Scribd
Upload
48 views4 pages

Doctrine of State Immunity 1

1) Under the Philippine Constitution and the doctrine of state immunity, the State may not be sued without its consent. This is because allowing suits against the State would impair its dignity and challenge its infallibility. 2) The State and its agencies are insulated from the jurisdiction of local courts and enjoy immunity from suit. However, the State can waive its immunity through express or implied consent. 3) Express consent to be sued usually comes in the form of a special or general law passed by Congress. Implied consent can occur when the State commences litigation or files a counterclaim against a private party.

Uploaded by

mee too
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
48 views4 pages

Doctrine of State Immunity 1

1) Under the Philippine Constitution and the doctrine of state immunity, the State may not be sued without its consent. This is because allowing suits against the State would impair its dignity and challenge its infallibility. 2) The State and its agencies are insulated from the jurisdiction of local courts and enjoy immunity from suit. However, the State can waive its immunity through express or implied consent. 3) Express consent to be sued usually comes in the form of a special or general law passed by Congress. Implied consent can occur when the State commences litigation or files a counterclaim against a private party.

Uploaded by

mee too
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY

GENERAL RULE Article XVI, Sec. 3 of the Constitution - “The State may not be sued without its consent.”
BASIS 1. Impairment of dignity of the States
2. Challenge to its suppose infallibility
JUSTIFICATION Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. - “There can be no legal right against the authority which
makes the law on which the right depends”.

Additional Justification demands and inconveniences of litigation will divert time and resources
of the State from more pressing matters demanding its attention to the prejudice of public
welfare.
WHO MAY AVAIL OF STATE IMMUNITY

Garcia v. Chief of Staff, 16 SCRA 120 - claim for


damages filed by Mariano Garcia for injuries he
sustained while undergoing military training albeit filed
against AFP Chief of Staff was actually suits against
the States, which should be dismissed because the
State has not given its consent.
Rationale:
STATE Farolan v. CTA 217 SCRA 298 - BOC cannot be held
State is insulated from jurisdiction of liable for actual damages which Bagong Buhay Trading
courts of justices sustained with regard to its missing goods in the
custody of BOC for it would violate the doctrine of
sovereign immunity. As an unincorporated government
agency without any separate juridical personality of its
own, BOC enjoys immunity from suit.

Bureau of Printing v. BOPEA I SCRA 340- BOPEA filed


with CIR complaint for unfair labor practices against
official of BOP, who interposed the defense that BOP
has no juridical personality to sue and be sued. HELD :
as an office of the Government, without any corporate
or juridical personality, BOP cannot be sued.

Holy See v. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524- Starbright filed


With immunity - when sued in courts complaint for annulment of sale and damages against
of local States the Holy See in connection with a property owned by
FOREIGN STATES the latter which is the subject matter of a contract to
Rationale: par in paem non habet sell. Trial court ruled that Holy See “shed off its
imperium (an equal has no power sovereign immunity by entering into business contract
over an equal) in question. HELD: Holy See is duly accredited
diplomatic mission exempt from local jurisdiction and
entitled to immunity.

Minucher v. CA. G.R No. 142396, Feb. 11, 2003 -


Minucher filed suit for damages against Arthur Scalzo,
US DEA Agent, who together with Phil. Narcotic agents
DIPLOMATIC AGENTS With immunity- when acting within conducted buy-bust operations against Minucher.
the directives of his government HELD: a US DEA Agent allowed by the Phil.
Government to help contain the problem on the drug
traffic, is entitled to the defense of state immunity
from suit.

With immunity Callado v. IRRI, 244 SCRA 210- Ernesto Collado, driver
INTERNATIONAL at IRRI figured in vehicular accident while driving an
ORGANIZATIONS Raison d’etre: assurance of IRRI vehicle and under the influence of liquor. He filed
unimpeded perfomance of their complaint befor Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal. IRRI
functions interposed the defense of immunity. HELD: IRRI is an
international organization entitled to immunity.
WAIVER OF IMMUNITY
1. EXPRESS CONSENT

DA v. NLRC 227 SCRA 693- may constitute money


claims. DA may be sued for money claims based on
contract for security services because of express
Act 3083 (March 16, 1923) consent contained in Act. 3038.
GENERAL LAW - “Government of P.I. hereby
consents and submits to be sued Republic v. Feliciano 148 SCRA 424- Proclamation is
upon any moneyed claim involving not a legislative act. Waiver of immunity can only be
liability arising from contract, express made by an act of the legislative body.
or implied, which could serve as basis
of civil action between private Republic v. Purisma 78 SCRA 470- Whatever counsel
parties.” for RCA agreed to had no binding force on the
government. The consent, to be effective, must come
from the State acting through a duly enacted statute.

SPECIAL LAW Act 2457 (Feb. 3, 1915) Merritt v. Government of P.I 18 SCRA 1120- in 1913
-”authorizing E. Merritt to bring suit an ambulance of General Hospital called with
against government of P.I.” motorcycle driven by Merritt for which severely
injured. Congress passed Act 2457 in 1915 authorizing
him to sue the government.

2. IMPLIED CONSENT

Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping, G. R. No. L-6060,


Sept. 30, 1950 -Government impliedly allowed itself to
Rule: it becomes vulnerable to be sued when it filed complained in intervention for
counterclaim recovery of a vessel filed by Fernando Froilan.

Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 204 SCRA 212 - PCGC


filed case against Bienvenido Tantoco, who filed
STATE COMENCES LITIGATION counterclaim. HELD: PCGC cannot resist the
counterclaim against it. The suggestion that State
makes no implied waiver of immunity by filing suit
except when it acts in its proprietary capacity is
unstoppable; it attempts a distinction without support
in principle or precedent

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy