G.R. No. 17226; March 1, 1922
L. S. MOON & CO., plaintiff-appellant, vs. Honorable FRANCIS BURTON HARRISON, Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, Honorable DIONISIO JAKOSALEM, Secretary of Commerce and Communications, and Honorable JUSTO LUKBAN, Mayor of the city of Manila, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiff, L. S. Moon & Co., a registered partnership, owned stocks of rice. The defendants, as government officials, seized 2,330½ kilos of its Siam rice pursuant to Act No. 2868 and related executive orders, which authorized the government to control the distribution and fix maximum prices for rice and corn. The defendants offered to pay only P16.25 per cavan, which the plaintiff claimed was below the just and reasonable value of P26.32 per cavan. The plaintiff filed a complaint, alleging the seizure was without just compensation and constituted confiscation, and that the price-fixing provisions of Act No. 2868 were unconstitutional as they deprived persons of property without due process and just compensation. The plaintiff sought an injunction against further seizures, an order for the return of the rice or payment of just compensation, and a declaration of unconstitutionality of the relevant parts of Act No. 2868. The defendants demurred, arguing lack of jurisdiction, misjoinder of parties, failure to state a cause of action, and ambiguity. The trial court sustained the demurrer on the grounds of misjoinder of parties, failure to state a cause of action, and ambiguity, and dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer on the grounds of misjoinder of parties plaintiff, failure to state a cause of action, and ambiguity.
2. Whether Act No. 2868 and the executive orders issued thereunder, which authorized the seizure of rice and the fixing of maximum prices, constitute a valid exercise of police power or an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing the complaint.
1. The complaint suffered from a misjoinder of parties and causes of action. It was brought not only on behalf of L. S. Moon & Co. but also purportedly on behalf of other unnamed rice importers and dealers. The various acts of seizure complained of constituted separate wrongs against different owners, and these distinct causes of action could not be properly joined in a single proceeding by one plaintiff.
2. The Court did not reach the constitutional question regarding the validity of Act No. 2868. It held that the action was, in effect, a suit against the State, which cannot be maintained without its consent. The defendants were acting in their official capacities under a law enacted by the Legislature. Their acts were official and discretionary, and they had a legal right to assume the law was valid. Without the consent of the Government, no suit lies against it for acts done by its officers in the performance of their official duties. Furthermore, the defendants are not personally liable for damages for acts performed in their official capacities under a statute, even if the statute were later declared unconstitutional.
The demurrer was properly sustained, and the complaint was correctly dismissed.