Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 51 views

    Dela Pena - Eh306 - Sanders v. Veridiano

    Uploaded by

    NocQuisaot
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1988 regarding whether the petitioners acted officially or privately in changing the employment status of some private respondents from permanent full-time to part-time. The petitioners argued they had state immunity for official acts while performing their duties at the Naval Station, while the private respondents argued the acts were personal torts. The Supreme Court ruled the petitioners' acts were done in the performance of their official duties as the director of a department and his superior at the Naval Station, and that under state immunity, the state cannot be sued without its consent. It dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    Dela Pena - Eh306 - Sanders v. Veridiano

    Uploaded by

    NocQuisaot
    51 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1988 regarding whether the petitioners acted officially or privately in changing the employment status of some private respondents from permanent full-time to part-time. The petitioners argued they had state immunity for official acts while performing their duties at the Naval Station, while the private respondents argued the acts were personal torts. The Supreme Court ruled the petitioners' acts were done in the performance of their official duties as the director of a department and his superior at the Naval Station, and that under state immunity, the state cannot be sued without its consent. It dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

    Original Description:

    a

    Original Title

    Dela Pena_eh306_sanders v. Veridiano

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1988 regarding whether the petitioners acted officially or privately in changing the employment status of some private respondents from permanent full-time to part-time. The petitioners argued they had state immunity for official acts while performing their duties at the Naval Station, while the private respondents argued the acts were personal torts. The Supreme Court ruled the petitioners' acts were done in the performance of their official duties as the director of a department and his superior at the Naval Station, and that under state immunity, the state cannot be sued without its consent. It dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

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

    Dela Pena - Eh306 - Sanders v. Veridiano

    Uploaded by

    NocQuisaot
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1988 regarding whether the petitioners acted officially or privately in changing the employment status of some private respondents from permanent full-time to part-time. The petitioners argued they had state immunity for official acts while performing their duties at the Naval Station, while the private respondents argued the acts were personal torts. The Supreme Court ruled the petitioners' acts were done in the performance of their official duties as the director of a department and his superior at the Naval Station, and that under state immunity, the state cannot be sued without its consent. It dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Dela Peña, Yves Mariene L.

    JD 1 ROOM 306 September 17, 2018

    Sanders vs. Veridiano


    G.R. L-46930 June 10, 1988

    Facts:

    Private respondents employment were advised to convert from


    permanent full-time to permanent part-time. They protest this
    conversion and to institute grievance proceedings. The result of the
    hearing was to reinstate private respondents to permanent full-time
    status plus back wages.

    Petitioners Sanders sent a letter to petitioner Moreau disagreeing


    with the hearing officer’s report and ask for its rejection. Moreau sent a
    letter before the start of the grievance hearing to the Chief of Naval
    Personnel explaining the change of the private respondent’s
    employment status and requesting concurrence therewith.

    Private respondents filed in the Court of First Instance of Olongapo


    City a complaint for damages against the petitioners and made clear
    that the petitioners were being sued in their private or personal
    capacity. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss under a special
    appearance, arguing that the acts complained of were performed by
    them in the discharge of their official duties and that, consequently, the
    court had no jurisdiction over them under the doctrine of state
    immunity. The motion was denied on the ground that the petitioners
    had not presented any evidence that their acts were official in nature
    and not personal torts and that the defendants had acted maliciously
    and in bad faith.

    Petitioners filed for certiorari, prohibition and preliminary injunction


    in the Supreme Court, on the contention that the respondent court are
    tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

    Issue:

    Whether the petitioners were acting officially or only in their private


    capacities when they did acts for which the private respondents have
    sued them for damages.

    1
    Ruling:

    Yes, petitioners acts were done in the performance of their official


    duties. Sanders as a director of the special services department of
    NAVSTA and Moreau as the immediate superior of Sanders and directly
    answerable to Naval Personnel in matters involving the special services
    department of NAVSTA.

    Under the doctrine of state immunity, “the State may not be sued
    without its consent.“ It is not only applicable to the Philippine
    government but also to foreign states. The government of the United
    State has not given its consent to be sued for the official acts of the
    petitioners, who cannot satisfy any judgment that may be rendered
    against them. The complaint must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

    The court has GRANTED the petition.

    You might also like