POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
TITLE: SANDERS VS VERIDIANO II
FACTS:
Petitioner Sanders is a special services director of the
US Naval Station. Petitioner Moreau was the commanding
officer of the Subic Naval Base, which includes the said
station. Private respondent Rossi and Wyer are both
American citizens with permanent residence in the
Philippines. They were employed as gameroom attendants.
Respondents were advised that their employment
had been converted from permanent full-time to permanent
part-time. They protested the conversion and the hearing
officer recommended the reinstatement of respondents to
full-time.
Sanders disagreed with the recommendation. In a
letter he stated “respondents tend to alienate co-workers
and they were difficult employees to supervise; and even
though the grievance was confidential they placed the
records in public places”
Before the start of the grievance, a letter purportedly
coming from Moreau (which did not carry his signature) but
was signed by W.B. Moore “by direction” from Moreau,
explaining the change of employment status was sent to the
Chief of Naval Personnel and to concur therewith.
Respondents filed a case for damages against
petitioners alleging that the letter contained libelous
imputations that had exposed them to ridicule, mental
anguish etc.
Private respondents made it clear that the petitioners
were being sued in their private or personal capacity.
Petitioner moved to dismiss stating that the acts
performed by them I the discharge of their official duties
and therefore court has no jurisdiction under the doctrine of
state immunity.
Their motion was denied.
AQUINO.BANGI.CAEG.DE GUZMAN.EBORA.GAVINO.GOZOS.HERNANDEZ.HERRERA.HIZON.ISIDRO.LASALA.MAGPANTAY.MIOLE.PABLO.
TOLENTINO.VILLANO.VILLANUEVA.YAP.YU 2010-2011
ISSUE:
Whether petitioners were performing their official
duties when they did the acts for which they have been sued
for damages.
HELD:
The court held in the affirmative. Mere allegation that a
government functionary is being sued in his personal
capacity will not automatically remove him from the
protection of the law of public officers and doctrine of state
immunity. The acts for which the petitioners are being
called to account were performed by them in the discharge
of their official duties.
The doctrine of State immunity is applicable not only to our
government but also to foreign states sought to be
subjected to the jurisdiction of our courts.
There are two exceptions in the rule: 1. He may be sued
when the purpose is to compel him to do an act required by
law. 2. Also when the government itself has violated its own
laws, the government may be impleaded. The case does not
fall within the exceptions.
Mistakes concededly committed by such public officers are
not actionable as long as they were not motivated by malice
or gross negligence amounting to bad faith.