Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor foun...
Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. vs. CA
GR No. 91359, September 25 1992, 214 SCRA 286
FACTS:
Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. (VMPSI) alleges that the provisions under Section 4 and 17 of Republic Act No. 5487 or the Private Security Agency Law violate the 1987 Constitution against monopolies, unfair competition and combinations in restraint of trade, and tend to favor and institutionalize the Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators, Inc. (PADPAO) which is monopolistic because it has an interest in more than one security agency.
Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Respondent VMPSI likewise questions the validity of paragraph 3, subparagraph (g) of the Modifying Regulations on the Issuance of License to Operate and Private Security Licenses and Specifying Regulations for the Operation of PADPAO issued by then PC Chief Lt. Gen. Fidel V. Ramos, through Col. Sabas V. Edades, requiring that “all private security agencies/company security forces must register as members of any PADPAO Chapter organized within the Region where their main offices are located...”.
As such membership requirement in PADPAO is compulsory in nature, it allegedly violates legal and constitutional provisions against monopolies, unfair competition and combinations in restraint of trade.
Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
A Memorandum of Agreement was executed by PADPAO and the PC Chief, which fixed the minimum monthly contract rate per guard for eight (8) hours of security service per day at P2,255.00 within Metro Manila and P2,215.00 outside of Metro Manila.
Odin Security Agency (Odin) filed a complaint with PADPAO accusing VMPSI of cut-throat competition by undercutting its contract rate for security services rendered to the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS), charging said customer lower than the standard minimum rates provided in the Memorandum of Agreement dated May 12, 1986.
Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
PADPAO found VMPSI guilty of cut-throat competition, hence, the PADPAO Committee on Discipline recommended the expulsion of VMPSI from PADPAO and the cancellation of its license to operate a security agency.
The PC-SUSIA affirmed the findings and likewise recommended the cancellation of VMPSI’s license.
As a result, PADPAO refused to issue a clearance/certificate of membership to VMPSI.
Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
VMPSI made a request letter to the PC Chief to set aside or disregard the findings of PADPAO and consider VMPSI’s application for renewal of its license, even without a certificate of membership from PADPAO.
ISSUE:
Whether or not VMPSI’s complaint against the PC Chief and PC-SUSIA is a suit against the State without its consent.
Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
HELD:
Yes.
A public official may sometimes be held liable in his personal or private capacity if he acts in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction, however, since the acts for which the PC Chief and PC-SUSIA are being called to account in this case, were performed as part of their official duties, without malice, gross negligence, or bad faith, no recovery may be had against them in their private capacities.
Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Furthermore, the Supreme Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the Memorandum of Agreement dated May 12, 1986 does not constitute an implied consent by the State to be sued.
The consent of the State to be sued must emanate from statutory authority, hence, a legislative act, not from a mere memorandum.
Without such consent, the trial court did not acquired jurisdiction over the public respondents.
Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Petition for review is denied and the judgment appealed from is affirmed in toto.