Title
Republic of Indonesia vs. Vinzon
Case
G.R. No. 154705
Decision Date
Jun 26, 2003
Indonesia invoked sovereign and diplomatic immunity in a dispute over a terminated embassy maintenance agreement, claiming the act was sovereign, not commercial. The Supreme Court ruled in favor, dismissing the case.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 154705)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Maintenance Agreement
    • In August 1995, the Republic of Indonesia, through its Counsellor Siti Partinah, entered into a four-year Maintenance Agreement with James Vinzon, sole proprietor of Vinzon Trade and Services.
    • The Agreement provided that Vinzon would maintain air conditioning units, generator sets, electrical facilities, water heaters, and water motor pumps at the Indonesian Embassy Main Building, Embassy Annex Building, and Wisma Duta (the Ambassador’s residence).
    • It stipulated automatic renewal for successive four-year terms unless either party gave thirty days’ prior written notice of cancellation.
  • Termination of the Agreement
    • Prior to August 1999 (the date of expiration), petitioners allegedly informed respondent that renewal would be at the discretion of incoming Chief of Administration, Minister Counsellor Azhari Kasim.
    • When Kasim assumed office in March 2000, he deemed respondent’s services unsatisfactory and non-compliant with contractual standards.
    • On August 31, 2000, the Indonesian Embassy, by letter, formally terminated the Agreement; petitioners assert that respondent was also verbally notified earlier.
  • Judicial Proceedings
    • On December 15, 2000, respondent filed Civil Case No. 18203 before the RTC of Makati, Branch 145, for unlawful and arbitrary termination.
    • Petitioners moved to dismiss on February 20, 2001, citing sovereign immunity (for the Republic of Indonesia) and diplomatic immunity (for Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim).
    • Respondent opposed on March 20, 2001, contending that the Maintenance Agreement’s choice-of-law and venue clause constituted an express waiver of immunity.
    • On May 17, 2001, the RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss and likewise denied the subsequent motion for reconsideration.
    • Petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 66894), which, on May 30, 2002, denied relief and on August 16, 2002, denied reconsideration.
    • Petitioners then filed this petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Whether the Republic of Indonesia waived its sovereign immunity by agreeing that “any legal action arising out of this Maintenance Agreement shall be settled according to the laws of the Philippines and by the proper court of Makati City.”
  • Whether Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim enjoy immunity from civil suit in their private capacities under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.