Lansang vs. Court of Appeals (Consti1)

Amado J. Lansang, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals, General Assembly of the Blind, Inc., and Jose Iglesias, respondents.

February 23, 2000

Quisumbing, J:

Facts:

• Private respondent General Assembly of the Blind (GABI) were allegedly awarded a verbal contract of lease in Rizal Park by the National Parks Development Committee (NPDC). However, this verbal contract accommodation was unclear because there was no document or instrument involved.
• With the change of government, the new Chairman of NPDC, petitioner Amado J. Lansang, sought to clean up Rizal Park and terminated the said verbal agreement with GABI and demanded that they vacate the area.
• The notice was signed by the president of GABI, private respondent Jose Iglesias, allegedly to indicate his conformity to its contents but later on claimed that he was deceived into signing the notice.
• On the day of the supposed eviction, GABI filed an action for damages and injunction in the RTC against the petitioner but it was dismissed, ruling that the complaint was actually directed against the state which could not be sued without its consent.
• On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and ruled that a government official being sued in his official capacity is not enough to protest such official from liability for acts done without or in excess of his authority.

Issues:

• Whether or not private respondents' complaint against petitioner Lansang, as Chairman of NPDC, is in effect a suit against the state which cannot be sued without its consent.
• Whether or not petitioner Lansang abused his authority in ordering the ejectment of private respondents from Rizal Park.

Held:

• No, the complaint is not a suit against the state.
• No, Lansang did not abuse his authority.

Ratio:

• The doctrine of state immunity from suit applies to complaints filed against public officials for acts done in the performance of their duties. The rule is that the suit must be regarded as one against the state where satisfaction of the judgment against the public official concerned will require the state itself to perform a positive act. 
• Lansang was sued not in his capacity as NPDC Chairman but in his personal capacity. It is evident from the complaint that Lansang was sued allegedly for having personal motives in ordering the ejectment of GABI from Rizal Park.
• There was no evidence of abuse of authority.