ARTICLE XVI “GENERAL PROVISIONS”
Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent. (1987 & 1973
Constitution only)
LAWS RELATING TO STATE IMMUNITY AND NON-SUABILITY:
- CA 327 AN ACT FIXING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH THE AUDITOR GENERAL
SHALL RENDER HIS DECISIONS AND PRESCRIBING THE MANNER OF APPEAL
THEREFROM (1938)
- P.D. No. 1445 Government Auditing Code of the Philippines (1978)
- Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190) Section 247
http://source.gosupra.com/docs/statute/550
- New Civil Code Section 2180 “The State is responsible in like manner when it
acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by
the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is
provided in article 2176 shall be applicable.”
- “the King can do no wrong”, in its history, correctly means, “King must not and
was not allowed to do wrong”. It should not be taken as an excuse to do wrong.
- Public service will be hindered and the public safety endangered if the supreme
authority could be subjected to suits at the instance of every citizen.
- State immunity is derived from the will of the people themselves. When they
agreed to establish a republican state, the citizens solemnly undertook to
surrender some of their private rights and interst that were calculated to conflict
with higher rights and the larger interests of the people as a whole.
- indirect suit against the state is prohibited.
- State consenting to suability is not conceding to liability. Further, even if
adjudged as liable, it does not follow that follow that judgement can be enforced
by execution. Due to obviously needed consideration of public policy and scarce
government resources, disbursements of public funds must be covered by the
corresponding appropriation as required by law (e.g.).
- consent of the state to the “execution” of judgement (e.g. appropriation of
funds) is required.
THE SITUS OF STATE CONSENT IS THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
(Bernas, 2009)
EXPRESS CONSENT: (GS)
A. GENERAL LAW
B. SPECIAL LAW
IMPLIED CONSENT: (GS)
A. GOVERNMENT OFFICER (AUTHORIZED BY STATE) FILES A SUIT,
OPENS ITSELF FOR COUNTERCLAIMS.
B. STATE ENTERS INTO A CONTRACT
TYPES OF SUITS AGAINST STATE: MUSIC GF
M - MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (may be sued)
U - UNINCORPORATED AGENCIES (no juridical personality to be sued)
S - SPECIAL AGENT (e.g. ambulance driver, torts, state pays for the
driver)
I - INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES (immune under treaties)
C - CORPORATION GOVERNMENT OWNED (may be sued, with express
consent from Congress already)
G - GOVERNMENT OFFICERS (if state is liable not the officer, may be
immune)
F - FOREIGN STATES (immune in courts of another state)
- Where the judgment in such a case would result… in a charge against or
financial liability to the Government, then the suit should be regarded as one
against the government itself, and, consequently, it cannot prosper or be validly
entertained by the courts except with the consent of said Government.
Amigable v. Cuenca
Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. L-26400 February 29, 1972
FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1972/feb1972/gr_l_26400_1972.html
DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby set aside (AMIGABLE’s
appeal for her rejected petition for compensation) and the case remanded
to the court a quo for the determination of compensation, including attorney's
fees, to which the appellant is entitled as above indicated. No pronouncement as
to costs.”
FACTS:
AMIGABLE, plaintiff-appellant,
CUENCA, as Commissioner of Public Highways and REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, defendants-appellees. [G - GOVERNMENT OFFICER?]
1. Amigable (plaintiff-appellant) sued the government for the illegal occupation
of her land. The government failed to heed to the legal process of expropriation
in doing so.
ISSUES:
1. W/N government can be sued without its consent should it violate a legal
right (i.e III:9 “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.”)
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. Under prevailing jurisprudence, where the government takes away property
from a private landowner for public use without going through the legal process
of expropriation or negotiated sale, the aggrieved party may properly maintain a
suit against the government without thereby violating the doctrine of
governmental immunity from suit without its consent.
CODALS: BLANK
Sayson v. Singson
Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. L-30044 December 19, 1973
FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1973/dec1973/gr_30044_1973.html
DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu (me: was a
wrong forum in the first place) of September 4, 1968 is reversed and set aside,
and the suit for mandamus (not a proper remedy in the first place) filed against
petitioners, respondents below, is dismissed. With costs against respondent
Felipe Singson.”
FACTS:
SAYSON, Highway Auditor, Bureau of Public Highways, petitioner [G - GOVERNMENT OFFICER?]
SINGSON, as sole owner and proprietor of Singkier Motor Service, respondent
1. Government purchased spare parts from Singson which the latter received a
voucher for. The voucher was later found to be overpriced and was paid less
than originally agreed in the contract. Singson assails for the balance owed
based on original contract. The case was dismissed because Singson failed to file
his suit in the proper forum. (me: which was understood by the court as
impliedly suing the Government without its consent.)
ISSUES:
1. W/N failing to file a money claim against the government at the proper forum
legislatively provided constitutes “a suit without consent”?
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. 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 be exhausted.
2. In this case, a money claim against the government, Commonwealth Act No.
327 must be exhausted before the State allows (i.e. consents to) an appeal (i.e.
a suit).
CODALS: BLANK
Republic v. Purisima
Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. L-36084 August 31, 1977
FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/aug1977/gr_36084_1977.html
DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the petitioner for certiorari is granted and the resolution of
October 4, 1972 denying the motion to dismiss filed by the Rice and Corn
Administration nullified and set aside and the petitioner for prohibition is likewise
granted restraining respondent Judge from acting on civil Case No. 79082
pending in his sala except for the purpose of ordering its dismissal for lack of
jurisdiction. The temporary restraining order issued on February 8, 1973 by this
Court is made permanent terminating this case. Costs against Yellow Ball
Freight Lines, Inc.”
FACTS:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner
HONORABLE PURISIMA, the Presiding Judge of the court of first Instance of Manila (Branch VII), and YELLOW BALL FREIGHT LINES,
INC., respondents.
YELLOW BALL FREIGHT LINES, INC, plaintiff
Rice and Corn Administration, defendant [U - UNINCORPORATED AGENCIES?]
1. Purisima ruled against RCA in favor of Yellow Ball. SC disagrees, as an
unincorporated agency, RCA is immune to suits unless the consent is provided
by Government.
ISSUES:
1. W/N unincorporated agencies are covered by the non-suability of the State
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1 .The consent, to be effective though, must come from the State acting
through a duly enacted statute as pointed out by Justice Bengzon in Mobil. Thus,
whatever counsel for defendant Rice and Corn Administration agreed to had no
binding force on the government. That was clearly beyond the scope of his
authority. At any rate, Justice Sanchez, in Ramos v. Court of Industrial
Relations, was quite categorical as to its [RCA’a] "not [being] possessed of a
separate and distinct corporate existence. On the contrary, by the law of its
creation, it is an office directly 'under the Office of the President of the
Philippines.”
Suppletory:
1. BENGSON IN MOBIL Doctrine: “It must be remembered that statutory
provisions waiving State immunity from suit are strictly construed and that
waiver of immunity, being in derogation of sovereignty, will not be lightly
inferred..”
2. Bernas: Express consent by the state, is through a legislative action.
Torio v. Fontanilla
Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. L-29993. October 23, 1978
FULL TEXT: http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1978octoberdecisions.php?id=345
DECISION:
“PREMISES CONSIDERED, We AFFIRM in toto the decision of the Court of
Appeals insofar as the Municipality of Malasiqui is concerned (L-30183), and We
absolve the municipal councilors from liability and SET ASIDE the judgment
against them (L-29993).”
FACTS:
Torio, Municipal Council of Malasiqui in 1959, Petitioners [M - MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS]
Fontanilla (heirs of the deceased performers), and CA, Respondents
1. During a program people went up the "zarzuela" stage and before the play
was over the stage collapsed, pinning underneath one of the performers,
resulting in his death. The heirs of the deceased sued the municipality and the
councilors for damages.
ISSUES:
1. W/N Municipal Corporations are covered by the non-suability of the State?
2. W/N Municipal government officers should be held liable instead of the
government?
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. Under Philippine laws municipalities are political bodies corporate and as such
as endowed with the faculties of municipal corporations to be exercised by and
through their respective municipal governments in conformity with law, and in
their proper corporate name, they may, inter alia, sue and be sued, and
contract and be contracted with.
2. The ordinary doctrine is that a Director, merely by reason of his office, is not
personally liable for the torts of his corporation; he must be shown to have
personally voted for or otherwise participated in them xxxxxx On these
principles We absolve the municipal councilors from any liability for the death of
Vicente Fontanilla. The records do not show that said petitioners directly
participated in the defective construction of the "zarzuela" stage or that they
personally permitted spectators to go up the platform.
CODALS: BLANK
Santiago v. Republic
Class Topic: State Immunity Rayo v. CFI
G.R. No. L-48214 December 19, 1978 Class Topic: State Immunity
FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1978/dec1978/gr_48214_1978.html G.R. No. L-55273-83 December 19, 1981
FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1981/dec1981/gr_55273-83_1981.html

DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari prayed for is granted and the order of dismissal of October 20, 1977 is nullified, set aside and DECISION:
declared to be without force and effect. The Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City, Branch II, is hereby directed to proceed with this “WHEREFORE, the petition (Rayo & victims) is hereby granted; the Orders of the respondent court dated December 12, 1979 and
case, observing the procedure set forth in the Rules of Court. No costs.” October 3, 1980, are set aside; and said court is ordered to reinstate the complaints of the petitioners. Costs against the NPC.”

FACTS: FACTS:
SANTIAGO, DONOR, PETITIONER Rayo, many unfortunate victims of that man-caused flood
REPUBLIC, represented by the Director, Bureau of Plant Industry, DONEE, RESPONDENT
CFI OF BULACAN (denied the petitioners), BRANCH V, STA. MARIA, and
[C - CORPORATION GOVERNMENT OWNED]
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, respondents. [C - CORPORATION
GOVERNMENT OWNED]
1. His plea was for the revocation of a deed of donation executed by him and his
spouse in January 1971, 4 with the Bureau of Plant Industry as the donee. As
1. At about midnight on October 26, 1978, during the height of that infamous
alleged in such complaint, such Bureau, contrary to the terms of the donation,
typhoon "KADING" the respondent corporation, acting through its plant
failed to "install lighting facilities and water system on the property donated and
superintendent, Benjamin Chavez, opened or caused to be opened
to build an office building and parking [lot] thereon which should have been
simultaneously all the three floodgates of the Angat Dam. And as a direct and
constructed and ready for occupancy on or before December 1974
immediate result of the sudden, precipitate and simultaneous opening of said
floodgates several towns in Bulacan were inundated. Hardest-hit was
ISSUES:
Norzagaray. About a hundred of its residents died or were reported to have died
1. W/N government can be sued without its consent should it violate a legal
and properties worth million of pesos destroyed or washed away. This flood was
right, specifically, in cases where it is a beneficiary (i.e. donee), favoring the
unprecedented in Norzagaray.
side of benefactor (i.e. donor) (i.e III:1 DUE PROCESS, specifically, against
donor”)
GOOGLED: “The National Power Corporation (NPC) was created under
Commonwealth Act No. 120 on November 3, 1936 as a non-stock government
RATIO DECIDENDI:
corporation”
1. The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an
instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen
ISSUES:
1. Our decision, it must be emphasized, goes no further than to rule that a
1. W/N Government owned corporations distinct and separate from government
donor, with the Republic or any of its agency being the donee, is entitled to go
2. W/N Government owned corporations, performing governmental function, can
to court in case of an alleged breach of the conditions of such donation. He has
still be sued?
the right to be heard. Under the circumstances, the fundamental postulate of
non-suability cannot stand in the way. It is made to accommodate itself to the
RATIO DECIDENDI:
demands of procedural due process, which is the negation of arbitrariness and
1. As a government owned and controlled corporation, it has a personality of its
inequity. The government, in the final analysis, is the beneficiary.
own, distinct and separate from that of the Government.
2. It was not surprising therefore that in 1966, Mobil Philippines Exploration,
1. It is not necessary to write an extended dissertation on whether or not the
Inc. was decided the way it was. The remedy, where the liability is based on
NPC performs a governmental function with respect to the management and
contract, according to this Court, speaking through Justice J. P. Bengzon, is for
operation of the Angat Dam. It is sufficient to say that the government has
plaintiff to file a claim with the general office in accordance with the controlling
organized a private corporation, put money in it and has allowed it to sue and be
statute, Commonwealth Act No. 327.
sued in any court under its charter. (R.A. No. 6395, Sec. 3 (d).) YES, WITH
3. "It is settled that the Bureau of Customs, acting as part of the machinery
STATUTORY CONSENT = RA 6395.
of the national government in the operation of the arrastre service, is
immune from suit under the doctrine of non-suability of the State.
CODALS: Section 3 (d) of Republic Act No. 6395 (NPC suable)
USA v. Ruiz
Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. L-35645 May 22, 1985
FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/may1985/gr_l35645_1985.html
DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the petition (USA) is granted; the questioned orders of the
respondent judge (RUIZ) are set aside and Civil Case No. is dismissed. Costs
against the private respondent.”
FACTS:
USA, CAPT. JAMES E. GALLOWAY, WILLIAM I. COLLINS and ROBERT GOHIER,
petitioners,
[F - FOREIGN STATES]
RUIZ, Presiding Judge of Branch XV, Court of First Instance of Rizal and ELIGIO
DE GUZMAN & CO., INC., respondents.
1. Respondents ELIGIO DE GUZMAN & CO., INC, assails that U.S. impliedly
accepted their bids but offered the project to a third party. Without the seeming
need to look into the facts, U.S. simply asserted the doctrine of State immunity.
SC agrees, the project in question is a function of defense, that is, a function of
government.
ISSUES:
1. What are the rules on the immunity of
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. The traditional rule of State immunity exempts a State from being sued in the
courts of another State without its consent or waiver. This rule is a necessary
consequence of the principles of independence and equality of States. However,
the rules of International Law are not petrified; they are constantly developing
and evolving. And because the activities of states have multiplied, it has been
necessary to distinguish them-between sovereign and governmental acts (jure
imperii) and private, commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis). The
result is that State immunity now extends only to acts jure imperil
1. The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the
proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign,
its commercial activities or economic affairs. Stated differently, a State may be
said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to
have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business
contracts. It does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its
sovereign functions. In this case the projects are an integral part of the
naval base which is devoted to the defense of both the United States
and the Philippines, indisputably a function of the government of the highest
order; they are not utilized for nor dedicated to commercial or business
purposes.
Animos v. PVAO
Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 79156 June 22, 1989
FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/jun1989/gr_79156_1989.html
DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The respondent, the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office, is ORDERED to pay the petitioner,
his spouse, and qualified children, full pension benefits plus such other and further increments as may be provided for by law, effective
November 18, 1947. No costs.”
FACTS:
ANIMOS, and dependents, petitioners,
PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE, its Administrator, JUAN L. GACAD
and THE COURT OF APPEALS (rejected on doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies), respondents. [G - GOVERNMENT OFFICERS]
1. Animos' numerous written requests to be granted the maximum pension
benefit as well as dependents' pension benefits were all disapproved. CA denied
any reward either for possible ““adverse consequences on the public treasury”
and failure to adhere to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
ISSUES:
1. What is the exception to rejection of execution of judgement against the
government due to “adverse consequences on the public treasury”?
2. What is the exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies (as mentioned in Sayson v. Singson)?
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. Where the suit against such a functionary [government officer?] had to be instituted because of his failure to
comply with the duty imposed by statute appropriating public funds for the benefit of plaintiff or petitioner. Such is
the present case.
1. Where the judgment in such a case would result… in a charge against or financial liability to the Government, then the suit
should be regarded as one against the government itself, and, consequently, it cannot prosper or be validly entertained by
the courts except with the consent of said Government.
2. The Gonzales doctrine… To be more specific, where there is a stipulation of facts, as in this case, the question before the
lower court being solely one of law and on the face of the decision, the actuation of appellants being patently illegal, the
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies certainly does not come into play.
2. We have already held, however, that the principle requiring the previous exhaustion of administrative remedies is not
applicable 'where the question in dispute is purely a legal one', or where the controverted act is patently illegal or was
performed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, or where the respondent is a department secretary, whose acts as
an alter-ego of the President bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter, unless actually disapproved by him, or where
there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention.
Republic v. Sandiganbayan
Class Topic: State Immunity USA v. Guinto
G.R. No. 85284 February 28, 1990 Class Topic: State Immunity
FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/feb1990/gr_85284_1990.html
G.R. No. 76607 February 26, 1990
DECISION: OTHER: G.R. 76607: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/feb1990/gr_76607_1990.html

“ACCORDINGLY, the petition (REPUBLIC) in the present case is hereby

DECISION:
DISMISSED.”
“BLANK”
FACTS:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner
FACTS:
[G - GOVERNMENT OFFICER implied consent and question of liability]
1. About contracts USA entered with respondents.
vs.
SANDIGANBAYAN, Third Division, SIMPLICIO A. PALANCA in his own behalf as
RATIO DECIDENDI:
a stockholder of Bacolod Real Estate Development Corporation (BREDCO), and
1. DOCTRINE: There is no question that the United States of America, like any
other stockholders similarly situated, respondents.
other state, will be deemed to have impliedly waived its non-suability if it has
1. On 6 June 1988, respondent court promulgated a Resolution dated 3 June 1988 12 granting the private respondents' motion to entered into a contract in its proprietary or private capacity. It is only when the
intervene and admitting their Answer in Intervention contract involves its sovereign or governmental capacity that no such waiver
2. In the present case, the private respondents intervened in Civil Case No. 0025 merely to unite with the defendants therein in may be implied.
resisting the claims of petitioner, as plaintiff, and for that reason asked for no affirmative relief against any party in their answer in
intervention. In other words, this is not a case where the private respondents take the initiative in an action against petitioner by filing a
complaint in intervention or a complaint.

ISSUES:
1. How does an implied consent work? In this case, how did the REPUBLIC
allowed itself to be countersued?
2. Bernas (2009) suggests that it is only a suit against the state through an
officer if the liability befalls the State not the officer, does it apply to this case?

RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. This Court held that the dismissal of the counterclaim was untenable, because
by filing its complaint in intervention the Government in effect waived its right to
non-suability.
1. DOCTRINE: When the Republic of the Philippines intervenes in a case, it is
implied consent to be countersued. Where the State takes the initiative in an
action against a private party by filing a complaint in intervention, thereby
surrendering its privileged position and coming down to the level of the
defendants.
2. However, even if petitioner would win in argument 1 (they didn’t) the court in
the end held that, this is not a suit against the government. Private
respondents' action for intervention in Civil Case No. 0025 is not,
therefore, a suit or counter-suit against petitioner Republic of the
Philippines. They asked no affirmative relief against any party (no claim
against government liability).
Shauf v. CA
Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 90314 November 27, 1990
FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/nov1990/gr_90314_1990.html
DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the challenged decision and resolution of respondent Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 17932 are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.
Private respondents are hereby ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay
petitioners the sum of P100,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 as and for
attorney’s fees, and the costs of suit.”
FACTS:
SHAUF (FILIPINO-born, guidance counselor), Petitioners,
vs.
CA, Don Detwiler (civilian personnel officer), Anthony Persi (education director),
Respondents.
[G - GOVERNMENT OFFICERS]
1. Shauf filed an equal employment opportunity complaint against private
respondents, for alleged discrimination against the former by reason of her
nationality and sex.
ISSUES:
1. What are the exceptions of government officers invoking state immunity?
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. They state that the doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply and may not
be invoked where the public official is being sued in his private and personal
capacity as an ordinary citizen. The cloak of protection afforded the officers
and agents of the government is removed the moment they are sued in their
individual capacity.
1. Inasmuch as the State authorizes only legal acts by its officers,
unauthorized acts of government officials or officers are not acts of the
State, and an action against the officials or officers by one whose rights have
been invaded or violated by such acts, for the protection of his rights, is not a
suit against the State within the rule of immunity of the State from suit.
1. A suit in equity against a State officer or the director of a State department
on the ground that, while claiming to act for the State, he violates or invades
the personal and property rights of the plaintiff, under an unconstitutional act or
under an assumption of authority which he does not have, is not a suit
against the State within the constitutional provision that the State may not be
sued without its consent.
USA v. Reyes
Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 79253 March 1, 1993
FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/mar1993/gr_79253_1993.html
DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Temporary
Restraining Order of 7 December 1987 is hereby LIFTED.”
FACTS: (Joint United States Military Assistance Group (JUSMAG))
USA, BRADFORD (manager at JUSMAG Headquarters.), petitioners,
[G - GOVERNMENT OFFICERS]
vs.
REYES, as Presiding Judge of Branch 22, Regional Trial Court of Cavite, and
NELIA T. MONTOYA, respondents.
1. Montoya (plaintiff) complains against Bradford for illegal search on the person
and belongings of the plaintiff in front of many people has subjected the plaintiff
to speculations of theft, shoplifting and such other wrongdoings and has
exposed her to contempt and ridicule which was caused her undue
embarrassment and indignity; Petition asserts immunity.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. Since it is apparent from the complaint that Bradford was sued in her
private or personal capacity for acts allegedly done beyond the scope
and even beyond her place of official functions, said complaint is not then
vulnerable to a motion to dismiss based on the grounds relied upon by the
petitioners because as a consequence of the hypothetical admission of the truth
of the allegations therein, the case falls within the exception to the doctrine
of state immunity.
1. The question, therefore, arises — are American naval officers who commit a
crime or tortious act (me: even) while discharging official functions still
covered by the principle of state immunity from suit? Pursuing the question
further, does the grant of rights, power, and authority to the United States
under the RP-US Bases Treaty cover immunity of its officers from crimes and
torts? Our answer is No. [CRIME AND TORTIOUS ACTS, ultimate
exception even for official functions]
CODALS: Article 16(b) of the 1953 Military Assistance Agreement
Nessia v. Fermin
Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 102918 March 30, 1993
FULL TEXT: http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1993/mar1993/gr_102918_1993.php
DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the assailed decision of 19 July 1991
of respondent Court of Appeals as well as its 19 November 1991 Resolution
denying Nessia's motion for reconsideration are SET ASIDE, and the decision of
24 April 1987 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch LXI, Kabankalan, Negros
Occidental, 12 is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED.chanrobl”
FACTS:
NESSIA, Petitioner,
FERMIN, MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Respondents.
[G - GOVERNMENT OFFICERS]
1. Nessia for recovery of damages and reimbursement of expenses incurred in
the performance of his official duties as the then Deputy Municipal Assessor of
Victorias. The complaint theorized that Fermin deliberately ignored and caused
the non-payment of the vouchers in question
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. It is apparent that public officials are called upon to act expeditiously on
matters pending before them. For only in acting thereon either by signifying
approval or disapproval may the plaintiff continue on to the next step of the
bureaucratic process. On the other hand, official inaction brings to a standstill
the administrative process and the plaintiff is left in the darkness of uncertainty.
In this regard, official "inaction" cannot be equated with "disapproval."
1. ME: There is no mention of “immunity” in this case. It is an example for
bureaucrats to not always rely on the immunity rule and satisfy liability when it
is due.
Farolan v. CTA
Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 42204 January 21, 1993
FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/jan1993/gr_42204_1993.html
DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent Court of Tax Appeals is
AFFIRMED (Customs erred). The Collector of Customs is directed to
expeditiously re-compute the customs duties applying Tariff Heading 39.02 at
the rate of 35% ad valorem on the 13,600 kilograms of polyethylene plastic
imported by private respondent.”
FACTS:
HON. FAROLAN, in his capacity as Commissioner of Customs, petitioner,
[U - UNINCORPORATED AGENCIES]
vs.
COURT OF TAX APPEALS and BAGONG BUHAY TRADING, respondents.
1. Since the shipment was also misdeclared as to quantity and value, the
Collector of Customs forfeited the subject shipment in favor of the government
2. From the Commissioner of Customs, private respondent elevated his case
before the Court of Tax Appeals. Upon review, the Court of Tax Appeals reversed
the decision of the Commissioner of Customs. It ruled that the Commissioner
erred in imputing fraud upon private respondent because fraud is never
presumed and thus concluded that the forfeiture of the articles in question was
not in accordance with law.
ISSUES:
1. Unincorporated government agency
2. On question of liability
3. Claim of damages against the state
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. As an unincorporated government agency without any separate juridical
personality of its own, the Bureau of Customs enjoys immunity from suit.
2. Since it demands that the Commissioner of Customs be ordered to pay for
actual damages it sustained, for which ultimately liability will fall on the
government, it is obvious that this case has been converted technically into a
suit against the state.
3. Along with the Bureau of Internal Revenue, it is invested with an inherent
power of sovereignty, namely, taxation. As an agency, the Bureau of Customs
performs the governmental function of collecting revenues which is definitely not
a proprietary function. Thus, private respondent's claim for damages against
the Commissioner of Customs must fail.
Department of Agriculture v. NLRC
Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 104269 November 11, 1993
FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/nov1993/gr_104269_1993.html
DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the petition (in favor of Government) is GRANTED. The
resolution, dated 27 November 1991, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
writ of execution directed against the property of the Department of Agriculture
is nullified”
FACTS:
1. The Department of Agriculture (herein petitioner) and Sultan Security Agency
entered into a contract
2. Several guards of the Sultan Security Agency filed a complaint for
underpayment of wages, non-payment of 13th month pay, uniform allowances,
night shift differential pay, holiday pay and overtime pay, as well as for
damages.
3. Executive Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on 31 May finding herein
petitioner and jointly and severally liable with Sultan Security Agency for the
payment of money claims, aggregating P266,483.91, of the complainant
security guards. On 18 July 1991, the Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution.
ISSUES:
1. W/N Consent of the state to the “execution” of judgement (e.g.
appropriation of funds) is automatic.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. When the state gives its consent to be sued, it does thereby (me: NOT)
necessarily consent to 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.
1. The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by
private parties either by general or special law, it may limit the claimant's action
"only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution"
and that the power of the Courts ends when the judgment is rendered, since
government funds and properties may not be seized under writs or
execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is based on
obvious considerations of public policy. Disbursements of public funds must
be covered by the correspondent appropriation as required by law. The functions
and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or
disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific
objects, as appropriated by law.
CODALS: C.A. No. 327, as amended by P.D. 1445.
Republic v. Sandoval (Mendiola Massacre)
Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 84607 March 19, 1993
FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/mar1993/gr_84607_1993.html
DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error and no grave abuse of discretion
committed by respondent Judge in issuing the questioned orders, the instant
petitions are hereby DISMISSED.”
FACTS:
Republic, Military officers
[G - GOVERNMENT OFFICERS]
SANDOVAL, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch IX
1. People may have already forgotten the tragedy that transpired on January 22,
1987. It is quite ironic that then, some journalists called it a Black Thursday, as
a grim reminder to the nation of the misfortune that befell twelve (12) rallyists.
But for most Filipinos now, the Mendiola massacre may now just as well be a
chapter in our history books. For those however, who have become widows and
orphans, certainly they would not settle for just that. They seek retribution for
the lives taken that will never be brought back to life again.
2. Hence, the heirs of the deceased, together with those injured (Caylao group),
instituted this petition, docketed as G.R. No. 84645, under Section 1 of Rule 65
of the Rules of Court, seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Orders of
respondent Judge Sandoval,1 dated May 31 and August 8, 1988, dismissing the
complaint for damages
ISSUES:
1. Government officials acting beyond the scope of their State-given authority,
personally liable?
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. AFFIRMED DECISION: The impleaded Military Officers, since they are being
charged in their personal and official capacity, and holding them liable, if at all,
would not result in financial responsibility of the government, the principle of
immunity from suit can not conveniently and correspondingly be applied to
them.
1. The inescapable conclusion is that the State cannot be held civilly liable for
the deaths that followed the incident. Instead, the liability should fall on the
named defendants in the lower court. In line with the ruling of this court in
Shauf vs. Court of Appeals, 24 herein public officials, having been found to
have acted beyond the scope of their authority, may be held liable for
damages.
Holy See v. Rosario
Class Topic: State Immunity DFA v. NLRC
G.R. No. 101949 December 1, 1994 Class Topic: State Immunity
FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/dec1994/gr_101949_1994.html
G.R. No. 113191 September 18, 1996
DECISION: FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/sep1996/gr_113191_1996.html
“WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED and the complaint against
DECISION:
petitioner (HOLY SEE) is DISMISSED.”
“WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED, and the decision of the
Labor Arbiter, dated 31 August 1993 is VACATED, for being NULL AND VOID.
FACTS:
The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on 07 April 1994 is hereby
made permanent. No costs.”
Petitioner is the Holy See who exercises sovereignty over the Vatican
City in Rome, Italy, and is represented in the Philippines by the Papal
FACTS:
Nuncio.
DFA, Asian Development Bank ("ADB") , PETITIONER
[I - INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES / Diplomatic Immunity]
[I - INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES / Diplomatic Immunity]
vs.
ROSARIO, as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati,
ADB claiming immunity against the labor decision of NLRC relating to its
Branch 61 and Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc., is a domestic
employee.
corporation engaged in the real estate business., respondents.

RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of
1. HOLY SEE property in question. Main issue is annulment of sale due to refusal
separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question
of the squatters to vacate the lots sold to private respondent. The case didn’t
and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by the executive
prosper due to diplomatic immunity approved by the Executive department for
branch of the government, and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is
foreign relations sake.
recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the government

ISSUES:
1. What are the rules on diplomatic immunity?

RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. The determination of the executive arm of government that a state or
instrumentality is entitled to sovereign or diplomatic immunity is a political
question that is conclusive upon the courts
1. Where the plea of immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive
branch, it is the duty of the courts to accept this claim so as not to
embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting the country's
foreign relations
1. Private respondent is not left without any legal remedy for the redress of its
grievances. Under both Public International Law and Transnational Law, a
person who feels aggrieved by the acts of a foreign sovereign can ask his own
government to espouse his cause through diplomatic channels.

CODALS: 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

Lansang v. CA EPG Construction Co. v. Vigilar
Class Topic: State Immunity Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 102667 February 23, 2000 G.R. No. 131544. March 16, 2001
FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/feb2000/gr_102667_2000.html FULL TEXT: http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2001/mar2001/131544.php

DECISION:
DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of
“IN VIEW WHEREOF , the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 27244 is hereby SET ASIDE, and the DISMISSAL
of the Regional Trial Court dated 07 November 1997 is REVERSED AND SET
of the complaint for damages by the trial court for want of merit is
ASIDE.
AFFIRMED. No costs.”

ACCORDINGLY, the Commission on Audit is hereby directed to determine and

FACTS:
ascertain with dispatch, on a quantum meruit basis, the total compensation due
AMADO J. LANSANG, National Parks Development Committee (NPDC)
to petitioners-contractors for the additional constructions on the housing project
chairman, petitioner,
and to allow payment thereof upon the completion of said determination. No
[G - GOVERNMENT OFFICERS]
costs.
CA, GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE BLIND, INC., and JOSE IGLESIAS,
”
respondents.

FACTS:
1. Civil Case No. 88-43887, and ordered petitioner Amado J. Lansang to pay
private respondent Jose Iglesias P50,000.00 in moral damages, P10,000.00 in
EPG Construction, Has individual contracts with respondent, Petitioners
exemplary damages and P5,000.00 in attorney's fees. [SET ASIDE]. The Court
HON. VIGILAR, In His Capacity as Secretary of Public Works and Highways,
of Appeals also agreed that petitioner liable for damages. SC disagrees.
respondent
2. Private respondents were allegedly given office and library space as well as
[G - GOVERNMENT OFFICERS]
kiosks area selling food and drinks. One such kiosk was located along T.M.
Kalaw St., in front of the Army and Navy Club
1. In a letter dated 26 August 1996, respondent DPWH Secretary Gregorio
3. February 29, 1988, petitioner terminated the so-called verbal agreement with
Vigilar denied the subject money claims prompting herein petitioners to file
GABI and demanded that the latter vacate the premises and the kiosks it ran
before the Regional Trial Court. Respondent disagrees on the basis of the void
privately within the public park.
verbal agreement. SC decision is that contractors be duly compensated on the
basis of quantum meruit for construction done on the public works housing
project.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. Immunity doesn’t apply, where the public official is clearly being sued not in
RATIO DECIDENDI:
his official capacity but in his personal capacity, although the acts complained of
1. Respondents argument is misplaced inasmuch as the Principle of State
may have been committed while he occupied a public position. We are convinced
Immunity finds no application in the case before us.
that petitioner is being sued not in his capacity as NPDC chairman but in his
1. Ministerio vs. CFI of Cebu 20 that the doctrine of governmental immunity
personal capacity. This case though did not prosper on the basis that Rizal park
from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a
is beyond the commerce of man.
citizen.
1. To be sure, this Court as the staunch guardian of the citizens rights and
CODALS: BLANK
welfare cannot sanction an injustice so patent on its face, and allow itself to be
an instrument in the perpetration thereof.
Minucher v. CA
Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 142396 February 11, 2003
FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html
OTHER: (1992): http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1992septemberdecisions.php?id=661
DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, on the foregoing premises, the petition is DENIED. No costs.”
FACTS:
MINUCHER, petitioner, (denied) [an Iranian national, where a quantity
of heroin, a prohibited drug, was said to have been seized]
vs.
CA and ARTHUR SCALZO [principal witnesses for the prosecution] [a special
agent of the United States Drug Enforcement Administration], respondents.
F - FOREIGN STATES through agents
1. On 03 August 1988, Minucher filed Civil Case No. 88-45691 before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19, of Manila for damages on account of what
he claimed to have been trumped-up charges of drug trafficking made by Arthur
Scalzo. Case did not prosper for Scalzo claimed diplomatic immunity
acknowledged by the SC.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. Suing a representative of a state is believed to be, in effect, suing the state
itself. The proscription is not accorded for the benefit of an individual but for the
State, in whose service he is, under the maxim - par in parem, non habet
imperium - that all states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction
over one another.
1. A foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked with immunity
from suit but only as long as it can be established that he is acting within the
directives of the sending state.
1. All told, this Court is constrained to rule that respondent Arthur Scalzo, an
agent of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency allowed by the Philippine
government to conduct activities in the country to help contain the problem on
the drug traffic, is entitled to the defense of state immunity from suit.
CODALS: Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
Republic of Indonesia v. Vinzon
Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 154705 June 26, 2003
FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/jun2003/gr_154705_2003.html
DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision and resolution of
the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 66894 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE
and the complaint in Civil Case No. 18203 against petitioners is DISMISSED.”
FACTS:
THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA, HIS EXCELLENCY AMBASSADOR SOERATMIN,
and MINISTER COUNSELLOR AZHARI KASIM, Petitioners,
F - FOREIGN STATES through agents (diplomatic immunity)
vs.
VINZON, VINZON TRADE AND SERVICES, Respondent.
1.Entered into a Maintenance Agreement in August 1995 with respondent James
Vinzon, sole proprietor of Vinzon Trade and Services. Vinzon claims Indonesia
terminated the contract his contract inappropriately and thus filed a suit. It did
not prosper due to diplomatic immunity.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisidiction of the
receiving State. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative
jurisdiction, except in the case of:
(a) a real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory
of the receiving State, unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the
purposes of the mission;
(b) an action relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent is involved as
executor, administrator, heir or legatee as a private person and not on behalf of
the sending State;
(c) an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the
diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions.
The act of petitioners Ambassador Soeratmin and Minister Counsellor Kasim in
terminating the Maintenance Agreement is not covered by the exceptions
provided in the abovementioned provision.
Philippine Agila Satellite v. Lichauco
Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 142362 May 3, 2006
FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_142362_2006.html
DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the PETITION is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
21 February 2000 is SET ASIDE and the Order dated 14 August 1998 of the Regional Trial
Court of Mandaluyong City is REINSTATED. The Regional Trial Court is ordered to try and
decide the case on the merits with deliberate dispatch. No costs”
FACTS:
PHILIPPINE AGILA SATELLITE INC. and MICHAELC. U. DE GUZMAN, Complainants,
LICHAUCO Undersecretary for Communications, Department of Transportation and
Communication (DOTC), Respondents.
[U - UNINCORPORATED AGENCIES]
1. However, respondent Lichauco, then DOTC Undersecretary for Communications,
allegedly "embarked on a crusade to malign the name of [Michael de Guzman] and
sabotage the business of PASI." Lichauco's purported efforts against PASI culminated
allegedly in her offering orbital slot 153º East Longitude for bidding to other parties
sometime in December 1997, despite the prior assignment to PASI of the said slot.7 It was
later claimed by PASI that Lichauco subsequently awarded the orbital slot to an entity whose
indentity was unknown to PASI.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. An action at law or suit in equity against a State officer or the director of a State
department on the ground that, while claiming to act for the State, he violates or invades the
personal and property rights or the plaintiff, under an unconstitutional act or under an
assumption of authority which he does not have, is not a suit against the State within the
constitutional provision that the State may not be sued without its consent.' The rationale for
this ruling is that the doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an instrument for
perpetrating an injustice.
2. Had the petitioner impleaded the DOTC itself, an unincorporated government agency, and
not Lichauco herself, the suit would have been considered as one against the State. But
neither circumstance obtains in this case. [Me: In filiing redress of wrongs against the
government, one must be careful on procedure]
CODALS: BLANK
Republic v. Hidalgo
Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 161657 October 4, 2007
FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_161657_2007.html
DECISION:
“The portion assessing the petitioner Republic for costs of suit is also declared
null and void.” #EXECUTION
FACTS:
REPUBLIC (taking property), Petitioner,
HIDALGO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 37, CARMELO V. CACHERO, in his capacity as
Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court of Manila, and TARCILA LAPERAL MENDOZA, Respondents.
1. Mendoza filed a suit with the RTC of Manila for reconveyance and the corresponding declaration of nullity of a deed of sale and title
against the Republic.
2. Mendoza essentially alleged being the owner of the disputed Arlegui property which the Republic forcibly dispossessed her of and over
which the Register of Deeds of Manila issued TCT No. 118911 in the name of the Republic.
ISSUES:
1. Example of non-automatic execution of judgement when costs against the
State funds is petitioned.
2. However, right and justice must still prevail, especially on the legal right of
just compensation. Thus the court decides below.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. The assailed trial court’s issuance of the writ of execution against government
funds to satisfy its money judgment is also nullified. It is basic that government
funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment
to satisfy such judgments.37 Republic v. Palacio38 teaches that a judgment
against the State generally operates merely to liquidate and establish the
plaintiff’s claim in the absence of express provision; otherwise, they can not be
enforced by processes of law.
1. DOCTRINE: The assessment of costs of suit against the petitioner is,
however, nullified, costs not being allowed against the Republic, unless
otherwise provided by law
2. For what is before us, after all, is a registered owner of a piece of land who,
during the early days of the martial law regime, lost possession thereof to the
Government which appropriated the same for some public use, but without
going through the legal process of expropriation, let alone paying such owner
just compensation.
2. Consistent with the basic tenets of justice, fairness and equity, petitioner
Republic, thru the Office of the President, is hereby strongly enjoined to take the
necessary steps, and, with reasonable dispatch, make the appropriate budgetary
arrangements to pay private respondent Tarcila L. Mendoza or her assigns the
amount adjudged due her under this disposition.
Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Technische Zusammenarbeit v CA
Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 152318 April 16, 2009
FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_152318_2009.html
DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. No pronouncement as to costs.”
FACTS:
also known as GERMAN AGENCY FOR TECHNICAL COOPERATION, (GTZ) HANS
PETER PAULENZ and ANNE NICOLAY, Petitioners,
[F - FOREIGN STATES through agents/ Diplomatic Immunity]
CA, Labor Arbiter of the Arbitration Branch, National Labor Relations
Commission, and BERNADETTE CARMELLA MAGTAAS, CAROLINA DIONCO,
CHRISTOPHER RAMOS, MELVIN DELA PAZ, RANDY TAMAYO and EDGARDO
RAMILLO, Respondents.
1. Nicolay, a Belgian national, assumed the post of SHINE Project Manager. Disagreements
eventually arose between Nicolay and private respondents in matters such as proposed
salary adjustments, and the course Nicolay was taking in the implementation of SHINE
different from her predecessors
1. Each of the private respondents received a letter from Nicolay dated 11 July
2000, informing them of the pre-termination of their contracts of employment on the
grounds of "serious and gross insubordination, among others, resulting to loss of
confidence and trust.
GOOGLED: The Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH or GIZ in short is a German development agency
headquartered in Bonn and Eschborn that provides services in the field of international development cooperation.
ISSUES:
1. Would the fact that the Solicitor General has endorsed GTZ’s claim of State’s
immunity from suit before this Court sufficiently substitute for the DFA
certification?
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. Note that the rule in public international law quoted in Holy See referred to
endorsement by the Foreign Office of the State where the suit is filed, such
foreign office in the Philippines being the Department of Foreign Affairs.
1. The Court is thus holds and so rules that GTZ consistently has been unable to
establish with satisfaction that it enjoys the immunity from suit generally enjoyed
by its parent country, the Federal Republic of Germany. Consequently, both the Labor
Arbiter and the Court of Appeals acted within proper bounds when they refused to
acknowledge that GTZ is so immune by dismissing the complaint against it.
1. DOCTRINE(me): Apparently, diplomatic immunity must be proved as fact. For
instance, like Holy See, a certification from DFA was submitted as proof of immunity.
Shell Philippines Exploration BV v. Jalos
Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 179918 September 8, 2010
FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_179918_2010.html
DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition and REVERSES the decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 82404 dated November 20, 2006. Respondent Efren
Jalos, et al’s complaint for damages against Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. in
Civil Case P-1818-03 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Pinamalayan, Oriental
Mindoro is ordered DISMISSED without prejudice to its refiling with the Pollution
Adjudication Board or PAB.”
FACTS
represented by its Managing Director, Jeremy Cliff, Petitioner
[S - SPECIAL AGENT]
Jalos, et al,as respondents
1. Claim for damages, Jalos, et al claimed that they were all subsistence fishermen
from the coastal barangay of Bansud, Oriental Mindoro whose livelihood was adversely
affected by the construction and operation of Shell’s natural gas pipeline.
ISSUES:
1. W/N Shell BV can be considered under SPECIAL AGENCY immunity? What are the
rules on SPECIAL AGENCY?
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. Consequently, Shell is not an agent of the Philippine government, but a provider
of services, technology and financing31 for the Malampaya Natural Gas Project. It is not
immune from suit and may be sued for claims even without the State’s consent.
1. An agent is a person who binds himself to render some service or to do something
in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter.
The essence of an agency is the agent’s ability to represent his principal and bring
about business relations between the latter and third persons.27 An agent’s ultimate
undertaking is to execute juridical acts that would create, modify or extinguish relations
between his principal and third persons.28 It is this power to affect the principal’s
contractual relations with third persons that differentiates the agent from a service
contractor.
1. Shell’s main undertaking under Service Contract 38 is to "[p]erform all petroleum
operations and provide all necessary technology and finance" as well as other connected
services29 to the Philippine government. As defined under the contract, petroleum
operation means the "searching for and obtaining Petroleum within the Philippines",
including the "transportation, storage, handling and sale" of petroleum whether for
export or domestic consumption.30 Shell’s primary obligation under the contract is not to
represent the Philippine government for the purpose of transacting business with
third persons. Rather, its contractual commitment is to develop and manage petroleum
operations on behalf of the State.
ATCI v. Enchin UP v. Dizon
Class Topic: State Immunity Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 178551 October 11, 2010 G.R. No. 171182 August 23, 2012
FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_178551_2010.html FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/aug2012/gr_171182_2012.html

DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.”
FACTS
ATCI OVERSEAS CORPORATION, AMALIA G. IKDAL and MINISTRY OF PUBLIC
HEALTH-KUWAIT Petitioners,
[F - FOREIGN STATES through agent]
vs.
MA. JOSEFA ECHIN, Respondent.
1. Echin (respondent) was hired by petitioner ATCI Overseas Corporation in behalf of
its principal-co-petitioner, the Ministry of Public Health of Kuwait (the Ministry), for the
position of medical technologist under a two-year contract
1. Respondent was deployed on February 17, 2000 but was terminated from
employment on February 11, 2001, she not having allegedly passed the probationary
period.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1.Petitioner ATCI, as a private recruitment agency, cannot evade responsibility for the
money claims of Overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) which it deploys abroad by the
mere expediency of claiming that its foreign principal is a government agency clothed
with immunity from suit, or that such foreign principal’s liability must first be
established before it, as agent, can be held jointly and solidarily liable.
CODALS: BLANK
DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for review on certiorari; REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals
under review; ANNULS the orders for the garnishment of the funds of the University of the Philippines and for the release of the
garnished amount to Stern Builders Corporation and Servillano dela Cruz; and DELETES from the decision of the Regional Trial Court
dated November 28, 2001 for being void only the awards of actual damages of ₱ 5,716,729.00, moral damages of ₱
10,000,000.00, and attorney's fees of ₱ 150,000.00, plus ₱ 1,500.00 per appearance, in favor of Stern Builders Corporation and
Servillano dela Cruz.”
FACTS
UP, JOSE V. ABUEVA, RAUL P. DE GUZMAN, RUBEN P. ASPIRAS, EMMANUEL P. BELLO, WILFREDO P. DAVID, CASIANO S. ABRIGO, and
JOSEFINA R. LICUANAN, Petitioners,
vs.
HON . DIZON, his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 80, STERN BUILDERS, INC., and
SERVILLANO DELA CRUZ, Respondents.
1. On August 30, 1990, the UP, through its then President Jose V. Abueva, entered into a General Construction Agreement with
respondent Stern Builders Corporation (Stern Builders), represented by its President and General Manager Servillano dela Cruz, for the
construction of the extension building and the renovation of the College of Arts and Sciences Building in the campus of the University of
the Philippines in Los Baños (UPLB).
2. Despite the lifting of the disallowance, the UP failed to pay the billing, prompting Stern Builders and dela Cruz to sue the UP and its
co-respondent officials to collect the unpaid billing and to recover various damages.
ISSUES:
1. What is the difference between suability and liability?
2. How sacred is the State’s public funds against execution of valid judgement?
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. A distinction should first be made between suability and liability. "Suability depends on the consent of the state to be sued,
liability on the applicable law and the established facts. The circumstance that a state is suable does not necessarily mean
that it is liable; on the other hand, it can never be held liable if it does not first consent to be sued. Liability is not
conceded by the mere fact that the state has allowed itself to be sued. When the state does waive its sovereign
immunity, it is only giving the plaintiff the chance to prove, if it can, that the defendant is liable.
2. The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either by general or special law, it
may limit claimant’s action "only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution" and that the power
of the Courts ends when the judgment is rendered, since government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of
execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is based on obvious considerations of public policy. Disbursements of
public funds must be covered by the corresponding appropriation as required by law. The functions and public services
rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate
and specific objects, as appropriated by law.
2. The UP correctly submits here that the garnishment of its funds to satisfy the judgment awards of actual and moral
damages (including attorney’s fees) was not validly made if there was no special appropriation by Congress to cover the
liability.a
Arigo v. Swift
Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 206510 September 16, 2014
FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html
DECISION:
“The present petition under the Rules is not the proper remedy to assail the
constitutionality of its provisions. WHEREFORE, the petition for the issuance of the
privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan is hereby DENIED.D.”
FACTS:
ARIGO, allowed under Oposa doctrine: allows the filing of a citizen suit in environmental
cases, petitioner
SWIFT in his capacity as Commander of the US. 7th Fleet, respondent
[F - FOREIGN STATES through an agent]
1. WRIT OF KALIKASAN against violations of environmental laws and regulations in
relation to the grounding of the US military ship USS Guardian over the Tubbataha Reefs.
2. Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging operations of the
USS Guardian cause and continue to cause environmental damage of such magnitude as
to affect the provinces of Palawan, Antique, Aklan, Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros Occidental,
Negros Oriental, Zamboanga del Norte, Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi, which events violate
their constitutional rights to a balanced and healthful ecology.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. He explained that while historically, warships enjoy sovereign immunity from suit
as extensions of their flag State, Art. 31 of the UNCLOS creates an exception to this
rule in cases where they fail to comply with the rules and regulations of the coastal
State regarding passage through the latter's internal waters and the territorial sea.
1. In fine, the relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the present controversy is beyond
dispute. Although the said treaty upholds the immunity of warships from the
jurisdiction of Coastal States while navigating the.latter's territorial sea, the flag States
shall be required to leave the territorial '::;ea immediately if they flout the laws and
regulations of the Coastal State, and they will be liable for damages caused by their
warships or any other government vessel operated for non-commercial purposes under
Article 31
1. As it is, the waiver of State immunity under the VF A pertains only to criminal
jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as the present petition for
issuance of a writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it can be inferred from Section 17, Rule 7 of
the Rules that a criminal case against a person charged with a violation of an
environmental law is to be filed separately
2. In any case, it is our considered view that a ruling on the application or
non-application of criminal jurisdiction provisions of the VF A to US personnel who
may be found responsible for the grounding of the USS Guardian, would be premature
and beyond the province of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan. We also find it
unnecessary at this point to determine whether such waiver of State immunity is
indeed absolute. In the same vein, we cannot grant damages which have resulted
from the violation of environmental laws. The Rules allows the recovery of damages,
including the collection of administrative fines under R.A. No. 10067, in a separate
civil suit or that deemed instituted with the criminal action charging the same
violation of an environmental law.
3. We agree with respondents (Philippine officials) in asserting that this petition has
become moot in the sense that the salvage operation sought to be enjoined or
restrained had already been accomplised, xxxxx the completion of the removal of the
USS Guardian from the coral reef.
4. In the light of the foregoing, the Court defers to the Executive Branch on the
matter of compensation and rehabilitation measures through diplomatic channels.
Resolution of these issues impinges on our relations with another State in the
context of common security interests under the VFA. It is settled that "[t]he conduct
of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the Constitution to the
executive and legislative-"the political" --departments of the government, and the
propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political power is not subject
to judicial inquiry or decision."
SUMMARY: The court agrees with the validity of the legal right assailed by the
petitioners, it is only DENIED, since it the remedy is not in the situs of the judicial
department. The remedy required involves requiring State funds of another state, if
we are strict within our borders about execution of public fund judgements, it is
presumed other States are as well. To pursue the valid remedy, the Executive
department must initate talks with the foreign State involve and assert in a peaceful
way, without damaging the foreign relations, their liability on our legal right to
healthful ecology.
DOCTRINE: (me) To our State and to foreign States as well, the liability imposed on
the public funds of a State is sacred and is not automatically subject to final valid
judgements. The State involved must give consent to the execution for it to be
valid.
DOTC v. Spouses Abecina CONFUCIUS v. Steve Jobs
Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 206484, June 29, 2016 “Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life.”
FULL TEXT: http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2016junedecisions.php?id=521

- Confucious
DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, we hereby DENY the petition for lack of merit. The May 20, 2009
decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 7355, as modified by the March
20, 2013 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 93795, is AFFIRMED
“You’ve got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your
with further MODIFICATION that the forfeiture of the improvements made by the DOTC lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly
in favor of the respondents is DELETED. No costs.”
satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is
PETITIONER: [G - GOVERNMENT OFFICER on behalf of the State ] to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle.”
RESPONDENT: are the registered owners of five parcels of land

FACTS: - Steve Jobs

1. April 29, 2003, the respondent spouses sent a final demand letter to both the DOTC
and Digitel to vacate the premises and to pay unpaid rent/damages in the amount of
one million two hundred thousand pesos (P1,200,000.00). Me: Nothing is difficult, when you do something, you love.
2. The DOTC asserts that its Financial Lease Agreement with Digitel was entered into
in pursuit of its governmental functions to promote and develop networks of
communication systems. Therefore, it cannot be interpreted as a waiver of state
immunity.

RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. The Constitution identifies the limitations to the awesome and near-limitless powers of
the State. Chief among these limitations are the principles that no person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law and that private
property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.37 These
limitations are enshrined in no less than the Bill of Rights that guarantees the citizen
protection from abuse by the State.
1. If the DOTC had correctly followed the regular procedure upon discovering that it had
encroached on the respondents' property, it would have initiated expropriation
proceedings instead of insisting on its immunity from suit.
2. We hold, therefore, that the Department's entry into and taking of possession of
the respondents' property amounted to an implied waiver of its governmental
immunity from suit.
2. When the government takes any property for public use, which is conditioned
upon the payment of just compensation, to be judicially ascertained, it makes
manifest that it submits to the jurisdiction of a court.

NOTE: The forfeiture of the improvements in favor of the respondent spouses is

unwarranted on the assumption of good faith by DOTC. This is the only decision in
favor of the petitioner. Nevertheless, implied waver due to violation of a legal right
remains the main issue.