16. Sanders v.

Veridano

GR No. L-46930; June 10, 1988

FACTS:

Petitioner Dale Sanders was the special services of the US Naval Station (NAVSTA) in Olongapo city.
Private respondents Anthony Rossi and Ralph Wyers are American citizens permanently residing in the
Philippines and who were employed as gameroom attendants in the special services department of
NAVSTA. On October 3, 1975, the respondents were advised that their employment had been converted
from permanent full-time to permanent part-time. In a letter addressed to petitioner Moreau, Sanders
disagreed with the hearing officer’s report of the reinstatement of private respondents to permanent
full-time status plus backwages. Respondents allege that the letters contained libellous imputations
which caused them to be ridiculed and thus filed for damages against petitioners.

ISSUE:

1) Were the petitioners acting officially or only in their private capacities when they did the acts for
which the private respondents sued them for damages?

2) Does the court have jurisdiction over the case?

HELD:

It is abundantly clear in the present case that the acts for which the petitioner are being called to
account were performed by them in the discharge of their official duties. Given the official character of
the letters, the petioners were, legally speaking, being sued as officers of the United States government.
As such, the complaint cannot prosper unless the government sought to be held ultimately liable has
given its consent to be sued. The private respondents must pursue their claim against the petitioners in
accordance with the laws of the Unites States of which they are all citizens and under whose jurisdiction
the alleged offenses were committed for the Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over the case.
17. Republic vs Sandoval
Facts: Farmer-rallyists marched to Malacanang calling for a genuine land reform program.
There was a marchers-police confrontation which resulted in the death of 12 rallyists and
scores were wounded. As a result, then Pres. Aquino issued AO 11 creating the Citizens
Mendiola Commission for the purpose of conducting an investigation. The most significant
recommendation of the Commission was for the heirs of the deceased and wounded victims
to be compensated by the government. Based on such recommendation, the victims of
Mendiola massacre filed an action for damages against the Republic and the military/police
officers involved in the incident.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not there is a valid waiver of immunity
(2) Whether or not the State is liable for damages
Held: The Court held that there was no valid waiver of immunity as claimed by the
petitioners. The recommendation made by the Commission to indemnify the heirs of
the deceased and the victims does not in any way mean that liability attaches to the State.
AO 11 merely states the purpose of the creation of the Commission and, therefore,
whatever is the finding of the Commission only serves as the basis for a cause of action in
the event any party decides to litigate the same. Thus, the recommendation of the
Commission does not in any way bind the State.

The State cannot be made liable because the military/police officers who allegedly were
responsible for the death and injuries suffered by the marchers acted beyond the scope of
their authority. It is a settled rule that the State as a person can commit no wrong. The
military and police officers who were responsible for the atrocities can be held personally
liable for damages as they exceeded their authority, hence, the acts cannot be
considered official.
18. FESTEJO v. FERNANDO

FACTS:

The defendant, as Director of the Bureau of Public Works, took possession of the three
parcels of land on February 1951 without obtaining first a right of way, without consent and
knowledge of plaintiff, and against her express objection. The petitioner demands that the
lands be restored to its former condition and the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of
P19, 343.20 for the unlawful taking possession of the defendant.

ISSUE:Is the defendant liable for the unlawful possession of the lands?

HELD:The evidence and conceded facts permitted the jury in finding that in the trespass on
plaintiff’s land, defendant committed acts outside the scope of his authority. There can be
no claim that he thus invaded plaintiff’s land southeasterly of the right of way innocently for
the surveys clearly marked the limits of the land appropriated for the right of way. It is a
general rule that an officer-executive, administrative, quasi-judicial, ministerial, or
otherwise who acts outside the scope of his jurisdiction and without authorization of law
may thereby render himself amenable to personal liability in a civil suit. He cannot shelter
himself by the plea that he is a public agent acting under the color of his office and not
personally.

19.United vs Guinto

FACTS:The cases have been consolidated because they all involve the doctrine of state
immunity. In GR No. 76607, private respondents re suing several officers of the US Air
Force in connection with the bidding for barbering services in Clark Air Base. In GR No.
80018, Luis Bautista was arrested following a buy-bust operation for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act. Bautista then filed a complaint for damages claiming that because of
the acts of the respondents, he lost his job. In GR No. 79470, Fabian Genove filed a
complaint for damages against petitioner for his dismissal as cook in the US Air Force. In GR
No. 80258, complaint for damage was filed by the respondents against petitioners for
injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiffs. All cases invoke the doctrine of state immunity as
ground to dismiss the same.

ISSUE:

Are the petitioners immune from suit?

HELD:

It is clear that the petitioners in GR No. 80018 were acting in the exercise of their official
functions. They cannot be directly impleaded for the US government has not given its
consent to be sued. In GR No. 79470, petitioners are not immune for restaurants are
commercial enterprises, however, claim of damages by Genove cannot be allowed on the
strength of the evidence presented. Barber shops are also commercial enterprises operated
by private persons, thus, petitioners in GR No. 76607 cannot plead any immunity from the
complaint filed. In GR No. 80258, the respondent court will have to receive the evidence of
the alleged irregularity in the grant of the barbershop concessions before it can be known in
what capacity the petitioners were acting at the time of the incident.