G.R. No. L-49930 August 7, 1985
FRANCISCO MALONG and ROSALINA AQUINO-MALONG petitioners,
vs.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS and COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN, Lingayen Branch 11, respondents.
FACTS:
On October 30, 1977, one Jaime Aquino, a paying passenger and son of
herein petitioners, was killed when he fell from a PNR train while it
was between Tarlac and Capas. The tragedy happened because Jaime had to
sit near the door of a coach since the train was overloaded with
passengers and baggage in view of the coming All Saint’s Day. The Malong
spouses prayed that the PNR be ordered to pay them damages totaling to P
136,370.
Upon the motion of the Solicitor General, the trial
court dismissed complaint stating that it had no jurisdiction over the
case because the PNR, being a government instrumentality, the action was
a suit against the State.
ISSUE:
Is the PNR being a government instrumentality immune from suit?
SC Ruling:
No, the State divested itself of its sovereign capacity when it
organized the PNR to engage in transportation business. Like its
predecessor, the Manila Railroad Company, the PNR did not become immune
from suit. It did not remove itself from the operation of articles 1732
to 1766 of the civil code as a common carrier.
The correct
rule is that "not all government entities, whether corporate or
non-corporate, are immune from suits. Immunity from suit is determined
by the character of the objects for which the entity was organized."
(Nat. Airports Corp. vs. Teodoro and Phil. Airlines, Inc., 91 Phil. 203,
206; Santos vs, Santos, 92 Phil. 281, 285; Harry Lyons, Inc. vs. USA,
104 Phil. 593.)
Suits against State agencies with respect to matters
in which they have assumed to act in a private or non-governmental
capacity are not suits against the State (81 C.J.S. 1319).
When the State acts in its proprietary capacity, it is amenable to all the rules of law which bind private individuals.
WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal is reversed and set aside. The case
is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Costs against
the Philippine National Railways.
On October 30, 1977, one Jaime Aquino, a paying passenger and son of herein petitioners, was killed when he fell from a PNR train while it was between Tarlac and Capas. The tragedy happened because Jaime had to sit near the door of a coach since the train was overloaded with passengers and baggage in view of the coming All Saint’s Day. The Malong spouses prayed that the PNR be ordered to pay them damages totaling to P 136,370.
Upon the motion of the Solicitor General, the trial court dismissed complaint stating that it had no jurisdiction over the case because the PNR, being a government instrumentality, the action was a suit against the State.
ISSUE:
Is the PNR being a government instrumentality immune from suit?
SC Ruling:
No, the State divested itself of its sovereign capacity when it organized the PNR to engage in transportation business. Like its predecessor, the Manila Railroad Company, the PNR did not become immune from suit. It did not remove itself from the operation of articles 1732 to 1766 of the civil code as a common carrier.
The correct rule is that "not all government entities, whether corporate or non-corporate, are immune from suits. Immunity from suit is determined by the character of the objects for which the entity was organized." (Nat. Airports Corp. vs. Teodoro and Phil. Airlines, Inc., 91 Phil. 203, 206; Santos vs, Santos, 92 Phil. 281, 285; Harry Lyons, Inc. vs. USA, 104 Phil. 593.)
Suits against State agencies with respect to matters in which they have assumed to act in a private or non-governmental capacity are not suits against the State (81 C.J.S. 1319).
When the State acts in its proprietary capacity, it is amenable to all the rules of law which bind private individuals.
WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal is reversed and set aside. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Costs against the Philippine National Railways.
No comments:
Post a Comment