pil cases week 8

8/13/2019 Pil Cases Week 8

1/8

US v. Hon. Ruiz

Facts:

At times material to this case, the United States of America had a naval base in Subic,Zambales. The base was one of those rovided in the !ilitar" #ases A$reement between the%hili ines and the United States.

US invited the submission of bids for Re air offender s"stem and Re air t" hoon dama$es.&li$io de 'uzman ( )o., *nc. res onded to the invitation, submitted bids and com lied with there+uests based on the letters received from the US.

*n une - /0, a letter was received b" the &li$io 1e 'uzman ( )o indicatin$ that the com an"did not +ualif" to receive an award for the ro2ects because of its revious unsatisfactor"erformance ratin$ on a re air contract for the sea wall at the boat landin$s of the U.S. 3aval

Station in Subic #a".

The com an" sued the United States of America and !essrs. ames &. 'allowa", 4illiam *.)ollins and Robert 'ohier all members of the &n$ineerin$ )ommand of the U.S. 3av". Thecom laint is to order the defendants to allow the laintiff to erform the wor5 on the ro2ectsand, in the event that s ecific erformance was no lon$er ossible, to order the defendants toa" dama$es. The com an" also as5ed for the issuance of a writ of reliminar" in2unction torestrain the defendants from enterin$ into contracts with third arties for wor5 on the ro2ects.

The defendants entered their s ecial a earance for the ur ose onl" of +uestionin$ the 2urisdiction of this court over the sub2ect matter of the com laint and the ersons of defendants,

the sub2ect matter of the com laint bein$ acts and omissions of the individual defendants asa$ents of defendant United States of America, a forei$n soverei$n which has not $iven herconsent to this suit or an" other suit for the causes of action asserted in the com laint.6 7Rollo,. 89.

Subse+uentl" the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the com laint which included ano osition to the issuance of the writ of reliminar" in2unction. The com an" o osed themotion.

The trial court denied the motion and issued the writ. The defendants moved twice to reconsiderbut to no avail.

Hence the instant etition which see5s to restrain er etuall" the roceedin$s in )ivil )ase 3o.// ;! for lac5 of 2urisdiction on the art of the trial court.

*ssue


2/8

4=3 the US naval base in biddin$ for said contracts e>ercise $overnmental functions to beable to invo5e state immunit"

Held:

4H&R&F=R&, the etition is $ranted? the +uestioned orders of the res ondent 2ud$e are setaside and )ivil )ase 3o. is dismissed. )osts a$ainst the rivate res ondent.

Ratio:

The traditional rule of State immunit" e>em ts a State from bein$ sued in the courts of anotherState without its consent or waiver. This rule is a necessar" conse+uence of the rinci les ofinde endence and e+ualit" of States. However, the rules of *nternational @aw are not etrified?the" are constantl" develo in$ and evolvin$. And because the activities of states havemulti lied, it has been necessar" to distin$uish them;between soverei$n and $overnmental acts72ure im erii and rivate, commercial and ro rietar" acts 72ure $estionis . The result is thatState immunit" now e>tends onl" to acts 2ure im eril 7soverei$n ( $overnmental acts

The restrictive a lication of State immunit" is ro er onl" when the roceedin$s arise out ofcommercial transactions of the forei$n soverei$n, its commercial activities or economic affairs.Stated differentl", a State ma" be said to have descended to the level of an individual and canthus be deemed to have tacitl" $iven its consent to be sued onl" when it enters into businesscontracts. *t does not a l" where the contract relates to the e>ercise of its soverei$n functions.*n this case the ro2ects are an inte$ral art of the naval base which is devoted to the defense of

both the United States and the %hili ines, indis utabl" a function of the $overnment of thehi$hest order? the" are not utilized for nor dedicated to commercial or business ur oses.

correct test for the a lication of State immunit" is not the conclusion of a contract b" a Statebut the le$al nature of the act

Re ublic of *ndonesia vs. ames izon '.R. 3o. 8B/98, une 0C, 099D

FA)TS:

%etitioner, Re ublic of *ndonesia entered into a !aintenance A$reement in Au$ust - 8 withres ondent ames inzon, sole ro rietor of inzon Trade and Services. The !aintenanceA$reement stated that res ondent shall, for a consideration, maintain s ecified e+ui ment at the


3/8


4/8

The )ourt stated that the u 5ee of its furnishin$s and e+ui ment is still art soverei$n functionof the State. A soverei$n State does not merel" establish a di lomatic mission and leave it atthat? the establishment of a di lomatic mission encom asses its maintenance and u 5ee .Hence, the State ma" enter into contracts with rivate entities to maintain the remises,furnishin$s and e+ui ment of the embass" and the livin$ +uarters of its a$ents and officials. *t is

therefore clear that etitioner Re ublic of *ndonesia was actin$ in ursuit of a soverei$n activit" when it entered into a contract with res ondent for the u 5ee or maintenance of the airconditionin$ units, $enerator sets, electrical facilities, water heaters, and water motor um s ofthe *ndonesian &mbass" and the official residence of the *ndonesian ambassador. TheSu reme )ourt $rants the etition and reversed the decision of the )ourt of A eals.

ublic official char$ed with some administrative or technical office who can be held to the ro erres onsibilit" in the manner laid down b" the law of civil res onsibilit". )onse+uentl", the trialcourt in not so decidin$ and in sentencin$ the said entit" to the a"ment of dama$es, caused b"an official of the second class referred to, has b" erroneous inter retation infrin$ed therovisions of Articles - 90 and - 9D of the )ivil )ode.

*t is, therefore, evidence that the State 7'%* is onl" liable, accordin$ to the above +uoteddecisions of the Su reme )ourt of S ain, for the acts of its a$ents, officers and em lo"ees

when the" act as s ecial a$ents within the meanin$ of ara$ra h 8 of Article - 9D, su ra, andthat the chauffeur of the ambulance of the 'eneral Hos ital was not such an a$ent.

For the fore$oin$ reasons, the 2ud$ment a ealed from must be reversed, without costs in thisinstance. 4hether the 'overnment intends to ma5e itself le$all" liable for the amount ofdama$es above set forth, which the laintiff has sustained b" reason of the ne$li$ent acts ofone of its em lo"ees, be le$islative enactment and b" a ro riatin$ sufficient funds therefore,

we are not called u on to determine. This matter rests solel" with the @e$islature and not withthe courts.

@*A3' S %&=%@& =F TH& %H*@*%%*3&S 'R no. -08 C8 anuar" 0 , 0999

%etitioner: effre" @ian$

Res ondent: %eo le of the %hili ines

FA)TS:


5/8

%etitioner is an economist wor5in$ with the Asian 1evelo ment #an5 7A1# . Sometime in - B,for alle$edl" utterin$ defamator" words a$ainst fellow A1# wor5er o"ce )abal, he waschar$ed before the !eT) of !andalu"on$ )it" with two counts of oral defamation. %etitioner

was arrested b" virtue of a warrant issued b" the !eT). After fi>in$ etitionerGs bail, the !eT)released him to the custod" of the Securit" =fficer of A1#. The ne>t da", the !eT) 2ud$e

received an office of rotocolI from the 1FA statin$ that etitioner is covered b" immunit" fromle$al rocess under section B8 of the A$reement between the A1# and the %hili ine'overnment re$ardin$ the Head+uarters of the A1# in the countr". #ased on the said rotocolcommunication that etitioner is immune from suit, the !eT) 2ud$e without notice to therosecution dismissed the criminal cases. The latter filed a motion for reconsideration which

was o osed b" the 1FA. 4hen its motion was denied, the rosecution filed a etition forcertiorari and mandamus with the RT) of %asi$ )it" which set aside the !eT) rulin$s andordered the latter court to enforce the warrant of arrest it earlier issued. After the motion forreconsideration was denied, the etitioner elevated the case to the S) via a etition for reviewar$uin$ that he is covered b" immunit" under the A$reement and that no reliminar"investi$ation was held before the criminal case.

*SSU&S:

7- 4hether or not the etitionerGs case is covered with immunit" from le$al rocess withre$ard to Section B8 of the A$reement between the A1# and the %hili ine 'ovGt.

70 4hether or not the conduct of reliminar" investi$ation was im erative.

H&@1:

7- 3=. The etitionerGs case is not covered b" the immunit". )ourts cannot blindl" adhere tothe communication from the 1FA that the etitioner is covered b" an" immunit". *t has nobindin$ effect in courts. The court needs to rotect the ri$ht to due rocess not onl" of theaccused but also of the rosecution. Secondl", the immunit" under Section B8 of the A$reementis not absolute, but sub2ect to the e>ce tion that the acts must be done in official ca acit"I.Hence, slanderin$ a erson could not ossibl" be covered b" the immunit" a$reement becauseour laws do not allow the commission of a crime, such as defamation, in the name of officialdut".

70 3=. %reliminar" *nvesti$ation is not a matter of ri$ht in cases co$nizable b" the !eT) suchas this case. #ein$ urel" a statutor" ri$ht, reliminar" investi$ation ma" be invo5ed onl" whens ecificall" $ranted b" law. The rule on criminal rocedure is clear that no reliminar"investi$ation is re+uired in cases fallin$ within the 2urisdiction of the !eT).

Hence, S) denied the etition.


6/8

ICMC vs. Calleja 'R 8/89, Se t.0 - 9

FA)TS:

As an aftermath of the ietnam 4ar, the li$ht of ietnamese refu$ees fleein$ from SouthietnamJs communist rule confronted the international communit".

*n res onse to this crisis, on 0D Februar" - -, an A$reement was for$ed between the%hili ine 'overnment and the United 3ations Hi$h )ommissioner for Refu$ees whereb" ano eratin$ center for rocessin$ *ndo;)hinese refu$ees for eventual resettlement to othercountries was to be established in #ataan .

*)!) was one of those accredited b" the %hili ine 'overnment to o erate the refu$eerocessin$ center in !oron$, #ataan. *t was incor orated in 3ew Kor5, USA, at the re+uest ofthe Hol" See, as a non; rofit a$enc" involved in international humanitarian and voluntar" wor5.*t is dul" re$istered with the United 3ations &conomic and Social )ouncil 7&)=S=) anden2o"s )onsultative Status, )ate$or" **. As an international or$anization renderin$ voluntar"and humanitarian services in the %hili ines, its activities are arallel to those of the*nternational )ommittee for !i$ration 7*)! and the *nternational )ommittee of the Red )ross

=n -B ul" - C, Trade Unions of the %hili ines and Allied Services 7TU%AS filed with thethen !inistr" of @abor and &m lo"ment a %etition for )ertification &lection amon$ the ran5 andfile members em lo"ed b" *)!) The latter o osed the etition on the $round that it is an

international or$anization re$istered with the United 3ations and, hence, en2o"s di lomaticimmunit".

*SSU&: 4hether or not the $rant of di lomatic rivile$es and immunites to *)!) e>tends toimmunit" from the a lication of %hili ine labor lawsL

H&@1:

The $rant of immunit" from local 2urisdiction to *)!) is clearl" necessitated b" theirinternational character and res ective ur oses. The ob2ective is to avoid the dan$er of artialit"and interference b" the host countr" in their internal wor5in$s. The e>ercise of 2urisdiction b" the1e artment of @abor in these instances would defeat the ver" ur ose of immunit", which is toshield the affairs of international or$anizations, in accordance with international ractice, fromolitical ressure or control b" the host countr" to the re2udice of member States of theor$anization, and to ensure the unham ered erformance of their functions

*)!) em lo"ees are not without recourse whenever there are dis utes to be settled. SectionD- of the )onvention on the %rivile$es and *mmunities of the S ecialized A$encies of the United3ations -/ rovides that 6each s ecialized a$enc" shall ma5e rovision for a ro riate modes


7/8

of settlement of: 7a dis utes arisin$ out of contracts or other dis utes of rivate character to which the s ecialized a$enc" is a art".6 !oreover, ursuant to Article * of the !emorandumof A$reement between *)!) the the %hili ine 'overnment, whenever there is an" abuse ofrivile$e b" *)!), the 'overnment is free to withdraw the rivile$es and immunities accorded.

)lauses on 2urisdictional immunit" are said to be standard rovisions in the constitutions ofinternational =r$anizations. 6The immunit" covers the or$anization concerned, its ro ert" andits assets. *t is e+uall" a licable to roceedin$s in ersonam and roceedin$s in rem.

*)!) did not invo5e its immunit" and, therefore, ma" be deemed to have waived it, assumin$that durin$ that eriod 7- D;- 8 it was tacitl" reco$nized as en2o"in$ such immunit".

%etition is 'RA3T&1, the =rder of the #ureau of @abor Relations for certification election isS&T AS*1&, and the Tem orar" Restrainin$ =rder earlier issued is made

1FA S. 3@R)

'.R. 3o. --D- -, Se tember - - C

FA)TS:

%rivate res ondent 3@R) initiated a case a$ainst for an alle$ed ille$al dismissal b" A1# andthe latterJs violation of the 6labor;onl"6contractin$ law. Two summonses were served, one sentdirectl" to the A1# and the other throu$h the 1e artment of Forei$n Affairs 71FA , both with aco " of the com laint. Forthwith, the A1# and the 1FA notified res ondent @abor Arbiter thatthe A1#, as well as its %resident and =fficers, were covered b" an immunit" from le$al rocesse>ce t for borrowin$s, $uaranties or the sale of securities ursuant to Article 897- and Article 88of the A$reement&stablishin$ the Asian 1evelo ment #an5 7the 6)harter6 in relation to Section8 and Section BB of the A$reement #etween The #an5 AndThe 'overnment =f The %hili inesRe$ardin$ The #an5Js Head+uarters 7the 6Head+uarters A$reement6 .

The @abor Arbiter too5 co$nizance of the com laint on the im ression that the A1# had waivedits di lomatic immunit" from suit and rendered his decision declarin$ the com lainant as are$ular em lo"ee of res ondent A1# and his termination was ille$al.

The A1# did not a eal the decision but instead, the 1FA referred the matter to the 3ational@abor Relations )ommission see5in$ a formal vacation of the void 2ud$ment.

1issatisfied b" the 3@R)Gs res onse, the 1FA lod$ed the instant etition for certiorari.


8/8

*SSU&:

4hether or not A1# en2o"s a di lomatic immunit" from suit.

H&@1:

The etition for certiorari is $ranted, and the decision of the @abor Arbiter is vacated for bein$null and void. The rovisions sti ulated b" both the )harter and Head+uarters A$reementshould be able, na" well enou$h, to establish that, e>ce t in the s ecified cases of borrowin$and $uarantee o erations, as well as the urchase, sale and underwritin$ of securities, the A1#en2o"s immunit" from le$al rocess of ever" form. The #an5Gs officers, on their art, en2o"immunit" in res ect of all acts erformed b" them in their official ca acit". The )harter and theHead+uarters A$reement $rantin$ these immunities and rivile$es are treat" covenants andcommitments voluntaril" assumed b" the %hili ine $overnment which must be res ected.

#ein$ an international or$anization that has been e>tended a di lomatic status, the A1# isinde endent of the munici al law.

pil cases week 8

Documents