G.R. No. 154705 – 452 Phil. 1100 – 405 SCRA 126 – Political Law – Public International Law – State Immunity From Suit – Foreign Sovereign is Immune From Suit
The Republic of Indonesia, through its Embassy in the Philippines, entered into a Maintenance Agreement with James Vinzon, proprietor of Vinzon Trade and Services, in August 1995. The contract stipulated that Vinzon would maintain equipment at the Indonesian Embassy and the official residence of the Ambassador. The agreement was set to automatically renew unless terminated with prior notice.
In August 2000, the Indonesian Embassy terminated the agreement, citing unsatisfactory services. Vinzon contested the termination, alleging it was arbitrary, and filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati.
Indonesia moved to dismiss the case, invoking sovereign immunity and asserting that its diplomatic officials were protected under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Vinzon argued that Indonesia waived its immunity by agreeing that disputes would be settled under Philippine laws in Philippine courts.
ISSUE: Whether the Republic of Indonesia waived its sovereign immunity from suit by entering into the Maintenance Agreement containing a clause submitting to Philippine laws and jurisdiction.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court held that the Republic of Indonesia did not waive its sovereign immunity from suit.
Under international law and the principle of sovereign equality of states, a state cannot be sued without its consent.
The clause in the Maintenance Agreement stating that disputes would be settled under Philippine laws and courts does not constitute a clear and unequivocal waiver of immunity. Such a waiver must be explicit.
The maintenance of embassy premises is a sovereign function (act jure imperii), not a commercial activity (jure gestionis). Therefore, Indonesia’s actions were in pursuit of sovereign functions.
Diplomatic agents, such as Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim, are protected under the Vienna Convention and cannot be sued for acts performed in their official capacities.
A foreign state does not waive its sovereign immunity from suit merely by entering into a contract with a clause submitting to local laws and jurisdiction; such waiver must be clear and unequivocal.
This case reaffirms the principle that sovereign immunity protects states from being sued without their consent, especially concerning acts performed in their governmental capacity.
Note: This is an AI-generated case digest.
