ARTICLE XVI “GENERAL PROVISIONS” THE SITUS OF STATE CONSENT IS THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent. (1987 & 1973 (Bernas, 2009)
Constitution only)
EXPRESS CONSENT: (GS)
LAWS RELATING TO STATE IMMUNITY AND NON-SUABILITY:
A. GENERAL LAW
- CA 327 AN ACT FIXING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH THE AUDITOR GENERAL SHALL RENDER
HIS DECISIONS AND PRESCRIBING THE MANNER OF APPEAL THEREFROM (1938) B. SPECIAL LAW
- P.D. No. 1445 Government Auditing Code of the Philippines (1978)
- Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190) Section 247
IMPLIED CONSENT: (GS)
http://source.gosupra.com/docs/statute/550
- New Civil Code Section 2180 “The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a A. GOVERNMENT OFFICER (AUTHORIZED BY STATE) FILES A SUIT,
special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task OPENS ITSELF FOR COUNTERCLAIMS.
done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable.”
B. STATE ENTERS INTO A CONTRACT

- “the King can do no wrong”, in its history, correctly means, “King must not and TYPES OF SUITS AGAINST STATE: MUSIC GF
was not allowed to do wrong”. It should not be taken as an excuse to do wrong. M - MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (may be sued)
U - UNINCORPORATED AGENCIES (no juridical personality to be sued)
- Public service will be hindered and the public safety endangered if the supreme
S - SPECIAL AGENT (e.g. ambulance driver, torts, state pays for the
authority could be subjected to suits at the instance of every citizen.
driver)
- State immunity is derived from the will of the people themselves. When they I - INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES (immune under treaties)
agreed to establish a republican state, the citizens solemnly undertook to C - CORPORATION GOVERNMENT OWNED (may be sued, with express
surrender some of their private rights and interests that were calculated to consent from Congress already)
conflict with higher rights and the larger interests of the people as a whole.
G - GOVERNMENT OFFICERS (if state is liable not the officer, may be
- indirect suit against the state is prohibited. immune)
- State consenting to suability is not conceding to liability. Further, even if F - FOREIGN STATES (immune in courts of another state)
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
- Where the judgment in such a case would result… in a charge against or
government resources, disbursements of public funds must be covered by the
financial liability to the Government, then the suit should be regarded as one
corresponding appropriation as required by law (e.g.).
against the government itself, and, consequently, it cannot prosper or be validly
- consent of the state to the “execution” of judgement (e.g. appropriation of
entertained by the courts except with the consent of said Government.
funds) is required.
 OUR STATE (RP) FOREIGN STATE INTERNATIONAL AGENCY

LGU/MUNICIPAL CORPORATION sovereign and governmental acts

(SUABLE) (jure imperii) (IMMUNE)

GOCC (SUABLE) private, commercial and proprietary

acts (jure gestionis) (SUABLE)

INSTRUMENTALITY: PROPRIETY INHERENT BA STATE OR HINDI, ANO

(SUABLE) YUNG CHARTER NUNG CORPORATION
NA YUN? LIKE CHINA CORPORATION
ARE PART OF THE STATE.

INSTRUMENTALITY: GOVERNMENTAL CHINA CORPORATION ARE PART OF

[unless waiver given] (IMMUNE) THE STATE THUS (IMMUNE)

DEPARTMENTS / BUREAU / OFFICE AMBASSADOR (IMMUNE NO MATTER

OF THE PRESIDENT (IMMUNE) WHAT)
[unless waiver given]

SPECIAL AGENT: ARRANGEMENT

WHERE DRIVER IS NOT OFFICIAL
(IMMUNE)

SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT WHERE

DRIVER IS OFFICIAL (SUABLE)

WHEN OUR STATE FILES A SUIT ON

YOU. YOU CAN COUNTERSUIT.
(IMPLIED) (SUABLE)

STATE ENTERS CONTRACT

(IMPLIED) (SUABLE)

STATE COMMITS INJUSTICE (ANY)

(IMPLIED) (SUABLE)

DAMAGES FOR JUST COMPENSATION `

OF EXPROPRIATION (IMPLIED)
(SUABLE)

EMPLOYEE (OFFICIAL FUNCTION) EMPLOYEE (OFFICIAL FUNCTION) EMPLOYEE (OFFICIAL FUNCTION)

(IMMUNE) (IMMUNE) (IMMUNE)

EMPLOYEE (UNOFFICIAL FUNCTION) EMPLOYEE (UNOFFICIAL FUNCTION) EMPLOYEE (UNOFFICIAL FUNCTION)

(Ultra vires - beyond the pwoers) (Ultra vires - beyond the powers) (Ultra vires - beyond the pwoers)
(SUABLE PERSONAL) (SUABLE) (SUABLE)
Amigable v. Cuenca Sayson v. Singson
Class Topic: State Immunity Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. L-26400 February 29, 1972 G.R. No. L-30044 December 19, 1973
FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1972/feb1972/gr_l_26400_1972.html FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1973/dec1973/gr_30044_1973.html

DECISION: DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby set aside (AMIGABLE’s appeal for her “WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu (me: was a wrong forum in the
rejected petition for compensation) and the case remanded to the court a quo for the first place) of September 4, 1968 is reversed and set aside, and the suit for mandamus (not a
determination of compensation, including attorney's fees, to which the appellant is entitled as proper remedy in the first place) filed against petitioners, respondents below, is dismissed.
above indicated. No pronouncement as to costs.” With costs against respondent Felipe Singson.”

FACTS: FACTS:
AMIGABLE, plaintiff-appellant, SAYSON, Highway Auditor, Bureau of Public Highways, petitioner [G - GOVERNMENT OFFICER?]
CUENCA, as Commissioner of Public Highways and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, SINGSON, as sole owner and proprietor of Singkier Motor Service, respondent
defendants-appellees. [G - GOVERNMENT OFFICER?]
1. Government purchased spare parts from Singson which the latter received a voucher for. The
1. Amigable (plaintiff-appellant) sued the government for the illegal occupation of her land. The voucher was later found to be overpriced and was paid less than originally agreed in the
government failed to heed to the legal process of expropriation in doing so. 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
ISSUES: by the court as impliedly suing the Government without its consent.)
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.”) ISSUES:
1. W/N failing to file a money claim against the government at the proper forum legislatively
RATIO DECIDENDI: provided constitutes “a suit without consent”?
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 RATIO DECIDENDI:
sale, the aggrieved party may properly maintain a suit against the government without thereby 1. It is true that once consent is secured, an action may be filed. There is nothing to prevent the
violating the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit without its consent. State, however, in such statutory grant, to require that certain administrative proceedings be
had and be exhausted.
CODALS: BLANK 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 Torio v. Fontanilla
Class Topic: State Immunity Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. L-36084 August 31, 1977 G.R. No. L-29993. October 23, 1978
FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/aug1977/gr_36084_1977.html FULL TEXT: http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1978octoberdecisions.php?id=345

DECISION: DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the petitioner for certiorari is granted and the resolution of October 4, 1972 “PREMISES CONSIDERED, We AFFIRM in toto the decision of the Court of Appeals insofar as the
denying the motion to dismiss filed by the Rice and Corn Administration nullified and set aside Municipality of Malasiqui is concerned (L-30183), and We absolve the municipal councilors
and the petitioner for prohibition is likewise granted restraining respondent Judge from acting on from liability and SET ASIDE the judgment against them (L-29993).”
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 FACTS:
made permanent terminating this case. Costs against Yellow Ball Freight Lines, Inc.” Torio, Municipal Council of Malasiqui in 1959, Petitioners [M - MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS]
Fontanilla (heirs of the deceased performers), and CA, Respondents

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, 1. During a program people went up the "zarzuela" stage and before the play was over the
INC., respondents.
stage collapsed, pinning underneath one of the performers, resulting in his death. The
YELLOW BALL FREIGHT LINES, INC, plaintiff heirs of the deceased sued the municipality and the councilors for damages.
Rice and Corn Administration, defendant [U - UNINCORPORATED AGENCIES?]
ISSUES:
1. Purisima ruled against RCA in favor of Yellow Ball. SC disagrees, as an unincorporated 1. W/N Municipal Corporations are covered by the non-suability of the State?
agency, RCA is immune to suits unless the consent is provided by Government. 2. W/N Municipal government officers should be held liable instead of the government?

ISSUES: RATIO DECIDENDI:

1. W/N unincorporated agencies are covered by the non-suability of the State 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
RATIO DECIDENDI: municipal governments in conformity with law, and in their proper corporate name, they may,
1 .The consent, to be effective though, must come from the State acting through a duly enacted inter alia, sue and be sued, and contract and be contracted with.
statute as pointed out by Justice Bengzon in Mobil. Thus, whatever counsel for defendant Rice 2. The ordinary doctrine is that a Director, merely by reason of his office, is not personally liable
and Corn Administration agreed to had no binding force on the government. That was clearly for the torts of his corporation; he must be shown to have personally voted for or otherwise
beyond the scope of his authority. At any rate, Justice Sanchez, in Ramos v. Court of Industrial participated in them xxxxxx On these principles We absolve the municipal councilors from any
Relations, was quite categorical as to its [RCA’a] "not [being] possessed of a separate and liability for the death of Vicente Fontanilla. The records do not show that said petitioners directly
distinct corporate existence. On the contrary, by the law of its creation, it is an office directly participated in the defective construction of the "zarzuela" stage or that they personally
'under the Office of the President of the Philippines.” permitted spectators to go up the platform.
Suppletory:
1. BENGSON IN MOBIL Doctrine: “It must be remembered that statutory provisions waiving CODALS: BLANK
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.
Santiago v. Republic Rayo v. CFI
Class Topic: State Immunity Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. L-48214 December 19, 1978 G.R. No. L-55273-83 December 19, 1981
FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1978/dec1978/gr_48214_1978.html FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1981/dec1981/gr_55273-83_1981.html

DECISION: DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari prayed for is granted and the order of dismissal of October 20, 1977 is nullified, set aside and “WHEREFORE, the petition (Rayo & victims) is hereby granted; the Orders of the respondent court dated December 12, 1979 and
declared to be without force and effect. The Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City, Branch II, is hereby directed to proceed with October 3, 1980, are set aside; and said court is ordered to reinstate the complaints of the petitioners. Costs against the NPC.”
this case, observing the procedure set forth in the Rules of Court. No costs.”
FACTS:
FACTS: Rayo, many unfortunate victims of that man-caused flood
SANTIAGO, DONOR, PETITIONER CFI OF BULACAN (denied the petitioners), BRANCH V, STA. MARIA, and NATIONAL POWER
REPUBLIC, represented by the Director, Bureau of Plant Industry, DONEE, RESPONDENT
CORPORATION, respondents. [C - CORPORATION GOVERNMENT OWNED]
[C - CORPORATION GOVERNMENT OWNED]

1. At about midnight on October 26, 1978, during the height of that infamous typhoon "KADING"
1. His plea was for the revocation of a deed of donation executed by him and his spouse in
the respondent corporation, acting through its plant superintendent, Benjamin Chavez, opened
January 1971, 4 with the Bureau of Plant Industry as the donee. As alleged in such complaint,
or caused to be opened simultaneously all the three floodgates of the Angat Dam. And as a
such Bureau, contrary to the terms of the donation, failed to "install lighting facilities and water
direct and immediate result of the sudden, precipitate and simultaneous opening of said
system on the property donated and to build an office building and parking [lot] thereon which
floodgates several towns in Bulacan were inundated. Hardest-hit was Norzagaray. About a
should have been constructed and ready for occupancy on or before December 1974
hundred of its residents died or were reported to have died and properties worth million of pesos
destroyed or washed away. This flood was unprecedented in Norzagaray.
ISSUES:
1. W/N government can be sued without its consent should it violate a legal right, specifically, in
GOOGLED: “The National Power Corporation (NPC) was created under Commonwealth Act No.
cases where it is a beneficiary (i.e. donee), favoring the side of benefactor (i.e. donor) (i.e III:1
120 on November 3, 1936 as a non-stock government corporation”
DUE PROCESS, specifically, against donor”)

ISSUES:
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. W/N Government owned corporations distinct and separate from government
1. The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for
2. W/N Government owned corporations, performing governmental function, can still be sued?
perpetrating an injustice on a citizen
1. Our decision, it must be emphasized, goes no further than to rule that a donor, with the
RATIO DECIDENDI:
Republic or any of its agency being the donee, is entitled to go to court in case of an alleged
1. As a government owned and controlled corporation, it has a personality of its own, distinct
breach of the conditions of such donation. He has the right to be heard. Under the
and separate from that of the Government.
circumstances, the fundamental postulate of non-suability cannot stand in the way. It is made to
1. It is not necessary to write an extended dissertation on whether or not the NPC performs a
accommodate itself to the demands of procedural due process, which is the negation of
governmental function with respect to the management and operation of the Angat Dam. It is
arbitrariness and inequity. The government, in the final analysis, is the beneficiary.
sufficient to say that the government has organized a private corporation, put money in it and
2. It was not surprising therefore that in 1966, Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. was decided
has allowed it to sue and be sued in any court under its charter. (R.A. No. 6395, Sec. 3 (d).)
the way it was. The remedy, where the liability is based on contract, according to this Court,
YES, WITH STATUTORY CONSENT = RA 6395.
speaking through Justice J. P. Bengzon, is for plaintiff to file a claim with the general office in
accordance with the controlling statute, Commonwealth Act No. 327.
CODALS: Section 3 (d) of Republic Act No. 6395 (NPC suable)
3. "It is settled that the Bureau of Customs, acting as part of the machinery of the national
government in the operation of the arrastre service, is immune from suit under the
doctrine of non-suability of the State.
USA v. Ruiz Animos v. PVAO
Class Topic: State Immunity Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. L-35645 May 22, 1985 G.R. No. 79156 June 22, 1989
FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1985/may1985/gr_l35645_1985.html FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/jun1989/gr_79156_1989.html

DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the petition (USA) is granted; the questioned orders of the respondent judge DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The respondent, the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office, is ORDERED to pay the petitioner,
(RUIZ) are set aside and Civil Case No. is dismissed. Costs against the private respondent.”
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:
USA, CAPT. JAMES E. GALLOWAY, WILLIAM I. COLLINS and ROBERT GOHIER, petitioners, FACTS:
[F - FOREIGN STATES] ANIMOS, and dependents, petitioners,
RUIZ, Presiding Judge of Branch XV, Court of First Instance of Rizal and ELIGIO DE GUZMAN & PHILIPPINE VETERANS AFFAIRS OFFICE, its Administrator, JUAN L. GACAD and THE COURT
CO., INC., respondents. OF APPEALS (rejected on doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies), respondents. [G -
GOVERNMENT OFFICERS]
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. 1. Animos' numerous written requests to be granted the maximum pension benefit as well as
simply asserted the doctrine of State immunity. SC agrees, the project in question is a function dependents' pension benefits were all disapproved. CA denied any reward either for possible
of defense, that is, a function of government. ““adverse consequences on the public treasury” and failure to adhere to the doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies.
ISSUES:
1. What are the rules on the immunity of ISSUES:
1. What is the exception to rejection of execution of judgement against the government due to
RATIO DECIDENDI: “adverse consequences on the public treasury”?
1. The traditional rule of State immunity exempts a State from being sued in the courts of 2. What is the exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies (as mentioned
another State without its consent or waiver. This rule is a necessary consequence of the in Sayson v. Singson)?
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 RATIO DECIDENDI:
have multiplied, it has been necessary to distinguish them-between sovereign and governmental 1. Where the suit against such a functionary [government officer?] had to be instituted because of his failure to
acts (jure imperii) and private, commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis). The result is comply with the duty imposed by statute appropriating public funds for the benefit of plaintiff or petitioner. Such
that State immunity now extends only to acts jure imperil is the present case.
1. The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out 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
of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or economic
the courts except with the consent of said Government.
affairs. Stated differently, a State may be said to have descended to the level of an individual
2. The Gonzales doctrine… To be more specific, where there is a stipulation of facts, as in this case, the question before the
and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it enters into
lower court being solely one of law and on the face of the decision, the actuation of appellants being patently illegal, the
business contracts. It does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies certainly does not come into play.
functions. In this case the projects are an integral part of the naval base which is 2. We have already held, however, that the principle requiring the previous exhaustion of administrative remedies is not
devoted to the defense of both the United States and the Philippines, indisputably a applicable 'where the question in dispute is purely a legal one', or where the controverted act is patently illegal or was
function of the government of the highest order (jure imperii); they are not utilized for performed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, or where the respondent is a department secretary, whose acts as
nor dedicated to commercial or business purposes. 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 USA v. Guinto
Class Topic: State Immunity Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 85284 February 28, 1990 G.R. No. 76607 February 26, 1990
FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/feb1990/gr_85284_1990.html OTHER: G.R. 76607: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/feb1990/gr_76607_1990.html

DECISION: DECISION:
“ACCORDINGLY, the petition (REPUBLIC) in the present case is hereby 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. (CONCESSIONAIRES)
vs. 2. RESPONDENT: GENOVE = PEE SOUP a cook in the Main Club located at the U.S. Air Force
SANDIGANBAYAN, Third Division, SIMPLICIO A. PALANCA in his own behalf as a stockholder of Recreation Center, also known as the Open Mess Complex, at John Hay Air Station (jure
Bacolod Real Estate Development Corporation (BREDCO), and other stockholders similarly gestionis)
situated, respondents. 3. RESPONDENT: VALENCIA = BARBERSHOP(jure gestionis)
4. RESPONDENT: DOGS (jure imperii)
1. On 6 June 1988, respondent court promulgated a Resolution dated 3 June 1988 12 granting the private respondents' motion to
intervene and admitting their Answer in Intervention
RATIO DECIDENDI:
2. In the present case, the private respondents intervened in Civil Case No. 0025 merely to unite with the defendants therein in
resisting the claims of petitioner, as plaintiff, and for that reason asked for no affirmative relief against any party in their answer in 1. DOCTRINE: There is no question that the United States of America, like any other state, will
intervention. In other words, this is not a case where the private respondents take the initiative in an action against petitioner by filing be deemed to have impliedly waived its non-suability if it has entered into a contract in its
a complaint in intervention or a complaint. proprietary or private capacity. It is only when the contract involves its sovereign or
governmental capacity that no such waiver may be implied. (jure gestionis)
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).
 USA v. Reyes
Shauf v. CA
Class Topic: State Immunity
Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 79253 March 1, 1993
G.R. No. 90314 November 27, 1990 FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/mar1993/gr_79253_1993.html
FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/nov1990/gr_90314_1990.html
DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Temporary Restraining Order
DECISION: of 7 December 1987 is hereby LIFTED.”
“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 FACTS: (Joint United States Military Assistance Group (JUSMAG))
ORDERED, jointly and severally, to pay petitioners the sum of P100,000.00 as moral damages, USA, BRADFORD (manager at JUSMAG Headquarters.), petitioners,
P20,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees, and the costs of suit.” [G - GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE - OFFICIAL FUNCTION]
vs.
FACTS: REYES, as Presiding Judge of Branch 22, Regional Trial Court of Cavite, and NELIA T. MONTOYA,
SHAUF (FILIPINO-born, guidance counselor), Petitioners, respondents.
vs.
CA, Don Detwiler (civilian personnel officer), Anthony Persi (education director), Respondents.
[G - GOVERNMENT OFFICERS - FOREIGN STATE] 1. Montoya (plaintiff) complains against Bradford for illegal search on the person and belongings
1. Shauf filed an equal employment opportunity complaint against private respondents, for of the plaintiff in front of many people has subjected the plaintiff to speculations of theft,
alleged discrimination against the former by reason of her nationality and sex. shoplifting and such other wrongdoings and has exposed her to contempt and ridicule which was
caused her undue embarrassment and indignity; Petition asserts immunity.
ISSUES:
1. What are the exceptions of government officers invoking state immunity? RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. Since it is apparent from the complaint that Bradford was sued in her private or personal
RATIO DECIDENDI: capacity for acts allegedly done beyond the scope and even beyond her place of official
1. They state that the doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply and may not be invoked functions, said complaint is not then vulnerable to a motion to dismiss based on the grounds
where the public official is being sued in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary relied upon by the petitioners because as a consequence of the hypothetical admission of the
citizen. The cloak of protection afforded the officers and agents of the government is removed truth of the allegations therein, the case falls within the exception to the doctrine of state
the moment they are sued in their individual capacity. immunity.
1. Inasmuch as the State authorizes only legal acts by its officers, unauthorized acts of 1. The question, therefore, arises — are American naval officers who commit a crime or
government officials or officers are not acts of the State, and an action against the officials tortious act (me: even) while discharging official functions still covered by the principle of
or officers by one whose rights have been invaded or violated by such acts, for the protection of state immunity from suit? Pursuing the question further, does the grant of rights, power, and
his rights, is not a suit against the State within the rule of immunity of the State from suit. authority to the United States under the RP-US Bases Treaty cover immunity of its officers from
1. A suit in equity against a State officer or the director of a State department on the ground crimes and torts? Our answer is No. [CRIME AND TORTIOUS ACTS, ultimate exception
that, while claiming to act for the State, he violates or invades the personal and property rights even for official functions]
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 CODALS: Article 16(b) of the 1953 Military Assistance Agreement
State may not be sued without its consent.
 Farolan v. CTA
Nessia v. Fermin
Class Topic: State Immunity
Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 42204 January 21, 1993
G.R. No. 102918 March 30, 1993 FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/jan1993/gr_42204_1993.html
FULL TEXT: http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence1993/mar1993/gr_102918_1993.php
DECISION:
DECISION: “WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent Court of Tax Appeals is AFFIRMED (Customs
“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the assailed decision of 19 July 1991 of respondent erred). The Collector of Customs is directed to expeditiously re-compute the customs
Court of Appeals as well as its 19 November 1991 Resolution denying Nessia's motion for duties applying Tariff Heading 39.02 at the rate of 35% ad valorem on the 13,600 kilograms of
reconsideration are SET ASIDE, and the decision of 24 April 1987 of the Regional Trial Court, polyethylene plastic imported by private respondent.”
Branch LXI, Kabankalan, Negros Occidental, 12 is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED.chanrobl”
FACTS:
FACTS: HON. FAROLAN, in his capacity as Commissioner of Customs, petitioner,
NESSIA, Petitioner, [U - UNINCORPORATED AGENCIES]
FERMIN, MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Respondents. vs.
[G - GOVERNMENT OFFICERS] COURT OF TAX APPEALS and BAGONG BUHAY TRADING, respondents.

1. Nessia for recovery of damages and reimbursement of expenses incurred in the performance 1. Since the shipment was also misdeclared as to quantity and value, the Collector of Customs
of his official duties as the then Deputy Municipal Assessor of Victorias. The complaint theorized forfeited the subject shipment in favor of the government
that Fermin deliberately ignored and caused the non-payment of the vouchers in question 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
RATIO DECIDENDI: because fraud is never presumed and thus concluded that the forfeiture of the articles in
1. It is apparent that public officials are called upon to act expeditiously on matters pending question was not in accordance with law.
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 ISSUES:
inaction brings to a standstill the administrative process and the plaintiff is left in the darkness 1. Unincorporated government agency
of uncertainty. In this regard, official "inaction" cannot be equated with "disapproval." 2. On question of liability
1. ME: There is no mention of “immunity” in this case. It is an example for bureaucrats to not 3. Claim of damages against the state
always rely on the immunity rule and satisfy liability when it is due.
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 Republic v. Sandoval (Mendiola Massacre)
Class Topic: State Immunity Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 104269 November 11, 1993 G.R. No. 84607 March 19, 1993
FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/nov1993/gr_104269_1993.html FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/mar1993/gr_84607_1993.html

DECISION: DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the petition (in favor of Government) is GRANTED. The resolution, dated 27 “WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error and no grave abuse of discretion committed by
November 1991, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The writ of execution directed against the respondent Judge in issuing the questioned orders, the instant petitions are hereby
property of the Department of Agriculture is nullified” DISMISSED.”

FACTS: FACTS:
1. The Department of Agriculture (herein petitioner) and Sultan Security Agency entered into a Republic, Military officers
contract [G - GOVERNMENT OFFICERS]
2. Several guards of the Sultan Security Agency filed a complaint for underpayment of wages, SANDOVAL, Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch IX
non-payment of 13th month pay, uniform allowances, night shift differential pay, holiday pay
and overtime pay, as well as for damages. 1. People may have already forgotten the tragedy that transpired on January 22, 1987. It is
3. Executive Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on 31 May finding herein petitioner and jointly quite ironic that then, some journalists called it a Black Thursday, as a grim reminder to the
and severally liable with Sultan Security Agency for the payment of money claims, aggregating nation of the misfortune that befell twelve (12) rallyists. But for most Filipinos now, the Mendiola
P266,483.91, of the complainant security guards. On 18 July 1991, the Labor Arbiter issued a massacre may now just as well be a chapter in our history books. For those however, who have
writ of execution. become widows and orphans, certainly they would not settle for just that. They seek retribution
ISSUES: for the lives taken that will never be brought back to life again.
1. W/N Consent of the state to the “execution” of judgement (e.g. appropriation of funds) is 2. Hence, the heirs of the deceased, together with those injured (Caylao group), instituted this
automatic. 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
RATIO DECIDENDI: August 8, 1988, dismissing the complaint for damages
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 ISSUES:
does, in effect, is to give the other party an opportunity to prove, if it can, that the State has a 1. Government officials acting beyond the scope of their State-given authority, personally liable?
liability.
1. The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either RATIO DECIDENDI:
by general or special law, it may limit the claimant's action "only up to the completion of 1. AFFIRMED DECISION: The impleaded Military Officers, since they are being charged in their
proceedings anterior to the stage of execution" and that the power of the Courts ends when the personal and official capacity, and holding them liable, if at all, would not result in financial
judgment is rendered, since government funds and properties may not be seized under responsibility of the government, the principle of immunity from suit can not conveniently and
writs or execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is based on obvious correspondingly be applied to them.
considerations of public policy. Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the 1. The inescapable conclusion is that the State cannot be held civilly liable for the deaths that
correspondent appropriation as required by law. The functions and public services rendered by followed the incident. Instead, the liability should fall on the named defendants in the lower
the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from court. In line with the ruling of this court in Shauf vs. Court of Appeals, 24 herein public
their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law. officials, having been found to have acted beyond the scope of their authority, may be
held liable for damages.
CODALS: C.A. No. 327, as amended by P.D. 1445.
Holy See v. Rosario DFA v. NLRC
Class Topic: State Immunity Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 101949 December 1, 1994 G.R. No. 113191 September 18, 1996
FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/dec1994/gr_101949_1994.html FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/sep1996/gr_113191_1996.html

DECISION: DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED and the complaint against petitioner “WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED, and the decision of the Labor Arbiter,
(HOLY SEE) is DISMISSED.” dated 31 August 1993 is VACATED, for being NULL AND VOID. The temporary restraining order
issued by this Court on 07 April 1994 is hereby made permanent. No costs.”
FACTS:
FACTS:
Petitioner is the Holy See who exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City in Rome, DFA, Asian Development Bank ("ADB") , PETITIONER
Italy, and is represented in the Philippines by the Papal Nuncio. [I - INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES / Diplomatic Immunity]
[I - INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES / Diplomatic Immunity]
vs. ADB claiming immunity against the labor decision of NLRC relating to its employee.
ROSARIO, as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 61 and
Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc., is a domestic corporation engaged in the real estate RATIO DECIDENDI:
business., respondents. 1. It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of separation of powers
that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look
beyond a determination by the executive branch of the government, and where the plea of
1. HOLY SEE property in question. Main issue is annulment of sale due to refusal of the squatters diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the government
to vacate the lots sold to private respondent. The case didn’t prosper due to diplomatic immunity
approved by the Executive department for foreign relations sake.

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

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

1. Civil Case No. 88-43887, and ordered petitioner Amado J. Lansang to pay private respondent
FACTS:
Jose Iglesias P50,000.00 in moral damages, P10,000.00 in exemplary damages and P5,000.00
in attorney's fees. [SET ASIDE]. The Court of Appeals also agreed that petitioner liable for
EPG Construction, Has individual contracts with respondent, Petitioners
damages. SC disagrees.
HON. VIGILAR, In His Capacity as Secretary of Public Works and Highways, respondent
2. Private respondents were allegedly given office and library space as well as kiosks area selling
[G - GOVERNMENT OFFICERS]
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 Vigilar denied the
3. February 29, 1988, petitioner terminated the so-called verbal agreement with GABI and
subject money claims prompting herein petitioners to file before the Regional Trial Court.
demanded that the latter vacate the premises and the kiosks it ran privately within the public
Respondent disagrees on the basis of the void verbal agreement. SC decision is that contractors
park.
be duly compensated on the basis of quantum meruit for construction done on the public works
housing project.

RATIO DECIDENDI:
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. Immunity doesn’t apply, where the public official is clearly being sued not in his official
1. Respondents argument is misplaced inasmuch as the Principle of State Immunity finds no
capacity but in his personal capacity, although the acts complained of may have been committed
application in the case before us.
while he occupied a public position. We are convinced that petitioner is being sued not in his
1. Ministerio vs. CFI of Cebu 20 that the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot
capacity as NPDC chairman but in his personal capacity. This case though did not prosper on the
serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen.
basis that Rizal park is beyond the commerce of man.
1. To be sure, this Court as the staunch guardian of the citizens rights and welfare cannot
sanction an injustice so patent on its face, and allow itself to be an instrument in the
CODALS: BLANK
perpetration thereof.
Minucher v. CA Republic of Indonesia v. Vinzon
Class Topic: State Immunity Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 142396 February 11, 2003 G.R. No. 154705 June 26, 2003
FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/jun2003/gr_154705_2003.html
OTHER: (1992): http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1992septemberdecisions.php?id=661
DECISION:
DECISION: “WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision and resolution of the Court of
“WHEREFORE, on the foregoing premises, the petition is DENIED. No costs.” 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:
MINUCHER, petitioner, (denied) [an Iranian national, where a quantity of heroin, a FACTS:
prohibited drug, was said to have been seized] THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA, HIS EXCELLENCY AMBASSADOR SOERATMIN, and MINISTER
vs. COUNSELLOR AZHARI KASIM, Petitioners,
CA and ARTHUR SCALZO [principal witnesses for the prosecution] [a special agent of the United F - FOREIGN STATES through agents (diplomatic immunity)
States Drug Enforcement Administration], respondents. vs.
F - FOREIGN STATES through agents VINZON, VINZON TRADE AND SERVICES, Respondent.

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 1.Entered into a Maintenance Agreement in August 1995 with respondent James Vinzon, sole
trumped-up charges of drug trafficking made by Arthur Scalzo. Case did not prosper for Scalzo proprietor of Vinzon Trade and Services. Vinzon claims Indonesia terminated the contract his
claimed diplomatic immunity acknowledged by the SC. contract inappropriately and thus filed a suit. It did not prosper due to diplomatic immunity.

RATIO DECIDENDI: RATIO DECIDENDI:

1. Suing a representative of a state is believed to be, in effect, suing the state itself. The 1. A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisidiction of the receiving State.
proscription is not accorded for the benefit of an individual but for the State, in whose service he He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction, except in the case of:
is, under the maxim - par in parem, non habet imperium - that all states are sovereign equals
and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. (a) a real action relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving
1. A foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked with immunity from suit but only State, unless he holds it on behalf of the sending State for the purposes of the mission;
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 (b) an action relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent is involved as executor,
States Drug Enforcement Agency allowed by the Philippine government to conduct activities in administrator, heir or legatee as a private person and not on behalf of the sending State;
the country to help contain the problem on the drug traffic, is entitled to the defense of state
immunity from suit. (c) an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic
agent in the receiving State outside his official functions.
CODALS: Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
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 Inc. v. Lichauco Republic v. Hidalgo
Class Topic: State Immunity Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 142362 May 3, 2006 G.R. No. 161657 October 4, 2007
FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/may2006/gr_142362_2006.html FULL TEXT: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/oct2007/gr_161657_2007.html

DECISION: DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the PETITION is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 21 February 2000 is “The portion assessing the petitioner Republic for costs of suit is also declared null and void.”
SET ASIDE and the Order dated 14 August 1998 of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City is #EXECUTION
REINSTATED. The Regional Trial Court is ordered to try and decide the case on the merits with deliberate FACTS:
REPUBLIC (taking property), Petitioner,
dispatch. No costs” 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.
FACTS:
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
PHILIPPINE AGILA SATELLITE INC. (PASI) and MICHAELC. U. DE GUZMAN, Complainants, against the Republic.
LICHAUCO Undersecretary for Communications, Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC), 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.
Respondents.
[U - UNINCORPORATED AGENCIES] ISSUES:
1. Example of non-automatic execution of judgement when costs against the State funds is
1. However, respondent Lichauco, then DOTC Undersecretary for Communications, allegedly "embarked on a petitioned.
2. However, right and justice must still prevail, especially on the legal right of just
crusade to malign the name of [Michael de Guzman] and sabotage the business of PASI." Lichauco's
compensation. Thus the court decides below.
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 RATIO DECIDENDI:
later claimed by PASI that Lichauco subsequently awarded the orbital slot to an entity whose indentity was 1. The assailed trial court’s issuance of the writ of execution against government funds to satisfy
unknown to PASI. 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
RATIO DECIDENDI:
establish the plaintiff’s claim in the absence of express provision; otherwise, they can not be
1. An action at law or suit in equity against a State officer or the director of a State department on the ground
enforced by processes of law.
that, while claiming to act for the State, he violates or invades the personal and property rights or the plaintiff, 1. DOCTRINE: The assessment of costs of suit against the petitioner is, however, nullified, costs
under an unconstitutional act or under an assumption of authority which he does not have, is not a suit against not being allowed against the Republic, unless otherwise provided by law
the State within the constitutional provision that the State may not be sued without its consent.' The rationale 2. For what is before us, after all, is a registered owner of a piece of land who, during the early
for this ruling is that the doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an instrument for perpetrating an days of the martial law regime, lost possession thereof to the Government which appropriated
injustice. the same for some public use, but without going through the legal process of expropriation, let
alone paying such owner just compensation.
2. Had the petitioner impleaded the DOTC itself, an unincorporated government agency, and not Lichauco
2. Consistent with the basic tenets of justice, fairness and equity, petitioner Republic, thru the
herself, the suit would have been considered as one against the State. But neither circumstance obtains in this Office of the President, is hereby strongly enjoined to take the necessary steps, and, with
case. [Me: In filiing redress of wrongs against the government, one must be careful on procedure] 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.
CODALS: BLANK
Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Technische Zusammenarbeit v CA Shell Philippines Exploration BV v. Jalos
Class Topic: State Immunity Class Topic: State Immunity
G.R. No. 152318 April 16, 2009 G.R. No. 179918 September 8, 2010
FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/sep2010/gr_179918_2010.html
FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_152318_2009.html
DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition and REVERSES the decision of the Court of
DECISION:
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 82404 dated November 20, 2006. Respondent Efren Jalos, et al’s
“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. No pronouncement as to costs.”
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
FACTS:
without prejudice to its refiling with the Pollution Adjudication Board or PAB.”
also known as GERMAN AGENCY FOR TECHNICAL COOPERATION, (GTZ) HANS PETER PAULENZ
FACTS
and ANNE NICOLAY, Petitioners,
represented by its Managing Director, Jeremy Cliff, Petitioner
[F - FOREIGN STATES through agents/ Diplomatic Immunity]
CA, Labor Arbiter of the Arbitration Branch, National Labor Relations Commission, and
[S - SPECIAL AGENT]
BERNADETTE CARMELLA MAGTAAS, CAROLINA DIONCO, CHRISTOPHER RAMOS, MELVIN DELA Jalos, et al,as respondents
PAZ, RANDY TAMAYO and EDGARDO RAMILLO, 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
1. Nicolay, a Belgian national, assumed the post of SHINE Project Manager. Disagreements construction and operation of Shell’s natural gas pipeline.
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 ISSUES:
her predecessors 1. W/N Shell BV can be considered under SPECIAL AGENCY immunity? What are the rules on
1. Each of the private respondents received a letter from Nicolay dated 11 July 2000, informing SPECIAL AGENCY?
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. RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. Consequently, Shell is not an agent of the Philippine government, but a provider of services,
GOOGLED: The Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH or GIZ in short is a German development agency technology and financing31 for the Malampaya Natural Gas Project. It is not immune from suit
headquartered in Bonn and Eschborn that provides services in the field of international development cooperation. 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
ISSUES: representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter. The essence
1. Would the fact that the Solicitor General has endorsed GTZ’s claim of State’s immunity from of an agency is the agent’s ability to represent his principal and bring about business relations
suit before this Court sufficiently substitute for the DFA certification? 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
RATIO DECIDENDI: It is this power to affect the principal’s contractual relations with third persons that differentiates
1. Note that the rule in public international law quoted in Holy See referred to endorsement by the agent from a service contractor.
the Foreign Office of the State where the suit is filed, such foreign office in the Philippines being 1. Shell’s main undertaking under Service Contract 38 is to "[p]erform all petroleum operations
the Department of Foreign Affairs. and provide all necessary technology and finance" as well as other connected services29 to the
1. The Court is thus holds and so rules that GTZ consistently has been unable to establish with Philippine government. As defined under the contract, petroleum operation means the
satisfaction that it enjoys the immunity from suit generally enjoyed by its parent country, the "searching for and obtaining Petroleum within the Philippines", including the "transportation,
Federal Republic of Germany. Consequently, both the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals storage, handling and sale" of petroleum whether for export or domestic consumption.30 Shell’s
acted within proper bounds when they refused to acknowledge that GTZ is so immune by primary obligation under the contract is not to represent the Philippine government for the
dismissing the complaint against it. purpose of transacting business with third persons. Rather, its contractual commitment is to
1. DOCTRINE(me): Apparently, diplomatic immunity must be proved as fact. For instance, like develop and manage petroleum operations on behalf of the State.
Holy See, a certification from DFA was submitted as proof of immunity.
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: DECISION:
“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.” “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
FACTS
dated November 28, 2001 for being void only the awards of actual damages of ₱ 5,716,729.00, moral damages of ₱
ATCI OVERSEAS CORPORATION, AMALIA G. IKDAL and MINISTRY OF PUBLIC 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
HEALTH-KUWAIT Petitioners, Servillano dela Cruz.”
[F - FOREIGN STATES through agent]
vs. FACTS
MA. JOSEFA ECHIN, Respondent. 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, [G - GOVERNMENT OFFICER on behalf of the S]
vs.
1. Echin (respondent) was hired by petitioner ATCI Overseas Corporation in behalf of its 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.
principal-co-petitioner, the Ministry of Public Health of Kuwait (the Ministry), for the position of
medical technologist under a two-year contract 1. On August 30, 1990, the UP, through its then President Jose V. Abueva, entered into a General Construction Agreement with
1. Respondent was deployed on February 17, 2000 but was terminated from employment on respondent Stern Builders Corporation (Stern Builders), represented by its President and General Manager Servillano dela Cruz, for the
February 11, 2001, she not having allegedly passed the probationary period. 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
RATIO DECIDENDI:
co-respondent officials to collect the unpaid billing and to recover various damages.
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
ISSUES:
expediency of claiming that its foreign principal is a government agency clothed with immunity
1. What is the difference between suability and liability?
from suit, or that such foreign principal’s liability must first be established before it, as agent,
2. How sacred is the State’s public funds against execution of valid judgement?
can be held jointly and solidarily liable.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
1. A distinction should first be made between suability and liability. "Suability depends on the consent of the state to be sued,
CODALS: BLANK
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
 the grounding of the USS Guardian, would be premature and beyond the province of a petition
Arigo v. Swift 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
Class Topic: State Immunity have resulted from the violation of environmental laws. The Rules allows the recovery of
G.R. No. 206510 September 16, 2014 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
FULL TEXT: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/sep2014/gr_206510_2014.html
environmental law.
3. We agree with respondents (Philippine officials) in asserting that this petition has become
DECISION: moot in the sense that the salvage operation sought to be enjoined or restrained had already
“The present petition under the Rules is not the proper remedy to assail the constitutionality of been accomplised, xxxxx the completion of the removal of the USS Guardian from the coral reef.
its provisions. WHEREFORE, the petition for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan 4. In the light of the foregoing, the Court defers to the Executive Branch on the matter of
is hereby DENIED.D.” 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
FACTS: 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
ARIGO, allowed under Oposa doctrine: allows the filing of a citizen suit in environmental not subject to judicial inquiry or decision."
cases, petitioner
SUMMARY: The court agrees with the validity of the legal right assailed by the petitioners, it is
SWIFT in his capacity as Commander of the US. 7th Fleet, respondent only DENIED, since it the remedy is not in the situs of the judicial department. The remedy
[F - FOREIGN STATES through an agent] 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
1. WRIT OF KALIKASAN against violations of environmental laws and regulations in relation to a peaceful way, without damaging the foreign relations, their liability on our legal right to
the grounding of the US military ship USS Guardian over the Tubbataha Reefs. healthful ecology.
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 DOCTRINE: (me) To our State and to foreign States as well, the liability imposed on the public
provinces of Palawan, Antique, Aklan, Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental, funds of a State is sacred and is not automatically subject to final valid judgements. The State
Zamboanga del Norte, Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi, which events violate their constitutional involved must give consent to the execution for it to be valid.
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
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 with further MODIFICATION that
“You’ve got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your
the forfeiture of the improvements made by the DOTC in favor of the respondents is DELETED. lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly
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.