Sanders v. Veridiano

Sanders v. Veridiano

G.R. No. L-46930 June 10, 1988

Cruz, J.

Facts:

                Petitioner Sanders was, at the time the incident in question occurred, the special services director of the U.S. Naval Station (NAVSTA) in Olongapo City. Petitioner Moreau was the commanding officer of the Subic Naval Base, which includes the said station. Private respondent Rossi is an American citizen with permanent residence in the Philippines, as so was private respondent Wyer, who died two years ago. They were both employed as game room attendants in the special services department of the NAVSTA, the former having been hired in 1971 and the latter in 1969.

On October 3, 1975, the private respondents were advised that their employment had been converted from permanent full-time to permanent part-time, effective October 18, 1975. Their reaction was to protest this conversion and to institute grievance proceedings conformably to the pertinent rules and regulations of the U.S. Department of Defense. The result was a recommendation from the hearing officer who conducted the proceedings for the reinstatement of the private respondents to permanent full-time status plus backwages. The report on the hearing contained the observation that “Special Services management practices an autocratic form of supervision.”

Issue:

                whether or not the petitioners were performing their official duties when they did the acts for which they have been sued for damages by the private respondents

Held:

                The mere allegation that a government functionary is being sued in his personal capacity will not automatically remove him from the protection of the law of public officers and, if appropriate, the doctrine of state immunity. By the same token, the mere invocation of official character will not suffice to insulate him from suability and liability for an act imputed to him as a personal tort committed without or in excess of his authority. These well-settled principles are applicable not only to the officers of the local state but also where the person sued in its courts pertains to the government of a foreign state.

It is abundantly clear in the present case that the acts for which the petitioners are being called to account were performed by them in the discharge of their official duties. Sanders, as director of the special services department of NAVSTA, undoubtedly had supervision over its personnel, including the private respondents, and had a hand in their employment, work assignments, discipline, dismissal and other related matters.

As for Moreau, what he is claimed to have done was write the Chief of Naval Personnel for concurrence with the conversion of the private respondents’ type of employment even before the grievance proceedings had even commenced. Disregarding for the nonce the question of its timeliness, this act is clearly official in nature, performed by Moreau as the immediate superior of Sanders and directly answerable to Naval Personnel in matters involving the special services department of NAVSTA In fact, the letter dealt with the financial and budgetary problems of the department and contained recommendations for their solution, including the re-designation of the private respondents. There was nothing personal or private about it.

Given the official character of the above-described letters, we have to conclude that the petitioners were, legally speaking, being sued as officers of the United States government. As they have acted on behalf of that government, and within the scope of their authority, it is that government, and not the petitioners personally, that is responsible for their acts. Assuming that the trial can proceed and it is proved that the claimants have a right to the payment of damages, such award will have to be satisfied not by the petitioners in their personal capacities but by the United States government as their principal. This will require that government to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the judgment, viz, the appropriation of the necessary amount to cover the damages awarded, thus making the action a suit against that government without its consent.

Such complaint cannot prosper unless the government sought to be held ultimately liable has given its consent to be sued.