Immunity of the State from Suit

MSU College of Law IIT Extension

Outline
State

1.State Immunity from suit

2.Fundamental Powers of the State

A.General Principles

B.Police Power

C.Power of Eminent Domain

D.Power of Taxation

STATE IMMUNITY FROM SUIT

1.Basis (Republic vs. Villasor, 54 SCRA 83)

2.How may consent of the State to be sued given?

3.When is a suit against a public official deemedto

be a suit against the State?4.What are the instances when a suit against theState is proper?
5.May the Government validly invoke thedoctrine
of State Immunity from suit if itsinvocation will
serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen?

Basis

Section 3, Article XVI.

The State may not be sued without its consent.
It reflects nothing less than a recognition of
the sovereign character of the State and
anexpress affirmation of the unwritten ruleeffectively insulating it from the jurisdiction
of courts.

Basis

There can be no legal right against

theauthority which makes the law on
whichthe right depends.
However, it may be sued if it gives
consent,whether express or implied. The
doctrine isknown as the Royal Prerogative
of Dishonesty.It grants the state the
prerogative to defeat any legitimate
claimagainst it by simply invoking its nonsuability.

How may consent of the State to

besued given?

In order that suit may lie against thestate,

there must be consent, either express or
implied.

How may consent of the State to

be sued given?

1.EXPRESS CONSENT

Express consent can be given only by an

act of the legislative body, in a general or
a special law.

A. General Law.An example of a general

lawgranting consent is CA 327, as
amended by PD1445, which requires that
all money claimsagainst the government
must first be filed withthe Commission on
Audit before suit is institutedin court

How may consent of the State to

besued given?

In the case of Ministerio v. City of Cebu,

40SCRA 464, the SC said that suit may lie
because the doctrine of State immunity cannot
be used to perpetrate an injustice.
When State files expropriation case, it in effect
waives its immunity by commencing an action.

How may consent of the State to

be sued given?

B. Special law. This form of consent must be

embodied in a statute and cannot be given by a
mere counsel (Republic vs. Purisima,78 SCRA
470)

How may consent of the State to

be sued given?

2. Implied consent

a) When the State commences litigation(Froilan

vs. Pan Oriental Shipping, GR L-6060, Sept
30, 1950)

b. When the State enters into a business

contract.

b.1 Jure imperii (sovereign act)

b.2 Jure gestionis (commercial or proprietary
act)

How may consent of the State to

be sued given?

b.1 Jure imperii (sovereign act)

In U.S vs. Ruiz (135 SCRA 487), it was held
that the contract for the repair of wharves was a
contract in jus imperii, because the wharves
were to be used in national defense, a
governmental function.
b.2 Jure gestionis (commercial or proprietary
act)

How may consent of the State to

be sued given?

b.1 Jure imperii (sovereign act)

In Republic of Indonesia vs. Vinzon, GR
154705, June26, 2003, it was held that
contracts entered into by a sovereign state in
connection with the establishment of a
diplomatic mission, including contract for the
upkeep or maintenance of air conditioning
units,generator sets, electrical facilities, water
heaters of the embassy and the Ambassador's
residence, are contracts in jure imperii

How may consent of the State to

be sued given?

b.2 Jure gestionis (commercial or proprietary

act)
In U.S vs. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644, the contract
bidded out for barbershop facilities in the US Air
Force Base was deemed commercial.
In U.S. vs. Rodrigo, a contract for restaurant
services within the Camp John Hay Air Station
was likewise held commercial.

How may consent of the State to

be sued given?
SCOPE OF CONSENT

Consent to be sued does not include consent to

the execution of judgment against it.Such
execution will require another waiver, because
the power of the court ends when the judgment
rendered, since government fund and
properties may not be seized under writs of
execution of garnishment

How may consent of the State to

be sued given?
SCOPE OF CONSENT

In NHA vs. Heirs of Quivelondo, GR 154411,

June 19, 2003, it was held that if the funds
belong to a public corporation or a governmentowned or controlled corporation which is
clothed with a personality of its own, then the
funds are not exempt from garnishment.

How may consent of the State to

be sued given?
SCOPE OF CONSENT

Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan vs.

Fernandez, 130 SCRA 56 , it may not be
garnished.
City of Caloocan vs. Allarde, GR 107271, Sep
10, 2003, it may be garnished.

How will you avail a waiver for

execution?

In Municipality of Makati vs. CA, the SC held

that the claimant may avail of the remedy of
mandamus in order to compel the enactment
and approval of the necessary appropriation
ordinance(discretionary becomes ministerial in
order respect decision of its own courts) and
the corresponding disbursement of municipal
funds therefor.

Can you equate suability with

liability?

NO.
Liability will have to be determined by the Court
on the basis of the evidence and the applicable
law.
Meritt vs. Government of the P.I - not liable
because the government was not acting
through a special agent.
Fontanilla vs. Maliaman - liable because of the
negligent act of its driver.

When is a suit against a public official

deemed to be a suit against the State?

The cloak of protection is removed the moment

the foreign agent is sued in his individual
capacity, as when he is sought to be made
liable for whatever damage he may have
caused by his act done with malice or in bad
faith or beyond the scope of his authority or
jurisdiction.

Minucher vs. CA
(GR 142396, Feb 11, 2003)

In conducting this surveillance and later,acting

as poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation,
and then becoming a principal witness in the
criminal case against Minucher, Scalzo can
hardly be said to have acted beyond the scope
of his official functions or duties.

Suit against Public Officers

The unauthorized acts of government officials

are not acts of state; thus, the public officer may
be sued and held personally liable in damages
for such acts (Shauf v. CA, 191 SCRA 713)
Where the public officer has committed an ultra
vires act, or where there is a showing of bad
faith, malice or gross negligence, the officer can
be held personally accountable, even if such
acts are claimed to have been performed in
connection with official duties

Lansang vs. CA (GR 102667, Feb

23, 2000)

The public official is clearly being sued not in

his official capacity but in his personal capacity,
although the acts complained of may have been
committed while he occupied a public position.

Test to determine if suit is against

the State

InTan vs. Director of Forestry(125 SCRA 302),

the Supreme Court said that State immunity

from suit may be invoked as long as the suit
really affects the property, rights or interests of
the State and not merely those of the officers
nominally made party defendants. In this
case, the promotion of public welfare and the
protection of the inhabitants near the public
forest are property rights and interests of the
State.

Suits against Government

Agencies

1. Incorporated:

If the charter provides that the agency can sue

and be sued, then suit will lie, including one
for tort. The provision in the charter
constitutes express consent on the part of the
State to be sued.

Municipal Corporations

Municipal corporations are agencies of the

State when they are engaged in governmental
functions and, therefore, should enjoy the
sovereign immunity from suit.
Nevertheless,they are subject to suit even in
the performance of such functions because
their respective charters provide that they can
sue and be sued. (One of the corporate powers
of local government units, is the power to sue
and be sued. (Sec.22, LGC)

What are the instances when a

suit against the State is proper?

In Republic vs. Sandoval, 220 SCRA 124,

March19, 1993, some instances when a suit
against the state is proper are:

1. When the Republic is sued by name;

2. When the suit is against an unincorporated

government agency;

3. When the suit is on its face against a

government officer but the case is such that
ultimate liability will belong not to the officer
but to the government.

What are the instances when a

suit against the State is proper?

In National Irrigation Administration vs.CA (214

SCRA 35),

the SC reiterated that NIA is a corporate body

performing PROPRIETARYFUNCTIONS,
whose charter PD 552, provides that it may
sue and be sued.

In Philippine National Railways vs. IAC(214

SCRA 35), the SC held that although the
charter of PNR is silent on whether it may sue
or be sued, it had already been ruled in Malong
vs. PNR, 185 SCRA 63, that the PNR is not
performing any governmental function and
may, therefore, be sued.

2. Unincorporated: Inquire into principal

functions of the agency

A. If governmental: NO suit without consent. In

Farolan vs. CTA, the SC said that the Bureau
of Customs, being an unincorporated agency
without a separate juridical personality, enjoys
immunity from suit. It is vested with inherent
power of sovereignty, namely, the power of
taxation. It performs governmental functions.

2. Unincorporated: Inquire into principal

functions of the agency

B. If proprietary: Suit will lie, because when the

state engages in principally proprietary
functions, then it descends to the level of a
private individual, and may, therefore, be
vulnerable to suit.

May the Government validly invoke the doctrine of State

Immunity from suit if its invocation will serve as an
instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen?

In EPG Construction vs. Vigilar, 354 SCRA

566,March 16, 2001, the SC held that as the
staunch guardian of the citizens rights and
welfare, it cannot sanction an injustice so patent
on its face,and allow itself to be an instrument
in the perpetration thereof. Justice and equity
sternly demand that the State's cloak of
invincibility against the suit be shred in this
particular instance and that petitioners be duly
compensated on the basis of quantum meruit
for the construction done on the public works.

Fundamental Power of the State

Police Power
1. Ichong vs. Hernandez (GR L-7995, May31,
1957)
2. Tablarin vs. Judge Gutierrez (GR 78164,July
31, 1987)
3. Lozano vs. Martinez (GR L-63419, Dec18,
1986)

Fundamental Power of the State

4. Ermita-Malate Hotel vs. City Mayor (GR L24693, July 31, 1967)
5. De la Cruz vs. Paras (Gr L-42571, July
25,1983)
6. Magtajas vs. Pryce Properties Corp (GR
111097, July 20, 1994)

Fundamental Power of the State

Eminent Domain
1. City of Manila vs. Chinese (GR
14355,October 1919)
2. Manosca vs. CA (GR 106440, Jan 29,1996)
3. Eslaban vs. vda. De Onorio (GR
146062,June 28, 2001)

Fundamental Power of the State

Taxation
1. Commissioner of Customs vs. Makasiar (GR
79307, Aug 29, 1989)
2. Abra Valley College vs. Aquino (GR L-39086,
June 15, 1988)
3. Punzalan vs. Municipal Board of Manila(GR
L-4817, May 26, 1954)