Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 98 views

    Provi Vs Tesda Digest

    Uploaded by

    Julian Duba
    Professional Video, Inc. (PROVI) contracted with the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) to print and encode polyvinyl cards for certification holders. TESDA failed to pay the outstanding balance of ₱35 million to PROVI. PROVI filed a case against TESDA. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of PROVI, but the Court of Appeals set aside the ruling, finding that TESDA's funds are public and exempt from garnishment as TESDA is a government agency. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, reiterating that as a state agency, TESDA cannot be sued without its consent based on the principle of state immunity embodied

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Provi Vs Tesda Digest

    Uploaded by

    Julian Duba
    98 views2 pages
    Professional Video, Inc. (PROVI) contracted with the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) to print and encode polyvinyl cards for certification holders. TESDA failed to pay the outstanding balance of ₱35 million to PROVI. PROVI filed a case against TESDA. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of PROVI, but the Court of Appeals set aside the ruling, finding that TESDA's funds are public and exempt from garnishment as TESDA is a government agency. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, reiterating that as a state agency, TESDA cannot be sued without its consent based on the principle of state immunity embodied

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    Provi vs Tesda Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Professional Video, Inc. (PROVI) contracted with the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) to print and encode polyvinyl cards for certification holders. TESDA failed to pay the outstanding balance of ₱35 million to PROVI. PROVI filed a case against TESDA. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of PROVI, but the Court of Appeals set aside the ruling, finding that TESDA's funds are public and exempt from garnishment as TESDA is a government agency. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, reiterating that as a state agency, TESDA cannot be sued without its consent based on the principle of state immunity embodied

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    98 views2 pages

    Provi Vs Tesda Digest

    Uploaded by

    Julian Duba
    Professional Video, Inc. (PROVI) contracted with the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) to print and encode polyvinyl cards for certification holders. TESDA failed to pay the outstanding balance of ₱35 million to PROVI. PROVI filed a case against TESDA. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of PROVI, but the Court of Appeals set aside the ruling, finding that TESDA's funds are public and exempt from garnishment as TESDA is a government agency. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, reiterating that as a state agency, TESDA cannot be sued without its consent based on the principle of state immunity embodied

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PROFESSIONAL VIDEO, INC.

    vs.
    TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
    G.R. No. 155504
    June 26, 2009

    Facts:

    Professional Video, Inc. (PROVI) is an entity engaged in the sale of high technology equipment,
    information technology products and broadcast devices. Technical Education and Skills
    Development Authority (TESDA) was established under RA 7796 or TESDA Act of 1994 as an
    instrumentality of the government.

    TESDA to fulfill its mandate, sought to issue security-printed certification and/or identification
    polyvinyl (PVC) cards to trainees who have passed the certification process.

    TESDAs Pre-Qualification Bids Award Committee (PBAC) conducted two (2) public biddings
    but it failed. So, PBAC recommended TESDA to negotiate and make a contract with PROVI.

    TESDA and PROVI signed and executed their "Contract Agreement Project: PVC ID Card
    Issuance" (the Contract Agreement) for the provision of goods and services in the printing and
    encoding of PVC cards which cost P39,475,000.

    TESDA and PROVI executed an "Addendum to the Contract Agreement Project: PVC ID Card
    Issuance" (Addendum).

    TESDA in paid PROVI thirty percent (30%) of the total cost of the supplies within thirty (30)
    days after receipt and acceptance of the contracted supplies, with the balance payable within
    thirty (30) days after the initial payment.

    TESDA failed to pay its outstanding balance of P35,735,500 to PROVI despite its two demand
    letters. Thus, PROVI filed a petition against TESDA to the Regional Trial Court.

    RTC ruled in favour of PROVI and ordered the manager of the Land Bank of the Philippines to
    produce TESDAs bank statement for the garnishment of the covered amount.

    TESDA filed a petition to the Court of Appeals and it set aside the RTCs orders ruling that
    TESDAs funds are public in nature and, therefore, exempt from garnishment; and TESDAs
    purchase of the PVC cards was a necessary incident of its governmental function.

    Issue:

    Whether or not TESDA is covered by the principle of State Immunity?

    Held:
    TESDA, as an agency of the State, cannot be sued without its consent.

    The rule that a state may not be sued without its consent is embodied in Section 3, Article XVI of
    the 1987 Constitution and has been an established principle that antedates this Constitution. It is
    as well a universally recognized principle of international law that exempts a state and its organs
    from the jurisdiction of another state. The principle is based on the very essence of sovereignty,
    and on the practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the
    law on which the right depends. It also rests on reasons of public policy that public service
    would be hindered, and the public endangered, if the sovereign authority could be subjected to
    law suits at the instance of every citizen and, consequently, controlled in the uses and
    dispositions of the means required for the proper administration of the government.

    You might also like