8/17/2019 Republic of Indonesia vs Vizon
1/2
Republic of Indonesia vs. James Vizon Digested
Republic of Indonesia vs. James Vizon G.R. No. 54705 June !"
!00#
$%&'()
Petitioner, Republic of Indonesia entered into a Maintenance
Agreement in August 1995 with respondent James Vinon, sole
proprietor of Vinon !rade and "er#ices$ !he Maintenance
Agreement stated that respondent shall, for a consideration,
maintainspecified e%uipment at the &mbass' Main (uilding,
&mbass' Anne) (uilding and the *isma +uta, the official
residence ofpetitioner Ambassador "oeratmin$ !he e%uipments co#ered
b' the Maintenance Agreement are air conditioning units,
generatorsets, electrical facilities, water heaters, and water
motor pumps$ It is liewise stated therein that the agreement shall
be effecti#efor a period of four 'ears and will renew itself
automaticall' unless cancelled b' either part' b' gi#ing thirt'
da's prior writtennotice from the date of e)pir'$
Petitioners claim that sometime prior to the date of e)piration
of the said agreement, or before August 1999, the'
informedrespondent that the renewal of the agreement shall be at
the discretion of the incoming -hief of Administration,
Minister-ounsellorAhari.asim, who was e)pected to arri#e in
/ebruar' 0$ *hen Minister -ounsellor.asim assumed the position
of-hief of Administration in March 0, he allegedl' found
respondents wor and ser#ices unsatisfactor' and not in
compliance
with the standards set in the Maintenance Agreement$
2ence, the Indonesian &mbass' terminated the agreement in a
letterdated August 31, 0$ Petitioners claim, moreo#er, that the'
had earlier #erball' informed respondent of their decision to
terminate the agreement$ 4n the other hand, respondent claims
that the aforesaid termination was arbitrar' and
unlawful$Respondent filed a complaint against petitioners R!-6 of
Maati, petitioners filed a Motion to +ismiss, alleging that the
Republicof Indonesia, as a foreign so#ereign "tate, has so#ereign
immunit' from suit and cannot be sued as a part'7defendant in
thePhilippines$ !he said motion further alleged that Ambassador
"oeratmin and Minister -ounsellor.asim are diplomatic agents
asdefined under the Vienna -on#ention on +iplomatic Relations and
therefore en8o' diplomatic immunit'$ In turn, respondent filedon
March 0, 01, an 4pposition to the said motion alleging that the
Republic of Indonesia has e)pressl' wai#ed its immunit'from suit$
2e based this claim upon the following pro#ision in the Maintenance
Agreement$
I((*+)
*hether or not the Republic of Indonesia can be sued$
R*,ING)
!he "upreme -ourt on the matter ruled that the republic of
Indonesia cannot be deemed to ha#e wai#ed its immunit' to suit$
!hee)istence alone of a paragraph in a contract stating that an'
legal action arising out of the agreement shall be settled
accordingto the laws of the Philippines and b' a specified court of
the Philippines is not necessaril' a wai#er of so#ereign immunit'
fromsuit$ !he aforesaid pro#ision contains language not necessaril'
inconsistent with so#ereign immunit'$ 4n the other hand,
suchpro#ision ma' also be meant to appl' where the so#ereign part'
elects to sue in the local courts, or otherwise wai#es itsimmunit'
b' an' subse%uent act$ !he applicabilit' of Philippine laws must be
deemed to include Philippine laws in its totalit',including the
principle recogniing so#ereign immunit'$ 2ence, the proper court
ma' ha#e no proper action, b' wa' of settling thecase, e)cept to
dismiss it$
!he -ourt stated that the upeep of its furnishings and e%uipment
is still part so#ereign function of the "tate$ A so#ereign
"tatedoes not merel' establish a diplomatic mission and lea#e it at
that the establishment of a diplomatic mission encompasses
itsmaintenance and upeep$ 2ence, the "tate ma' enter into contracts
with pri#ate entities to maintain the premises, furnishingsand
e%uipment of the embass' and the li#ing %uarters of its agents and
officials$ It is therefore clear that petitioner Republic
ofIndonesia was acting in pursuit of a so#ereign acti#it' when it
entered into a contract with respondent for the upeep ormaintenance
of the air conditioning units, generator sets, electrical
facilities, water heaters, and water motor pumps of theIndonesian
&mbass' and the official residence of the Indonesian
ambassador$ !he "upreme -ourt grants the petition andre#ersed the
decision of the -ourt of Appeals$
public official charged with some administrati#e or technical
office who can be held to the proper responsibilit' in the manner
laiddown b' the law of ci#il responsibilit'$ -onse%uentl', the
trial court in not so deciding and in sentencing the said entit' to
thepa'ment of damages, caused b' an official of the second class
referred to, has b' erroneous interpretation infringed
thepro#isions of Articles 190 and 193 of the -i#il -ode$
8/17/2019 Republic of Indonesia vs Vizon
2/2
It is, therefore, e#idence that the "tate :PI6 is onl' liable,
according to the abo#e %uoted decisions of the "upreme -ourt
of"pain, for the acts of its agents, officers and emplo'ees when
the' act as special agents within the meaning of paragraph 5
ofArticle 193, supra, and that the chauffeur of the ambulance of
the :eneral 2ospital was not such an agent$
/or the foregoing reasons, the 8udgment appealed from must be
re#ersed, without costs in this instance$ *hether the:o#ernment
intends to mae itself legall' liable for the amount of damages
abo#e set forth, which the plaintiff has sustained b'reason of the
negligent acts of one of its emplo'ees, be legislati#e enactment
and b' appropriating sufficient funds therefore, weare not called
upon to determine$ !his matter rests solel' with the ;egislature
and not with the courts$
