Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 61 views

    City of Sanfernando vs. Judge Firme

    Uploaded by

    Allen So
    On December 16, 1965, a collision occurred between a passenger jeep, gravel truck, and dump truck driven by Alfredo Bislig of the Municipality of San Fernando, La Union. A passenger of the jeep, Banina Sr., died due to the impact. The heir of Banina Sr. filed a complaint against the owner and driver of the jeep, who then filed a third party complaint against the municipality and Bislig. The municipality argued it was not liable as Bislig was performing governmental functions at the time of the accident. The court agreed, finding municipalities are generally not liable for torts committed by employees engaged in governmental functions. As there was no evidence Bis

    Copyright:

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

    City of Sanfernando vs. Judge Firme

    Uploaded by

    Allen So
    61 views2 pages
    On December 16, 1965, a collision occurred between a passenger jeep, gravel truck, and dump truck driven by Alfredo Bislig of the Municipality of San Fernando, La Union. A passenger of the jeep, Banina Sr., died due to the impact. The heir of Banina Sr. filed a complaint against the owner and driver of the jeep, who then filed a third party complaint against the municipality and Bislig. The municipality argued it was not liable as Bislig was performing governmental functions at the time of the accident. The court agreed, finding municipalities are generally not liable for torts committed by employees engaged in governmental functions. As there was no evidence Bis

    Original Title

    City of Sanfernando Vs. Judge Firme

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    On December 16, 1965, a collision occurred between a passenger jeep, gravel truck, and dump truck driven by Alfredo Bislig of the Municipality of San Fernando, La Union. A passenger of the jeep, Banina Sr., died due to the impact. The heir of Banina Sr. filed a complaint against the owner and driver of the jeep, who then filed a third party complaint against the municipality and Bislig. The municipality argued it was not liable as Bislig was performing governmental functions at the time of the accident. The court agreed, finding municipalities are generally not liable for torts committed by employees engaged in governmental functions. As there was no evidence Bis

    Copyright:

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

    City of Sanfernando vs. Judge Firme

    Uploaded by

    Allen So
    On December 16, 1965, a collision occurred between a passenger jeep, gravel truck, and dump truck driven by Alfredo Bislig of the Municipality of San Fernando, La Union. A passenger of the jeep, Banina Sr., died due to the impact. The heir of Banina Sr. filed a complaint against the owner and driver of the jeep, who then filed a third party complaint against the municipality and Bislig. The municipality argued it was not liable as Bislig was performing governmental functions at the time of the accident. The court agreed, finding municipalities are generally not liable for torts committed by employees engaged in governmental functions. As there was no evidence Bis

    Copyright:

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

    City of San Fernando La Union Vs.

    Judge Firme

    April 8, 1991

    FACTS:

    On December 16, 1965, a collision occurred involving a passenger jeep, a gravel and sand truck, and a
    dump truck of the Municipality of San Fernando, La Union which was driven by Alfredo Bislig. Due to the
    impact, several passengers of the jeep including Banina, Sr. died.

    The heir of Banina, Sr. instituted a complaint for damages against the owner and driver of the passenger
    jeep. However, the previously mentioned defendant filed a third party complaint against the petitioner
    and the driver of the dump truck of the petitioner.

    Thereafter, the private respondents amended the complaint wherein the petitioner and its regular
    employee Alfredo Bislig were impleaded for the first time as defendants.

    Petitioner filed its answer and raised affirmative defenses such as lack of cause of action, non-suability
    of the state, prescription of cause of action, and the negligence of the owner and driver of the passenger
    jeep as the proximate cause of the collision.

    On October 10, 1979, the trial court rendered a decision for the plaintiffs, and defendants Municipality
    of san Fernando, La Union and Alfredo Bislig are ordered to pay jointly and severally the plaintiffs. The
    complaint against the driver and the owner of the passenger jeep was dismissed.

    Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and for a new trial. However, respondent judge issued
    another order denying the motion for reconsideration of the order for having been filed out of time.
    Hence, this petition.

    ISSUE: Whether the municipality is liable for the tort committed by its employee?

    HELD: NO. The municipality of sanfernando is not liable under The doctrine of non-suability of the State
    is expressly provided in Article XVI, Section 3 of the Constitution, to wit: "the State may not be sued
    without its consent." Thus, in a case where a municipality was sought to be held liable for the damages
    caused by its employee (a driver), the Supreme Court exonerated the municipality because the
    employee was undertaking governmental activities.

    It has already been remarked that municipal corporations are suable because their charters grant them
    the competence to sue and be sued. Nevertheless, they are generally not liable for torts committed by
    them in the discharge of governmental functions and can be held answerable only if it can be shown
    that they were acting in a proprietary capacity.

    In permitting such entities to be sued, the state merely gives the claimants the right to show the
    defendant was not acting in its governmental capacity when the injury was inflicted or that the case
    comes under the exceptions recognized by law. Failing this, the claimants cannot recover.

    In the case at bar, the driver of the dump truck of the municipality insists that he was on his way to
    Naguilan River to get a load of sand and gravel for the repair of the San Fernando municipal street.
    In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the regularity of the performance of official duty is
    presumed. Hence, the driver of the dump truck was performing duties or tasks pertaining to his office.

    After careful examination of existing laws and jurisprudence, we arrive at the conclusion that the
    municipality cannot be held liable for the torts committed by its regular employee, who was then
    engaged in the discharge of governmental functions. Hence, the death of the passenger, tragic and
    deplorable though, it may be imposed on the municipality no duty to pay the monetary compensation.

    You might also like