Case Digested: The Doctrine of the State

Case#01:
REPUBLIC VS. SANDOVAL
220 SCRA 124 or G.R. No 84645 (March 19, 1993)
Petitioner: The Republic of the Philippines
Respondent: Hon. Edilberto G. Sandoval, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 9

Facts: On January 22, 1987, the farmer-rallyists together with other sectoral organization marched to the
Malacañang demanding for a “genuine agrarian reform” which was headed by Jaime Tadeo. There was a
marchers-police confrontation which resulted in the death of 12 rallyists, others wounded and sustained minor
injuries, all belonging to the rallyists, hence called the Mendiola massacre. As a result, President Aquino issued
A.O. 11 creating the Citizens Mendiola Commission for the purpose of conducting an investigation surrounding
the incident. The most significant recommendation of the Commission was for the heirs of the deceased and
wounded victims to be compensated by the government. After that the victims of Mendiola massacre filed an
action for damages against the Republic and the military/personnel involved in the Mendiola incident.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not there is a valid waiver of immunity
(2) Whether or not the State is liable for damages

Held: No. The Court held that there was no valid waiver of immunity as claimed by the petitioners. First, 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. Second, whatever acts or utterances Pres. Aquino
may done or said, the same are not tantamount to the State having waived its immunity from suit. Third, the
case does not qualify as a case against the State.” Thus, the recommendation of the Commission does not in
any way bind the State.

No. The State cannot be held civilly liable of the deaths that followed the incidents 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 and the other officers for their failure to execute their skills and experience
in directing the dispersal operations in Mendiola. Thus, administrative sanctions were imposed. It is also a
settled rule that the State as a person can commit no wrong. The military and police officers who were
responsible for the death of the rallyists can be held personally liable for damages as they exceeded their
authority, hence such acts cannot be considered legal or officiall.

Wherefore, the instant petitions are hereby DISMISSED.

_CJC
Case#02:

FESTEJO VS. FERNANDO

Facts: The defendant, as the Director of the Bureau and Public Works, without authority obtained first from the
Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, without obtaining first the right of way, and without the knowledge and
consent of the plaintiff, and against her objection unlawfully took possession of portions of the three parcels of
land, and caused an irrigation canal to be constructed on the portion of the three parcels of land on to the
damage and the prejudiced of the plaintiff. As the plaintiff portions of land cannot be recovered, then to order
the defendant to pay for a sum as value of the portions of the three parcels of land.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not this is a suit against the State

Held: No. The evidence and conceded facts in finding that in the trespass on plaintiff’s land the defendant
committed acts outside the scope of his authority. When he went outside the boundaries of the right of way
upon plaintiff’s land and damage its former conditions and usefulness, he must be held to have designedly
departed from the duties imposed to him by the law.
Ordinarily the officer or employee committing the tort is personally liable therefore, and may be sued as
any other citizen and held answerable for whatever injury or damage results from his tortious act.
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 the authorization of law may thereby render himself
amenable to personal ability in a civil suit. If he exceeds the power conferred to him by the law, he cannot
shelter himself from plea that he is a public agent acting under the color of his office, and not personally. In the
eye of the law, his acts then are wholly without authority.

ART. 32 Any public officer of employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs
defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person
shall be liable to the latter damages.

(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;

Therefore, it is not a suit against the state because the damage was done by the person acting outside
of his authority. Hence, the plaintiff has the right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for
damages, and for other relief. The indemnity shall include moral damages; exemplary damages may also be
adjudicated.

_CJC
Case#03

U.S.A. VS. GUINTO

Facts: The accused, Adriano Guinto, Sotero Manuel, Eugenio Garcia, Pablo Penida, and Maximo Arce, operating
and conspiring together, armed with a shotgun, revolver, and bolos, did, commit the following acts in violation of
the law: The said Eugenio Garcia, together with an unknown companion, went into the house of Pedro Polintan
and opened various tampipes and a trunk belonging to the Pedro Polintan, then they seized and carried away
P565, in bank notes and coin, and a pair of earrings valued at P5, and none of the stolen property having been
recovered by the offended party. After hearing the evidence in a carefully prepared opinion in which the
evidence was analyzed in detail, reached the conclusion that the evidence showed that the defendant is guilty
of the crime charge in the complaint and sentenced one of them, in accordance with art. 504, in its relation with
paragraph 5 of article 503, to be imprisoned of presidio mayor, with the accessory penalties of art. 57, and to
indemnify Pedro Polintan in the sum of P565 and Serafina Mercado in the sum of P5, each to pay 1/5 part of the
costs, and in the case of insolvency, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in accordance in the provision of law.
After hearing the judgment of the lower court the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue:
(1) Whether or not the State can be sued

Held: No. With the reference to the second assignment of error in examination of the proof shows that the only
defense presented by the defendants in their own declaration was alibi. A reading of the proof presented by the
witness for the prosecution is so free from contradiction and so clear and convincing that the accused cannot
escape from the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants are guilty of the crime charge in the
complaint in the manner and form therein charged. The sentenced of the lower court, which has been
pronounced to the defendants, is so fully supported by the evidence that we find no reason for changing or
modifying the conclusions reached. Hence, the individual accused can be sued for the crime and in no way
connected with State.

It is to be noted, however, that the lower court imposed the penalty of presidio mayor with an
indemnity, with the condition that they should suffer subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with the provisions
of the law in case of insolvency. That part of the sentence of the lower court must be modified. Subsidiary
imprisonment for insolvency can only be imposed when the penalty of imprisonment is presidio correccional or
for some of the lower penalties provided for by the Penal Code.

Wherefore, the SC denied the petition and the Lower Court’s decision is hereby affirmed.

_CJC