Search
Home
Saved
0
27 views
Sign In
Upload
RELATED TITLES
0
Case Digests Uploaded by Deanne Mitzi Somollo
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Join
1.01 Signatours Corporation v
1
of 9
G.R. No. 102667
Conflicts of Laws Cases 1-29
Search document
Shauf v. CA (consti1)
Sheet Music
Shauf v. CA
Loida Q. Shauf & Jacob Shauf, petitioners v. Hon. CA, Don E. Detwiler & Anthony Persi, responde Second Division Doctrine: official v. personal capacity Keywords: void for overbreadth overbreadth Date: November 27, 1990 Ponente: Justice Regalado Facts:
Loida Shauf, a Filipino by origin and married to an American who is a member of the US Air Force, w rejected for a position of Guidance Counselor in the Base Education Office at Clark Air Base, for whi she is eminently qualified. By reason of her non-selection, non-selection, she filed a complaint for damages and an equal employment opportunity complaint against private respondents, Don Detwiler (civillian personnel officer) and Anthony Persi (Education Director), Director), for alleged discrimination by reason of her nationality and sex.
Shauf was offered a temporary temporary position as a temporary Assistant Education Adviser Adviser for a 180-day p with the condition that if a vacancy occurs, she will be automatically automatically selected to fill the vacancy. Bu no vacancy occurs after 180 days, she will be released but will be selected to fill a future vacancy if s
available. Shauf accepted the offer. During that time, Mrs. Mary Abalateo’s was about to vacate her position. But Mrs. Abalateo’s appointment was extende d thus, Shauf was never appointed to said position. She claims that the Abalateo’s stay was extended indefinitely indefinitely to deny her the appointmen
retaliation for the complaint that she filed against Persi. Persi denies this allegation. He claims it was joint decision of the management management & it was in accordance accordance of with the applicable regulation. regulation. Shauf filedsemester for damages andwith other relief in different venues such as the Civil Service Commission, Master your Scribd Free Foron 30this Days Sign up to vote title Appeals Review Board, Philippine Regional Trial Court, etc. Read & The New York Times Useful Not useful Cancel anytime.
ruled Only in favor of Shauf ordering defendants to pay $39,662.49 as actual damages + 20% of such Special offer forRTC students: $4.99/month. amount as attorney’s fees + P100k as moral & exemplary damages.
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
Search
Home
Saved
0
27 views
Sign In
Upload
RELATED TITLES
0
Case Digests Uploaded by Deanne Mitzi Somollo
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks Magazines
News
Documents
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Sheet Music
Join
1.01 Signatours Corporation v
1
of 9
G.R. No. 102667
Conflicts of Laws Cases 1-29
Search document
Respondents still maintain their immunity from suit. They further claim that the rule allowing suits against public officers & employees for criminal & unauthorized acts is applicable only in the Philipp & is not part of international law. Hence this petition for review on certiorari.
Issue: WON private respondents are immune from suit being officers of the US Armed Forces
Held: No they are not immune.
WHEREFORE, the challenged decision and resolution of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV N 17932 are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Private respondents are hereby ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay petitioners the sum of P100,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 as and for attorney's fees, and the costs of suit.
Ratio:
You're Reading a Preview
They state that the doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply and may not be invoked where the Unlock full access with a free trial. public official is being sued in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. The cloak of protection afforded the officers and agents of the government is removed the moment they are sue With Freethe Trial their individual capacity. This situationDownload usually arises where public official acts without authorit in excess of the powers vested in him.
It is a well-settled principle of law that a public official may be liable in his personal private capaci whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice and in bad faith, or beyond the s of his authority or jurisdiction
Master your semester with Scribd Read Free Foron 30this Days Sign up to vote title leg Director of the Bureau of Telecommunications vs. Aligaen Inasmuch as the State authorizes only & The New York Times Useful Not useful acts by its officers, unauthorized acts of government officials or officers are not acts of the State, an Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Cancel anytime.
action against the officials or officers by one whose rights have been invaded or violated by such ac for the protection of his rights, is not a suit against the State within the rule of immunity of the Stat
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
Search
Home
Saved
0
27 views
Sign In
Upload
RELATED TITLES
0
Case Digests Uploaded by Deanne Mitzi Somollo
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks Magazines
News
Documents
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Sheet Music
Join
1.01 Signatours Corporation v
1
of 9
G.R. No. 102667
Conflicts of Laws Cases 1-29
Search document
There is ample evidence to sustain plaintiffs' complaint that plaintiff Loida Q. Shauf was refused appointment as Guidance Counselor by the defendants on account of her sex, color and origin.
She received a Master of Arts Degree from the University of Santo Tomas, Manila, in 1971 and has completed 34 semester hours in psychology?guidance and 25 quarter hours in human behavioral science. She has also completed all course work in human behavior and counselling psychology for doctoral degree. She is a civil service eligible. More important, she had functioned as a Guidance Counselor at the Clark Air Base at the GS-1710-9 level for approximately four years at the time she applied for the same position in 1976. In filling the vacant position of Guidance Counselor, defendant Persi did not even consider the application of plaintiff Loida Q. Shauf, but referred the vacancy to CORRO which appointed Edward Isakson who was not eligible to the position.
Article XIII, Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution provides that the State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality o employment opportunities for all. This is a carry-over from Article II, Section 9, of the 1973 Constitu ensuring equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race, or creed..
There is no doubt that private respondents Persi and Detwiler, in committing the acts complained o have, in effect, violated the basic constitutional right of petitioner Loida Q. Shauf to earn a living wh You're Reading a they Preview very much an integral aspect of the right to life. For this, should be held accountable Unlock full access with a free trial.
Respondents alleged that petitioner Loida Q. ShaufWith failedFree to avail Download Trialherself of her remedy under the United States federal legislation on equality of opportunity for civilian employees, which is allegedly exclusive of any other remedy under American law, let alone remedies before a foreign court and u a foreign law such as the Civil Code of the Philippines.
SC: Petitioner Loida Q. Shauf is not limited to these remedies, but is entitled as a matter of plain and Master your semester with Scribd simple justice to choose that remedy, not otherwise proscribed, which best advance Read Free For 30this Days Sign up towill vote on title and protec shou interests. There is, thus, nothing to enjoin her from seeking redress in Philippine courts which & The New York Times Useful Not useful not be ousted of jurisdiction on the dubious and inconclusive representations of private responden Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
that score.
Cancel anytime.
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
Search
Home
Saved
0
27 views
Sign In
Upload
RELATED TITLES
0
Case Digests Uploaded by Deanne Mitzi Somollo
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Join
1.01 Signatours Corporation v
1
of 9
G.R. No. 102667
Conflicts of Laws Cases 1-29
Search document
Amigable v. Cuenca (Consti1)
Sheet Music
Amigable v. Cuenca
VICTORIA AMIGABLE, plaintiff-appellant, vs.NICOLAS CUENCA, as Commissioner of Public Highways REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, defendants-appellees. En Banc Doctrine: equity Date: February 29, 1972 Ponente: Justice Makalintal Facts:
This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu in its Civil Case No. R-5977 dismissing the plaintiff's complaint.
Victoria Amigable, the appellant herein, is the registered owner of Lot No. 639 of the Banilad Estate Cebu City At the back of her Transfer Certificate of Title (1924), there was no annotation in favor of the government of any right or interest in the property.
You're Reading a Preview
Without prior expropriation or negotiated sale, the government used a portion of said lot, with an a Unlock full access with a free trial. of 6,167 square meters, for the construction of the Mango and Gorordo Avenues.
On March 27, 1958 Amigable's counselDownload wrote the President the Philippines, requesting payment o With FreeofTrial the portion of her lot which had been appropriated by the government. The claim was indorsed to t Auditor General, who disallowed it in his 9th Indorsement dated December 9, 1958. A copy of said indorsement was transmitted to Amigable's counsel by the Office of the President on January 7, 195
On February 6, 1959 Amigable filed in the court a quo a complaint, which was later amended on Ap Master your semester with Scribd Cuenca 17, 1959 upon motion of the defendants, against the RepublicRead of the Philippines and Nicolas Free Foron 30this Days Sign up to vote title of his capacity as Commissioner of Public Highways for the recovery of ownership and possession & The New York Times Useful Not useful 6,167 square meters of land traversed by the Mango and Gorordo Avenues. She also sought the Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Cancel anytime.
payment of compensatory damages in the sum of P50,000.00 for the illegal occupation of her land, moral damages in the sum of P25,000.00, attorney's fees in the sum of P5,000.00 and the costs of th
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
Search
Home
Saved
0
27 views
Sign In
Upload
RELATED TITLES
0
Case Digests Uploaded by Deanne Mitzi Somollo
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Join
1.01 Signatours Corporation v
1
of 9
G.R. No. 102667
Conflicts of Laws Cases 1-29
Search document
Issue/s: WON the Amigable may properly sue the government under the facts of the case
Held: the government is NOT immune to the suit.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby set aside and the case remanded to the court a for the determination of compensation, including attorney's fees, to which the appellant is entitled above indicated. No pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio:
Ministerio vs. Court of First Instance of Cebu: where the government takes away property from a private landowner for public use without going through the legal process of expropriation or negoti sale, the aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit against the government without thereby viol the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit without its consent
Considering that no annotation in favor of the government appears at the back of her certificate of You're Reading of a Preview and that she has not executed any deed of conveyance any portion of her lot to the government appellant remains the owner of the whole lot. Unlock full access with a free trial.
As registered owner, she could bring an action to recover possession of the portion of land in quest Download Withof Free Trial at any time because possession is one of the attributes ownership.
However, since restoration of possession of said portion by the government is neither convenient n feasible at this time because it is now and has been used for road purposes, the only relief available for the government to make due compensation which it could and should have done years ago. To determine the due compensation for the land, the basis should be the price or value thereof at the of the taking Read Free Foron 30this Days Sign up to vote title
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Useful Not useful the plaintiff is entitled thereto in the form of legal interest on the price of the land from the time it w Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
taken up to the time that payment is made by the government.
Cancel anytime.
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
Search
Home
Saved
0
27 views
Sign In
Upload
RELATED TITLES
0
Case Digests Uploaded by Deanne Mitzi Somollo
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Join
1.01 Signatours Corporation v
1
of 9
G.R. No. 102667
Conflicts of Laws Cases 1-29
Search document
US v. Ruiz (Consti1)
Sheet Music
US v. Ruiz UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CAPT. JAMES E. GALLOWAY, WILLIAM I. COLLINS and ROBERT GOHIE petitioners, vs. HON. V. M. RUIZ, Presiding Judge of Branch XV, Court of First Instance of Rizal and EL DE GUZMAN & CO., INC., respondents. En Banc Doctrine: implied consent Date: May 22, 1985 Ponente: Justice Abad-Santos Facts:
At times material to this case, the United States of America had a naval base in Subic, Zambales. The base was one of those provided in the Military Bases Agreement between the Philippines and the U States.
US invited the submission of bids for Repair offender system and Repair typhoon damages. Eligio de Guzman & Co., Inc. responded to the invitation, submitted bids and complied with the requests base on the letters received from the US.
You're Reading a Preview
In June 1972, a letter was received by the Eligio De Guzman & Co indicating that the company did n qualify to receive an award for the projects its aprevious Unlockbecause full accessof with free trial. unsatisfactory performance rati a repair contract for the sea wall at the boat landings of the U.S. Naval Station in Subic Bay.
With Free James Trial E. Galloway, William I. Collins a The company sued the United States ofDownload America and Messrs. Robert Gohier all members of the Engineering Command of the U.S. Navy. The complaint is to order defendants to allow the 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. The company also as for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the defendants from entering into contracts with third parties for work on the projects.
Master your semester with Scribd Read Free Foron 30this Days Sign up to vote title & The New York entered Times Not usefulthe jurisdictio The defendants their special appearance for the purpose only of questioning Useful Cancel anytime.
court over the subject matter of the complaint and the persons of defendants, the subject matt Special offer forthis students: Only $4.99/month.
the complaint being acts and omissions of the individual defendants as agents of defendant United
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
Search
Home
Saved
0
27 views
Sign In
Upload
RELATED TITLES
0
Case Digests Uploaded by Deanne Mitzi Somollo
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Join
1.01 Signatours Corporation v
1
of 9
G.R. No. 102667
Conflicts of Laws Cases 1-29
Search document
WON the US naval base in bidding for said contracts exercise governmental functions to be able to invoke state immunity
Held:
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted; the questioned orders of the respondent judge are set aside a Civil Case No. is dismissed. Costs against the private respondent.
Ratio:
The traditional rule of State immunity exempts a State from being sued in the courts of another Stat without its consent or waiver. This rule is a necessary consequence of the principles of independen and equality of States. However, the rules of International Law are not petrified; they are constantly developing and evolving. And because the activities of states have multiplied, it has been necessary distinguish them-between sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) and private, commercial proprietary acts (jure gestionis). The result is that State immunity now extends only to acts jure imp (sovereign & governmental acts)
You're Reading a Preview
The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreignUnlock sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs. State full access with a free trial. differently, a State may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be dee to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts. It does not a Download With Free Trial where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions. In this case the projects are an integral part of the naval base which is devoted to the defense of both the United States and the Philippines, indisputably a function of the government of the highest order; they are not utilized for dedicated to commercial or business purposes.
Master your semester with Scribd correct test for the application of State immunity is not the conclusion of a contract by a State but t Read Free Foron 30this Days Sign up to vote title legal nature of the act & The New York Times Useful Not useful Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Cancel anytime.
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
Search
Home
Saved
0
27 views
Upload
Sign In
RELATED TITLES
0
Case Digests Uploaded by Deanne Mitzi Somollo
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Join
1.01 Signatours Corporation v
1
of 9
G.R. No. 102667
Conflicts of Laws Cases 1-29
Search document
Santiago vs. Republic (Consti1)
Sheet Music
Ildefonso Santiago, represented by his Attorney-in-Fact, Alfredo T. Santiago, petitioner, vs. The Government of the Republic of the Philippines, represented by Director, Bureau of Plant Industry, the Regional Director, Region IX, Zamboanga City, repondent.
December 19, 1978 Fernando, J:
Facts:
Petitioner Ildefonso Santiago donated a parcel of land to the Bureau of Plant Industry on the terms the Bureau should construct a building and install lighting facilities on the said lot.
When time passed and there were still no improvements on the lot, Santiago filed a case pleading fo the revocation of such contract of donation but the trial court dismissed the petition claiming that it suit against the government and should not prosper without the consent of the government. Issue:
You're Reading a Preview
Whether or not the respondent government has waived its immunity from suit. Unlock full access with a free trial.
Held: Yes.
Download With Free Trial
Ratio:
The government's waiver of immunity was implied by virtue of the terms provided in the deed of donation. The government is a beneficiary of the terms of the donation but it did not comply with s Read Free Forto 30not Days Sign up toAlso, vote on this title the donor terms. Thus, the donor Santiago has the right to be heard in the court. allow Not usefulThe Court of heard would be unethical and contrary to equity which the government so advances. Useful Cancel anytime. hereby directed to proceed with the case. Special offer forInstance students:isOnly $4.99/month.
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
Search
Home
Saved
0
27 views
Sign In
Upload
RELATED TITLES
0
Case Digests Uploaded by Deanne Mitzi Somollo
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Join
1.01 Signatours Corporation v
1
of 9
G.R. No. 102667
Conflicts of Laws Cases 1-29
Search document
Commissioner of Public Highways vs. Burgos (Consti1) Commissioner of Public Highways, petitioner, vs. Hon. Francisco P. Burgos, in his capacity as Judge o Court of First Instance of Cebu City, Branch II, and Victor Amigable, respondents. March 31, 1980 De Castro, J: Facts:
On 1924, the government took private respondent Victor Amigable's land for road-right-of-way pur
On 1959, Amigable filed in the Court of First Instance a complaint to recover the ownership and possession of the land and for damages for the alleged illegal occupation of the land by the governm (entitled Victor Amigable vs. Nicolas Cuenco, in his capacity as Commissioner of Public Highways an Republic of the Philippines).
Amigable's complaint was dismissed on the grounds that the land was either donated or sold by owners to enhance its value, and that in any case, the right of the owner to recover the value of sai property was already barred by estoppel and the statute of limitations. Also, the non-suability of th government was invoked.
Reading Preview In the hearing, the government provedYou're that the price of athe property at the time of taking was P2.37 square meter. Amigable, on the other hand, presented a newspaper showing that the price was P6. Unlock full access with a free trial.
The public respondent Judge ruled in favor of Amigable and directed the Republic of the Philippines pay Amigable the value of the propertyDownload taken with With interest at Trial 6% and the attorney's fees. Free Issue: Whether or not the provision of Article 1250 of the New Civil Code is applicable in determining the amount of compensation to be paid to private respondent Amigable for the property taken.
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Held:
Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Not applicable.
Read Free Foron 30this Days Sign up to vote title
Not useful Cancel anytime.
Useful
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
