DALE SANDERS, AND A.S. MOREAU, JR vs. HON. REGINO T. VERIDIANO II
162 SCRA 88

FACTS: Petitioner Sanders was the special services director of the U.S. Naval Station. Petitioner Moreau was the commanding officer of the Subic Naval Base. Private respondent Rossi is an American citizen with permanent residence in the Philippines.
 Private respondent Rossi and Wyer were both employed as game room attendants in the special services department of the NAVSTA.On October 3, 1975, the private respondents were advised that their employment had been converted from permanent full-time to permanent part-time. They instituted grievance proceedings to the rules and regulations of the U.S.Department of Defense. The hearing officer recommended for reinstatement of their permanent full-time status. However, in a letter addressed to petitioner Moreau, Sanders disagreed with the hearing officer's report. 
The letter contained the statements that: a ) "Mr. Rossi tends to alienate most co-workers and supervisors;" b) "Messrs. Rossi and Wyers have proven, according to their immediate supervisors, to be difficult employees to supervise;" and c) "even though the grievants were under oath not to discuss the case with anyone, (they) placed the records in public places where others not involved in the case could hear."Before the start of the grievance hearings, a-letter from petitioner Moreau was sent to the Chief of Naval Personnel explaining the change of the private respondent's employment status. So, private respondent filed for damages alleging that the letters contained libelous imputations and that the prejudgment of the grievance proceedings was an invasion of their personal and proprietary rights. However, petitioners argued that the acts complained of were performed by them in the discharge of their official duties and that, consequently, the court had no jurisdiction over them under the doctrine of state immunity. However, the motion was denied on the main ground that the petitioners had not presented any evidence that their acts were official in nature.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners were performing their official duties?

HOLDING: Yes. Sanders, as director of the special services department of NAVSTA, undoubtedly had supervision over its personnel, including the private respondents. Given the official character of the letters, the petitioners were being sued as officers of the United States government because they have acted on behalf of that government and within the scope of their authority. Thus, it is that government and not the petitioners personally that is responsible for their acts. It is stressed at the outset that the 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, if appropriate, the doctrine of state immunity. By the same token, the mere invocation of official character will not suffice to insulate him from suability and liability for an act imputed to him as a personal tort committed without or in excess of his authority. These well-settled principles are applicable not only to the officers of the local state but also where the person sued in its courts pertains to the government of a foreign state, as in the present case. Assuming that the trial can proceed and it is proved that the claimants have a right to the payment of damages, such award will have to be satisfied not by the petitioners in their personal capacities but by the United States government as their principal. This will require that government to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the judgment, viz, the appropriation of the necessary amount to cover the damages awarded, thus making the action a suit against that government without its consent.

NOTE: MERE ALLEGATION THAT A GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONARY IS BEING SUED IN HIS CAPACITY WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY REMOVE HIM FROM THE RPOTECTION OF THE LAWS OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY.
DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY IS  APPLICABLE ALSO TO OTHER STATES.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

People vs. Sunico, et al [C.A., 50 o.g. 5880]

FACTS: The accused were election inspectors and poll clerks whose duty among others was to transfer the names of excess voters in other precincts to the list of a newly created precinct.Several voters were omitted in the list.Because their names were not in the list, some of them were not allowed to vote. The accused were prosecuted for violation of Secs. 101 and 103 of the Revised Election Code. The accused claimed that they made the omission in good faith.The trial court seemed to believe that notwithstanding the fact that the accused committed in good faith the serious offense charged, the latter are criminally responsible therefor, because such offense is malum prohibitum, and, consequently, the act constituting the same need not be committed with malice or criminal intent to be punishable. ISSUE: Is the act of the accused merely a mala prohibita? HELD: The acts of the accused cannot be merely mala prohibita - they are mala in se . The omission or failure to include a voter’s...
Read more

People v. Bautista [40 O.G. 2491]

FACTS: This case is by virtue of an appeal interposed by the Solicitor-General to the resolution of the Court of First Instance of Cavite dismissing said case for the following reasons: first, that the accused Sotero Peji Bautista was not given a preliminary investigation before trial; and second, that said accused had been twice put in jeopardy. The accused Bautista was charged by one Ong Loo in the justice of the peace court of Kawit, Cavite, with having violated the provisions of article 183 of the Revised Penal Code on May 30, 1935 by knowingly subscribing under oath a false affidavit. After the preliminary investigation required by law, the justice of the peace remanded the case to the Court of First Instance because it did not fall under his jurisdiction and he reached the conclusion that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the crime was committed by the accused. However , the provincial fiscal, filed another charging him with false testimony in a criminal case ...
Read more

Merencillo v People | 521 scra 31

Facts: Juanito Merencillo was charged of violation of Sec. 3 (b) of RA 3019 and Direct bribery. Petitioner demanded from private complainant Ma. Angeles Ramasola Cesar P20,000.00 in exchange for the approval of the Certificate Authorizing Registration (CAR). Due to the repeated demand of the petitioner and delaying the release of CAR, private complainant seek the help of the authorities. As a result, petitioner was caught in the entrapment instituted by the police. After trial, the RTC found petitioner guilty as charged. Petitioner appealed the decision to the Sandiganbayan which was denied affirming the RTC decision. Hence, this petition for review of certiorari, contending that he was twice in jeopardy when he was prosecuted for violation of Sec. 3 (b) of RA 3019 and for direct bribery. Issue: WON the petitioner was placed in double jeopardy. Holding: No. Section 3(b) of RA 3019 begins with the following statement: Sec.3 In addition to acts or omissions of public offic...
Read more