[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
296 views1 page

1 Sanders v. Veridiano, 162 SCRA 88

1. The petitioners, who were US Naval officials, were sued for libel based on letters regarding the employment status of two US citizens working at the Naval station. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that since the petitioners' actions were part of their official duties, the suit was essentially against the US government, which had not consented to the case. 3. The court set aside the lower court's rulings, dismissed the case, and made permanent its order preventing further action against the petitioners in their personal capacities.

Uploaded by

SGOD HRD
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
296 views1 page

1 Sanders v. Veridiano, 162 SCRA 88

1. The petitioners, who were US Naval officials, were sued for libel based on letters regarding the employment status of two US citizens working at the Naval station. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that since the petitioners' actions were part of their official duties, the suit was essentially against the US government, which had not consented to the case. 3. The court set aside the lower court's rulings, dismissed the case, and made permanent its order preventing further action against the petitioners in their personal capacities.

Uploaded by

SGOD HRD
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

CASE DIGEST: Sanders vs.

Veridiano II
Ratio:
Posted by D A N I E L L E K Y M M A R I E
A L G A R M E on J U LY 3 1 , 2 0 1 8 1. Since the facts lead to that the
Sanders vs. Veridiano II
petitioners are acting in the
No. L-46930 | 1988, June 10
discharge of their official duties, the
Petitioner: Dale Sanders and A.S.
petitioners are being sued as gov’t.
Moreau, jr.
Officials of USA. If the trial will
Respondent: Hon. Regino, Veridiano II
proceed damages will not be on the
(presiding Judge, CFI Zambales, Olongapo)
petitioner’s personal capacity but of
Anthony M. Rossi and Ralph L. Wyers
the petitioner’s principal. The USA
CRUZ, J.
government. thus making the action
a suit against that government
Facts:
without its consent. The government
Petitioner Sanders was then the
of the United States has not given its
special services director of the U.S. Naval
consent to be sued for the official
Station (NAVSTA) in Olongapo City.
acts of the petitioners, who cannot
Petitioner Moreau was the commanding
satisfy any judgment that may be
officer of the Subic Naval Base, which
rendered against them
includes the said station. Private
respondents were American citizens with
2. It is abundantly clear in the present
permanent address in the Phil and were
case that the acts for which the
both game room attendants of the NAVSTA.
petitioners are sued by are acts in
Herein respondents were then advised that
the discharge of their official duties.
there employment was changed from
Sanders, as director of the special
permanent full time to permanent part-
services department of NAVSTA had
time. They filed a case of the US Dept. of
supervision of its personnel and
Defense then was gave a recommendation
matters relating to their work and
for their reinstatement. The controversy of
employment. As for Moreau, what he
the case was when Sanders sent a letter to
is claimed to have done was write
Moreau that he disagrees with the
the Chief of Naval Personnel for
recommendation. Because of the letters
concurrence with the conversion of
private respondents filed a case with CFI of
the private respondent’s type of
Zambales, the plaintiffs claim that the
employment even before the
letters contains libelous content and has
grievance proceedings had even
caused them the prejudgment of the
commenced.
grievance proceedings.
The lower court ruled that the defendants
Decision/ Ruling:
acted maliciously and in bad faith. Motion
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
to lift the default order and motion for
challenged orders dated March 8, 1977,
reconsideration of the denial on the motion
August 9, 1977, and September 7, 1977, are
to dismiss which was subsequently denied
SET ASIDE. The respondent court is
by the respondent court.
directed to DISMISS Civil Case No. 2077-O.
Petition for certiorari, prohibition and
Our Temporary restraining order of
preliminary injunction
September 26, 1977, I made PERMANENT.
Issue:
No costs SO ORDERED.

1. Whether or not the respondent court


acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction

2. Wether or not petitioners were acting


officially or only in their private
capacities when they did the acts
where they are sued for damages.

Page 1 of 1

You might also like