State Immunity

Art. XVI. The State may not be sued without

its consent. [Royal Prerogative of
Dishonesty]- BECAUSE OF THE IDEA THAT ALL RIGHTS COMES FROM
THE STATE, SO THE STATE CAN DO ANYTHING.. IT CAN BE DISHONEST. IT SHOULD
BE ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING SUED
1999, No. 6 – What do you understand by State Immunity from Suit?
IT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE VIEW OF POINT OF BASIS-
BASIS- THE PHILIPPPINE STATE CANNOT BE SUED WITHOUT ITS
CONSENT- THE PHILIPPINE STATE

1998, 13: What is the Doctrine of State Immunity in International Law?

BASIS- THE SOVEREIGN EQUALITY OF ALL STATES– SO ANY
STATE CANNOT BE PUT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF ANOTHER
STATE
DECS, without the benefit of a public bidding,
decided to award a contract for the purchase
of P100M worth of text books to A. X, another
textbook supplier, filed suit for injunction to
restrain DECS. DECS moved to dismiss the
suit on the ground of immunity. Is DECS
correct?
a. No, because DECS is an entity not immune
from suit
b. No, because the suit will not result to
monetary liability on the part of the
government- YOU CAN ONLY INVOKE THE
IMMUNITY IF IT WILL RESULT TO
MONETARY OR PROPERTY LOSS TO THE
GOVERNMENT
c. No, because when DECS awarded the
contract, it was not performing a governmental
function
d. Yes, because as a governmental entity
performing governmental functions, DECS is
immune
DOH v. Phil. Pharmawealth –
The doctrine is not available in suits for
injunction and mandamus. The reason is
that will not result to monetary or property loss
to the government.
MANDAMUS AND INJUNCITON DO NOT
RESULT TO MONETYARYOR PROPERTY
LOSS TO THE GOVERNMENT
2011 Bar Exam
 80. Executive Secretary Chua issued an order prohibiting the
holding of rallies along Mendiola because it hampers the traffic
flow to Malacanang. A group of militants questioned the order for
being unconstitutional and filed a case against Secretary Chua to
restrain him from enforcing the order. Secretary Chua raised state
immunity from suit claiming that the state cannot be sued without its
consent. Is the claim correct?
 A. No, public officers may be sued to restrain him from
enforcing an act claimed to be unconstitutional.
 B. Yes, the order was not a proprietary act of the government.
 C. No, only the president may raise the defense of immunity from
suit.
 D. Yes, Secretary Chua cannot be sued for acts done in pursuance
to his public office.
 State Immunity: WHEN DOES A SUIT CONSIDERED AS Suits against State– INORDER
TO PROPERLY INVOKE THE DOCTRINTE OF STATE IMMUNITY

1. When Republic is sued by name, except

when ultimate liability will fall in the official
[Republic v. Sandoval- FACTS: MASSACRE IN MENDIOLA OF FARMERS-
THEY FILED FOR DAMAGES NAMING REPUBLIC AS RESPONDENT- HELD: ALLOWED BECAUSE ANYWAYS
THE ULTIMATE LIABILITY WILL FALL IN THE OFFICIAL ACTUALLY LIABLE- THE GOVERNMENT OFFICER IS
PERFOMING HIS FUNCTIONS ILLEGALLY

2. When suit is against an unincorporated

government entity- THIS ENTITY HAS NO DISTINCT
PERSONALITY- EX. CHED, DECS, DFA .. UNLIKE THOSE LANDBANK, GSIS, SSS

3. When it is against a government officer,

but ultimate liability will fall not to the officer
but to the government [PC-Sucia]- OPPOSIITE TO
NO. 1- THIS HAPPENS WHEN AN OFFICER PERFORMS HIS FUNCTION IN A
LAWFUL MANNER= IT IS THE STATE WHO WILL BE HELD LIABLE.. HENCE, IT
CANNOT BE SUED WITHOUT SUIT
 When will liability fall on the government? MEMO

1. When their actions have authority under law;

and
2. They perform it in a legal manner

DOH – When they perform unlawful or

unauthorized acts and are sued for damages,
they cannot claim immunity. THEY WILL BE
LIABLE IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITY
1990, No. 10
 The Secretary of Public Works, after an investigation, ordered the
demolition of the fish pond of X as a nuisance per se on the
ground that it encroached on navigable rivers. The Supreme
Court later found that the rivers were manmade and were
constructed on private property owned by X. May X recover
damages from the Secretary?YES! HE WAS PERFORMING HIS
FUNCTIONS IN A LAWFUL MANNER BECAUSE HE MADE
INVESTIGATION.. HENCE, THE SUIT CANNOT PROCEED
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE STATE
 Veterans v. CA: PC-SUCIA- FACTS: PSU ISSUED PERMITS LICENCES AND REVOKED
OTHE LICENSES OF SECURITY AGENCYS: HELD: THE OFFICERS WERE PERFOMING THEIR
FUNCTIONS IN A LAWFUL MANNER.. HENCE THE SUIT CANNOT PROCEED WITHOUT STATE CONSENT

 Lansang- FACST:
2011 Bar Exam
 70. Amor sued for annulment of a deed of sale of Lot 1.
While the case was ongoing, Baltazar, an interested
buyer, got a Certification from Atty. Crispin, the Clerk
of Court, that Lot 1 was not involved in any pending
case before the court. Acting on the certification, the
Register of Deeds canceled the notice of lis pendens
annotated on Lot 1’s title. Amor filed a damage suit
against Atty. Crispin but the latter invoked good faith and
immunity from suit for acts relating to his official duty,
claiming he was not yet the Clerk of Court when Amor
filed his
 action. Decide.
 A. Atty. Crispin is immune from suit since he enjoys
the presumption of regularity of performance of
public duty.
 B. Atty. Crispin's defense is invalid since he
issued his certification recklessly without
checking the facts.- HE WAS NOT ACTING IN A
LAWFUL MANNER- HENCE, HE IS LIABLE
PERSONALLY
 C. Atty. Crispin's defense is valid since he was
unaware of the pendency of the case.
 D. As Clerk of Court, Atty. Crispin enjoys absolute
immunity from suit for acts relating to his work.
 Forms of Waiver of Immunity: HOW
DOES A STATE WAIVES ITS
IMMUNITY
1. Express: by means of a law, Act. 3083/CC
2189-roads- IT GIVEN BY LAW.. CIVIL CODE PROVIDES EXPRESSLY
THAT GOVERNMENT SHALL BE LIABLE DEFECTIVE CONDITIONS OF ROADS
UNDER ITS SUPERVISION

2. Implied:
a. Enters into a contract (proprietary
capacity)
b. Commences litigation (counter-claim)
[Froilan v. Oriental][Rep v. SDGN
COUNTERCLAIM MUST NOT EXCEED THEMAIN CLAIM
3. When it accepts [conditional] donation
[DECS v. Onate] DECS ACCEPTED A DONATION FROM SOMBODY.. IT TURN OUT
THAT THE DONOR WAS NOT THE OWNER- HELD: SC ALLOWED DECS TO BE SUED ON THE GROUND
THAT WHEN GOVT ACCEPTED THE SAME, IT WAIVES ITS IMMUNITY- NEED NOT BE CONDITIONAL
DONATION

4. When it takes over private property without

compensation [ATO v. Sps. Ramos, 644 SCRA
36 (2011)] THE MOMENT YOU TAKE A PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION,
YOU WAIVED THE IMMUNITY

5. In cases of implied contracts

[Vigilar case] WHEN A CONTRACTOR CONTINUED TO BUILD A ROAD WITH THE
EXPECTATION THAT HE BE PAID BY DPWH AS ASSURED VERBALLY BY THE DPWH SEC... THERE WAS
AN IMPLIED AGREEMENT THAT HE BE PAID… IT IS ALLOWED TO BE SUED

6. Gross negligence – Unimix [Bureau of

Customs] BOC CONFISCATED MILIONS WORTH OF COMPUTER UNITS…. BOC LOST TO THE CASE AND
WAS ORDERED TO RETURN.. HOWEVER YEARS PAST, PLAINTIFF FILED FOR REVIVAL OF JUDGMENT: HELD… YOU
CANNOT INVOKE IMMUNITY CONSIDERING THE EXISTENCE OF GROSS NEGLIGINCE OF BOC…. MOREOVER, BOC IS AN
UNINCORPORATED ENTITY
 Principle on Consent:
 Since it is a derogation of sovereignty, it
is strictly construed against the individual
and in favor of the State.
 Sandoval ---MASSACRE IN MENDIOLA.. COMMISSION WAS CREATED TO
INVESTIGATE THE INCIDENT.. PRESIDENT AQUINO PROMISED COMPENSATION! WAS
THERE CONSENT? HELD: NO! THERE WAS NO CONSENT… DESPITE OF PRESIDENTS
PROMISE.. Since it is a derogation of sovereignty, it is strictly construed against the
individual and in favor of the State. OTHERWISE STATED, YOU MUST PROVE BY CLEAR
AND CONVINCING EVIDENC E THAT THERE WAS CONSENT.
 CONSENT HAS TO BE MADE IN A LAW OR BY ACT OF CONGRESS…

 TAKE NOTE: A PERSON SUED AN UNINCORPORATED ENTITY AND THE LATTER

LOSE.. ON APPPEAL, THE LATTER REMEMBERED AND INVOKE STATE IMMUNITY FOR
THE FIRST TIME… IT WAS OBJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATE HAS
ALREADY WAIVED WHEN IT FAILED TO INVOKE THE SAME AT THE EARLIEST
OPPORTUNITY… HELD: Since it is a derogation of sovereignty, it is strictly construed
against the individual and in favor of the State. THE FAILURE TO INVOKE AT THE FIRST
OPPORTUNITY DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A WAIVER OF THE RIGHT…
1996, No. 6:
 How may consent to be sued be given?

 2001, No. 3: The Republic, through the DPWH

constructed a new highway traversing a land
owned by Mang Pandoy. It did not pay
compensation. When sued, it filed a motion to
dismiss invoking immunity. Resolve. 1987/1992
 NO! BY TAKING A PRIVATE PROPERTY
WITHOUT COMPENSATION, YOU CAN BE
SUED
1998, No. 1:
 The Department of National Defense entered
into a contract with Raintree Corporation for the
supply of ponchos to the AFP, stipulating that
in the event of breach, action may be filed in the
proper court in Manila.
 Suppose AFP fails to pay for delivered
ponchos, where must Raintree Corp file its
claim? [May the Department be sued?]
a. Yes, because the DND is an entity that does not enjoy
immunity
b. Yes, because while the DND enjoys immunity, by
entering into a contract, it impliedly waived its immunity
c. No, because there was no implied consent since
the contract was governmental in nature – SUPPLY
OF PONCHOS IS GOVERNMENT IN NATURE…
HENCE THERE IS NO IMPLIED CONSENT
d. No, because state immunity does not apply since the
suit will not involve monetary liability
 FUNCTONS PROPRIETY IN
NATURE
 Royal Traders Bank- NMPC- NMPC IS TASKED BY LAW TO MAKE
INFORMATION DESIMINATION… IT BROADCAST PBA GAMES.. IT WAS SUED BY ROYAL BANK FOR
UNPAID LOAN. HELD- IT CAN BE SUED SINCE IT PERFORMS FUNCTIONS PROPRIETY IN NATURE-
BROADCASTING PBA GAMES.. HENCE, BY ENTERING INTO CONTRACT, IT WAIVE ITS STATE
IMMUNITY

 Rep. v. Guinto – barbering- BARBERSH0P OWN BY AMERICAN

GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE AMERICAN BASIS.. IT CATERED NOT ONLY AMERICANS BUT ALSO
OTHER PERSONS.. IT WHAS SUED FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL OF AN EMPLOYEEE- HELD: IT CAN BE
SUED BECAUSE OPERATING BARBERSHOP IS PROPRIETARY IN NATURE

 Professional Video v. TESDA (2009)–security

printed ID to those certified
 TESDA CONTRACTED A COMPANY TO PRINT ID SYSTEM. IT WAS SUED FOR FALURE
OF PAYMNET: HELD- IT CANNOT BE SUED AS CONTRACT FOR PRINTING OF IDS IS
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS- ID FOR TESDA GRADUATES
 IS THE CONTRACT IS GOVERNMENTAL OR PROPRIETY.. IF IT FALS TO THE LATTER- IT
WAIVES THE RIGHT OF IMMUNITY
1. CONSENT
LIABLILTIY
ENFORCEABLITY
 Liability – Consent to be sued is not an
admission of liability. You are given the
chance to prove, except Art. 2180 which
admits liability once certain conditions
have been proved. (DEFECTIVE CONDITIONS ROADS) –
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS TO PROVE THAT THE ROAD IS DEFEFTIVE
AND YOU SUFFER DAMAGE AS A CONSEQUENCE THEREOF
 1997, No. 6: It is said that “waiver of
immunity by the state does not mean a
concession of liability.” What are the
implications of this phrase?
 Consent to be sued is not an admission
of liability. You are given the chance to
prove, except Art. 2180 which admits liability
once certain conditions have been proved
Enforceabilty/Execution— “LIABILTY HAS
BEEN PROVEN ALREADY!!!!
A. National Government/agencies with no separate personality
– no execution, no garnishment of funds or
property/Procedure- FILE A CLAIM WITH COA
B. Incorporated agencies – Yes [NHA] SUBJECT OF
EXECUTION
C. Local government:
1. Appropriated funds may be garnished
2. Property held in non-governmental capacity may be
executed- MUNICIPAL HALL, PLAZA CANNOT BE
SUBJECT TO EXECUTION
3. Mandamus will lie [Nessia v. Fermin] TO
COMPEL THE SB TO PASS
APPROPRATION FOR THE PAYMENT
 Execution/ Attatchment
Curata v. PPA (2009) – expropriation –
PPA EXPOPRIATED A PIECE OF LAND.. THE COMPENSATION WAS ALREADY FIXED BY THE COURT…
Can execution pending appeal be granted? No. Since PPA is an unincorporated entity performing
governmental function… SO SETTLE CLAIMS WITH COA….. SINCE IT CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO
EXECUTION, WITH MORE REASON IT CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL

Municipality of Hagonoy v. Dumdum (2010) –

preliminary attachment
LGU ENTERED CONTRACT WITH SOMEBODY WHERE IT FAILED TO PAY THE
SAME.. THE CREDITOR FILED PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTY
HELD BY LGU; HELD: LGU PROPERTY USED FOR GOVERNMENTAL..
VEHICLES USED FOR GOVERNMENT PURPOSES: FUNCTION CANNOT
ATTACHED.
Jaime v. Apostol (2008) – Negligent driver. Can
the municipality be held liable?
Torres: LGU not suable/immune [?]
Are they liable?
1. if governmental function- no
2. if proprietary - yes
But:
Local Government Code of 1991:
SEC. 24. Liability for Damages. - Local
government units and their officials are not
exempt from liability for death or injury to
persons or damage to property.
 72. A collision occurred involving a passenger jeepney
driven by Leonardo, a cargo truck driven by Joseph, and
a dump truck driven by Lauro but owned by the City of
Cebu. Lauro was on his way to get a load of sand for
the repair of the road along Fuente Street, Cebu City.
As a result of the collision, 3 passengers of the jeepney
died. Their families filed a complaint for damages
against Joseph who in turn filed a third party complaint
against the City of Cebu and Lauro. Is the City of Cebu
liable for the tort committed by its employee?
 A. The City of Cebu is not liable because its
employee was engaged in the discharge of a
governmental function.
 B. The City of Cebu is liable for the tort
committed by its employee while in the
discharge of a non-governmental function.
 C. The City of Cebu is liable in accord with the
precept of respondeat superior.
 D. The City of Cebu is not liable as a
consequence of its non-suitability.
 1994, No. 14:
 The Municipality of Antipolo expropriated the
property of Juan Reyes. The municipal council
appropriated P1,000,000 for the purchase of the lot
but the RTC fixed the value of P2,000,000.
 1. Can Juan Reyes ask the RTC to garnish the
municipality’s account with the Land Bank?
 YES! IT CAN GARNISHED THE ONLY
APPROPRIATED 1,000,000..
 2. What legal action can Juan Reyes take to collect
the balance? IT CAN FILE MANDAMUS TO COMPEL
THE SB FOR THE PASSAGE OF APPROPRIATION
OF FUNDS FOR THE REMAINING 1 M