LANSANG VS.

COURT OF APPEALS
Private Respondent: Jose Iglesias, President of the General Assembly of the Blind Incorporated
Petitioner: Amado Lansang, Chairman of the National Parks Development Committee

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. In 1970, GABI was allegedly awarded with “verbal contract of lease” to hold office and library as well as operate a food
business around the area of Rizal Park (Public Park) by the National Parks Development Committee—a government
civic body tasked for the development of public parks in the country.
2. In the aftermath of EDSA Revolution, there was a change in the administration; Mr. Lansang, the newly appointed
chairman of NPDC, order the clearing up of public parks including the spaces occupied by GABI.
3. On the eviction day, GABI filed an action for damages and injunction against NPDC
a. They are religiously paying their dues to the NPDC (40% of the profit of their business)
b. There was deception into the signing of the “notice of eviction”; Jose Iglesias is a total blind man, and his
signature was only an acknowledgement of receipt

* Case was dismissed by RTC via the Doctrine of State Immunity: “The State could not be sued without its consent”

4. Case was appealed to the Court of Appeals who reversed the ruling of the RTC. Eviction came at the heels of two critical
events:
a. GABI extended monetary support to striking members of the NPDC
b. GABI submitted a letter to Tanodbayan denouncing graft and corruption practices in NPDC
c.
* CA ruled that the case filed was not actually not against NPDC, but directed to its Chairperson Mr. Lansang. He is being sued in
his PERSONAL CAPACITY, not in his official capacity as the head of the government agency and ACTED IN BAD FAITH WITH
MALICE IN HIS ORDER TO EVICT THE GABI from the park.

ISSUE:
(I) Whether or not the court erred in not holding the complaint in effect a SUIT AGAINST THE STATE (invoking
the doctrine of state immunity)
(II) Whether or not the court erred in not holding that the petitioner’s act of terminating GABI’s concession is
VALID AND DONE IN THE LAWFUL PERFORMANCE OF DUTY.

HOLD:

1. CA sustained its earlier decision that Mr. Lansang is being sued in his personal capacity; the action filed against him was
grounded in his personal motives to evict GABI, and he therefore acted with malicious intent and bad faith.
2. No evidence to prove that there was an abuse of authority in the action of the petitioner. After all, there was no vested
rights given to the respondents to occupy those spaces since no proof of contract was presented, and henceforth, a
matter of accommodation given by the previous administrator.
3. No evidence of moral or exemplary damages incurred, therefore awarding of such cannot be sustained

*Petition was granted, the court set aside its earlier decision, and granted the dismissal of the complaint for damages