SESSION 2-3

Angara vs Electoral Commission (The Supremacy of the Constitution)

Petitioner- Jose Angara

Repondent- Electoral Commission

Facts:
1. Jose Angara and Pedro Ynsua- both candidates for member of the National Assembly
of Tayabas.
2. Angara- proclaimed as the new member of national assembly with Resolution No. 8
of National Assembly that (Dec 3, 1935) was the last day of filing protest.
3. December 9, 1935- Resolution was issued by Electoral Commission that the said day
(Dec 9) was the last day of protest thus the protest of Ynsua dated December 8
complied with the last day of protest.
4. Angaras Contention- Resolution No. 8 issued by the National Assembly is valid and
Dec. 3 was the last day of filing protest, thus, the Electoral Commission cannot
entertain the protest of Ynsua dated Dec. 8.
5. Electoral Commissions Contention- EC is the SOLE instrumentality of legislative
dept. for deciding election, returns and qualifications of members of National
Assembly.

Issue: WoN the SC has the authority to determine who between the said departments
(EC and NA) shall prevail between the case

Ruling:
1 In cases of conflict, the judicial department is the only constitutional organ which
may determine the proper allocation of powers.
6. SC determines the scope, nature, and extent the powers of government and when
the SC mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does NOT assert any
superiority over the legislative and executive branch BUT asserts the SOLEMN and
SACRED obligation assigned to it by the Consti. to determine conflicting claims of
authority between and among branches the govt.
3. EC shall prevail because of Fact No. 5.
Decision: the EC can entertain the protest of Ynsua.

Francisco vs House of Representatives (Interpretation/Construction of the

Constitution)

Facts:

Petitioner- Francisco is a Congressman

Facts:
1 Pres. Estrada filed complaint against Davide, Chief Justice and associate justices for
betrayal of public trust, graft and corruption.
7. Allegedly, Davide used justice development fund.
8. HR investigated in accordance of power of inquiry in aid of legislation.
9. 1st impeachment- sufficient in form but insufficient in substance (Oct. 22, 2003)
10. 2nd Impeachment- Gilberto Teodoro and Fuentabella, Congressmen, filed the
said impeachment dated Oct.23, 2003) which violates Art. 11 Section 3 par.5
providing that no impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same
official more than once within the period of year.

Issue: WoN the 2nd impeachment is unconstitutional

Ruling:
1 Plain meaning rule/ Verba Legis- Whenever possible the words used in the Consti
must be given their ordinary meaning except when technicals are employed.
11. APPLICATION OF VERBA LEGIS: Art. 11 Section 3 par.5 providing that no
impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than
once within the period of year. It is understood that the meaning of this provision
can be understood its plain meaning that there can be no more than 1 impeachment
case against same official within the same year.
12. Ratio legit et anima/ Interpretation according to spirit- The words of the Consti
should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of the framers of Consti.
13. APPLICATION OF Ratio legit et anima/ Interpretation according to spirit- In order
to determine the intent of the Consti. we must refer to the extrinsic aids and one of
the said aids in this case 12th CONGRESS NEW RULES which also provides
specifically Section 17 of the said New Rules that no impeachment proceedings shall
be initiated against the same official more than once within the period of year.
14. Ut magis valsat quad pereat- The Consti has to be interpreted as a whole.
15. APPLICATION OF Ut magis valsat quad pereat- In oder to apply these, we must
focus on the 2 provisions of Article 11 Section 3 paragraphs:
(1)- House of Rep. shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of
impeachment.
(5)- No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more
than once within the period of year.
According to Fr. Bernas impeachment case is the legal controversy that must be
decided by Senate while impeachment proceeding is the initiating step which triggers
the series of step to be followed.
Decision: It is unconstitutional

Aglipay vs Ruiz (Preamble- Purpose and effect)

Aglipay- head of Philippine Independent Church

Ruiz- Director of posts for mailing, for stamps

Facts: under 1935 Constitution

1 Aglipays desire to issue a prohibition to prevent issuance and selling of postage
stamps
16. 33rd Intl Eucharistic Congress as the design of the postage stamps

Issue: (Importance of Preamble) WoN the prohibition should be granted

Ruling:
1 The prohibition is denied because the postage stamps were just intended for tourism
and not for pecuniary benefits.
17. Allowing the postage stamps is in accordance with the divine providence under
1935 Constitution because believing in God is second to Filipino culture.

Magallona vs. Ermita (Article I -The National Territory- Philippine Baseline Law)

Magallona- taxpayer
Ermita- Executive Secretary of Arroyo

1st Issue: WoN RA 9522 reduced 1 base line of the Philippines

1. RA 9522 is a statutory tool to demarcate the countrys maritime zones and

continental shelf under UNCLOS III not to DELINEATE Philippines Territory; to mark
out specific base points along their coasts from which baseline are drawn
2. Establishment of baseline is necessary to comply with UNCLOS (UNITED NATIONS
CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA TREATY) III which is the intl agreement that
defines the limits of territorial seas and nations and the areas in which they could
exploit marine resources.
3. Ways to Loose/Acquire Territory: a. occupation; b. accretion; c. cession

2nd Issue: WoN RA 9522 there is a basis to claim sovereignty over Kalayaan
Island Group and Scarborough shoal
1.Yes. Article 2a of RA 9522 provides that baseline in the following areas over which
the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction shall be determined as
regime of islands under Republic of he Philippines consistent with Article 121 of the
UNCLOS, the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal.
2. Thus, the petitioner was wrong in stating that the extension of the baseline up to
KIG and Scarborough Shoal was the correct basis to claim sovereignty over the said
islands for it will violate the Rule or Baseline Law (eg. EEZ, Contiguous ZONE) of
UNCLOS (Aba! pag in-extend pa natin yan e masasakop na ng Pilipinas ang
ibang islands na hindi na naman sakop ng Pilipinas. OA oa oa na and
Pilipinas!)

3rd Issue: WoN UNCLOS III and RA 9522 is compatible with Constitutions
Delineation of Internal Waters
1 Archipelagic Doctrine- The waters Around, Between, and Connecting the islands of
the archipelago form part of the INTERNAL WATERS of the Philippines.
4. Petitioners Contention: Internal waters are converted to archipelagic waters which
are subject to right of innocent passage (A COSTUMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW) and
expose the internal waters to nuclear(Article 2 Section 8) and pollution hazards
(right to ecological balance)
5. The contention of the petitioner was not correct for the reason that the internal
waters are not converted into archipelagic waters hence not subject to right of
innocent passage. Likewise, the Philippines through the legislature may enact law
designating routes within the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent passage.
6. No foreign State can validly invoke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid innocent
passage that is exercised in accordance with customary international law without
risking retaliatory measures from international community.

Cabanas v Pilapil (Concept of State- Doctrine of Parens Patriae)

Melchora Cabanas- widow of Antonio

Francisco Pilapil- brother of Antonio
Milian Cabanas-saling pusang character, minor, daughter of Melchora and Antonio

Facts:
1 Antonio died and left inheritance to Milian.
7. Francisco was the trustee.
8. Melchora invoked Article 320 and 321- whoever is the surviving spouse is the legal
administrator of the property pertaining to the child.
9. Francisco invoked the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy providing that he was
the legal administrator.

Issue: Doctrine of Parens Patriae (State is is parent of the people) WoN Melchora had a
valid claim
1 Judiciary/SC here is the agency of State acting as the parent in this case that may be
called upon whenever a pending suit of litigation affects one who is a minor to
accord priority to his best interest.
10. The Constitution specifically its recognition to the importance of family
considered mother as the the best legal administrator or person to serve the best
interest of the child.

Doctrine of State Immunity from Suit

Villasor(Judge) v Republic (Suit against the Republic of the Philippines)

FACTS
1.Judge grant a decision in favor of the private persons and against the government
banks which possessed the fund allocated for the function and services of
government.
which is one of the instrumentality of the state.
2. The form of penalty impose against the state was a sum of money.
ISSUES
WoN the state can be sued
HELD
General Rule:The state cannot be sued
Exceptions:With the state consents
In the case at bar judge villasor represented the state and he consented the private
person to sue the government bank (veterans)thus was the general rule cannot be
applied ; BUT the private persons cannot be awarded the said sum of money such
money was only allocated for the function and services of government and a
legislative decisions is needed in order to use the money for other purposes.

Syquia vs. Almeda (Suit against Foreign States under the principle of Sovereign
Equality of States)

Facts: -During the japanese and american periods (1945)

-Leopoldo ,Pedro Gonzalo Syquia- owner of 3 apartments where the us navy leased

George moore commanding general of US navy and who leases to syquia brothers

Moore authorizes Tillman to control over the lease apartment

The duration of stay of us navy was for 6 months-Tillman and Moore did not pay

Syquia executed new lease contract- Moore and Tillman did not agreed with the
contract with a higher cost of rentals

Syquia file a case against Tillman and moore

Tillman and moore is acting on the part US NAVY

The RTC and Court has no jurisdiction at the case at bar

ISSUES

Won foreign state can be sued

GR: Foreign state cannot be sued

Exception:with the consent of foreign state

The US did not consent to be sued at the first place at the case at bar.
The acts conducted by the US navy are within the scope of their performance of their
duty(suing a representative of the state is believed to be,in effect, suing the state
itself)

Minucher vs. CA (Suit against Foreign States under the principle of Sovereign
Equality of States)

Minucher foreigner, was arrested by Escalzo for possession of illegal drugs.

Minucher alleged that he was only a victim of entrapment operation

Escalzo was special agent of Drug Enforcement Admin of DOJ of US

Issue: WoN Escalzo was covered by diplomatic immunity

Held:

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations- diplomatic missions; function;

conformably with the Vienna Convention, the function of the diplomatic mission
involves by and large the representation of the interest of sending state
promoting friendly relations with the receiving states.

One diplomatic agents of the Convention are vested with the immunity from civil and
criminal suits.

In the case at bar, Escalzo was a representative of the US and thus considered as
agent of the State.

The main yardstick in ascertaining whether a person is a diplomat entitled to immunity

is the determination of the performance of his duty.

Escalzo was in the performance of his duty as a representative of Drug Enforcement

Agency of US, therefore immune from suits.

Lasco vs. UNRFNRE - Revolving Fund for Natural Resource Exploration (Suit
against the UN and other specialized agencies)

Lasco- employee of UN RFNRE

Lasco filed case for illegal dismissal and damages against respondent before Labor
Arbiter in Phil.

Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction hence, the labor arbiter dismissed the case because
respondent is immune from suits.

NLRC affirmed the decision of Labor Arbiter.

Issue: WoN respondent or suits against the Un and other specialized agencies of Un
are immune from suits

Held:

1. Article 2, Section 2 of the Consti, being a member of the UN and party to

convention on a privilege and immunities of specialised agencies of nation
adheres to the doctrine of immunity granted to the UN and specialized
agencies
2. Reason for the grant of immunity: in order for them to fulfil their duties except
expressly waived by the Director General of the Institute or specialised
agency.

Callado vs. IRRI International Rice Research Institute (Suit against International
Organizations )

Facts:

Ernesto callado petitioner employed as driver ,while going to airport they met an
accident, Callado was drunk.

A case was filed against IRRI on Labor Arbiter

According to NLRC IRRI waive it rights to be immune

IRRI countered the complaint of Callado thus according to the labor arbiter IRRI waive
its rights from being immune to suits.

ISSUES:

WoN the IRRI CAN be immune from suit

HELD

GR: Organization is immune from suit

Exception:Express waiver of the organisation

At the case at bar there is no Waiver made by IRRI thus it is immune from suit.

Suit against the Philippines as a State:

Calub and Valencia vs. CA(Suit against Government Officers -Ultimate liability will
fall on the government)

Felipe Calub and Ricardo Valencia -driver of vehicle they were caught in a checkpoint
for possession of illegal logs. Their vehicle were confiscated by DENR.

Calub and Valencia petition for the recovery for their vehicle.It was releases , but one
of the vehicles was again caught by DENR(no license for transporting Logs)

Calub and Valencia filed a case against the officials of DENR for invalid confiscation of
vehicles

ISSUES

WoN the this case is a suit against the state(DENR is a branch of the government)

HELD

GR:State may not be sued without its consent.

Exception:Suit against public officer for his official acts is in effect as suit against the
state.Or in other word if the Activities of the public officers must be within their
scope of authority in good faith and without wilfulness, malice or corruption
then the state may be sued.
Application: The acts of the DENR officials were within the scope of their
authority.Hence, tThe ultimate liability will FALL ONTHE GOVERNMENT for the
reason that DENR officials acted within the scope of their authority.

Ruiz vs. Cabahug (Suit against Government Officers -Ultimate liability will fall on the
officer)

Ruiz,Herrera and Panlillio -architects

Cabahug -secretary of National Defense

Facts: Cabahug entertained allied technologies INC. for providing architectural and
engineering in making hospital

Panlilio(matakaw sa pera) contended that he was sole architect of the said service
thus cabahug deprive hererra and ruiz for their share or wage for professional
services

It appeared that the government allocated full amount for the service but cabahug did
not comply to the proper distribution of proper amount.

ISSUES:

WoN the ultimate liability will fall on the state?

HELD:

NO,(common sense! :) joke)

If the officers acted beyond the performance of his duties then the ultimate liability
will fall to the said officers and not to the states.

In the case at bar,the officer(CABAHUG) acted beyond the performance of his duty
,thus he should be ultimately liable and the state cannot be held liable.

The case involves suit not against the government but against certain officials only
only in the first place,thus the state cannot be ultimately liable.

Olizon vs.Central Bank of the Philippines (Suit against Government Agencies-

Incorporated test of suability is found in its charter, it is suable if its charter says so,
regardless of the functions it is performing)

FACTS:
1. The Central Bank on various dates collected from the plaintiff Olizon the amounts of
P3,186.24, P840.65, P2,488.98, and P2,734.53, under Central Bank Official Receipts for the
payment of Special Excise Tax on Foreign Exchange pursuant to its Monetary Board Resolution
No. 286. On March 10, 1958.
2. Olizon requested the defendant Bank to refund to him the amounts above stated, plus the
sum of P463.54, but the Central Bank refused to accede to these requests and concede the
illegality of the resolution under which it made the levy.
3. The Bank still refused to grant the refund on the ground that the claim for the same had
already prescribed. He argued the theory that "for purposes of recovering a tax paid illegally or
erroneousl, the action should be filed within five (5) years, from the date of payment of the
tax.
 4. The trial judge rejected the appellant's theory and ruled that the prescriptive period was ten
(10) years, holding that the obligation to refund was one created by law and which, therefore,
under Article 1144 of the Civil Code, prescribed in ten years.

ISSUE:
W/N the suit is against the State without its consent.
HELD: NO.
This suit is brought against the Central Bank of the Philippines, an entity authorized by
its charter to sue and be sued.The consent of the State to thus be sued, therefore, has
been given. So regardless of the functions it is performing,It is suable
because its charter says so. As We said in the case of Central Azucarera San Pedro v.
Central Bank , G.R. No. L-7713, September 29, 1958, in suits for refund, "being a corporation that
may sue and be sued, the Central Bank is the proper party defendant pursuant to section 5 of
Republic Act No. 601, which provides that "the refund of taxes pursuant to sections two and three of
this Act shall be made by the Central Bank of the Philippines."

Bureau of Printing vs. Bureau of Printing Employees Association and several

employees (Suit against Government Agencies- Unincorporated -If governmental
functionno suit without consent)
Facts:
1.The respondents alleged that the petitioner specifically Salvador and Ledesma, the
officers of the Bureau of Printing, have been engaged in ULP unfair labor practice by
inferring and coercing their employees in the exercise of right to self-organization and
discriminating them to discourage them from pursuing union activities.
2. The counter-argument of the petitioner was that the respondents were suspended
from work because of breach of Civil Service rules and regulations; that the Bureau of
Printing Association has no juridical capacity to sue and be sued and it is not an
agency of the republic performing govt functions.

Issue:
W or N the petitioner Bureau of Printing can be sued.

Held:Negative
1. The Bureau of Printing is an office of government created by Admin Code which
operates under the direct supervision of the Executive Secretary.
2. The said Bureau receives outside jobs but such additional works for private parties
are merely incidental to its function. Likewise, although such woks are deemed
proprietary in character, theres no showing that the employees performing such
proprietary functions are separate and distinct from those employed in its
governmental functions.
3. Thus, as an office of Government, without any corporate or juridical personality, the
Bureau of Printing cannot be sued. Any suit against the said Bureau is a suit against
the government itself and the general rule is that the Government cannot be sued
without its consent.

Mobil Philippines Exploration Inc. vs. Customs Arrastre Service (Suit against
Government Agencies- Unincorporated- If proprietary function suit will lie-Exception
no suit without consent when the act was a necessary incident to its governmental
function)
Facts:
Rotary drill parts were shipped from abroad on S.S. "Leoville", consigned to Mobil
Philippines Exploration, Inc., Manila. The shipment arrived at the Port of Manila and the
unit of the Bureau of Customs then handling arrastre operations was discharged to the
custody of the Customs Arrastre Service. The Customs Arrastre Service later delivered
to the broker of the consignee three cases only of the shipment.Mobil Philippines
Exploration, Inc., filed suit against the Customs Arrastre Service and the Bureau of
Customs to recover the value of the undelivered case in the amount of P18,493.37
plus other damages.

Issue/s: WoN Bureau of Customs can be sued

Ruling: NO

The Bureau of Customs, is part of the Department of Finance, with no personality of its
own apart from that of the national government. Its primary function is governmental,
that of assessing and collecting lawful revenues from imported articles and all other
tariff and customs duties, fees, charges, fines and penalties. Arrastre service is a
necessary incident, its primary and governmental function requires arrastre
operations, engaging in the same does not render the Bureau liable of suit. It cannot
perform its governmental function without necessarily exposing itself to suit.
Sovereign immunity, granted as to the end, should not be denied as to the necessary
means to that end.

Forms of Consent
Sayson vs. Singzon (Express- General Law -Commonwealth Act 327, as amended
by PD 1445 (and Article IXA,Section 7, Constitution)

Facts:
Office of the District Engineer in Cebu requisitioned spare parts for the repair of a
D-8 bulldozer. The requisition was signed by the District Engineer and the Requisition
Officer which was approved by the Secretary of Public Works and Communications
(PWC). On May 5, 1967 a public bidding was conducted in lieu of the requisition and
was awarded to Singkier Motor Service which was owned by the respondent Felipe
Singson. The winning bid price of Php 43,530 was approved by the Sec. of PWC.
The petitioner, Highway Auditor Lorenzo Sayson, received the purchase voucher.
He found the price reasonablei and approved payment of the voucher but withheld
20% of the price, equivalent to PhP 8,706, until supporting documents for the
transaction was submitted to the Supervising Auditor for review. However, after the
documents were submitted, the General Auditing Office found the transaction to be
overpriced by at least PhP 40,000 based on the canvass done to various spare parts
suppliers in Manila. Malversation charges were filed against the district and civil
engineers involved. Consequently, a mandamus suit was filed by the respondent
compelling the government auditors to approve collection of the 20% balance. The
Courts of First Instance ruled in favor of the respondent. Thus, the petitioners filed this
petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Issue: WON collection by the respondent is valid through a mandamus suit filed
against the petitioners

Doctrine: Money Claims to the Government; Doctrine of Non-Suability of the State

Held/Ratio Decidendi:
No. The respondents cause of action is a money claim against the government for the
payment of the balance of the spare parts cost. Even if the claim is valid, mandamus is
not the remedy to enforce the collection of such claim against the State but an
ordinary action for specific performance. The suit disguised as mandamus is actually a
suit against the State which cannot be entertained without the consent of the State.
The respondent should have filed his claim with the General Auditing Office under the
provisions of Commonwealth Act 327 which prescribes the conditions under which
 money claims against the government may be filed. It is provided in the said act that
all claims on settlements shall be decided within 60 days by the Auditor General.
Furthermore, appeals on decision must be submitted in writing, within 30 days from
receipt of such decision, to the President of the US, or President of the Philippines, or
Supreme Court of the Philippines if the appellant is a private person or entity.

It is further held that for consent from the state to be secured, the State may require
certain administrative proceedings to be had and exhausted. The appeal by the party
aggrieved can be brought to the judiciary only after the consent has been made.
However, in the case at bar, there was no ruling from the Auditor General. Even if a
ruling was obtained, the proper court for the appeal should have been the Supreme
Court. The Court of First Instance could not legally act on the matter.

Decision:
The decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu was reversed and set aside and the
suit for mandamus against the petitioners was dismissed.

Amigable vs. Cuenca (Express- General Law -Must not perpetrate an injustice)
Facts:
This is a case where Victoria Amigable is the registered owner of a lot.
Without prior expropriation or negotiation sale, the government used a portion of the
said lot for the construction of road.
Amigable filed complaint against the state for requesting payment for the portion of
lot appropriated by the government.

Issue:
W/N the appellant may properly sue the government.

Held:
Yes. As registered owner, may properly maintain a suit against the government
without thereby violating the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit without
consent. Government must followed the procedure indicated by the governing law.

DOCTRINE OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY

- Cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen.
- It is not too much to say that 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 of a court.

U.S. vs. Ruiz (Implied- When it enters into contract)

Facts:
United States of America had a naval base in Subic, Zambales. The base was
one of those provided in the Military Bases Agreement between the Philippines and the
United States.
US invited the submission of bids for Repair offender system and Repair typhoon
damages. Eligio de Guzman & Co., Inc. responded to the invitation, submitted bids and
complied with the requests based on the letters received from the US.
In June 1972, a letter was received by the Eligio De Guzman & Co indicating that
the company did not qualify to receive an award for the projects because of its
previous unsatisfactory performance rating on a repair contract for the sea wall at the
boat landings of the U.S. Naval Station in Subic Bay.
The company sued the United States of America and Messrs. James E. Galloway,
William I. Collins and Robert Gohier all members of the Engineering Command of the
U.S. Navy. The complaint is to order the defendants to allow the plaintiff to perform the
 work on the projects and, in the event that specific performance was no longer
possible, to order the defendants to pay damages. The company also asked for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the defendants from entering
into contracts with third parties for work on the projects.
The defendants entered their special appearance for the purpose only of
questioning the jurisdiction of this court over the subject matter of the complaint and
the persons of defendants, the subject matter of the complaint being acts and
omissions of the individual defendants as agents of defendant United States of
America, a foreign sovereign which has not given her consent to this suit or any other
suit for the causes of action asserted in the complaint." (Rollo, p. 50.)
Subsequently the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which
included an opposition to the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. The
company opposed the motion.
The trial court denied the motion and issued the writ. The defendants moved
twice to reconsider but to no avail.
Hence the instant petition which seeks to restrain perpetually the proceedings
in Civil Case No. 779-M for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court.

Issue/s:

WON the US naval base in bidding for said contracts exercise governmental
functions to be able to invoke state immunity

Held:
WHEREFORE, the petition is granted; the questioned orders of the respondent judge
are set aside and Civil Case No. is dismissed. Costs against the private respondent.

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 (sovereign & governmental acts)
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.
correct test for the application of State immunity is not the conclusion of a
contract by a State but the legal nature of the act

THEORY: When a soverign state enters into a contarct w/ a private person, the state
can be private person, the state can be sued upon the theory that it has descended to
the level of an individual from w/c it can be implied that it has given its concent to be
sued under the contract.

EXCEPTION: 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 devated to defense both uUS and Philippines, and disputably function of the
government of the higest order, they are not utilized for not dedicated to commercial
or business purposes.

U.S. vs. Guinto (Implied- When it enters into contract)

Facts: The private respondents are suing several officers of the US Air Force in Clark
Air Base in connection with the bidding conducted by them for contracts for barber
services in the said base, which was won by Dizon. The respondents wanted to cancel
the award because they claimed that Dizon had included in his bid an area not
included in the invitation to bid, and also, to conduct a rebidding.

Issue: Whether or not the officials/employees of the U.S. Air Force were immune from
suit?

Held: The court ruled that that the petitioner cannot plead any immunity from the
complaint filed by the private respondents. The contracts in question being decidedly
Commercial, and the conclusion reached in United Sates of America v Ruiz case cannot
be applied. The petition is dismissed.

Republic vs. Sandiganbayan (Implied- When it enters into contract)

FACTS:
1. All the properties of private respondent Roberto Benedicto was placed under sequestration
because of his involvement in cases of ill gotten wealth. Among the properties that had been
sequestered were the 227 shares in NOGCCI.
2. As sequester,PCGG failed to pay the monthly membership fee so the share were declared
delinquent to be put into an auction sale. To prevent the auction a complaint for injunction was
filed by PCGG but it was later dismissed.
3. Republic and private respondent Benedicto entered into a Compromise
Agreement which contains a general release clause where petitioner agreed and
bound itself to lift the sequestration on the 227 NOGCCI shares. The agreement
was approved by Sandiganbayan.
4. Benidicto prayed filed a motion for release of his NOGCCI shares from
sequestration,but It was placed under the custody of Clerk of Courts.
Sandiganbayan granted the motion,But the PCGG failed to delivered the said
share.
5. Benedicto filed a Motion for compliance,acting theron sandiganbayan issued a
reosolution for PCGG to comply with the order within 15 days.
6. Republic contends that Sabdiganbayan acted on grave abuse of discretion in
holding PCGG at fault for not paying memebership fee.Petitioner Republic,
through the PCGG, invokes state immunity from suit.

I S S U E : W O N t h e R e p u b l i c c a n i n v o k e s t a t e immunity.
HELD: NO. In fact, by entering into a Compromise Agreement with private respondent
Benedicto, petitioner Republic thereby stripped itself of its immunity from suit and
placed itself in the same level of its adversary. When the State enters into
contract, through its officers or agents, in furtherance of a legitimate aim
and purpose and pursuant to constitutional legislative authority, whereby
mutual or reciprocal benefits accrue and rights and obligations arise
therefrom, the State may be sued even without its express consent,precisely
because by entering into a contract the sovereign descends to the level of
the citizen. Its consent to be sued is implied from the very act of entering
into such contract,breach of which on its part gives thecorresponding right
to the other party to the agreement

Merritt vs. Government (Suability vs. Liability)

Facts:
1. Merrit while riding on motorcycle collided with the General Hospital Ambulance
inflicting injuries upon him and his physical condition depreciated such as his broken
leg, became slightly deaf.
2. It was found out that the incident was due to the negligence of the driver of the
ambulance, the driver who was an employee of government of Philippines.
Issue:
WoN the Government may held liable in this case.
Held:Negative
1. Par. 5 of 1903 Civil code provides that the responsibility of the State is limited to
that which it contracts thru a special agent, duly empowered by a definite order or
commission to perform some act or charged with some definite purpose which gives
rise to the claim.
2. That is an evidence that the Govt of Philippine Islands is only liable for the acts of its
agents. officers and employees when they act as special agents within the meaning of
par. 5 of 1903 Civil Code to which the driver of the ambulance of General Hospital was
not.

Commissioner of Public Highways vs. San Diego (Suability vs. Execution)

Facts:
Before WWII, the Philippine Government filed an action for the expropriation of a
parcel of land owned by Hashim for the construction of a public road. Government took
possession over the property after the deposit of the amount of 23, 413.64. Records of
the case were destroyed during the WWII. After the war, Hashim filed an action for
money claims before the CFI against Bureau of Public Highways.The parties entered
into a compromise agreement wherein the Bureau shall pay almost half of the amount
claimed. The bureau failed to pay so Hashim filed a motion for the issuance of a writ
of execution. Respondent judge granted the motion. The sheriff served the writ with a
Notice of Garnishment to PNB against the Bureau funds. Hashim further filed a motion
for issuance of an order ordering the release of the amount. It was granted. PNB
released the amount. Petitioner filed this petition for certiorari with mandatory
injunction to reimburse the amount released.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the State may invoke its immunity from suit
2. Whether or not the State may impugn the validity of the compromise agreement
3. Whether or not the orders were valid
Ruling:
In expropriation proceedings, the State submits to the court jurisdiction and asks the
court to affirm its right to take the property sought to be expropriated. State immunity
does not apply.
Only the principal can question the authority of the counsel to enter into a
compromise agreement. The state cannot raise it.
The assailed orders are void. Government funds are not subject to garnishment.
i