorical recognition by the )!ecutive <ranch of the 4overnment that 'RR' en*oys

immunities accorded to international organiations, which determination has been held to be a political ?uestion conclusive upon the Courts in order not to embarass a political department

of 4overnment.'t is a recognied principle of international law and under our system of separation of powers

that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political ?uestion and courts should refuse to loo"  beyond a determination by the e!ecutive branch of the government, and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognied and affirmed by the e!ecutive branch of the government asin the case at bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity uponappropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of the government or other officer acting

under his direction.

The raison d'etre for these immunities is the assurance of unimpeded performance of their functions by the agencies concerned.

The grant of immunity to 'RR' i s clear and une?uivocal and an e!press waiver by its irector-4eneral is the only way by which it may relin?uish or abandon this immunity.

7/23/2019 Mutual Defense Treaty Between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mutual-defense-treaty-between-the-republic-of-the-philippines-and-the-united 5/8

'n cases involving dismissed employees, the 'nstitute may waive its immunity, signifying thatsuch waiver is discretionary on its part.

Calub and alencia vs. C# 4.R. No. 113B@A, #pril 69, 6$unday, :anuary 63, 62 Posted by Coffeeholic 0rites(abels& Case igests, Political (aw

Fa*ts< The +orest Protection and (aw )nforcement Team of the Community )nvironment and Natural Resources /ffice of the )NR apprehended 6 motor vehicles loaded

with illegally sourced lumber. Thedrivers of the vehicles failed to present proper documents.Thus, the apprehending team impounded the vehicles and its load of lumber. The impounded

vehicles were forcibly ta"en by the drivers from the custody of )NR. Thereafter, one of the 6vehicles was again apprehended by a composite team of )NR-C)NR/ and Phil. #rmyelements. The vehicle was again loaded with forest products.

Private respondents anuela <abalcon, the vehicle owner, and Constancio #buganda,

the driver, filed a complaint for the recovery of possession of the vehicle with an applicationfor replevin against peti tioners )NR and )NR /fficer Calub.

Iss!e< 0hether or not the complaint for the recovery of possession of impounded vehicles,

with an application for replevin, is a suit against the $tate

He0d< 0ell established is the doctrine that the $tate may not be sued without its consent. #nd

a suit against a public officer for his official acts is, in effect, a suit against the $tate if its purpose is to hold the $tate ultimately liable. %owever, the protection afforded to public

officers by this doctrine generally applies only to activities within the scope of their authorityin goodfaith and without willfulness, malice or corruption.

'n the present case, the acts for which the petitioners are being called toaccount were

 performed by them in the discharge of their official duties. The acts in ?uestion areclearly official in nature. 'n implementing and enforcing $ecs. 9>-# and >2 of the +orestry Code through the seiurecarried out, petitioners were performing their duties andfunctions as officers of the )NR, and did so within the limits of their authority. There was nomalice or bad faith on their part. %ence, a suit against the petitioners who represent the )NR 

is a suit against the $tate. 't cannot prosper without the $tateJs consent.

B!'ea! o2 P'inting 9s B!'ea! o2 P'inting E(10o,ees Asso*iation6.R. No. L=$&3&$ >an!a', /- $%:$

 $ SCRA "#Fa*ts<

Upon complaint of the respondents of the <ureau of Printing )mployees #ssociationagainstthe <ureau of Printing, the complaint alleged that the latter have been engaging in unfair labor

 practices by interfering with, or coercing their employees, in the e!ercise of their right toself-organiation and discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of their employment in order

todiscourage themfrom pursuing the union activities.The Petitioners of <ureau of Printingdenied the charges of unfair labor practicesattributed to and, by way of affirmative defenses,alleged, among other things, that therespondents of the <ureau of Printing )mployees#ssociation were suspending the pendingresult of an administrative investigation against them

for breach of Civil $ervice rules andregulations petition7 that the <ureau of Printing has no *uridical personality to sue and be sued7that said bureau is not an industrial concern engagedfor the purpose of gain but is an agency of the Republic performing government functions.The petitioners filed an E/mnibus otionEas"ing for a preliminary hearing on the ?uestion of

 *urisdiction raised by them in their answer and for suspension of the trial of the case on themerits pending the determination of such *urisdical ?uestion.

Iss!e<

0hether or not the <ureau of Printing, in the proceeding in the action for unfairlabor practice, lac"s *urisdiction thereof.He0d<

The trial *udge of the 'ndustrial Court in an order dated :anuary 69, 1232 sustained

the *urisdiction of the court on the theory that the functions of the <ureau of Printing areEe!clusively proprietary in nature,E. The <ureau of Printing is an office of the 4overnmentcreated by

the #dministrative Code of 121B K#ct No. 6B39L. #s such instrumentality of the4overnment, itoperates under the direct supervision of the )!ecutive $ecretary, /ffice of thePresident, and is

Echarged with the e!ecution of all printing and binding, including wor" incidental to those processes, re?uired by the National 4overnment and such other wor" of thesame character assaid <ureau may, by law or by order of the )!ecutive $ecretary, be authoriedto underta"e...E.'t has no corporate e!istence, and its appropriations are provided for in the4eneral#ppropriations #ct. esigned to meet the printing needs of the 4overnment, it

is primarily a service bureau and obviously, not engaged in business or occupation for pecuniary profit. /vertime wor" in the <ureau of Printing is done only when the interest of theservice sore?uires. #s a matter of administrative policy, the overtime compensation may be

 paid, but such payment is discretionary with the head of the <ureau depending upon its

current appropriations,so that it cannot be the basis for holding that the functions of said<ureau are wholly proprietaryin character. The additional wor" it e!ecutes for private partiesis merely incidental to itsfunction, and although such wor" may be deemed proprietary in

character, there is no showingthat the employees performing said proprietary function areseparate and distinct from thoseemployed in its general governmental functions.#s an office of 

the 4overnment, without any corporate or *uridical personality, the<ureau of Printing cannot be sued. #ny suit, action or proceeding against it, if it were to produceany effect, wouldactually be a suit, action or proceeding against the 4overnment itself, and therule is settledthat the 4overnment cannot be sued without it s consent, much less over itsob*ection.

6.R. No. L=/"$"% De*e(+e' $3$%::MOBIL PHILIPPINESE?PLORATION INC.

 9s.CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SER@ICE andBUREAU o2 CUSTOMS

+#CT$&+our cases of rotary dril l part s weres h i p p e d f r o m a b r o a d o n $ . $ .

E ( e o v i l l e E consigned to obil Philippines )!ploration,'nc., anila. 't was

discharged to the custodyof the Cust oms #rrastre $ervice, the unit of the

<ureau of Customs then handling

arrastreo p e r a t i o n s t h e r e i n . T h e C u s t o m s # r r a s t r e $ervice later deliver  

ed to the bro"er of theconsignee three cases only. Petitioner filed suitin the Court of +irst

'nstance of anila againstthe Customs #rrastre $ervice and the

<ureauo f C u s t o m s t o r e c o v e r t h e v a l u e o f t h e undelive

red case plus other damages. Therespondents filed a motion to dismiss on theground

that not being person s un der the law,they cannot be sued.'$$U)& 0/N t he

defenda nts can invo"e state immunity.%)(&

=)$.N o w , t h e f a c t t h a t a n o n - c o r p o r a t e g o v e r n m e n t e n t i t y

 p e r f o r m s a f u n c t i o n proprietary in nature does not necessarilyr e s u l t i n

i t s b e i n g s u a b l e . ' f s a i d n o n - governmental function is underta"  

en as anincident to its governmental function, there isno waiver thereby of thesove rei gn imm unit yfrom suit e!tended to such government entity.The <ur eau of

7/23/2019 Mutual Defense Treaty Between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mutual-defense-treaty-between-the-republic-of-the-philippines-and-the-united 6/8

Customs, to repeat, ispart of the epartment of +inance with nopersonality of its own

apart from that of thenational government. 'ts primary function isgovernmental,

that of assessing and collectinglawful revenues from imported articles and allother tariff and

customs duties, fees, charges,fines and penalties. To this function, arrastreservice is a

necessary incident.

@ICTORIA AMI6ABLE 9s. NICOLAS CUENCA 6.R. No. L=/:## Fe+'!a', /% $%3/

+#CT$& ictoria #migable is the is the registered owner of a lot which, without prior

e!propriation proceedings or negotiated sale, was used by the government. #migable5s counselwrote the President of the Philippines re?uesting payment of the portion of her lot which had

 been e!propriated by the government.

#migable later filed a case against Cuenca, the Commissioner of Public %ighways, forrecovery of ownership and possession of the said lot. $he also sought payment forcomlensatory damages, moral damages and attorney5s fees.

The defendant said that the case was premature, barred by prescription, and the government

did not give its consent to be sued.

'$$U)& 0;N the appellant may properly sue the government.

%)(& 0here the government ta"es away property from a private landowner for public usewithout going through the legal process of e!propriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved

 party may properly maintain a suit against the government without violating the doctrine ofgovernmental immunity from suit.

The doctrine of immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an in*usticeto a citien. The only relie f available is for the government to ma"e due compensation which itcould and should have done years ago. To determine *ust compensation of the land, the basisshould be the price or value at the time of the ta"ing.

6.R. No. L="&:& Ma, // $%-&UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAPT. >AMES E.

6ALLOWAY WILLIAM I. COLLINS and ROBERT6OHIER 1etitione's9s.HON. @.

M. RUI P'esiding >!dge o2 B'an*h ?@ Co!'t o2 Fi'st Instan*e o2 Ria0 and ELI6IO

DE6UMAN CO. INC. 'es1ondents.

Ponente&ABAD SANTOS >.

 +acts

$ometime in ay 1296, the United $tates organied an auction by invitation for the repair ofitse?uipment and facilities in at the U$ Naval $tation $ubic <ay in 8ambales, which was oneof those provided in the ili tary <ases #greement between the Philippines and the U$.)ligio de 4uman Co., 'nc. responded to the invitation and submitted bids. $ubse?uent

thereto,the company received from the United $tates two telegrams re?uesting it to confirm its priceproposals and for the name of its bonding company7 the company, thereby, complied.'n :une, 1296, the company received a letter which was signed by 0ilham '. Collins, irector

for Contracts ivision of the Navy epartment of U$, saying that the company did not ?ualify

toreceive an award for the pro*ects because of its previous unsatisfactory performance on arepair contract and that the pro*ects had been awarded to third parties.

The company sued the U$ and its officers in the U$ Navy who were responsible for re*ectingtheir services to order the defendants in allowing the company to perform the wor" for the

 pro*ects,and in the event that specific performance was no longer possible, to order thedefendants to paythe damages. The company also as"ed for the issuance of a writ of

 preliminary in*unction torestrain the defendants from entering into contracts with third partiesfor wor" on the pro*ects.The defendants entered their special appearance for the purpose only of ?uestioning

the *urisdiction of this court over the complaint being acts and omissions of the individualdefendantsas agents of defendant United $tates of #merica, a foreign sovereign which has notgiven her consent to this suit or any other suit for the causes of action asserted in thecomplaint.

$ubse?uently a motion to dismiss the complaint was filed by the defendants, who includedanopposition to the issuance of the writ of preliminary in*unction.The trial court denied the motion and issued the writ.

The defendants moved twice to reconsider but to no avail. %ence the instant petition whichsee"sto restrain perpetually the proceedings in Civil Case No. 992- for lac" of *urisdiction

on the partof the trial court.'ssue

0;N U$ is suableS N/.oThe traditional rule of $tate immunity e!empts a $tate from being sued in the courts of another $tate without its consent or waiver. 't is however contended that when asovereign state enters

into a contract with a private person, the state can be sued uponthe theory that it has descendedto the level of an individual from which it can be impliedthat it has given its consent to besued under the contract. $tated differently, a $tate maybe said to have descended to the levelof an individual and can thus be deemed to havetacitly given its consent to be sued only whenit enters into business contracts. 't does notapply where the contract relates to the e!ercise of

its sovereign functions. 'n this case thepro*ects are an integral part of the naval base which isdevoted to the defense of both theUnited $tates and the Philippines, indisputably a function of

the government of thehighest order7 they are not utilied for nor dedicated to commercial or business purposes.

0;N the trial court has *urisdiction over the caseS N/.oThe correct test for the application of $tate immunity is not the conclusion of a contract bya$tate but the legal nature of the act is shown in $y?uia vs. (ope. 'n that case theplaintiffs

leased three apartment buildings to the United $tates of #merica for the use of its militaryofficials. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of the premises on the USA 9s. R!i 6.R. No. L="&:& Ma, // $%-&

$unday, :anuary 63, 62 Posted by Coffeeholic 0rites(abels& Case igests , Political (awFa*ts<

The U$ had a naval base in $ubic, 8ambaleswhich was one of those provided in the ilitary<ases#greement between the Phils. and the U$. The U$ made aninvitation for the submission

7/23/2019 Mutual Defense Treaty Between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mutual-defense-treaty-between-the-republic-of-the-philippines-and-the-united 7/8

of bids for the repair of wharves in said base. Private respondent )ligio de 4uman Co., 'nc.responded to the invitation and submitted bids.$ubse?uent thereto, the private respondent

received fromthe U$ 6 telegrams re?uesting it to confirm its priceproposals and for the nameof its bonding company. Theprivate respondent complied with the re?uests. Thereafter,privaterespondent received a letter which said that thecompany did not ?ualify to receive an awardfor thepro*ects because of its previous unsatisfactory performancerating. The privaterespondent sued the U$ and themembers of the )ngineering Command of the U$ Navy.

Iss!e<

0hether or not the complaint may prosper 

 He0d<

 The traditional rule of $tate immunity e!empts a$tate from being sued in the courts of another$tatewithout its consent or waiver. This rule is a necessaryconse?uence of the principles ofindependence and e?ualityof $tates. %owever, the rules of 'nternational (aw are notpetrified7they are constantly developing and evolving. #ndbecause the activities of states have

multiplied, it has been necessary to distinguish them between sovereign andgovernmental actsK*ure imperiiL and private, commercialand proprietary acts K *ure gestionisL. The result isthat$tate immunity now e!tends only to acts *ure imperii. 

# $tate may be said to have descended to the level of anindividual and can thus be deemed tohave tacitly given itsconsent to be sued only when it enters into businesscontracts. 't does notapply where the contract relates tothe e!ercise of its sovereign functions. 'n the present

case,the pro*ects are an integral part of the naval base which isdevoted to the defense of boththe U$ and the Phils.,indisputably a function of the government of the highestorder. They are

not utilied for nor dedicated to commercialor business purposes.

US @S 6UINTOFe+'!a', /: $%%#

+#CT$& These cases are consolidated because they all involve the doctrine of state immunity.1LU$ $ 4U'NT/ K4R No. 9BB9L The private respondents are suing several officers of the U$#ir +orce in Clar" #ir<ase in connection with the bidding conducted by them for contracts for barber services inthe said base which waswon by a certain ion.The respondents wanted to cancel the award to the bid winner becausethey claimed that ionhad included in his bid an area not included in the invitation to bid, and subse?uently, to

conduct a rebidding.6 U$ $ R/R'4/ K4R No 92A9L 4enove, employed as a coo" in the ain Club at :ohn%ay $tation, was dismissedafter it had been ascertained in an investigation that he poured urine in the soup

stoc".4enove filed a complaint fordamages against the club manager who was also an officer of U$#+.6L U$ $C)<#((/$ K4R No >1>L (uis <autista, a barrac"s boy in Camp /onnel, was arrested

following a buy-bust operation conducted by petitioners who were U$#+ officers and specialagents of the #ir +orce /ffice. # trialensued where petitioners testified against respondent<autista.#s a result of the charge, <autista was dismissed fromhis employment. %e then filedfor damages against petitioners claiming that because of the latters acts, he wasremoved fromhis *ob.@L U$ $ #(#RC/N )R4#R# K4R No >63>L Complaint for damages was filed by private

respondents againstindividual petitioners for in*uries allegedly sustained by handcuffing and unleashing dogs on them by the latter.Theindividual petitioners, U$ military officers, deny this stressing that the private respondents were arrested for theft butresisted arrest, thus incurring the in*uries. 'n allthese cases, the individual petitioners claimed they were *uste!ercising their official functions.The U$#

was not impleaded in the complaints but has moved to dismiss on theground that they are in effect suits against it towhich it has not consented.'$$U)&'s the doctrine of state immunity applicable in the cases at barS%)(&# state may not be sued without its consent.This doctrine is not absolute and does not say the state may not besuedunder any circumstance.The rule says that the state may not be sued without its consent, which clearly imports that

it may be sued if it consents. The consent of the state to be sued may be manifested e!presslyor impliedly.)!pressconsent may be embodied in a general law or a special law.Consent is implied when the sate

enters into a contract or ititself commences litigation.0hen the government enters into a contract, it is deemed to havedescended to the level of the other contracting party and divested itself of its sovereign immunity from suit with itsimplied consent.0aiver isalso implied when the government files a complaint, thus opening itself to a counterclaim.The U$#, li"e any otherstate, will be deemed to have impliedly waived its non-suability if it has entered into a contractin its proprietary orprivate capacity.1L U$ $ 4U'NT/ K4R No 9BB9L The court finds the barbershops sub*ect

to the concessions granted by the U$government to be commercial enterprises operated by private persons.The petitioners cannot plead any immunity fromthe complaint, the contract in ?uestion being

decidedly commercial.Thus, the petition is '$'$$) and the lowercourt directed to proceed with the hearing anddecision of the case.6L U$ $ R/R'4/ K4R No 92A9L The restaurant services offered at the

:ohn %ay $tation operated for profit as acommercial and not a government activity.The petitioners cannotinvo"e the doctrine of self immunity to *ustify thedismissal of the damage suit filed by 4enove.Not even the U$government can claim such immunity because by entering into the employment contract with 4eneove in thedischarge of its proprietary functions, it impliedly divesteditself of its sovereign immunity from suit. $till,the court holds that the complaint against petitioners in the lower courtbe dismissed. There was

nothing arbitrary about the proceedings in the dismissal of 4enove, the petitioner acted ?uiteproperly interminating the private respondents employment for his unbelievably nauseating act of

 polluting the soupstoc" with urine.@L U$ $ C)<#((/$ K4R No >1>L 't was clear that the individually-named petitioners were acting in the e!ercise of their official functions when they conducted the buy-bust operation

and thereafter testified against thecomplainant.+or discharging their duties as agents of the United $tates, thay cannot bedirectly impleaded for actsimputable to their principal, which has not given its consent to be sued.The conclusion of thetrial court that theanswer filed by the special counsel of Clar" #ir <ase was a submission of the U$ government to its

 *urisdiction isre*ected.)!press waiver cannot be made by a mere counsel of the government butmust be effected through a duly-enacted statute.Neither does it come under the implied form of consent.Thus,

the petition is granted and the civil casefiled in the lower court dismissed.AL U$ $ #(#RC/N)R4#R# K4R No >63>L The contradictory factual allegations in this case need a closer study of what actuallyhappened. The record were too meager to indicate that the defendants were really discharging theirofficial duties or hadactually e!ceeded their authority when the incident occurred./nly after the lower court shall havedetermined in

what capacity the petitioners were acting will the court determine, if still necessary, if thedoctrine of state immunity is applicable.

6.R. No. $/%#: Ma'*h : /##:

 

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 'e1'esented +, the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON 6OOD 6O@ERNMENT 7PC668 9s. SANDI6ANBAYAN 7SECOND

DI@ISION8 and ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO. 

FACTS<

 The PC44 issued writ s placing under se?uestration all business enterprises, entities andother properties, real and personal, owned or registered in the name of private respondent<enedicto,or of corporations in which he appeared to have controlling or ma*ority interest dueto hisinvolvement in cases of ill-gotten wealth. #mong the properties thus se?uestered and

ta"enover by PC44 fiscal agents were the 669 shares in N/4CC' owned by and registeredunder the name of private respondent. #s se?uester of the 669 shares formerly owned by<enedicto,PC44 did not pay the monthly membershipfee. (ater on, the shares were declaredto be delin?uent to be put into an auction sale.espite filing a writ of in*unction, it was

nevertheless dismissed. $o petitioner Republic andprivate respondent <enedicto entered into aCompromise #greement which contains a generalrelease clause where petitioner agreed and

 bound itself to lift the se?uestration on the 669N/4CC' shares ac"nowledging that it waswithin private responde

7/23/2019 Mutual Defense Treaty Between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mutual-defense-treaty-between-the-republic-of-the-philippines-and-the-united 8/8

ntVs capacity to ac?uire thesame shares out of his income from business and the e!ercise of his profession. 'mplied in

thisunderta"ing is the recognition by petitioner that the sub*ect shares of stoc" could not have beenill-gotten <enedicto filed a otion for Release from $e?uestration and Return of$e?uestered$hares;ividends praying, inter alia, that his N/4CC' shares of stoc" bespecifically releasedfrom se?uestration and returned, delivered or paid to him as part of the partiesV Compromise

 #greement in that case. 't was granted but the shares were ordered to be put under thecustodyof the Cler" of Court. #long with this, PC44 was ordered to deliver the shares to theCler" of Court which it failed tocomply with without any *ustifiable grounds. 'n a last-ditchattempt to escape liability, petitioner Republic, through the PC44, invo"es state immunity

from suit.'$$U)& 0/N the Republic can invo"e state immunity.%)(& N/. 'n fact, byentering into a Compromise#greement with private respondent<enedicto,petitioner Republicthereby stripped itself of its immunity from suit and placed itself in thesame level of itsadversary. 0hen the $tate enters into contract, through its officers or agents, in furtherance ofa legitimate aim and purpose and pursuant to constitutional legislativeauthority, whereby

mutual or reciprocal benefits accrue and rights and obligations arisetherefrom, the $tate may be sued even without its e!press consent, precisely because by entering into a contract thesovereign descends to the level of the citien. 'ts consent to be suedis implied fromthe very actof entering into such contract, breach of which on its part gives the correspondingright to the

other party to the agreement.Me'itt 9s 6o9e'n(ent o2 the Phi0i11ine Is0ands

6.R. No. L=$$$& Ma'*h /$ $%$:

 +acts&

errit, riding on a motorcycle at a speed of ten to twelve miles an hour, collidedwith anambulance of the 4eneral %ospital which turned suddenly andune!pectedly without having

sounded any whistle or horn. errit was severelyin*ured. %is condition had undergonedepreciation and his efficiency as acontractor was affected. The in?uiry at once arises whether

the 4overnment islegally-liable for the damages resulting therefrom even if the collision wasdue tothe negligence committed by an agent or employee of the government whichis thechauffeur.'ssue&0hether or not the 4overnment may be held in this case.

%eld& No.That according to paragraph 3 of article 12@ of the Civil Code and theprinciple laid downin a decision, among others, of the 1>th of ay, 12A,in a damage case, the responsibility ofthe state is limited to that which itcontracts through a special agent, duly empowered by a

definite order or commission to perform some act or charged with some definite purposewhichgives rise to the claim, and not where the claim is based on acts or omissions imputable to a public official chargedwith some administrativeor technical office who can be held to the proper responsibility inthemanner laid down by the law of civil responsibility. Conse?uently, the trialcourt in not so

deciding and in sentencing the said entity to the paymentof damages, caused by an official ofthe second class referred to, has byerroneous interpretation infringed the provisions of articles126 and 12@of the Civil Code. K$upreme Court of $pain, :uly @, 12117 166 :ur. Civ.,1AB.L'tis, therefore, evidence that the $tate Kthe 4overnment of the Philippine'slandsL is only liable,

according to the above ?uoted decisions of the $upremeCourt of $pain, for the acts of itsagents, officers and employees when they actas special agents within the meaning of

 paragraph 3 of article 12@, supra, andthat the chauffeur of the ambulance of the 4eneral

%ospital was not such anagent.