immunity-from-suit.pdf

Immunity of the State from Suit

MSU College of Law IIT Extension

OutlineState

● 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 in-stances 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 injus-tice on a citizen?

Basis

● Section 3, Article XVI.● “The State may not be sued without its con-

sent.”● It reflects nothing less than a recognition of

the sovereign character of the State and anexpress affirmation of the unwritten rule-effectively 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 non-suability.

●

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.


● 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)


● 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)


● 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)


● 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


● 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.


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


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.


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 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.

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)


● 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)


● 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)


● 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)

immunity-from-suit.pdf

Documents