e. Merritt, Plaintiff-Appellant, Vs.government of the Philippine Islands, Defendant-Appellant. [g.r....

8/18/2019 e. Merritt, Plaintiff-Appellant, Vs.government of the Philippine Islands, Defendant-Appellant. [g.r. No. L-11154, Mar…

1/8

DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY

21. E. MERRITT, plaintiff-appellant, vs. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE

ISLANDS, defendant-appellant. [G.R. No. L-11154, Marc !1, 1"1#$

EN BANC

FACTS%

This is an appeal by both parties from a judment of the Court of !irst "nstan#e of the #ity of $anila in

favor of the plaintiff for the sum of %1&,'&1, toether (ith the #osts of the #ause.

Counsel for the plaintiff insist that the trial #ourt erred )1* +in limitin the eneral damaes (hi#h the

plaintiff suffered to %,, instead of %2, as #laimed in the #omplaint,+ and )2* +in limitin the time

(hen plaintiff (as entirely disabled to t(o months and t(enty-one days and fiin the damae

a##ordinly in the sum of %2,///, instead of %/, as #laimed by plaintiff in his #omplaint.+

The Attorney-0eneral on behalf of the defendant ures that the trial #ourt erred )a* in findin that the

#ollision bet(een the plaintiffs motor#y#le and the ambulan#e of the 0eneral 3ospital (as due to the

nelien#e of the #hauffeur4 )b* in holdin that the 0overnment of the %hilippine "slands is liable for the

damaes sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the #ollision, even if it be true that the #ollision (as due

to the nelien#e of the #hauffeur4 and )#* in renderin judment aainst the defendant for the sum of

%1&,'&1.

The trial #ourts findins of fa#t, (hi#h are fully supported by the re#ord, are as follo(s

"t is a fa#t not disputed by #ounsel for the defendant that (hen the plaintiff, ridin on a

motor#y#le, (as oin to(ard the (estern part of Calle %adre !aura, passin alon the (est side

thereof at a speed of ten to t(elve miles an hour, upon #rossin Taft Avenue and (hen he (as ten

feet from the south(estern interse#tion of said streets, the 0eneral 3ospital ambulan#e, upon

rea#hin said avenue, instead of turnin to(ard the south, after passin the #enter thereof, so that

it (ould be on the left side of said avenue, as is pres#ribed by the ordinan#e and the $otor

5ehi#le A#t, turned suddenly and unepe#tedly and lon before rea#hin the #enter of the street,

into the riht side of Taft Avenue, (ithout havin sounded any (histle or horn, by (hi#h

movement it stru#6 the plaintiff, (ho (as already si feet from the south(estern point or from

the post pla#e there.

By reason of the resultin #ollision, the plaintiff (as so severely injured that, a##ordin to 7r.8aleeby, (ho eamined him on the very same day that he (as ta6en to the 0eneral 3ospital, he

(as sufferin from a depression in the left parietal reion, a (ould in the same pla#e and in the

ba#6 part of his head, (hile blood issued from his nose and he (as entirely un#ons#ious.

The mar6s revealed that he had one or more fra#tures of the s6ull and that the rey matter and

brain (as had suffered material injury. At ten o#lo#6 of the niht in 9uestion, (hi#h (as the time

set for performin the operation, his pulse (as so (ea6 and so irreular that, in his opinion, there


2/8

(as little hope that he (ould live. 3is riht le (as bro6en in su#h a (ay that the fra#ture

etended to the outer s6in in su#h manner that it miht be rearded as double and the (ould be

eposed to infe#tion, for (hi#h reason it (as of the most serious nature.

At another eamination si days before the day of the trial, 7r. 8aleeby noti#ed that the plaintiffs

le sho(ed a #ontra#tion of an in#h and a half and a #urvature that made his le very (ea6 and painful at the point of the fra#ture. Eamination of his head revealed a notable readjustment of the

fun#tions of the brain and nerves. The patient apparently (as slihtly deaf, had a liht (ea6ness

in his eyes and in his mental #ondition. This latter (ea6ness (as al(ays noti#ed (hen the

plaintiff had to do any diffi#ult mental labor, espe#ially (hen he attempted to use his money for

mathemati#al #al#ulations.

A##ordin to the various mer#hants (ho testified as (itnesses, the plaintiffs mental and physi#al

#ondition prior to the a##ident (as e#ellent, and that after havin re#eived the injuries that have

been dis#ussed, his physi#al #ondition had underone a noti#eable depre#iation, for he had lost

the aility, enery, and ability that he had #onstantly displayed before the a##ident as one of the

best #onstru#tors of (ooden buildins and he #ould not no( earn even a half of the in#ome that

he had se#ured for his (or6 be#ause he had lost per #ent of his effi#ien#y. As a #ontra#tor, he

#ould no loner, as he had before done, #limb up ladders and s#affoldins to rea#h the hihest

parts of the buildin.

As a #onse9uen#e of the loss the plaintiff suffered in the effi#ien#y of his (or6 as a #ontra#tor, he

had to dissolved the partnership he had formed (ith the enineer. :ilson, be#ause he (as

in#apa#itated from ma6in mathemati#al #al#ulations on a##ount of the #ondition of his le and

of his mental fa#ulties, and he had to ive up a #ontra#t he had for the #onstru#tion of the ;y

Cha#o buildin.+

:e may say at the outset that (e are in full a##ord (ith the trial #ourt to the effe#t that the #ollision

bet(een the plaintiffs motor#y#le and the ambulan#e of the 0eneral 3ospital (as due solely to the

nelien#e of the #hauffeur.

The t(o items (hi#h #onstitute a part of the %1&,'&1 and (hi#h are dra(n in 9uestion by the plaintiff are

)a* %,, the a(ard a(arded for permanent injuries, and )b* the %2,///, the amount allo(ed for the loss

of (aes durin the time the plaintiff (as in#apa#itated from pursuin his o##upation. :e find nothin in

the re#ord (hi#h (ould justify us in in#reasin the amount of the first. As to the se#ond, the re#ord

sho(s, and the trial #ourt so found, that the plaintiffs servi#es as a #ontra#tor (ere (orth %1, per

month. The #ourt, ho(ever, limited the time to t(o months and t(enty-one days, (hi#h the plaintiff (as

a#tually #onfined in the hospital. "n this (e thin6 there (as error, be#ause it (as #learly established thatthe plaintiff (as (holly in#apa#itated for a period of si months. The mere fa#t that he remained in the

hospital only t(o months and t(enty-one days (hile the remainder of the si months (as spent in his

home, (ould not prevent re#overy for the (hole time. :e, therefore, find that the amount of damaes

sustained by the plaintiff, (ithout any fault on his part, is %1


3/8

As the nelien#e (hi#h #aused the #ollision is a tort #ommitted by an aent or employee of the

0overnment, the in9uiry at on#e arises (hether the 0overnment is leally-liable for the damaes resultin

therefrom.

A#t No. 2&', effe#tive !ebruary =, 1>1, reads

An A#t authori?in E. $erritt to brin suit aainst the 0overnment of the %hilippine "slands and

authori?in the Attorney-0eneral of said "slands to appear in said suit.

:hereas a #laim has been filed aainst the 0overnment of the %hilippine "slands by $r. E.

$erritt, of $anila, for damaes resultin from a #ollision bet(een his motor#y#le and the

ambulan#e of the 0eneral 3ospital on $ar#h t(enty-fifth, nineteen hundred and thirteen4

:hereas it is not 6no(n (ho is responsible for the a##ident nor is it possible to determine the

amount of damaes, if any, to (hi#h the #laimant is entitled4 and

:hereas the 7ire#tor of %ubli# :or6s and the Attorney-0eneral re#ommended that an A#t be

passed by the @eislature authori?in $r. E. $erritt to brin suit in the #ourts aainst the

0overnment, in order that said 9uestions may be de#ided No(, therefore,

By authority of the United States, be it enacted by the Philippine Legislature, that:

8ECT"N 1. E. $erritt is hereby authori?ed to brin suit in the Court of !irst "nstan#e of the #ity

of $anila aainst the 0overnment of the %hilippine "slands in order to fi the responsibility for

the #ollision bet(een his motor#y#le and the ambulan#e of the 0eneral 3ospital, and to determine

the amount of the damaes, if any, to (hi#h $r. E. $erritt is entitled on a##ount of said #ollision,

and the Attorney-0eneral of the %hilippine "slands is hereby authori?ed and dire#ted to appear at

the trial on the behalf of the 0overnment of said "slands, to defendant said 0overnment at the

same.

8EC. 2. This A#t shall ta6e effe#t on its passae.

Ena#ted, !ebruary =, 1>1.

7id the defendant, in ena#tin the above 9uoted A#t, simply (aive its immunity from suit or did it also

#on#ede its liability to the plaintiff "f only the former, then it #annot be held that the A#t #reated any ne(

#ause of a#tion in favor of the plaintiff or etended the defendants liability to any #ase not previously

re#oni?ed.

All admit that the "nsular 0overnment )the defendant* #annot be sued by an individual (ithout its

#onsent. "t is also admitted that the instant #ase is one aainst the 0overnment. As the #onsent of the

0overnment to be sued by the plaintiff (as entirely voluntary on its part, it is our duty to loo6 #arefully

into the terms of the #onsent, and render judment a##ordinly.


4/8

The plaintiff (as authori?ed to brin this a#tion aainst the 0overnment +in order to fi the responsibility

for the #ollision bet(een his motor#y#le and the ambulan#e of the 0eneral 3ospital and to determine the

amount of the damaes, if any, to (hi#h $r. E. $erritt is entitled on a##ount of said #ollision, . . . .+

These (ere the t(o 9uestions submitted to the #ourt for determination. The A#t (as passed +in order that

said 9uestions may be de#ided.+ :e have +de#ided+ that the a##ident (as due solely to the nelien#e of

the #hauffeur, (ho (as at the time an employee of the defendant, and (e have also fied the amount ofdamaes sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the #ollision. 7oes the A#t authori?e us to hold that the

0overnment is leally liable for that amount "f not, (e must loo6 else(here for su#h authority, if it

eists.

The 0overnment of the %hilippine "slands havin been +modeled after the !ederal and 8tate 0overnments

in the ;nited 8tates,+ (e may loo6 to the de#isions of the hih #ourts of that #ountry for aid in

determinin the purpose and s#ope of A#t No. 2&'.

"n the ;nited 8tates the rule that the state is not liable for the torts #ommitted by its offi#ers or aents

(hom it employs, e#ept (hen epressly made so by leislative ena#tment, is (ell settled. +The

0overnment,+ says usti#e 8tory, +does not underta6e to uarantee to any person the fidelity of the

offi#ers or aents (hom it employs, sin#e that (ould involve it in all its operations in endless

embarrassments, diffi#ulties and losses, (hi#h (ould be subversive of the publi# interest.+ )Claussen vs.

City of @uverne, 1= $inn., &>1, #itin ;. 8. vs. Dir6patri#6, > :heat, '24 / @. Ed., 1>>4 and Beers vs.

8tates, 2 3o(., 2'4 1 @. Ed., >>1.*

"n the #ase of Melvin vs. State )121 Cal., 1/*, the plaintiff souht to re#over damaes from the state for

personal injuries re#eived on a##ount of the nelien#e of the state offi#ers at the state fair, a state

institution #reated by the leislature for the purpose of improvin ari#ultural and 6indred industries4 to

disseminate information #al#ulated to edu#ate and benefit the industrial #lasses4 and to advan#e by su#h

means the material interests of the state, bein obje#ts similar to those souht by the publi# s#hool system."n passin upon the 9uestion of the states liability for the nelient a#ts of its offi#ers or aents, the #ourt

said

No #laim arises aainst any overnment is favor of an individual, by reason of the misfeasan#e,

la#hes, or unauthori?ed eer#ise of po(ers by its offi#ers or aents. )Citin 0ibbons vs. ;. 8., <

:all., 2/>4 Clodfelter vs. 8tate, 4 &= Am. 8t. ep., 1.*

As to the s#ope of leislative ena#tments permittin individuals to sue the state (here the #ause of a#tion

arises out of either fort or #ontra#t, the rule is stated in =/ Cy#., >1, thus

By #onsentin to be sued a state simply (aives its immunity from suit. "t does not thereby

#on#ede its liability to plaintiff, or #reate any #ause of a#tion in his favor, or etend its liability to

any #ause not previously re#oni?ed. "t merely ives a remedy to enfor#e a preeistin liability

and submits itself to the jurisdi#tion of the #ourt, subje#t to its riht to interpose any la(ful

defense.


5/8

"n Apfelbacher vs. State )12 N. :., 1&&, advan#ed sheets*, de#ided April 1/, 1>1, the A#t of 1>1=,

(hi#h authori?ed the brinin of this suit, read

8ECT"N 1. Authority is hereby iven to 0eore Apfelba#her, of the to(n of 8ummit, :au6esha

County, :is#onsin, to brin suit in su#h #ourt or #ourts and in su#h form or forms as he may be

advised for the purpose of settlin and determinin all #ontroversies (hi#h he may no( have (iththe 8tate of :is#onsin, or its duly authori?ed offi#ers and aents, relative to the mill property of

said 0eore Apfelba#her, the fish hat#hery of the 8tate of :is#onsin on the Bar6 iver, and the

mill property of Evan 3umphrey at the lo(er end of Naa(i#6a @a6e, and relative to the use of

the (aters of said Bar6 iver and Naa(i#6a @a6e, all in the #ounty of :au6esha, :is#onsin.

"n determinin the s#ope of this a#t, the #ourt said

%laintiff #laims that by the ena#tment of this la( the leislature admitted liability on the part of

the state for the a#ts of its offi#ers, and that the suit no( stands just as it (ould stand bet(een

private parties. "t is diffi#ult to see ho( the a#t does, or (as intended to do, more than remove the

states immunity from suit. "t simply ives authority to #ommen#e suit for the purpose of settlin

plaintiffs #ontroversies (ith the estate. No(here in the a#t is there a (hisper or suestion that

the #ourt or #ourts in the disposition of the suit shall depart from (ell established prin#iples of

la(, or that the amount of damaes is the only 9uestion to be settled. The a#t opened the door of

the #ourt to the plaintiff. "t did not pass upon the 9uestion of liability, but left the suit just (here it

(ould be in the absen#e of the states immunity from suit. "f the @eislature had intended to

#hane the rule that obtained in this state so lon and to de#lare liability on the part of the state, it

(ould not have left so important a matter to mere inferen#e, but (ould have done so in epress

terms. )$urdo#6 0rate Co. vs. Common(ealth, 12 $ass., 2.*

"n Denning vs. State )12= Cal., =1/*, the provisions of the A#t of 1=, relied upon and #onsidered, are asfollo(s

All persons (ho have, or shall hereafter have, #laims on #ontra#t or for nelien#e aainst the

state not allo(ed by the state board of eaminers, are hereby authori?ed, on the terms and

#onditions herein #ontained, to brin suit thereon aainst the state in any of the #ourts of this state

of #ompetent jurisdi#tion, and prose#ute the same to final judment. The rules of pra#ti#e in #ivil

#ases shall apply to su#h suits, e#ept as herein other(ise provided.

And the #ourt said

This statute has been #onsidered by this #ourt in at least t(o #ases, arisin under different fa#ts,and in both it (as held that said statute did not #reate any liability or #ause of a#tion aainst the

state (here none eisted before, but merely ave an additional remedy to enfor#e su#h liability as

(ould have eisted if the statute had not been ena#ted. )Chapman vs. 8tate, 1& Cal., />4 &= Am.

8t. ep., 1


6/8

A statute of $assa#husetts ena#ted in 1= of the Civil Code

reads

The state is liable in this sense (hen it a#ts throuh a spe#ial aent, but not (hen the damae

should have been #aused by the offi#ial to (hom properly it pertained to do the a#t performed, in

(hi#h #ase the provisions of the pre#edin arti#le shall be appli#able.

The supreme #ourt of 8pain in definin the s#ope of this pararaph said

That the obliation to indemnify for damaes (hi#h a third person #auses to another by his fault

or nelien#e is based, as is eviden#ed by the same @a( =, Title 1, %artida ', on that the personobliated, by his o(n fault or nelien#e, ta6es part in the a#t or omission of the third party (ho

#aused the damae. "t follo(s therefrom that the state, by virtue of su#h provisions of la(, is not

responsible for the damaes suffered by private individuals in #onse9uen#e of a#ts performed by

its employees in the dis#hare of the fun#tions pertainin to their offi#e, be#ause neither fault nor

even nelien#e #an be presumed on the part of the state in the orani?ation of bran#hes of publi#

servi#e and in the appointment of its aents4 on the #ontrary, (e must presuppose all foresiht

humanly possible on its part in order that ea#h bran#h of servi#e serves the eneral (eal an that of

private persons interested in its operation. Bet(een these latter and the state, therefore, no

relations of a private nature overned by the #ivil la( #an arise e#ept in a #ase (here the state

a#ts as a judi#ial person #apable of a#9uirin rihts and #ontra#tin obliations. )8upreme Court

of 8pain, anuary ', 1


7/8

authority and superiority over the authors of the damae, be#ause the la( presumes that in

#onse9uen#e of su#h relations the evil #aused by their o(n fault or nelien#e is imputable to

them. This leal presumption ives (ay to proof, ho(ever, be#ause, as held in the last pararaph

of arti#le 1>=, responsibility for a#ts of third persons #eases (hen the persons mentioned in said

arti#le prove that they employed all the dilien#e of a ood father of a family to avoid the

damae, and amon these persons, #alled upon to ans(er in a dire#t and not a subsidiary manner,are found, in addition to the mother or the father in a proper #ase, uardians and o(ners or

dire#tors of an establishment or enterprise, the state, but not al(ays, e#ept (hen it a#ts throuh

the aen#y of a spe#ial aent, doubtless be#ause and only in this #ase, the fault or nelien#e,

(hi#h is the oriinal basis of this 6ind of obje#tions, must be presumed to lie (ith the state.

That althouh in some #ases the state miht by virtue of the eneral prin#iple set forth in arti#le

1>2 respond for all the damae that is o##asioned to private parties by orders or resolutions

(hi#h by fault or nelien#e are made by bran#hes of the #entral administration a#tin in the

name and representation of the state itself and as an eternal epression of its sovereinty in the

eer#ise of its ee#utive po(ers, yet said arti#le is not appli#able in the #ase of damaes said to

have been o##asioned to the petitioners by an e%ecutive official , a#tin in the eer#ise of his

po(ers, in pro#eedins to enfor#e the #olle#tions of #ertain property taes o(in by the o(ner of

the property (hi#h they hold in sublease.

That the responsibility of the state is limited by arti#le 1>= to the #ase (herein it a#ts through a

special agent )and a spe#ial aent, in the sense in (hi#h these (ords are employed, is one (ho

re#eives a definite and fied order or #ommission, forein to the eer#ise of the duties of his

offi#e if he is a spe#ial offi#ial* so that in representation of the state and bein bound to a#t as an

aent thereof, he ee#utes the trust #onfided to him. This #on#ept does not apply to any ee#utive

aent (ho is an employee of the a#tin administration and (ho on his o(n responsibility

performs the fun#tions (hi#h are inherent in and naturally pertain to his offi#e and (hi#h arereulated by la( and the reulations.+ )8upreme Court of 8pain, $ay 1&4 >< ur. Civ., =,

=>.*

That a##ordin to pararaph of arti#le 1>= of the Civil Code and the prin#iple laid do(n in a

de#ision, amon others, of the 1&, in a damae #ase, the responsibility of the state

is limited to that (hi#h it #ontra#ts throuh a spe#ial aent, duly empo(ered by a definite order

or co##ission to perfor# so#e act or charged $ith so#e definite purpose $hich gives rise to the

clai#, and not (here the #laim is based on a#ts or omissions imputable to a publi# offi#ial

#hared (ith some administrative or te#hni#al offi#e (ho #an be held to the proper responsibility

in the manner laid do(n by the la( of #ivil responsibility. Conse9uently, the trial #ourt in not so

de#idin and in senten#in the said entity to the payment of damaes, #aused by an offi#ial of the

se#ond #lass referred to, has by erroneous interpretation infrined the provisions of arti#les 1>2

and 1>= of the Civil Code. )8upreme Court of 8pain, uly =, 1>114 122 ur. Civ., 1&/.*

"t is, therefore, eviden#e that the 8tate )the 0overnment of the %hilippine "slands* is only liable, a##ordin

to the above 9uoted de#isions of the 8upreme Court of 8pain, for the a#ts of its aents, offi#ers and


8/8

employees (hen they a#t as spe#ial aents (ithin the meanin of pararaph of arti#le 1>=, supra, and

that the #hauffeur of the ambulan#e of the 0eneral 3ospital (as not su#h an aent.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment appealed from must be reversed, withoutcosts in this instance. Whether the Government intends to make itself legally liable

for the amount of damages above set forth, which the plainti has sustained byreason of the negligent acts of one of its employees, by legislative enactment andby appropriating sucient funds therefor, we are not called upon to determine. hismatter rests solely with the !egislature and not with the courts.

e. Merritt, Plaintiff-Appellant, Vs.government of the Philippine Islands, Defendant-Appellant. [g.r....

Documents

Transcript of e. Merritt, Plaintiff-Appellant, Vs.government of the Philippine Islands, Defendant-Appellant. [g.r....