Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 188 views

    Republic of Indonesia vs. James Vinzon

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Brillantes
    The Republic of Indonesia entered into a 4-year maintenance agreement with James Vinzon to maintain equipment at its embassy. The new Minister Counsellor terminated the agreement, alleging Vinzon's work was unsatisfactory. Vinzon claimed the termination was unlawful. The Republic of Indonesia argued it had sovereign immunity. The Court of Appeals ruled the maintenance agreement waived immunity, but the Supreme Court held entering contracts to maintain an embassy is a sovereign act, not commercial. The Republic of Indonesia did not waive its immunity by the maintenance agreement, which was for a sovereign diplomatic function.

    Copyright:

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

    Republic of Indonesia vs. James Vinzon

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Brillantes
    188 views1 page
    The Republic of Indonesia entered into a 4-year maintenance agreement with James Vinzon to maintain equipment at its embassy. The new Minister Counsellor terminated the agreement, alleging Vinzon's work was unsatisfactory. Vinzon claimed the termination was unlawful. The Republic of Indonesia argued it had sovereign immunity. The Court of Appeals ruled the maintenance agreement waived immunity, but the Supreme Court held entering contracts to maintain an embassy is a sovereign act, not commercial. The Republic of Indonesia did not waive its immunity by the maintenance agreement, which was for a sovereign diplomatic function.

    Original Description:

    Republic of Indonesia vs. James Vinzon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Republic of Indonesia entered into a 4-year maintenance agreement with James Vinzon to maintain equipment at its embassy. The new Minister Counsellor terminated the agreement, alleging Vinzon's work was unsatisfactory. Vinzon claimed the termination was unlawful. The Republic of Indonesia argued it had sovereign immunity. The Court of Appeals ruled the maintenance agreement waived immunity, but the Supreme Court held entering contracts to maintain an embassy is a sovereign act, not commercial. The Republic of Indonesia did not waive its immunity by the maintenance agreement, which was for a sovereign diplomatic function.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    188 views1 page

    Republic of Indonesia vs. James Vinzon

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Brillantes
    The Republic of Indonesia entered into a 4-year maintenance agreement with James Vinzon to maintain equipment at its embassy. The new Minister Counsellor terminated the agreement, alleging Vinzon's work was unsatisfactory. Vinzon claimed the termination was unlawful. The Republic of Indonesia argued it had sovereign immunity. The Court of Appeals ruled the maintenance agreement waived immunity, but the Supreme Court held entering contracts to maintain an embassy is a sovereign act, not commercial. The Republic of Indonesia did not waive its immunity by the maintenance agreement, which was for a sovereign diplomatic function.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA vs. JAMES VINZON [G.R. No. 154705.

    June 26, 2003]


    FACTS: Petitioner Vinzon entered into a Maintenance Agreement with respondent. The maintenance agreement includes
    the following specific equipments: air conditioning units, generator sets, electrical facilities, water heaters and water motor
    pumps. The agreement shall be effective for 4 years.
    The new Minister Counsellor allegedly found respondent's work and services unsatisfactory and not in compliance with the
    standards set in the Agreement. The respondent terminated the agreement with the respondent. The latter claim that it was
    unlawful and arbitrary. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that the Republic of Indonesia, as a foreign state, has
    sovereign immunity from suit and cannot be sued as party-defendant in the Philippines.
    ISSUE: W/N the CA erred in sustaining the trial court's decision that petitioners have waived their immunity from suit by
    using as its basis the provision in the Maintenance Agreement.
    HELD: The mere entering into a contract by a foreign state with a private party cannot be construed as the ultimate test of
    whether or not it is an act juri imperii or juri gestionis. Such act is only the start of the inquiry. There is no dispute that the
    establishment of a diplomatic mission is an act juri imperii. The state may enter into contracts with private entities to maintain
    the premises, furnishings and equipment of the embassy. The Republic of Indonesia is acting in pursuit of a sovereign
    activity when it entered into a contract with the respondent. The maintenance agreement was entered into by the Republic of
    Indonesia in the discharge of its governmental functions. It cannot be deemed to have waived its immunity from suit.
    You might also like:

    You might also like