Suit Against The State

Myla Ruth N.
Sara
SUIT AGAINST THE STATE
***Sovereign immunity – the principle that the state cannot be sued without its
consent.
Basis: 1. Sec. 3, Art. 16 of the Constitution
2. Time immemorial practice – There can be no legal right as against
the authority who makes the law on which rights depend.
3. Logical and Practical consideration – If no legal bar to suits against the
state then all the time and resources of the state will be spent on
defending himself from all these cases.
3 instances considered as suit against the state:

1. when the republic is sued by name
2. when an unincorporated government entity is sued
3. when a public officer is sued in the performance of his official acts
and ultimate liability rests upon the state
Common denominator in these 3 cases:

1. it must require the government to disburse public funds to
satisfy any award in that case or an amount is appropriated; or
2. it would mean loss of government property
*** So, even if the republic is sued by its name but it does not result to
appropriation of government funds or loss of government property, it is not
considered as a suit against the state.
***Government officers can only claim immunity if the performances of their acts
are within the limits of their official function.
***A foreign state can claim immunity from suit based on the following
grounds:
1. Art. 2, Sec. 2: Generally accepted principles in international law
forms part of the law of the land;
2. Under the Doctrine of Incorporation, by mere membership in the
United Nation we agree to incorporate into our laws the generally accepted principle
in international laws;
3. Equality among sovereigns: sovereigns are considered to be
Myla Ruth N.
Sara
equals, no sovereign can be brought under the jurisdiction of another sovereign.

“PAR IN PAREM HABET IMPERIUM” because to do so would unduly vex the
peace of nation.
***An international organization cannot claim immunity from suit because it is
not a state. It may claim immunity but not based on the principle of state immunity,
but based on their binding agreement or on the nature of the creation of the
organization or treaty stipulations.
3 types of consent:
1. General Express Consent – that which comes under the law
duly enacted by congress covering an entire subject of waiver of immunity. The laws
are: ACT 3030, CA 3083 (a law under which the government of the Philippine Islands
may be sued), CA 327 as amended by PD 1415 (express grant by Congress).
CA 327 – an act for the auditor general to render its decision and prescribing
for the manner of appeal.
2. Specific Express Consent – This refers to the case of Merritt in

which Merritt was allowed by Congress to bring the case against the government. It
is a valid express consent under a special law.
3. Implied Consent.
*** Express Consent can only come in the form of a legislation duly enacted by
Congress.
*** A Proclamation is not a valid form of consent because it is an executive
issuance. It is not a statute enacted by Congress.
***Consent is given pursuant to a charter of a GOCC or LGU.
***Local Government Unit gives its consent when sued because of charter.
However, in case of liability, it must be determined if the performance is in a
governmental or proprietary capacity.
***If there is liability adjudged to a GOCC with an original charter, that consent
is valid from the filing of the case up to the execution of the judgment. You
can execute funds of the GOCC with charter because although public in character, it
is not considered as government funds because they have been appropriated
already for the use of this GOCC.
Act 3081, Sec. 1: This general form of consent or waiver of immunity involves only
Myla Ruth N.
Sara
money claims involving liability arising from contracts express or implied.

Sec. 2: The claimants must have presented its claim before the auditing
office or which is now COA and the auditor general has failed to act on its claim.
Sec. 3: This refers to the venue where you can file your claim, either in the
RTC of Manila or in the province or city where you reside.
Sec. 5: In case the government filed an action against you, you can file a
counterclaim against the government.
***You can only file a counterclaim against the government, not a case. It is because
the state has descended to the level of an ordinary litigant opening itself to any
form of counterclaim.
***Section 7: If you have a complaint against the government for any liability, you
can file a case in court. But even if you file a case in court and it was proven that
the government is liable, you cannot execute the judgment against the government
because state immunity is valid only from the initiation of the action up to the
decision not including execution.
*** Sec. 8: Procedure:
1. You have to send the decision to the President.
2. The President will present it to Congress.
3. The Congress will have to appropriate funds for the satisfaction of the
award. However, that will be included in the next year’s budget.
But if upon presentment of the claim to COA and it has excess funds and
it may satisfy the claim otherwise, you have to go to the normal process.
W/N this is a suit against the state:
>> Begoso vs. PVS / Del Mar – It is not a suit against the state because there are
already money appropriated by the government to the Philippine Veterans
Administration for the benefits.
>> Feliciano case – Resettlement area is presumed that it belongs to the state.
Thus, it is a suit against the state for this would result to loss of government
property.
>>Shauf vs. CA – This is not a suit against the state because the respondents are
made liable in their personal capacity because of discriminatory acts. Acts of a
governmental official considered unconstitutional or made in bad faith are not
considered as acts of the state.
Myla Ruth N.
Sara
>>Wylie vs. Rarang – Negligent act cannot be considered as act of the state. He
cannot claim immunity from suit although it is in performance of his official function.
>>US v. Reyes – This is not a suit against the state because it is done outside the
authority and jurisdiction of the petitioner.
Express Consent:
>> Republic vs. Purisima – Rice and Corn Administration can be sued because it
is an unincorporated government entity. Thus, any liability against it will require the
government to perform an affirmative action. However, the contract is not a valid
form of consent because it does not come from a legislation duly enacted by
Congress.
>> DAR vs. NLRC – This is a suit against a state because it requires disbursement
of public funds because DAR is an unincorporated entity. Since the security agency
fails to pay the benefits and salaries of the guards, DAR (the principal) shall be
liable.

Suit Against The State

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suit Against The State

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Suit Against The State

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Myla Ruth N.

SUIT AGAINST THE STATE

3 instances considered as suit against the state:

Common denominator in these 3 cases:

equals, no sovereign can be brought under the jurisdiction of another sovereign.

2. Specific Express Consent – This refers to the case of Merritt in

money claims involving liability arising from contracts express or implied.

W/N this is a suit against the state:

You might also like