Malong v. PNR (Consti1)

Malong v. PNR

FRANCISCO MALONG and ROSALINA AQUINOMALONG, petitioners v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS and COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN, Lingayen Branch 11, respondents

En Banc

Doctrine: implied consent

Date: August 7, 1985

Ponente: Justice Aquino


Facts:

• The Malong spouses alleged in their complaint that on October 30, 1977 their son, Jaime Aquino, a paying passenger, was killed when he fell from a PNR train while it was between Tarlac and Capas. The tragedy occurred because Jaime had to sit near the door of a coach. The train was overloaded with passengers and baggage in view of the proximity of All Saints Day. 
• The Malong spouses prayed that the PNR be ordered to pay them damages totaling P136,370. 
• Upon the Solicitor General's motion, the trial court dismissed the complaint. It ruled that it had no jurisdiction because the PNR, being a government instrumentality, the action was a suit against the State (Sec. 16, Art. XV of the Constitution). 
• The Malong spouses appealed to this Court pursuant to Republic Act No. 5440 
• R.A. No. 5440 changed the mode of appeal from courts of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts) to the Supreme Court in cases involving only questions of law, or the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, etc. or the legality of any tax, impost, assessment or toll, etc., or the jurisdiction of any inferior court, from ordinary appeal — i.e., by notice of appeal, record on appeal and appeal bond, under Rule 41— to appeal by certiorari, under Rule 45 

Issue/s:

1. WON PNR is immune from suit. 
2. WON the State acted in a sovereign capacity or in a corporate capacity when it organized the PNR for the purpose of engaging in transportation 
3. WON the State acted differently when it organized the PNR as successor of the Manila Railroad Company 

Held: No, PNR is NOT immune. The State divested itself of its sovereign capacity when it organized the PNR which is no different from its predecessor, the Manila Railroad Company. The PNR did not become immune from suit. It did not remove itself from the operation of articles 1732 to 1766 of the Civil Code on common carriers

WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal is reversed and set aside. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Costs against the Philippine National Railways.



Ratio:

• The correct rule is that "not all government entities, whether corporate or non-corporate, are immune from suits. Immunity from suit is determined by the character of the objects for which the entity was organized." (Nat. Airports Corp. vs. Teodoro and Phil. Airlines, Inc., 91 Phil. 203, 206; Santos vs, Santos, 92 Phil. 281, 285; Harry Lyons, Inc. vs. USA, 104 Phil. 593.) 
• Suits against State agencies with respect to matters in which they have assumed to act in a private or non-governmental capacity are not suits against the State 
• Like any private common carrier, the PNR is subject to the obligations of persons engaged in that private enterprise. It is not performing any governmental function 
• The point is that when the government enters into a commercial business it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other private corporation (Bank of the U.S. vs. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat. 904, 6 L. ed. 244, cited in Manila Hotel Employees Association vs. Manila Hotel Company, et al., 73 Phil. 374, 388). 
• There is not one law for the sovereign and another for the subject, but when the sovereign engages in business and the conduct of business enterprises, and contracts with individuals, whenever the contract in any form comes before the courts, the rights and obligation of the contracting parties must be adjusted upon the same principles as if both contracting parties were private persons. Both stand upon equality before the law, and the sovereign is merged in the dealer, contractor and suitor (People vs. Stephens, 71 N.Y. 549). 
• Justice Abad Santos (Separate Opinion) : All corporations organized by the government are its instrumentality by the very reason of their creation. But that fact alone does not invest them with immunity from suit.