State Immunity - Power Point Presentation

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
Advanced Cost #5
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 deemed
to be a suit against the State?
4. What are the instances when a suit against the
State is proper?
5. 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?
Advanced Cost #5
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 an
express affirmation of the unwritten rule
effectively insulating it from the
jurisdiction of courts.
Advanced Cost #5
Basis
There can be no legal right against the
authority which makes the law on which
the right depends.
However, it may be sued if it gives consent,
whether express or implied. The doctrine is
known as the Royal Prerogative of
Dishonesty. It grants the state the
prerogative to defeat any legitimate claim
against it by simply invoking its non-
suability.
Advanced Cost #5
How may consent of the State to be
sued given?
In order that suit may lie against the

state, there must be consent, either
express or implied.
Advanced Cost #5
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 law
granting consent is CA 327, as amended by PD
1445, which requires that all money claims
against the government must first be filed with the
Commission on Audit before suit is instituted in
court.
Advanced Cost #5
sued given?
In the case of Ministerio v. City of Cebu, 40

SCRA 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.
Advanced Cost #5
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)
Advanced Cost #5
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)
Advanced Cost #5
sued given?

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)
Advanced Cost #5
sued given?

In Republic of Indonesia vs. Vinzon, GR 154705, June
26, 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.
Advanced Cost #5
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.
Advanced Cost #5
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.
Advanced Cost #5
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 government-owned or controlled
corporation which is clothed with a
personality of its own, then the funds are
not exempt from garnishment.
Advanced Cost #5
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.
Advanced Cost #5
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.
Advanced Cost #5
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.
Advanced Cost #5
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.
Advanced Cost #5
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.
Advanced Cost #5
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.
Advanced Cost #5
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.
Advanced Cost #5
Test to determine if suit is
against the State
In Tan 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.
Advanced Cost #5
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.
Advanced Cost #5
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)
Advanced Cost #5
What are the instances when a suit
against the State is proper?
In Republic vs. Sandoval, 220 SCRA 124, March

19, 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.
Advanced Cost #5
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 PROPRIETARY
FUNCTIONS, chose charter PD 552,
provides that it may sue and be sued.
Advanced Cost #5
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.
Advanced Cost #5
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.
Advanced Cost #5
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.
Advanced Cost #5
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 citizen’s 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.
Advanced Cost #5
Fundamental Power of the State
Police Power
1. Ichong vs. Hernandez (GR L-7995, May
31, 1957)
2. Tablarin vs. Judge Gutierrez (GR 78164,
July 31, 1987)
3. Lozano vs. Martinez (GR L-63419, Dec
18, 1986)
Advanced Cost #5
4. Ermita-Malate Hotel vs. City Mayor (GR

L-24693, 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)
Advanced Cost #5
Eminent Domain
• 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)
Advanced Cost #5
Taxation
• 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)
Advanced Cost #5

State Immunity - Power Point Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State Immunity - Power Point Presentation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

State Immunity - Power Point Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the different ways the state can give consent to be sued?

What are the different ways the state can give consent to be sued?

What is the difference between incorporated and unincorporated state agencies in terms of suability?

What is the difference between incorporated and unincorporated state agencies in terms of suability?

OUTLINE

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

It reflects nothing less than a recognition of

In order that suit may lie against the

In the case of Ministerio v. City of Cebu, 40

B. Special law. This form of consent must be

b.1 Jure imperii (sovereign act)

b.1 Jure imperii (sovereign act)

City of Caloocan vs. Allarde, GR 107271,

The cloak of protection is removed the

In conducting this surveillance and later,

The public official is clearly being sued not

In Republic vs. Sandoval, 220 SCRA 124, March

In National Irrigation Administration vs.

A. If governmental: NO suit without consent.

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

4. Ermita-Malate Hotel vs. City Mayor (GR

You might also like