100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 68 - 70 out of 107 pages.
142476, March 20, 2001Thus, the PCGG or any of its members, may be held civilly liable (for the sale of an aircraft to Fuller Aircraft,which was void) if they did not act with good faith and within the scopeof their authority in the performance of official dutiesRepublic v. Hon. Edilberto Sandoval, 220 SCRA 124The petitioner (CaylaoGroup) filed a suit againstthe State that for them the State has waivedits immunity when the MendiolaCommissionrecommended the government to indemnify thevictims of the Mendiola incident and the actsandutterances of President Aquino which issympathetic to the cause is indicative of State'swaiverofimmunityandtherefore,thegovernment should also be liable and shouldbe compensated by the government . Thecasehas been dismissed that State has not waived itsimmunity. On the other hand, the Military Officer filedapetition for certiorari to review the orders of theRegional Trial Court, Branch 9.ISSUE:Whether or not the State has waived its immunityfrom suit and therefore should the State be liableforthe incident?HELD:No. The recommendation made by the MendiolaCommission regarding the indemnification oftheheirs of the deceased and the victims of theincident does not in any way mean liabilityauthomaticallyat tac he s to the St ate . T hep urpo s e of w hi c h i s to i nve s ti ga te of t hedi s o rde rsthattookpl ac ean dthe recommendation it makes cannot in any way bindthe State. The acts and utterances of President Aquinodoesnot mean admission of the State of its liability.Moreover, the case does not qualify as suit against theState.While the Republic in this case is sued byname, the ultimate liability does not pertain tothe government.The military officials are held liable forthe damages for their official functions ceased themoment they haveexceeded to their authority. Theywere deployed to ensure that the rally would be peacefuland orderly andshould guarantee the safety of thepeople. The court has made it quite clear that even a“high position in thegovernment does not confer alicense to persecute or recklessly injure another.” Thecourt rules that there isno re ve rs i bl e error a nd nogr ave abus e of di c re ti on c om mi te d by there s pon de nt J ud ge i n i s s ui n g the questionedorderS. Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza2018-201968
Merzy’s Notes Prelim Exam Lansang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102667, February 23, 2000Facts: Private respondents General Assembly of the Blind, Inc. (GABI) and Jose Iglesias were allegedly awarded a verbal contract of lease in 1970 to occupy a portion of Rizal Park by the National Parks Development Committee (NPDC),a government initiated civic body engaged in the development of national parks. Private respondents were allegedly given office and library space as well as kiosks area selling food and drinks. Private respondent GABI was toremit to NPDC 40% of the profits derived from operating the kiosks. After the EDSA Revolution, petitioner Lansang, the new Chairman of the NPDC, sought to clean up Rizal Park.