Municipality of San Fernando vs.

Frime
G.R. No. L-52179 April 8, 1991

In the morning of December 16, 1965 a collision occurred involving a passenger

jeepney, a gravel and sand truck and a dump truck. The passenger jeepney was
driven by Bernardo Balagot and owned by the Estate of Macario Nievera, the truck
was driven by Jose Manandeg and owned by Tranquilino Velasquez, while the dump
truck was driven by Alfredo Bislig and owned by the Municipality of San Fernando.
Due to the said impact, a number of the jeepney passengers including Laureano
Bania, Sr. died and some sustained injuries.

Due to the incident, the relatives of Bania, Sr. instituted a civil action for recovery
of damages against the driver of the jeepney and its owner. In lieu of this, a third
party complaint was filed against the driver and owner of the gravel and sand truck.

Thereafter, the case was transferred to the court of the respondent Judge. By order
of the court, the complaint was amended, wherein the herein petitioner and Bislig
were impleaded for the first as defendants.

The court then rendered a decision in favor of the private respondents, thus, making
the petitioners liable for damages.

Issue:
Whether or not herein petitioners are liable for the damages sustained by private
respondents.

Held:
No. The doctrine of non suability of the State is underlying principle guaranteed by
the Constitution and observed by the courts. This doctrine exempts the State from
being sued or grants it immunity from such, however subject to exception. The said
doctrine is applicable in the case at bar. Herein petitioners are the Municipality of
San Fernando and its regular employee, Bislig. As observed by the courts, municipal
corporations, like herein petitioner Municipality, acts as the agent of the state
whenever they are engaged in a governmental function and, in effect, should be
immune from suit.

In the instant case, Bislig was on his way to get a load of gravel and sand for the
repair of San Fernandos streets when the collision transpired. It has been laid down
by previous jurisprudence that construction or maintenance of roads is considered a
governmental function. Therefore, Bislig was doing an act which is in connection to
his office or position. Thus ultimately, herein petitioners are exempted from suit,
more so from liability. Furthermore, based on existing laws and jurisprudence, a
municipality cannot be held liable for torts committed by its regular employee who
is performing a governmental function.

Provided further, the State, or the Municipality in this case, cannot be said to be
liable for damages for the sole reason that suability and liability of the State are
different things. Wherein, the State may waive its immunity from suit for purposes
of litigation, but nevertheless does not owe up to its liability. As observed, for the
State to be sued it must give its consent impliedly (by entering into contracts or as
provided in its charter for municipal corporations) or expressly (by an enactment
of a law allowing them to be sued), but such consent is limited only to the suability
of the State, and requires another consent for the its liability.