Municipality of San Fernando V Firme

FACTS:

Petitioner is a municipal corporation existing under and in accordance with the laws of the PH.
Respondent is Judge Romeo Firme of CFI of La Union and private respondents Juana Rimando-Banina
and et al.

In the morning of December 1965, a passenger jeepney driven by Bernardo balagot collided with a
gravel and sand truck owned by Tanquilino Velasquez and a dump truck owned by the municipality and
driven by Alfredo Bisilig. Several passengers including the private respondents died as a result of the
injuries due to the collision and others suffered varying degrees of physical injuries

Private Respondents filed a complaint for damages against the Estate of macario and Bernardo Balagot
(owner of the jeep) However, a third party complaint was filed against the petitioner and the driver of a
dump truck. After case was transferred, private respondents amended their complaint to sue the
petitioner and its employee, alfredo bislig. Petitioner contended that there was lack of cause of action,
non-suability of the state, prescription of cause of action and negligence of the owner and driver of the
jeepney as the proximate cause of the collision.

CFI tried and ruled that petitioners and alfredo Bislig are ordered to pay jointly and severally to the
plaintiffs. (1,500 funeral expenses, 24,744.24 Lost expected earnings, 30,000 moral damages and 2,500
atty’s fees)

Petitioner filed motion for reconsideration without prejudice to another motion but the respondent
judge denied the motion. And respondent judge issued an order and if the Epetitioners wanted, the case
can be elevated to a higher court. Petitioner then claimed that judge acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to excess jurisdiction in issuing the orders and rendering the decision. Petitioner
also contended that elevating to a higher court is not the speedy and adequate remedy.

Private respondents allege the petitioner to be devoid of merit for lacking in good faith.

ISSUE

W/n the respondent judge committed grave abute of discretion when it deferred and failed to resolve
the defense of non-suability of the state amounting to lack of jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss

RULING:

Respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. SC affirmed according to the doctrine of
non-suability of the state “the state may not be sued without its consent” and consent takes form of
express or implication.

Express consent may be embodied in a general law or special law while Implied consent is when the
government enters into business contracts thereby descending to the level of the other contracting
party. Also when a state files a complaint, thus opening itself to a counterclaim.

Municipal corporations are agencies of the state when they are engaged in governmental functions and
enjoy sovereign immunity from the suit.
Distinction of suability and liability; “Suability depends on the consent of the state to be sued liability on
the applicable law and the establish facts. The state being suable does not necessarily mean that it is
liable; on the other hand, It can never be held liable if it does not first consent to be sued….Liability is
not conceded by the mere fat that the state allowed itself to be sued. When the state waives its
immunity, it is only giving the plaintiff the chance to prove the defendant is liable”

For the employee, Alfredo Bisilig, there would be a need of a test of liability whether the driver was
acting in behelf of the municipality in performing governmental functions and to determine the liability
of the municipality for the acts of its agents.

Municipal Corporations are suable because their charters grant them the competence to sue and be
sued.

Petitioners are not liable for tort committed by them in the discharge of governmental functions and
only held answerable if it can me shown they are acting in a proprietary capacity. The driver contended
that he was on his way to Naguilian river to get a load of sand and gravel thus ruling that he was
performing duties or tasks pertaining to his office.

In the case of Palafox v province of ilocos norte, it stated there that the construction and maintenance
of roads….at the time of the accident are admittedly governmental activities.

SC concluded that the municipality cannot be held liable for the torts committed by its regular
employees who was engaged in performing governmental functions. Hence there is no duty to pay the
private respondents.