27. MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY v.

DUMDUM

G.R. NO. 168289 March 22, 2010

FACTS:

The case stems from a complaint filed by private respondent Emily Rose Go Ko Lim Chao
against herein petitioner. Respondent had entered into an agreement with Petitioner-Municipality
Mayor Ople for the delivery of motorcycle which supposedly needed to carry out certain
developmental undertakings in the Municipality. Respondent delivered 21 motorcycles but were
not paid by Ople. Respondent filed for the collection of the payment. RTC issued the writ of
preliminary attachment directing the sheriff to attach the estate, real and personal properties of
petitioner municipality. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss and filed a motion to dissolve and/ or
discharge the writ of Preliminary attachment issued, invoking immunity of the state from suit,
unenforceability of the contract, and failure to substantiate the allegation of fraud. RTC however,
denied the motion. On appeal, CA affirmed the decision of the RTC finding no merit on the
petition. Thus, the court declared

ISSUE:

1) WON, petitioner properly invoke the immunity from suit; OR

2) WON, private-petitioner can be held liable.

HELD:

1) No. The general rule is that the state and its political subdivisions cannot be sued without its
consent. Otherwise put, they are open to suit only when they consent to it. Consent is implied
when the government enters into a business contract, as it descends into the level of the other
contracting party; or it may be embodied in a general or special law such as that found in Book I,
Title I, chapter 2, section 22 of the LGC which vest LGU certain corporate powers- one of them
is the power to sue and be sued.

Hence, in this case statute of fraud is not applicable since private respondent had partially
executed the obligation by delivering the said motorcycles as such there existed a contact. By
virtue of this, the Municipality had given its implied consent to be sued. And by virtue of Sec. 22
of the LGC, it has given its consent to be sued.

2) No. Suability and liability is different. The universal rule that where state gives its consent to
be sued by parties either by general or special law, it may limit claimants action only up to the
completion of the proceedings anterior to the stage of the execution and the power of the courts
end when the judgment is rendered, since government funds and properties may not be seized
under the writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgment. The court holds that the
writ of Preliminary injunction must be dissolve must not have been issued in the very first place.
GRANTED IN PART.