8/11/2019 PASI v. Lichauco
1/2
Doctrine: Sovereign immunity when a suit is against the
State
Nature: Petition for certiorari
Background:
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into between a
consortium of privatetelecommunication carriers (PASI) and DOTC.
They requested then DOTC Secretary Lagdameofor official government
confirmation for the assignment of Philippine orbital slots 161E
and153E to PASI for its AGILA satellites. Upon requesting Landbanks
confirmation of its
participation in a club loan for sid orbital slots, Secretary
Lichauco sent a letter to the banksaying that orbital slot 153E is
not available and can no longer be assigned to PASI. They(PASI)
found out that Lichauco sent out a Notice of Offers for orbital
slots, including 153E.
Petitoner: Philippine Agila Satellite, Inc. (PASI)
Respondents: Josefina Trinidad Lichauco and the Ombudsman
Facts:
PASI filed an injunction against Lichauco and the unknown
awardee who won the slotto 153E with the Mandaluyong RTC and to
declare said award a nullity and fordamages.
It also filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman
against Secretary Lichaucowith gross violation of Sec 3(e) of RA
No. 3019 (Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)which reads:
o (e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or givingany private party any unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in thedischarge of his official,
administrative or judicial functions through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
This provision shallapply to officers and employees of officers or
government corporations chargedwith the grant of licenses or
permits and other concessions.
A prejudicial question was found by the Evaluation and
Preliminary InvestigationBureau, thus the Ombudsman suit was
dismissed. Hence, the petition for certiorari.
Issue/s:
WON there exists a prejudicial question WON a dismissal on
account of the existence of a prejudicial question is in order
Held/Ratio:
YES. A prejudicial question exists because if the award to the
Unknown Awardee for theorbital slot of 153E is declared valid by
the RTC, it will free her from liability of damages since
8/11/2019 PASI v. Lichauco
2/2
there would be no prohibited act to speak of. Neither would
there be any basis for undue injuryclaimed to have been suffered by
the petitioner.
Sec, 7, Rule 111 on Rules of Criminal Procedure reads:
Elements of a prejudicial question: (a) the previously
instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately
related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action; (b)
resolutionof such issue determines whether or not the criminal
action may proceed.
No. The case cannot be dismissed on the ground of a prejudicial
question. The Court cited Yap v.Paras wherein it ruled that in the
existence of a prejudicial question, according to Sec. 6, Rule111
of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the proceedings may onl y be
suspended, not dismissed,and that it may be made ONLY upon
petition, and not at the instance of the judge alone or
theinvestigating officer. It would sanction the extinguishment of
criminal liability, should there beany.
The Order dismissing the Ombudsman case against Lichauco was set
aside. The Ombudsmanwas ordered to reinstate the case for further
proceedings.
Notes:
When a public officer acts without or in excess of jurisdiction,
any injury caused by himis his own personal liability and cannot be
imputed to the state. The suit is not against theState but against
Lichauco.
Carpio Morales gave the 4 elements of RA 3019 Sec 3(e)o The
accused is a public officer discharging official functions or
private persons
charged in conspiracy with themo The public officer committed
the act during the performance of his dutyo The public officer
acted with bad faith and gross negligenceo The action caused undue
injury to the Government or any private party or gave
any party unwarranted advantage
