## 116 Sayson v Singson AUTHOR: Janet

G.R. No G.R. No. L-30044 Notes:

TOPIC: Money claims arising from contract
PONENTE: FERNANDO, J:
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
The basic doctrine of non-suability of the government without its consent is thus decisive of the
controversy.

Emergency Recit:
There was a bidding for the purchase of spare parts of a bulldozer. The winning bid was from Singkier
Motor Services owned by Singson. He was paid Php 34,824.00. There was a remaining balance of
Php 8,706.00 which was not paid. He was no longer paid because it was alleged that the cost from
other suppliers only amounts to Php 2,529.64. Malversation cases were filed against the public
officers involved. Singson filed a mandamus case to compel the payment of the balance. The claim
was denied because it is an action against the State. The doctrine of non-suability without its consent
was applied.
FACTS:
January, 1967: the Office of the District Engineer requisitioned various items of spare parts for
the repair of a D-8 bulldozer
o The requisition was signed by the District Engineer, and the Requisitioning Officer (civil
engineer)
o It was approved by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications.
May 5 1967: a canvass or public bidding was conducted.
o The committee on award accepted the bid of the Singkier Motor Service [owned by
respondent Felipe Singson] for the sum of P43,530.00.
it was approved by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications
the Secretary sent a letter-order to the Singkier Motor Service, Mandaue, Cebu
requesting it to immediately deliver the items listed therein for the lot price of
P43,530.00.
It would appear that a purchase order signed by the District Engineer, the
Requisitioning Officer and the Procurement Officer, was addressed to the
Singkier Motor Service.
Voucher No. 07806 reached the hands of Highway Auditor Sayson for pre-audit.
o He then made inquiries about the reasonableness of the price.
o After finding from the indorsements of the Division Engineer and the Commissioner of
Public Highways that the prices of the various spare parts are just and reasonable and
that the requisition was also approved by no less than the Secretary of Public Works
and Communications with the verification of V.M. Secarro, a representative of the
Bureau of Supply Coordination, Manila, he approved it for payment in the sum of
P34,824.00, with the retention of 20% equivalent to P8,706.00.
His reason for withholding the 20% equivalent to P8,706.00 was to submit the
voucher with the supporting papers to the Supervising Auditor, which he did.
June 9, 1967: The voucher was paid on in the amount of P34,824.00 to the respondent
Singson.
June 10, 1967, Sayson received a telegram from Supervising Auditor Fornier quoting a
telegraphic message of the General Auditing Office which states: 'In view of excessive prices
charge for purchase of spare parts and equipment shown by vouchers already submitted this
Office direct all highway auditors refer General Office payment similar nature for appropriate
action.'
o when the voucher and the supporting papers reached the GAO, a canvass was made of
the spare parts among the suppliers in Manila, particularly, the USI (Phil.), which is the
 exclusive dealer of the spare parts of the caterpillar tractors in the Philippines.
o Said firm thus submitted its quotations at P2,529.64 only which is P40,000.00 less than
the price of the Singkier.
July 18, 1987: The GAO took up the matter with the Secretary of Public Works
o The Secretary then circularized a telegram holding the district engineer responsible for
overpricing."
Charges for malversation were filed against the district engineer and the civil engineer
involved.
Singson filed a mandamus case to compel the payment of the balance.
Lower court: in favor of Singson
Thus the present appeal

ISSUE(S): Whether or not the State can be sued.

HELD: No. The State cannot be sued without its consent
RATIO: With the facts undisputed and the statute far from indefinite or ambiguous, the appealed
decision defies explanation. It would be to disregard a basic corollary of the cardinal postulate of non-
suability. It is true that once consent is secured, an action may be filed. There is nothing to prevent
the State, however, in such statutory grant, to require that certain administrative proceedings be had
and the exhausted.

DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):