SUITS AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
1. Incorporated
- if the charter provides that the agency
can sue and be sued, then will lie,
including one for tort
- the provision in the charter constitutes
express consent on the part of the state
to be sued
* Municipal Agencies
– agencies of the State when they are
engaged in governmental functions
and, therefore, should enjoy the
sovereign immunity from suit.
– However, they are subject to suit even
in the perfomance of such functions
because their respective charters
provde that they can sue and be sued.
– One of the corporate powers of local
government units, as enumerated in
Sec. 22, LGC, is the power to sue and
be sued.
* National Irrigation Administration
– the SC reiterated that NIA is a
corporate bpdy performing
proprietary functions, whose charter,
P.D. 552, provides that it may sue and
be sued
* Philippine National Railways
– although the charter of PNR is silent
on whether is may sue or be sued, it
had already been ruled that the PNR
is not performing any governmental
function, and may be sued
2. Unincorporated
– without a separate juridical personality
– enjoys immunity from suit
– inquire into principal functions of the
agency:
 If governmental: NO suit without
consent
 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, thefore, be
vulnerable to suit
SUIT AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICERS
– the doctrine of state immunity also
applies to complaints filed against
officials of the state for acts
performed by them in the discharge
of their duties within the scope of
their authority.
– Public officers in the discharge of
official functions which are
governmental in character
XPNS when a public officer may be sued
without the prior consent of the state:
(Sanders v. Veridiano)
1. To compe him to do an act required
by law
2. To restrain him from enforcing an act
claimed to be unconstitutional
3. To compel the payment of damages
from an already appropriated
assurance fund or a refund tax over-
payments from a fund already
available for the purpose
4. To secure a judgment that the officer
impleaded may satisfy himself
without the State having to do a
positive act to assist him
5. Where the government itself has
violated its own laws because the
doctrine of state immunity cannot be
used to perpetrate an injustice
* Unauthorized acts of the government
officials are not acts of state; thus, the public
officer may be sued and held personally liable
in damages for such acts
* Where a public officer has committed an
ultra vires act, or where there is 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
* Where the public official is sued in his
personal capacity, the doctrine of state
immunity will not apply, even if the acts
complained of were committed while the
public official was occupying a public position
SCOPE OF CONSENT
– Consent to be sued does not include consent
to the execution of judgment against it
* Execution of judgment requires another
waiver because the power of the court ends
when the judgment is rendered, since
government funds & properties may not be
seized under writs of execution or
garnishment, unless such disbursement is
covered by the corresponding appropriation
as required by law
* But funds belonging to government
corporations (whose charters provide that
they can sue and be sued) that are deposited
with a bank are not exempt from garnishment
* If the funds belong to a public corporation
or GOCCs, which is clothed with a personality
of its won, then the funds are not exempt
from garnishment. This is so because when
the government enters into commercial
business, it abandons its sovereign capacity
and is to be treated like any other
corporation
* Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan v.
Fernandez
 Funds of a municipality (although it is
an incorporated agencywhose charter
provides that it can sue and be sued),
are public in character and may not
be garnished unless there is a
corresponding appropriation
ordinance duly passed by
Sangguniang Bayan.
* City of Caloocan v. Allarde
 All government funds deposited with
any official depositary bank of the
Philippine Government by any of its
agencies or instrumentalities,
whether by general or special
deposit, remain government funds
and may not be subject to
garnishment or levy in the absence of
a corresponding appropriation as
required by law
* Municiunicipality of Makati v. CA
 where the municipality fails or
refuses, without justifiable reason, to
effect payment of a final money
judgment rendered against it, the
claimant may avail of the remedy of
mandamus in order to compel the
enactment and approval of the
necessary appropriation ordinance
and the corresponding disbursement
of municipal funds to satisfy the
money judgment
* Pacific Products v. Ong
 by the process of garnishment, the
plaintiff virtually sues the garnishee
for a debt due from the defendant.
The debtor-stranger becomes a
forced intervenor; when served with
the writ of attachment, he becomes a
party to the action. Money in the
hands of government agency
(engaged in governmental functions),
even if due to a third party, is not
liable to creditors of the third party
through garnishment. To allow this
would be to allow a suit against the
State without the latter’s consent.
SUABILITY NOT EQUATED WITH
OUTRIGHT LIABILITY
– Liability will have to be determined
by the Court on the basis of the
evidence and the applicable law.
* Merritt v. Government of the Philippine
Islands
 While consent to be sued was granted
through a special law, the
government was held not liable for
damages, because under the
attendant circumstances the
government was not acting through a
special agent.
* National Irrigation Administration v. CA
 National Irrigation Administration is
a government agency with a juridical
personality separate and distinct
from the government; it is a
corporate body performing
proprietary functions. Thus, the NIA
may be held liable for damages
caused by the negligent act of its
driver who was not a special agent