Jayme Vs

Today is Thursday, April 18, 2019
Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
ETA BANIÑA, MONTANO BANIÑA, ORJA BANIÑA, AND LYDIA R. BANIÑA, respondents.
eking the nullification or modification of the proceedings and the orders issued by the respondent Judge Romeo N. Firme, in his capa
eras, et al." dated November 4, 1975; July 13, 1976; August 23,1976; February 23, 1977; March 16, 1977; July 26, 1979; September
aintiffs for funeral expenses, actual damages consisting of the loss of earning capacity of the deceased, attorney's fees and costs of s
dance with the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. Respondent Honorable Judge Romeo N. Firme is impleaded in his official capa
Baniña, Orja Baniña and Lydia R. Baniña are heirs of the deceased Laureano Baniña Sr. and plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 107-Bg befo
ney driven by Bernardo Balagot and owned by the Estate of Macario Nieveras, a gravel and sand truck driven by Jose Manandeg and
a Sr. died as a result of the injuries they sustained and four (4) others suffered varying degrees of physical injuries.
f Macario Nieveras and Bernardo Balagot, owner and driver, respectively, of the passenger jeepney, which was docketed Civil Case
f petitioner.
was subsequently docketed as Civil Case No. 107-Bg. By virtue of a court order dated May 7, 1975, the private respondents amende
of action, non-suability of the State, prescription of cause of action and the negligence of the owner and driver of the passenger jeep
Fernando, La Union and Bislig and setting the hearing on the affirmative defenses only with respect to the supposed lack of jurisdictio
o Dismiss until the trial;
July 13, 1976 filed by the Municipality and Bislig for having been filed out of time;
the order of July 13, 1976;
ring that parties have not yet submitted their respective memoranda despite the court's direction; and
d/or order to recall prosecution witnesses for cross examination.
ollows:
ffs, and defendants Municipality of San Fernando, La Union and Alfredo Bislig are ordered to pay jointly and severally, plaintiffs Juan
neral expenses and P24,744.24 as the lost expected earnings of the late Laureano Baniña Sr., P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P
Balagot.
was then pending. However, respondent judge issued another order dated November 7, 1979 denying the motion for reconsideration
cipality and Bislig further wish to pursue the matter disposed of in the order of July 26, 1979, such should be elevated to a higher cou
of jurisdiction in issuing the aforesaid orders and in rendering a decision. Furthermore, petitioner asserts that while appeal of the dec
n is devoid of merit, utterly lacking the good faith which is indispensable in a petition for certiorari and prohibition. (Rollo, p. 42.) In ad
m conformable to law and justice. (Rollo, p. 43.)
buse of discretion when it deferred and failed to resolve the defense of non-suability of the State amounting to lack of jurisdiction in a
te amounting to lack of jurisdiction until trial. However, said respondent judge failed to resolve such defense, proceeded with the trial
bitrarily failed to resolve the vital issue of non-suability of the State in the guise of the municipality. However, said judge acted in exce
ution, to wit: "the State may not be sued without its consent."
nt to be sued. Consent takes the form of express or implied consent.
o be sued in case of money claims involving liability arising from contracts is found in Act No. 3083. A special law may be passed to e
1990, 182 SCRA 644, 654.)
of the other contracting party, and also when the State files a complaint, thus opening itself to a counterclaim. (Ibid)
ngaged in governmental functions and therefore should enjoy the sovereign immunity from suit. Nevertheless, they are subject to suit
e state to be sued, liability on the applicable law and the established facts. The circumstance that a state is suable does not necessa
te does waive its sovereign immunity, it is only giving the plaintiff the chance to prove, if it can, that the defendant is liable." (United S
st of liability of the municipality depends on whether or not the driver, acting in behalf of the municipality, is performing governmental o
he liability of the municipality for the acts of its agents which result in an injury to third persons.
na in 1916, thus:
y exercise the right springing from sovereignty, and while in the performance of the duties pertaining thereto, their acts are political an
rs, agents, and servants of the state. In the other capacity the municipalities exercise a private, proprietary or corporate right, arising
idual capacity, and not for the state or sovereign power." (112 N.E., 994-995) (Ibid, pp. 605-606.)
he competence to sue and be sued. Nevertheless, they are generally not liable for torts committed by them in the discharge of govern
o show that the defendant was not acting in its governmental capacity when the injury was committed or that the case comes under t
Naguilian river to get a load of sand and gravel for the repair of San Fernando's municipal streets." (Rollo, p. 29.)
med pursuant to Section 3(m) of Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court. Hence, We rule that the driver of the dump truck was perform
the Provincial Treasurer (102 Phil 1186) that "the construction or maintenance of roads in which the truck and the driver worked at th
cipality cannot be held liable for the torts committed by its regular employee, who was then engaged in the discharge of governmenta
e the issue of non-suability did not amount to grave abuse of discretion. But said judge exceeded his jurisdiction when it ruled on the
absolving the petitioner municipality of any liability in favor of private respondents.
Constitution
Statutes
Executive Issuances
Judicial Issuances
Other Issuances
Jurisprudence
International Legal Resources
AUSL Exclusive

Jayme Vs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jayme Vs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jayme Vs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Today is Thursday, April 18, 2019

Republic of the Philippines

o Dismiss until the trial;

the order of July 13, 1976;

d/or order to recall prosecution witnesses for cross examination.

nt to be sued. Consent takes the form of express or implied consent.

absolving the petitioner municipality of any liability in favor of private respondents.

You might also like