REPUBLIC vs.

HIDALGO

534 SCRA 619

FACTS: Tarcila Laperal Mendoza filed an action for the annulment or declaration of
nullity of the title and deed of sale, reconveyance and/or
recovery of ownership and possession of property against the Republic of the
Philippines in the RTC of Manila. It is also known as the Arlegui Residence
which housed two Philippine presidents and which now holds the Office of the Press
Secretary and the News Information Bureau. The case was initially dismissed by the
presiding Judge of the Manila RTC (Branch 35) on the ground of state immunity. The
case was re-raffled to the Manila RTC (Branch 37), with
respondent Vicente A. Hidalgo as presiding Judge. In an Order, Judge Hidalgo declared
the Republic in default for failure of Solicitor Gabriel Francisco Ramirez, the handling
solicitor, to file the required answer within the period prayed for in his motion for
extension. It is contended that the respondent Judge violated the Constitution and the
fundamental rule that government funds are exempt from execution or garnishment
when he caused the issuance of the writ of execution against the Republic.

PROVISION: Sec 1, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court; Rule 65 of the Rules of Court

ISSUE: Whether or not the Republic can invoke immunity from suit

HELD: It is settled that when the State give sits consent to be sued, it does not thereby
necessarily consent to an unrestrained execution against it. Tersely put, when the State
waives its immunity, all it does, in effect, is to give the other party an opportunity to
prove, if it can, that the state has a liability. The functions and public services
rendered by the State cannot be allowed to
paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate
and specific objects, as appropriated by law

NOTES: Section 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion for new trial or
reconsideration. Within the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved party may
move the trial court to set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial for one
or more of the following causes materially affecting the substantial rights of said party:

(a) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which ordinary prudence

could not have guarded against and by reason of which such aggrieved party has
probably been impaired in his rights; or

(b) Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with reasonable diligence,
have discovered and produced at the trial, and which if presented would probably
alter the result.
Within the same period, the aggrieved party may also move for reconsideration upon the
grounds that the damages awarded are excessive, that the evidence is insufficient to
justify the decision or final order, or that the decision or final order is contrary to law.
(1a)