GR L 20063; (April, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20063; April 30, 1965
PHILIPPINE RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, MACARIO APOSTOL and EMPIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Philippine Resources Development Corporation appealed by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing its complaint in intervention in a suit filed by the Republic of the Philippines against Macario Apostol and Empire Insurance Company. The Supreme Court, in a decision dated March 31, 1965, modified the Court of Appeals decision in petitioner’s favor. The dispositive portion ordered, among other things, that the dismissal of the complaint in intervention was set aside as against defendant Macario Apostol, who was ordered to return specified properties to the petitioner or pay their value. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, seeking to establish a position to recover not only from Apostol but also, if necessary, from the Republic of the Philippines through the Bureau of Prisons. Petitioner argued that the Republic was not immune from suit because it performed proprietary functions, entered into a contract, and filed a suit in court. Petitioner also contended that its suit in intervention was directed against the Republic because the latter allegedly asserted an adverse interest over petitioner’s goods, citing letters from the Director of Prisons and the Undersecretary of Justice. However, these letters were not part of the record in this case but were quoted in a brief from another unrelated case.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the petitioner’s suit in intervention is effectively a suit against the Republic of the Philippines, thereby implicating state immunity, or solely a suit against Macario Apostol.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration. It held that the petitioner’s suit in intervention was directed not against the Republic but against Apostol, who allegedly disposed of petitioner’s materials without consent. The Court found that the Republic did not assert an interest over the goods in the record of this case; instead, Apostol clearly asserted such interest. The letters cited by petitioner were not part of the record and could not be considered. The special and affirmative defenses in the Republic’s answer did not admit appropriation of the goods but only hypothetically assumed a disposal. The Republic’s suit against Apostol to collect a sum showed it refused to credit the goods in Apostol’s favor. Therefore, petitioner’s interest was opposed by Apostol, not the Republic, making the suit in intervention a suit against Apostol alone. The absence of opposition to the motion did not preclude the Court from examining the record to prevent conferring rights to persons not fully qualified.