Case Digest (G.R. No. 154705)
Facts:
The Republic of Indonesia, His Excellency Ambassador Soeratmin, and Minister Counsellor Azhari Kasim v. James Vinzon, G.R. No. 154705, June 26, 2003, the Supreme Court En Banc, Azcuna, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners, the Republic of Indonesia (through its diplomatic mission in the Philippines) and its officials Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Azhari Kasim, entered into a Maintenance Agreement in August 1995 with respondent James Vinzon, sole proprietor of Vinzon Trade and Services, for upkeep of air-conditioning units, generator sets, electrical facilities, water heaters, and water motor pumps at the Embassy Main Building, Embassy Annex Building, and the ambassador’s official residence. The agreement ran for four years with automatic renewal unless cancelled by thirty days’ prior written notice from the date of expiry.
Petitioners assert that before the agreement’s expiry they informed respondent that renewal would be subject to the incoming Chief of Administration, Minister Counsellor Kasim, who assumed the post in March 2000 and allegedly found respondent’s services unsatisfactory; the Embassy then sent a letter terminating the agreement dated August 31, 2000. Respondent contended the termination was arbitrary, pointing to continued requests and cordial communications from embassy officials in July–August 2000 (requests for additional workers, sponsorship acknowledgements), and filed a complaint on December 15, 2000 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 145, docketed Civil Case No. 18203.
On February 20, 2001 petitioners moved to dismiss on the ground of sovereign immunity and on diplomatic immunity for the individual respondents under the Vienna Convention. Respondent opposed (March 20, 2001), arguing that the Maintenance Agreement expressly waived immunity by providing 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, Philippines.” On May 17, 2001 the trial court denied the Motion to Dismiss and later denied reconsideration.
Petitioners elevated the denial to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 66894 by petition for certiorari and prohibition, alleging grave abuse of discretion in finding waiver of immunity. The Court of Appeals denied their petition on May 30, 2002 and denied reconsideration on August 16, 2002. Thereafter petitioners filed this petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Republic of Indonesia waive its sovereign immunity from suit by including a clause in the Maintenance Agreement submitting disputes to Philippine law and the courts of Makati?
- May Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim be sued in their private capacities for terminating the Maintenance Agreement, or do they enjoy diplomatic im...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)