Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    Veterans vs. The Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Mary Louise Balbuena
    Veterans Manpower and Protective Services Inc. (VMPSI) filed a complaint alleging that requirements under the Private Security Agency Law that all private security agencies must register with the Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators (PADPAO) violated the constitution. PADPAO had found VMPSI guilty of cut-throat competition and their license was set to expire. VMPSI filed a case against the Philippine Constabulary Chief and the Philippine Constabulary Supervisory Unit for Security and Investigation Agencies to set aside PADPAO's findings and renew their license. The Supreme Court ruled that the case against the public officials was essentially a suit against the state without its consent, as the officials were

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Veterans vs. The Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Mary Louise Balbuena
    71 views2 pages
    Veterans Manpower and Protective Services Inc. (VMPSI) filed a complaint alleging that requirements under the Private Security Agency Law that all private security agencies must register with the Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators (PADPAO) violated the constitution. PADPAO had found VMPSI guilty of cut-throat competition and their license was set to expire. VMPSI filed a case against the Philippine Constabulary Chief and the Philippine Constabulary Supervisory Unit for Security and Investigation Agencies to set aside PADPAO's findings and renew their license. The Supreme Court ruled that the case against the public officials was essentially a suit against the state without its consent, as the officials were

    Original Title

    Veterans vs. The Court of Appeals.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Veterans Manpower and Protective Services Inc. (VMPSI) filed a complaint alleging that requirements under the Private Security Agency Law that all private security agencies must register with the Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators (PADPAO) violated the constitution. PADPAO had found VMPSI guilty of cut-throat competition and their license was set to expire. VMPSI filed a case against the Philippine Constabulary Chief and the Philippine Constabulary Supervisory Unit for Security and Investigation Agencies to set aside PADPAO's findings and renew their license. The Supreme Court ruled that the case against the public officials was essentially a suit against the state without its consent, as the officials were

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    71 views2 pages

    Veterans vs. The Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Mary Louise Balbuena
    Veterans Manpower and Protective Services Inc. (VMPSI) filed a complaint alleging that requirements under the Private Security Agency Law that all private security agencies must register with the Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators (PADPAO) violated the constitution. PADPAO had found VMPSI guilty of cut-throat competition and their license was set to expire. VMPSI filed a case against the Philippine Constabulary Chief and the Philippine Constabulary Supervisory Unit for Security and Investigation Agencies to set aside PADPAO's findings and renew their license. The Supreme Court ruled that the case against the public officials was essentially a suit against the state without its consent, as the officials were

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Veterans Manpower and Protective Services vs.

    The Court of Appeals


    G.R. No. 91359. September 25, 1992

    Facts:
    Veterans Manpower and Protective Services Inc., petitioner,
    vs.
    The Court of Appeals, The Chief of Philippine Constabulary and Philippine
    Constabulary Supervisory Unit for Security and Investigation Agencies (PC-
    SUSIA), respondents.
    Franciso Lava Jr. and Andresito Fornier for petitioner.
    Petitioner, Veterans Manpower and Protective Services Inc. (VMPSI) filed a
    complaint in the RTC of Makati, Metro Manila on March 28, 1988 alleges that the
    provisions under Section 4, 17 of the Republic Act No. 5487 by PD No. 11 or the
    Private Security Agency Law and paragraph 3, subparagraph (g) of the Modifying
    Regulations on the Issuance of License to Operate and Priavte Security Licenses
    and Specifying Regulations for the Operation of PADPAO, requiring “all private
    security agencies/companies security forces must register as members of any
    PADPAO Chapter …” violate the 1987 Constitution against the monopolies, unfair
    competition and combinations in restraint of trade, and tend to favor and
    institutionalize the Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency
    Operators, Inc. (PADPAO) which is monopolistic because it has an interest in
    more than one security agency.
    June 29, 1987, Odin Security Agency (Odin) filed a complaints against the
    petitioner VMPSI to PADPAO accusing of cut-throat competition and charging the
    customer lower than the standard minimum rates provided in which PADPAO and
    respondent PC-SUSIA found the petitioner VMPSI guilty and recommended the
    expulsion and cancellation of its license to operate.
    Upon the petitioner VPMSI’s license was expiring on March 31, 1988, filed a case
    against respondents PC Chief and PC-SUSIA when VMPSI wrote a letter to PC
    Chief on March 10, 1988 requesting him to set aside the findings of PADPAO with
    no reply. The court issued a retraining order against PC Chief and PC-SUSIA
    “from committing acts that would result in the cancellation or non-renewal pf
    VMPSI’s license”

    Issue:
    Whether or not VMPSI’s complaint against the PC Chief and PC-SUSIA is a suit
    against the State without its consent.
    Ruling:
    Yes. A public official may sometimes be held liable in his personal or private
    capacity if he acts in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority or
    jurisdiction, however, since the acts for which the PC Chief and PC-SUSIA are
    being called to account in this case, were performed as part of their official
    duties, without malice, gross negligence, or bad faith, no recovery may be had
    against them in their private capacities. Furthermore, the Supreme Court agrees
    with the Court of Appeals that the Memorandum of Agreement dated May 12,
    1986 does not constitute an implied consent by the State to be sued. The
    consent of the State to be sued must emanate from statutory authority, hence, a
    legislative act, not from a mere memorandum. Without such consent, the trial
    court did not acquired jurisdiction over the public respondents. Petition for review
    is denied and the judgment appealed from is affirmed in toto.

    You might also like