Magallona v Exec Sec hours a day) and the failure to pay for said compensation in

accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 444.

FACTS:In March 2009, Republic Act 9522, an act defining • Section 1: The legal working day for any person employed
the archipelagic baselines of the Philippines was enacted – by another shall not be of more than eight (8) hours daily.
the law is also known as the Baselines Law. This law was
meant to comply with the terms of the third United Nations Petitioner denies allegations for lack of a cause of action and
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), ratified by the jurisdiction.
Philippines in February 1984.
Professor Merlin Magallona et al questioned the validity of RA Respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari on grounds that
9522 as they contend, among others, that the law decreased the corporation is exercising governmental functions and is
the national territory of the Philippines hence the law is therefore exempt from CA No. 444 which was denied and
unconstitutional. Some of their particular arguments are as dismissed by RTC and CA. Motion for Reconsideration were
follows: also DENIED.
a. the law abandoned the demarcation set by the Treaty of ISSUE: Whether or not PVTA discharges governmental and
Paris and other ancillary treaties – this also resulted to the not proprietary functions and is exempt from CA No. 444
exclusion of our claim over Sabah; HELD: It is an inherent state function which makes
b. the law, as well as UNCLOS itself, describes the Philippine government required to support its people and promote their
waters as “archipelagic” waters which, in international law, general welfare. This case explains and portrays the
opens our waters landward of the baselines to maritime expanded role of government necessitated by the increased
passage by all vessels (innocent passage) and aircrafts responsibility to provide for the general welfare.
(overflight), undermining Philippine sovereignty and national
security, contravening the country’s nuclear-free policy, and The Court held that the distinction and between constituent
damaging marine resources, in violation of relevant and ministrant functions, which the Chief Justice points out, is
constitutional provisions; already irrelevant considering the needs of the present time.
c. the classification of the Kalayaan Island Group (KIG), as well He says that "The growing complexities of modern society
as the Scarborough Shoal (bajo de masinloc), as a “regime have rendered this traditional classification of the functions
of islands” pursuant to UNCLOS results in the loss of a large of government obsolete." The distinction between
maritime area but also prejudices the livelihood of constituent and ministrant functions is now considered
subsistence fishermen. obsolete.
ISSUE: Whether or not the contentions of Magallona et al
are tenable. The Court affirms that the Petition as well as the subsequent
HELD: No. The Supreme Court emphasized that RA 9522, or Motion for Reconsideration be DENIED.
UNCLOS, itself is not a means to acquire, or lose, territory.
The treaty and the baseline law has nothing to do with the Romualdez Yap v Civil Service Commission
acquisition, enlargement, or diminution of the Philippine
territory. What controls when it comes to acquisition or loss FACTS: Petitoner Conchita Romualdez-Yap started working
of territory is the international law principle on occupation, with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) on September 20,
accretion, cession and prescription and NOT the execution 1972 and after several promotions, was appointed in 1983 as
of multilateral treaties on the regulations of sea-use rights or a Senior Vice President assigned to the Fund Transfer
enacting statutes to comply with the treaty’s terms to delimit Department. The case at bar is a special civil action for
maritime zones and continental shelves. certiorari assailing Res. No. 92-201 of the respondent which
The law did not decrease the demarcation of our territory. In upheld the petitioner’s separation from PNB in light of EO 80
fact it increased it. Under the old law amended by RA 9522 or the Revised Charter of PNB. Petitioner contends that there
(RA 3046), we adhered with the rectangular lines enclosing is an existence of bad faith in its reorganization and that there
the Philippines. The area that it covered was 440,994 square is an erroneous application of the one year prescriptive
nautical miles (sq. na. mi.). But under 9522, and with the period for quo warranto proceedings in her case
inclusion of the exclusive economic zone, the extent of our ISSUE: Is the reorganization of PNB, a government-owned or
maritime was increased to 586,210 sq. na. mi.  (See image controlled corporation performing ministrant functions,
below for comparison) valid?
If any, the baselines law is a notice to the international HELD:  Ministrant functions are those undertaken by way of
community of the scope of the maritime space and advancing the general interests of society and are merely
submarine areas within which States parties exercise treaty- optional. Commercial or universal banking is, ideally, not a
based rights. governmental but a private sector endeavour, an optional
function of the government. There are functions of the
PVTA v Court of Industrial Relations government which it may exercise to promote merely the
welfare, progress, and prosperity of the people. Thus,
FACTS: Private respondents filed a petition seeking relief for reorganization of such corporations like PNB are valid so long
their alleged overtime services (in excess of their 8 regular as they are done in good faith as prescribed in the Dario v.
Mison doctrine. Accordingly, the reorganization of PNB is relative of the minor child and it is assumed that the mother
found to be done in good faith by the Court. shows more care towards the child than an uncle. It is
buttressed by its adherence to the concept that the judiciary,
Gov't of the PH Islands v Monte de Piedad as an agency of the State acting as parens patriae, is called
upon whenever a pending suit of litigation affects one who is
FACTS: About $400,000 were paid into the treasury of the a minor to accord priority to his best interest. It may happen,
Philippine Islands by the inhabitants of the Spanish family relations may press their respective claims. It would be
Dominions for the relief of those damaged by the earthquake more in consonance not only with the natural order of things
on June 3, 1863 in the Philippines. Upon the petition of the but the tradition of the country for a parent to be preferred.
governing body of respondent, the Philippine government it could have been different if the conflict were between
directed its treasurer to turn over to the respondent the sum father and mother. Such is not the case at all. It is a mother
of $80,000 of the relief fund in instalments of $20,000 each. asserting priority. Certainly the judiciary as the
Petitioner now bring suit to recover said amount with interest instrumentality of the State in its role of parens patriae,
against respondents in behalf of the various petitions of the cannot remain insensible to the validity of her plea.
persons and heirs to whom the relief was intended.
Defendant contends that the amount was given as a donation Co Kim Chan v Valdez Tan Keh
and that the court erred in stating that the Philippine Islands
has subrogated the Spanish government in its rights. Facts: When the Imperial Japanese Forces, as the de facto
Issue: Does the government of the Philippines have authority government, occupied Manila, they proclaimed that all laws
to file a suit against the respondent? now in force in the Commonwealth, as well as the executive
HELD: The legislature or government of the State, as parens and judicial institutions, shall continue to be effective.
patriae, has the right to enforce all charities of public nature.  Sometime in 1943, The Republic of the Philippines was
The court further asserted that said amount was not a inaugurated. Gen. MacArthur issued a proclamation saying
donation and that respondent is liable for the debt regardless that all laws and regulations and processes of any other
of the cession of the Philippine Islands to the United States. It government on the Philippines than that of the said
is said that there is total abrogation of the former political Commonwealth are null and void and without legal effect.
relations of the inhabitants of the ceded region, however, the  This proclamation became the basis of a judge to not
circumstances present in the case are not political in nature. continue the judicial proceeding.
The great body of municipal law which regulates private and
domestic rights continue in force until abrogated or changed Issue: W/N MacArthur’s proclamation invalidating all laws,
by the new ruler, as such, the government has the authority regulations and processes of the occupation government also
to file a suit in behalf of its people by virtue of the principle of applies to judicial decisions
parens patriae.
Held: NO. It is a well-known principle of international law
Cabanas v Pilapil that all judgments and judicial proceedings which are not of a
political complexion of a de facto government remain good
FACTS: Florentino Pilapil insured himself and indicated his and valid even after the occupied territory had come again
child to be his sole beneficiary. He likewise indicated that if into the power of the titular sovereign.
he dies while the child is still a minor, the proceeds shall be  It should be presumed that it would not have been the
administered by his brother Francisco. Florentino died when intention of Gen. MacArthur, in using the phrase
the child was only ten years old hence, Francisco took charge
processes of any other government in his proclamation, to
of Florentino’s benefits for the child. Meanwhile, the mother
refer to judicial processes, in violation of said principle of
of the child Melchora Cabañas filed a complaint seeking the
international law. (CHECK OWN DIGEST!!!!!)
delivery of the sum of money in her favor and allow herself to
be the child’s trustee. Francisco asserted the terms of the
insurance policy and contended that as a private contract its SEE NOTES FOR:
Ruffy v Chief of Staff
terms and obligations must be binding only to the parties and
intended beneficiaries. Laurel v Misa
Issue: Whether or not the state may interfere by virtue of People v Perfecto
“parens patriae” to the terms of the insurance policy? Macariola v Asuncion
HELD: The Constitution provides for the strengthening of the Peralta v Director of Prisons
family as the basic social unit, and that whenever any Alcantara v Director of Prisons
member thereof such as in the case at bar would be
Vilas v City of Manila
prejudiced and his interest be affected then the judiciary if a
litigation has been filed should resolve according to the best
interest of that person. The uncle here should not be the
trustee, it should be the mother as she was the immediate
The Holy See v Rosario Minucher v CA

FACTS: The complaint alleged that: Msgr. Cirilos, Jr., on FACTS: Sometime in May 1986, an information for
behalf of petitioner, agreed to sell to Ramon Licup 3 lots at violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against
P1,240.00 per square meters petitioner Khosrow Minucher with the RTC. The criminal
The agreement to sell was made on the condition that charge followed a "buy-bust operation" concluded by the
earnest money of P100,000.00 be paid by Licup to the sellers, Philippine police narcotic agent in the house if Minucher
and that the sellers clear the said lots of squatters who were where a quantity of heroin, a prohibited drug, was said to
then occupying the same; have been seized. The narcotic agents were accompanied by
Licup paid the earnest money to Msgr. Cirilos; in the same private respondent Arthur Scalzo who would, in due time,
month, Licup assigned his rights over the property to private become one of the principal witnesses for the prosecution.
respondent and informed the sellers of the said assignment; On January 1988, Presiding Judge Migrino rendered a
However the squatters refused to vacate the lots, proposing decision acquitting the accused. Minucher filed Civil Case
instead either that private respondent undertake the eviction or before the RTC for damages on account of what he claimed to
that the earnest money be returned to the latter; have been trumped-up charges of drug trafficking made by
private respondent counter proposed that if it would undertake Arthur Scalzo
the eviction of the squatters, the purchase price of the lots ISSUE:
should be reduced from P1,240.00 to P1,150.00 per square
meter; 1. Whether or not Arthur Scalzo is entitled to diplomatic
Msgr. Cirilos returned the earnest money of P100,000.00 immunity
and wrote private respondent giving it seven days from receipt
of the letter to pay the original purchase price in cash; 2. Whether the Doctrine of State Immunity from suit is
applicable herein
Private respondent sent the earnest money back to the
sellers, but later discovered that petitioner already, sold the HELD: 1. Scalzo contends that the Vienna Convention on
lots to Tropicana; and that the transfer certificate of title over
Diplomatic Relations, to which the Philippines is a signatory,
the lots were transferred and registered in the name of
Tropicana. grants him absolute immunity from suit being an agent of the
US Drugs Enforcement Agency. However, the main yardstick
Issue: W/N the Holy See is immune from suit insofar as its in ascertaining whether a person is a diplomat entitled to
business relations regarding selling a lot to a private entity immunity is the determination of whether or not he performs
duties of diplomatic nature. The Vienna Convention lists the
HELD: Yes. The Holy See is immune from suit. The Republic classes of heads of diplomatic missions to include (a)
of the Philippines has accorded the Holy See the status of a ambassadors or nuncios accredited to the heads of state, (b)
foreign sovereign. The Holy See, through its Ambassador, the envoys, ministers or inter nuncios accredited to the head of
Papal Nuncio, has had diplomatic representations with the states, and (c) charges d' affairs accredited to the ministers of
Philippine government since 1957 (Rollo, p. 87). This appears foreign affairs. The Convention defines "diplomatic agents" as
to be the universal practice in international relations
the heads of missions or members of the diplomatic staff,
As expressed in Section 2 of Article II of the 1987
Constitution, we have adopted the generally accepted thus impliedly withholding the same privileges from all
principles of International Law. Even without this affirmation, others. Scalzo asserted that he was an Assistant Attache of
such principles of International Law are deemed incorporated the US diplomatic mission. Attaches assist a chief of mission
as part of the law of the land as a condition and consequence in his duties and are administratively under him. These
of our admission in the society of nation officials are not generally regarded as members of the
The Holy See is immune from suit for the act of selling the diplomatic mission, nor they normally designated as having
lot of concern is non-proprietary in nature. The lot was diplomatic rank.
acquired by petitioner as a donation from the Archdiocese of
Manila. The donation was made not for commercial purpose,
but for the use of petitioner to construct thereon the official 2. While the diplomatic immunity of Scalzo might thus remain
place of residence of the Papal Nuncio. contentions, it was sufficiently established that, indeed, he
The decision to transfer the property and the subsequent worked for the USDEA. If it should be ascertained that Scalzo
disposal thereof are likewise clothed with a governmental was acting well within his assigned functions when he
character. Petitioner did not sell the lot for profit or gain. It committed the acts allegedly complained of, the present
merely wanted to dispose of the same because the squatters controversy could then be resolved under the related
living thereon made it almost impossible for petitioner to use doctrine of State Immunity from Suit. While the doctrine
it for the purpose of the donation. appears to prohibit only suits against against the State
Holy See – certified by DFA as a diplomatic mission to the without its consent, it is also applicable to complaints filed
RP exempt from local jurisdiction and entitled to all rights and against officials of the State for acts allegedly performed by
privileges and immunities them in the discharge of their duties. The official exchanges
of communication, certifications from officials, as well as
participation of members of the Philippine Narcotics sovereign function and another which is done in its
Command may be inadequate to support to support the proprietary capacity. A State may be said to have descended
diplomatic status of Scalzo but they give enough indication to the level of an individual and can this be deemed to have
that the Philippine government has given its imprimatur to actually given its consent to be sued only when it enters into
the activities of Scalzo. It can hardly be said that he acted business contracts. It does not apply where the contract
beyond the scope of his official function or duties. All told, relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions.
Scalzo is entitled to the defense os state immunity from suit.
In the case, the DA has not pretended to have assumed a
Dept. of Agriculture v NLRC capacity apart from its being a governmental entity when it
entered into the questioned contract; nor that it could have,
Facts: Petitioner Department of Agriculture (DA) and Sultan in fact, performed any act proprietary in character.
Security Agency entered into a contract for security services
to be provided by the latter to the said governmental entity. But, be that as it may, the claims of the complainant security
Pursuant to their arrangements, guards were deployed by guards clearly constitute money claims. Act No. 3083 gives
Sultan Security Agency in the various premises of the DA. the consent of the State to be sued upon any moneyed claim
Thereafter, several guards filed a complaint for involving liability arising from contract, express or implied.
underpayment of wages, nonpayment of 13th month pay, Pursuant, however, to Commonwealth Act 327, as amended
uniform allowances, night shift differential pay, holiday pay, by PD 1145, the money claim must first be brought to the
and overtime pay, as well as for damages against the DA and Commission on Audit.
the security agency.
Republic v Feliciano
The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding the DA jointly
and severally liable with the security agency for the payment Facts: The appeal was filed by 86 settlers of Barrio of
of money claims of the complainant security guards. The DA Salvacion, representing the Republic of the Philippines to
and the security agency did not appeal the decision. Thus, the dismiss the complaint filed by Feliciano, on the ground that
decision became final and executory. The Labor Arbiter issued the Republic of the Philippines cannot be sued without its
a writ of execution to enforce and execute the judgment consent.
against the property of the DA and the security agency.
Thereafter, the City Sheriff levied on execution the motor Prior to this appeal, respondent Pablo Feliciano filed a
vehicles of the DA. complaint with the Court of First Instance against the
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Land
Issue: Whether or not the doctrine of non-suability of the Authority, for the recovery of ownership and possession of a
State applies in the case parcel of land consisting of four lots. The trial court rendered
a decision declaring Lot No. 1 to be the private property of
Held: The basic postulate enshrined in the Constitution that Feliciano and the rest of the property, Lots 2, 3 and 4,
“the State may not be sued without its consent” reflects reverted to the public domain.
nothing less than a recognition of the sovereign character of
the State and an express affirmation of the unwritten rule The trial court reopened the case due to the filing of a motion
effectively insulating it from the jurisdiction of courts. It is to intervene and to set aside the decision of the trial court by
based on the very essence of sovereignty. A sovereign is 86 settlers, alleging that they had been in possession of the
exempt from suit based on the logical and practical ground land for more than 20 years under claim of ownership. The
that there can be no legal right as against the authority that trial court ordered the settlers to present their evidence but
makes the law on which the right depends. they did not appear at the day of presentation of evidence.
Feliciano, on the other hand, presented additional evidence.
The rule is not really absolute for it does not say that the Thereafter, the case was submitted for decision and the trial
State may not be sued under any circumstances. The State court ruled in favor of Feliciano.
may at times be sued. The State’s consent may be given
expressly or impliedly. Express consent may be made through The settlers immediately filed a motion for reconsideration.
a general law or a special law. Implied consent, on the other The case was reopened to allow them to present their
hand, is conceded when the State itself commences litigation, evidence. But before this motion was acted upon, Feliciano
thus opening itself to a counterclaim, or when it enters into a filed a motion for execution with the Appellate Court but it
contract. In this situation, the government is deemed to have was denied.
descended to the level of the other contracting party and to The settlers filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the
have divested itself of its sovereign immunity. Republic of the Philippines cannot be sued without its
consent and hence the action cannot prosper. The motion
But not all contracts entered into by the government operate was opposed by Feliciano.
as a waiver of its non-suability; distinction must still be made
between one which is executed in the exercise of its
Issue/s: Whether or not the state can be sued for recovery HELD: No. In a damage case, the responsibility of the state
and possession of a parcel of land. is limited to that which it contracts through a special agent,
duly empowered by a definite order or commission to
Discussions: perform some act or charged with some definite purpose
which gives rise to the claim, and not where the claim is
A suit against the State, under settled jurisprudence is not based on acts or omissions imputable to a public official
permitted, except upon a showing that the State has charged with some administrative or technical office who can
consented to be sued, either expressly or by implication be held to the proper responsibility in the manner laid down
through the use of statutory language too plain to be by the law of civil responsibility.
misinterpreted. It may be invoked by the courts sua sponte at  Consequently, the trial court in not so deciding and in
any stage of the proceedings. sentencing the said entity to the payment of damages, caused
by an official of the second class referred to, has by erroneous
Waiver of immunity, being a derogation of sovereignty, will interpretation infringed the provisions of articles 1902 and
not be inferred lightly. but must be construed in strictissimi 1903 of the Civil Code.
juris (of strictest right). Moreover, the Proclamation is not a
legislative act. The consent of the State to be sued must SEE OWN DIGEST FOR:
emanate from statutory authority. Waiver of State immunity
can only be made by an act of the legislative body. Froilan v Pan Oriental Shipping
Republic v Sandiganbayan 204 SCRA 212
HELD: No. The doctrine of non-suability of the State has Mobil Philippines v Customs 18 SCRA 1120
proper application in this case. The plaintiff has impleaded Republic v Villasor 54 SCRA 84
the Republic of the Philippines as defendant in an action for
PNB v Pabalan 83 SCRA 595
recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land,
Syquia v Lopez 84 Philippines 312
bringing the State to court just like any private person who is
claimed to be usurping a piece of property. A suit for the
recovery of property is not an action in rem, but an action in
personam. It is an action directed against a specific party or USA v Ruiz
parties, and any judgment therein binds only such party or
FACTS: At times material to this case, the United States of
parties. The complaint filed by plaintiff, the private
America had a naval base in Subic, Zambales. The base was
respondent herein, is directed against the Republic of the
one of those provided in the Military Bases Agreement
Philippines, represented by the Land Authority, a
between the Philippines and the United States.
governmental agency created by Republic Act No. 3844.
 US invited the submission of bids for Repair offender
system and Repair typhoon damages. Eligio de Guzman & Co.,
The complaint is clearly a suit against the State, which under
Inc. responded to the invitation, submitted bids and complied
settled jurisprudence is not permitted, except upon a showing
with the requests based on the letters received from the US.
that the State has consented to be sued, either expressly or
 In June 1972, a letter was received by the Eligio De Guzman
by implication through the use of statutory language too plain
& Co indicating that the company did not qualify to receive an
to be misinterpreted. There is no such showing in the instant
award for the projects because of its previous unsatisfactory
case. Worse, the complaint itself fails to allege the existence
performance rating on a repair contract for the sea wall at
of such consent.
the boat landings of the U.S. Naval Station in Subic Bay.
 The company sued the United States of America and
Republic v Purisima Messrs. James E. Galloway, William I. Collins and Robert
(SEE CASE DIGEST) Gohier all members of the Engineering Command of the U.S.
Navy. The complaint is to order the defendants to allow the
Merritt v Government of Philippine Islands plaintiff to perform the work on the projects and, in the event
that specific performance was no longer possible, to order
the defendants to pay damages.
FACTS: Merrit, riding on a motorcycle at a speed of ten to  The company also asked for the issuance of a writ of
twelve miles an hour, collided with an ambulance of the preliminary injunction to restrain the defendants from
General Hospital which turned suddenly and unexpectedly entering into contracts with third parties for work on the
without having sounded any whistle or horn. projects.
 Merrit was severely injured. His condition had undergone  The defendants entered their special appearance for the
depreciation and his efficiency as a contractor was affected. purpose only of questioning the jurisdiction of this court over
 The inquiry at once arises whether the Government is the subject matter of the complaint and the persons of
legally-liable for the damages resulting therefrom even if the defendants, the subject matter of the complaint being acts
collision was due to the negligence committed by an agent or and omissions of the individual defendants as agents of
employee of the government which is the chauffeur. defendant United States of America, a foreign sovereign
ISSUE: W/N the Government may be held in this case.
which has not given her consent to this suit or any other suit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and
for the causes of action asserted in the complaint. ordered all the defendants-appellees to pay jointly and
 Subsequently the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the severally the heirs of Vicente Fontanilla the sums of
complaint which included an opposition to the issuance of P12,000.00 by way of moral and actual damages: P1200.00 its
the writ of preliminary injunction. The company opposed the attorney’s fees; and the costs.
motion ISSUE: W/N the Municipality of Malasiqui may be held
The trial court denied the motion and issued the writ. The liable
defendants moved twice to reconsider but to no avail. HELD: Yes. Under Philippine laws, municipalities are
Hence the instant petition which seeks to restrain perpetually political bodies endowed with the faculties of municipal
the proceedings in Civil Case No. 779-M for lack of jurisdiction corporations to be exercised by and through their respective
on the part of the trial court municipal governments in conformity with law, and in their
Issue: W/N the US naval base in bidding for said contracts proper corporate name, they may inter alia sue and be sued,
exercise governmental functions to be able to invoke state and contract and be contracted with.
immunity  The powers of a municipality are two-fold in character:
Held: The petition is granted; the questioned orders of the public, governmental or political on the one hand; and
respondent-judge are set aside and are dismissed. Costs corporate, private, or proprietary on the other. Governmental
against the private respondent. powers are those exercised by the corporation in
administering the powers of the state and promoting the
public welfare.
SEE OWN DIGEST FOR:  These include the legislative, judicial public, and political.
Municipal powers, on the other hand, are exercised for the
Sanders v Veridiano II 162 SCRA 80 special benefit and advantage of the community. These
USA v Rodrigo GR NO.79470 February 26,1990 include those which are ministerial, private and corporate.
USA v Guinto G.R. No. 76607 February 6,1990 This distinction of powers is necessary in determining the
liability of the municipality for the acts of its agents which
result in injury to third persons.
 If the injury is caused in the course of the performance of a
Torio v Fontanilla governmental function/duty, no
recovery can be had from the municipality unless there is an
existing statute on the matter, nor from its officers, so long as
FACTS: The Municipal Council of Malasiqui, Pangasinan,
they performed their duties honestly and in good faith or that
passed Resolution No. 159 “to manage the 1959 Malasiqui
they did not act wantonly and maliciously. With respect to
town fiesta celebration…” The “1959 Malasiqui ‘Town Fiesta
proprietary functions, the settled rule is that a municipal
Executive Committee” was created, which, in turn, organized
corporation can be held liable to third persons ex contract or
a sub-committee on entertainment and stage. A “zarzuela”
ex delicto. They may also be subject to suit upon contracts
troupe, of which Vicente Fontanilla was a member, arrived
and its tort.
for their performance on January 22.
 During the “zarzuela”, the stage collapsed and Fontanilla
was pinned underneath. He was immediately hospitalized,
SEE OWN DIGEST FOR:
but died the following day. Fontanilla’s heirs filed a complaint
to recover damages against the Municipality of Malasiqui, its
Municipal Council and all the Council’s individual members. Palafox v Ilocos Norte
 The municipality invoked inter alia the defense that as a
legally and duly organized public corporation it performs
sovereign functions and the holding of a town fiesta was an
exercise of its governmental functions from which no liability
can arise to answer for the negligence of any of its agents.
 The councilors maintained that they merely acted as the
municipality’s agents in carrying out the municipal ordinance
and as such they are likewise not liable for damages as the
undertaking was not one for profit; furthermore, they had
exercised due care and diligence in implementing the
municipal ordinance.
 After trial, the RTC dismisses the complaint, concluding that
the Executive Committee had exercised due diligence and
care in selecting a competent man for the construction of the
stage, and the collapse was due to forces beyond the control
of the committee. Consequently, the defendants were not
liable for the death of Vicente Fontanilla. Upon appeal, the