Spouses Jose and Virginia Fontanilla vs Judge Inocencio Maliaman

written by Howard

G.R. No. L-55963 – 259 Phil. 302 – 194 SCRA 486 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – State Immunity from Suit – Consent to be Sued – Consent by Law; Art. 2180; Civil Code – Liability of the State for Tortious Acts of its Employees

In August 1976, Hugo Garcia was driving a vehicle owned and operated by the National Irrigation Administration (NIA). Aboard the vehicle was his supervisor Ely Salonga. Garcia bumped Francisco Fontanilla who was thrown 50 meters away. He died as a result of the collision.

The parents of Francisco sued the NIA. It was further proven that his supervisor, Salonga, did not even stop him from driving recklessly. Judge Inocencio Maliaman ruled in favor of the spouses but he only awarded Php12, for the death and Php3, for hospitalization and burial costs.

The spouses elevated the case to the Supreme Court arguing that the trial court should have awarded moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney’s fees.

The NIA invoked state immunity from suit.

ISSUE: Whether or not NIA may invoke immunity.

HELD: No. The suit against NIA is based on the following Civil Code provisions:

Art. 2176: Whoever by act omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.

Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Art. 2180 read as follows:

Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even the though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.

The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent.; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in Art. 2176 shall be applicable.

The liability of the State has two aspects:

  1. Its public or governmental aspects where it is liable for the tortious acts of special agents only.
  2. Its private or business aspects (as when it engages in private enterprises) where it becomes liable as an ordinary employer.

In the Philippines, the State assumes a limited liability for the damage caused by the tortious acts or conduct of its special agent.

In 2180, the State has voluntarily assumed liability for acts done through special agents. The State’s agent, if a public official, must not only be specially commissioned to do a particular task but that such task must be foreign to said official’s usual governmental functions. If the State’s agent is not a public official, and is commissioned to perform non-governmental functions, then the State assumes the role of an ordinary employer and will be held liable as such for its agent’s tort. Where the government commissions a private individual for a special governmental task, it is acting through a special agent within the meaning of the provision.

The NIA is an agency of the government exercising proprietary functions as provided by its charter. The NIA is a government corporation with juridical personality and not a mere agency of the government. Since it is a corporate body performing non-governmental functions, it now becomes liable for the damage caused by the accident resulting from the tortious act of its driver-employee.

The NIA was directed to pay an additional Php30, as moral damages; Php8, as exemplary damages and attorney’s fees of 20% of the total award.

Read full text.