Republic of the Philippines by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) vs

Case under State Immunity

Republic of the Philippines [represented?] by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) vs. Sandiganbayan (2nd Division) and Roberto S. Benedicto [please put date of the SC decision here]

[please put SCRA entry here]

[please put ponente here]

FACTS

BACKGROUND/FIRST STAGE. PCGG issued writs placing under sequestration all business enterprises, entities and other propertiesreal and personalowned or registered in the name of private respondent Benedicto.

Among other things were his 227 shares in Negros Occidental Golf and Country Club (NOGCC) at P150, 000.00 /per.

In Oct.1986, a corporate policy change was implemented assessing a monthly membership due at P150.00/share and in Mar 1987, it was changed to P250.00/share.

PCGG did not pay the corresponding monthly membership fee which totaled to P2, 959,471.00. Due to these delinquent shares, an auction sale [by NOGCC?] was projected.

SECOND STAGE. In 1990, Republic and Benedicto entered into a Compromise Agreement, where PCGG agreed to lift the sequestration of the said 227 shares, [do the succeeding words refer to the reason why the sequestration was lifted? Kindly rephrase them. The sentence is too long and is prone to being misunderstood] that it is within Benedictos capacity to acquire the same out of his income from business and exercise of profession, that subject shares could not have been ill- gotten and in 1992 it was approved by Sandiganbayan.

THIRD STAGE. In February 1994, Benedicto filed a motion to release the shares and return to him or [?] payment of 227 shares at P150, 000.00/share by PCGG as part of the Compromise Agreement and it was granted by Sandiganbayan but to be placed under the custody of its Clerk of Court.

On 6 December 1994, Sandiganbayan directed PCGG to deliver the shares to the Clerk of Court but it failed to comply without showing any justifiable ground. Republic invokes state immunity from suit. [there is a jump from the last two sentences: explain why PCGG becomes Republic]

ISSUE

Whether or not Republics invocation of state immunity from suit is tenable.

RULING

NO, PCGG cannot be benefited of state immunity. One of the exceptions to the state immunity principle is that the Government itself is the suitor, the state itself is the petitioner [explain the difference between state and government].

When the State, through its duly authorized officers, takes the initiative in a suit against a private party, it descends to the level of a private individual thereby waiving its right to immunity from suit. Also, by entering [into a] Compromise Agreement, the Republic stripped itself of the immunity. [This happens] when the State enters into a contract, through its officers or agents, in furtherance of a legitimate aim and purpose and pursuant to constitutional legislative authority [I do not understand why the latter phrase was added. It appears like a sudden jump. Can you explain a bit more for the flow of ideas to come more smoothly?].