The plaintiff, E. Meritt, was injured in a collision with a government hospital ambulance. Merritt sued the Government of the Philippine Islands (GPI) for damages. The trial court found the GPI liable and awarded damages to Merritt. On appeal, the GPI argued it was not liable because the ambulance driver was not a government employee or special agent. The court agreed, finding that by allowing itself to be sued, the GPI only waived immunity, not conceded liability, which must still be proven. As the driver was not a special agent, there was no liability for the GPI. The waiver of immunity simply provides the opportunity to establish liability if possible, but does not guarantee the fidelity of government officers or
The plaintiff, E. Meritt, was injured in a collision with a government hospital ambulance. Merritt sued the Government of the Philippine Islands (GPI) for damages. The trial court found the GPI liable and awarded damages to Merritt. On appeal, the GPI argued it was not liable because the ambulance driver was not a government employee or special agent. The court agreed, finding that by allowing itself to be sued, the GPI only waived immunity, not conceded liability, which must still be proven. As the driver was not a special agent, there was no liability for the GPI. The waiver of immunity simply provides the opportunity to establish liability if possible, but does not guarantee the fidelity of government officers or
Original Title
Merritt v Government of the Philippine Islands.docx
The plaintiff, E. Meritt, was injured in a collision with a government hospital ambulance. Merritt sued the Government of the Philippine Islands (GPI) for damages. The trial court found the GPI liable and awarded damages to Merritt. On appeal, the GPI argued it was not liable because the ambulance driver was not a government employee or special agent. The court agreed, finding that by allowing itself to be sued, the GPI only waived immunity, not conceded liability, which must still be proven. As the driver was not a special agent, there was no liability for the GPI. The waiver of immunity simply provides the opportunity to establish liability if possible, but does not guarantee the fidelity of government officers or
The plaintiff, E. Meritt, was injured in a collision with a government hospital ambulance. Merritt sued the Government of the Philippine Islands (GPI) for damages. The trial court found the GPI liable and awarded damages to Merritt. On appeal, the GPI argued it was not liable because the ambulance driver was not a government employee or special agent. The court agreed, finding that by allowing itself to be sued, the GPI only waived immunity, not conceded liability, which must still be proven. As the driver was not a special agent, there was no liability for the GPI. The waiver of immunity simply provides the opportunity to establish liability if possible, but does not guarantee the fidelity of government officers or
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
FLORES, ARJAY B.
CASE NO. 20
Merritt vs Government of Philippine Islands (GPI). 34 PHIL. 311 (1916)
MERRITT, plaintiff – appellant
Vs GPI, defendant – appellant
PRINCIPLE: Waiver of Sovereign Immunity
Facts: The case is an appeal by both parties from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of P14,741, together with the costs of the cause. Prior to this appeal, Plaintiff E. Meritt, a contractor, had a collision with the General Hospital Ambulance which turned suddenly and unexpectedly without having sounded any whistle or horn. Merrit was severely injured. His condition had undergone depreciation and his efficiency as a contractor was affected. The plaintiff is seeking a certain amount for permanent injuries and the loss of wages during he was incapacitated from pursuing his occupation. In order for Merritt to recover damages, he sought to sue the government which later authorized the plaintiff to bring suit against the GPI and authorizing the Attorney- General to appear in said suit. On this appeal, Counsel for the plaintiff insists that the trial court erred: (1) in limiting the general damages which the plaintiff suffered to P5,000, instead of P25,000 as claimed in the complaint, and (2) in limiting the time when plaintiff was entirely disabled to two months and twenty-one days and fixing the damage accordingly in the sum of P2,666, instead of P6,000 as claimed by plaintiff in his complaint. On the other hand, the Attorney-General on behalf of the defendant urges that the trial court erred: (1) in finding that the collision between the plaintiff’s motorcycle and the ambulance of the General Hospital was due to the negligence of the chauffeur, who is an alleged agent or employee of the Government; (2) in holding that the Government of the Philippine Islands is liable for the damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the collision, even if it be true that the collision was due to the negligence of the chauffeur; and (3) in rendering judgment against the defendant for the sum of P14,741.
Issues: Whether or not the Government is legally liable to the plaintiff by allowing a lawsuit to commence against it. Whether or not the ambulance driver is considered as an employee of the government. Decision: By consenting to be sued a state simply waives its immunity from suit. It does not thereby concede its liability to plaintiff, or create any cause of action in his favor, or extend its liability to any cause not previously recognized. It merely gives a remedy to enforce a pre-existing liability and submits itself to the jurisdiction of the court, subject to its right to interpose any lawful defense. In the case at bar, the ambulance driver was not a special agent nor was a government officer acting as a special agent. Hence, there can be no liability from the government. As stated by Justice Story of United States “The Government does not undertake to guarantee to any person the fidelity of the officers or agents whom it employs, since that would involve it in all its operations in endless embarrassments, difficulties and losses, which would be subversive of the public interest.”
N.B. (Nota Bene):
Explanation of the principle applied in the case: The waiver of immunity of the State does not mean concession of its liability. When the State allows itself to be sued, all it does in effect is to give the other party an opportunity to prove, if it can, that the State is liable. Art. 1903, Par. 5 of the Civil Code reads that “The state is liable in this sense when it acts through a special agent, but not when the damage should have been caused by the official to whom properly it pertained to do the act performed, in which case the provisions of the preceding article shall be applicable. The responsibility of the state is limited to that which it contracts through a special agent, duly empowered by a definite order or commission to perform some act or charged with some definite purpose which gives rise to the claim.
Refer also to page 48, Chapter 4: The Doctrine of State Immunity (Difference between Suability and Liability) THANK YOU!
