142476 Thus the PCGG or any of its members may be held civilly

142476 thus the pcgg or any of its members may be

This preview shows page 68 - 70 out of 107 pages.

142476, March 20, 2001 Thus, 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 scope of their authority in the performance of official duties Republic v. Hon. Edilberto Sandoval, 220 SCRA 124 The petitioner (CaylaoGroup) filed a suit against the State that for them the State has waived its immunity when the MendiolaCommission recommended the government to indemnify the victims of the Mendiola incident and the acts andutterances of President Aquino which is sympathetic to the cause is indicative of State's waiver of immunityand therefore, the government should also be liable and should be compensated by the government . Thecase has been dismissed that State has not waived its immunity. On the other hand, the Military Officer filed apetition for certiorari to review the orders of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 9. ISSUE: Whether or not the State has waived its immunity from suit and therefore should the State be liablefor the incident? HELD: No. The recommendation made by the Mendiola Commission regarding the indemnification of theheirs of the deceased and the victims of the incident does not in any way mean liability authomaticallyat tac he s to the St ate . T he p urpo s e of w hi c h i s to i nve s ti ga te of t he di s o rde rs that took pl ac e an d the recommendation it makes cannot in any way bind the State. The acts and utterances of President Aquino doesnot mean admission of the State of its liability. Moreover, the case does not qualify as suit against the State.While the Republic in this case is sued by name, the ultimate liability does not pertain to the government.The military officials are held liable for the damages for their official functions ceased the moment they haveexceeded to their authority. They were deployed to ensure that the rally would be peaceful and orderly andshould guarantee the safety of the people. The court has made it quite clear that even a “high position in thegovernment does not confer a license to persecute or recklessly injure another.” The court rules that there isno re ve rs i bl e error a nd no gr ave abus e of di c re ti on c om mi te d by the re s pon de nt J ud ge i n i s s ui n g the questioned orderS. Constitutional Law 1 based on the syllabus of Atty. Remoroza 2018- 2019 68
Image of page 68
Merzy’s Notes Prelim Exam Lansang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102667, February 23, 2000 Facts: 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 to remit 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.
Image of page 69
Image of page 70

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 107 pages?

  • Fall '16

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture