Political Law Chapter 5 Notes
Political Law Chapter 5 Notes
Political Law Chapter 5 Notes
the U.S. Navy. The complaint is to order the In this case, the projects are an integral part
defendants to allow the plaintiff to perform of the naval base which is devoted to the
the work on the projects and, in the event defense of both the United States and the
that specific performance was no longer Philippines, indisputably a function of the
possible, to order the defendants to pay government of the highest order; they are
damages. The company also asked for the not utilized for nor dedicated to commercial
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to or business purposes.
restrain the defendants from entering into
Note: That the correct test for the
contracts with third parties for work on the
application of State immunity is not the
projects.
conclusion of a contract by a State but the
The defendants entered their special legal nature of the act.
appearance “for the purpose only of
When a Foreign state enters into a contract
questioning the jurisdiction of this court over
with a private party:
the subject matter of the complaint and the
persons of defendants, the subject matter of 1. Determine the character of the
the complaint being acts and omissions of said contract, if its commercial in
the individual defendants as agents of nature and if the foreign state is
defendant United States of America, a engaged regularly in business or
foreign sovereign which has not given her trade (may be sued)
consent to this suit or any other suit for the
causes of action asserted in the complaint.” 2. legal nature of the act. (if the act
is Jure imperii – governmental
ISSUE:
activities, the foreign state
1. Whether or not the US naval base in cannot be sued, can invoke
bidding for said contracts exercise state immunity. However, if the
governmental functions to be able to invoke act is Jure gestionis -proprietary
state immunity. acts, may be sued)
remains the most important barometer for functions. Its designation as the Primary
testing whether the privilege of State contractor does not automatically grant it
immunity from suit should apply. At the same immunity. Although it claims to be a
time, our Constitution stipulates that a State government-owned corporation, it failed to
immunity from suit is conditional on its present evidence that it has not consented
withholding of consent; hence, the laws and to be sued under Chinese Law. In the
circumstances pertaining to the creation absence of evidence to the contrary,
and legal personality of an instrumentality or CNMEG is to be presumed to be a
agency invoking immunity remain relevant. government-owned and -controlled
Consent to be sued, as exhibited in this corporation without an original charter. As a
decision, is often conferred by the very result, it has the capacity to sue and be
same statute or general law creating the sued under Section 36 of the Corporation
instrumentality or agency. Code.
German Agency for Technical Cooperation Note: The use of “State Corporation” was
vs CA only descriptive of its nature as a
government-owned/or -controlled
Facts: The petitioner moved to dismiss a
corporation and its assignment as the
complaint for illegal dismissal filed against it
Primary Contractor did not imply that it was
before the National Labor Relations
acting in behalf of China in the
Commission, contending that the Labor
performance of the latter’s sovereign
Arbiter has no jurisdiction over it, as it was
functions.
“the implementing agency of the
Government of the Federal Republic of • Despite the petitioners’ claim the
Germany. The Supreme Court rejected EXIM bank extended financial
those contentions stating that the petitioner assistance to North Rail as it was
did not present sufficient evidence to mandated by the Chinese govt and
establish that it enjoys the immunity from suit not because it intends to do business
generally enjoyed by its parent country, the in Phil., it is quite evident that the
Federal Republic of Germany. Assuming project was a purely commercial
that characterization is correct, it does not transaction.
automatically invest GTZ with the ability to
invoke State immunity from suit. • The loan agreement is between EXIM
The distinction lies in whether the agency is bank and Phil. Govt. (which is an
incorporated or unincorporated. inextricable part of the entire
undertaking, reveal the intention of
China National Machinery & Equipment
the parties to the project, if the whole
Corporation vs. Sta. Maria
venture is commercial or proprietary
Facts: The petitioner, designated by the in nature)
Republic of China as its prime contractor for
the North Rail Project of the Republic of the • Contract agreement is between
Philippines, as certified by its Chinese Northrail and CNMEG (classifications
Ambassador, claimed sovereign immunity in of the legal nature of the contract
connection with a suit against it based on its cannot be determined)
Memorandum of Understanding with the
Even assuming arguendo that CNMEG
North Luzon Railways Corporation.
performs governmental functions, such
Ruling: The Supreme Court rejected its claim. claim does not automatically vest it with
CNMEG cannot claim immunity from suit immunity. This view finds support in Malong
even it contends to perform governmental v. Philippine National Railways, in which this
4|Page – Political Law (Oral Recitation) -2nd Meeting
Court held that “immunity from suit is Given the official character of the above-
determined by the character of the objects described letters, we have to conclude that
for which the entity was organized.” the petitioners were, legally speaking, being
sued as officers of the United States
Application
government. As they have acted on behalf
• The usual practice is to file such of that government, and within the scope of
claims not against the state itself but, their authority, it is that government, and not
as to avoid its involvement, against the petitioners personally, that is responsible
the officer of the government who for their acts. Assuming that the trial can
failed to perform his/her duties or proceed and it is proved that the claimants
responsibilities. have a right to the payment of damages,
• It is essential to ascertain if the State such award will have to be satisfied not by
is the real party in interest. That is, the petitioners in their personal capacities
that the claim if proved will be direct but by the United States government as their
liability of the State and not merely principal. This will require that government to
of the officer impleaded. perform an affirmative act to satisfy the
judgment, viz, the appropriation of the
Sanders vs Veridiano necessary amount to cover the damages
awarded, thus making the action a suit
Brief facts: 2 Americans employees of the
against that government without its consent.
Subic Naval Base sued its commanding
general and the director of special services UP vs Dizon
for damages for allegedly defamatory
remarks made by the defendants. Brief Facts:
Issue: Whether or not the state can be sued Note: As for Accrued rentals, where there is
without its consent. additional claim for recovery of damages,
inasmuch as its allowance would require the
government to appropriate the necessary
Ruling:
5|Page – Political Law (Oral Recitation) -2nd Meeting
Note: Any injury caused by the impleaded - 4th Case: private respondents filed a
public officer who acts without or in excess complaint against petitioners for
of jurisdiction, is his own personal liability and injuries sustained by then. According
cannot be imputed to the State. to the plaintiffs, the defendants beat
them up, handcuffed them and
Fejesto vs Fernando
unleashed dogs on them.
Brief Facts: The Director of Public works took
The US, though not formally impleaded in
over without authority property belonging to
the complaints, join all individual petitioners
the plaintiff and constructed thereon a
in moving to dismiss on the ground that the
public irrigation canal.
cases are suits against the State to which it
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the did not consent.
action was properly filed against the
Ruling: The supreme court declared that
defendant in his personal capacity and was
other petitioners in the cases all have acted
therefore not covered by the doctrine of
in the discharge of their official functions as
State immunity.
officers of the United States. However, the
USA vs. Guinto matter of evidence must be considered. The
charges against them may not be
Brief Facts: There are 4 consolidated cases summarily dismissed on their mere assertion
involving the same issue on the doctrine of that their acts are imputable to the US which
State Immunity. has not given its consent to be sued. In fact,
- The 1st case : Several officers of US Air defendants are sought to be held
Force in Clark Airbase are being answerable for personal torts (wrongdoings)
sued in connection with the bidding in which the US itself is not involved. If found
conducted by them for contracts for liable, they alone must satisfy the judgment.
barbering services in the said base. The Court then could not directly decide this
The bidding was won by another case and ruled that the required inquiry
over the objection of the private must first be made by the lower court to
respondents, who claimed that he assess and resolve the conflicting claims of
made a bid for 4 facilities, in which the parties based on the evidence yet to be
one of them was not included in the
presented at the trial. The Court will
invitation to bid. determine, if it is still necessary, if the
doctrine of state immunity is applicable only
6|Page – Political Law (Oral Recitation) -2nd Meeting
Note: The state must not often avail of this NOTE: Express consent of the state to be
rule to take undue advantage of parties sued must be embodied in a duly enacted
that may have legitimate claims against it. statute and may not be given by a mere
The State may, if it so desires, waive its counsel of the government. (Example:
immunity and voluntarily open itself to suit. Republic vs Purisima)
The waiver made by the lawyer for the Rice Similar to De los Santos vs Intermediate
and Corn Administration, an agency of the Appellate Court, the Supreme court
government, was held by the Supreme reversed the trial court’s dismissal, on the
Court as not binding upon the State. ground of state immunity of complaint for
damages filed by the plaintiff on whose
• The consent, to be effective, must property was constructed by government,
come from the State acting through through provincial engineer of Rizal, an
a duly enacted statute. Thus, artificial creek without his knowledge or
whatever counsel for defendant consent, declaring that "doctrine of
Rice and Corn Administration sovereign immunity was not an instrument
agreed to had no binding force on perpetrating any injustice on a citizen."
the government
• Solicitor General cannot validly Supreme Court stressed in Republic v
waive immunity from suit. Only the Sandiganbayan:
Congress can "The doctrine of sovereign immunity cannot
be successfully invoked to defeat a valid
Amigable vs Cuenca claim for compensation arising from the
taking without just compensation and
Brief Facts: The question raised was the right without the property appropriation
of the plaintiff to sue the government for proceedings being first restored to the
recovery of the value of property which had plaintiffs' property."
been converted into public streets without
payment to her of just compensation. Santiago v Republic
Although it was shown that she had not The plaintiff sued the government for
previously filed her claim with the Auditor revocation of a donation on the ground of
General as normally required. The Supreme failure of the defendant to comply with the
Court decided in her favor, reiterating the stipulated conditions.
following pronouncement in the earlier case The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of
of Ministerio v. City of Cebu. its consent to be sued. The Supreme Court
denied the motion, holding that the suit
“If the constitutional mandate that the could prosper because it did not involve a
owner be compensated for property taken money claim against the State. As what the
for public use were to be respected, as it plaintiff was seeking was the return only of th
should, then a suit of this character should properties donated, he did not even filed his
no be summarily dismissed. The doctrine of claim first with the Commission on Audit
governmental immunity from uit cannot under the provisions of C.A No. 326.
serve as an instrument for perpetrating an
injustice on a citizen. IMPLIED CONSENT
Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping Co., where it
It is important that there be fidelity to legal was held that the government impliedly
norms on the part of officialdom if the rule of allowed itself to be sued when it filed a
law were to be maintained. complaint in intervention for the purpose of
When a government takes any property for asserting a claim for affirmative relief against
public use, which is conditioned upon the plaintiff, to wit recovery of a vessel.
payment of just compensation to be
judicially ascertained, it makes manifest that But a similar conclusion was not reached in
it submits to the jurisdiction of a court. There Lim v. Brownell, where the Philippine Govt.,
is no thought then that the doctrine of as a successor in interest of the United States
immunity from suit could still be to the properties being claimed from the
appropriately invoked.” latter, filed a complaint in intervention to join
the defendant in invoking the doctrine of
State immunity to secure the dismissal of the
8|Page – Political Law (Oral Recitation) -2nd Meeting
action. As the Philippine Government was such execution will require another waiver,
not asking for any affirmative relief from the lacking which the
plaintiff but had intervened for the purpose decision cannot be enforced against the
of resisting his claim, the Supreme Court held State. The judge in this case had issued a
that had no implied waiver of immunity writ of execution against the funds of the
could be assumed. AFP to satisfy a
judgement rendered against the Philippine
The ruling was reiterated in the case of Govt. (Obvious considerations of Public
Republic v Sandiganbayan policy)
Noted: Such an assumption is justified, The Supreme Court declared the writ
however, when the government enters into unlawful and made the following remarks:
a contract, for the State is then deemed to
have divested itself of the mantle of “That public funds cannot be the object of
sovereign immunity and descended to the garnishment proceedings even if the
level of the ordinary individual. Having done consent to be sued had been previously
so, it becomes subject to judicial action and granted and the state liability adjudged.”
processes.
• The universal rule that where the
United States V. Ruiz State gives its consent to be sued by
• In this case, the projects are an private parties either by general or
integral part of the naval base which special law, it may limit claimant's
is devoded to the defense and the action 'only up to the completion of
Philippines, undisputably a function proceedings anterior to the stage of
of the governmentof the highest execution' and that the power of the
order, they are not utilized for nor courts ends when the judgment is
dedicated to commercial or rendered.
business purposes.
• The functions and public services
Note: Suability would follow only if the rendered by the State cannot be
contract is entered into by the government allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted
in its proprietary capacity. Governmental by the diversion of public funds from
contracts do not result in implied waiver of their legitimate and specific objects,
the immunity of the State from suit. as appropriated by law.
Guinto Case
• Operation in Barbershops & But in Philippine National Bank vs Pabalan
restaurants at Camp John Hay, (foregoing doctrine was not applied)
being open to public for fee are • writ of execution was issued against
proprietary in nature. the Phil. Virginia Tobacco
Administration, pursuant to which its
Note: An agreement to submit any dispute funds on deposit with the petitioner
to arbitration may be construed as an were garnished. On the contention
implicit waiver of immunity from suit. that such funds were public in
character and therefore could not
Note: It should be observed that when the be garnished.
State gives its consent to be sued, it does
not thereby also consent to the execution of • In accordance with the court ruling
the judgment against it. in cases National Shipyard and Steel
Corporation and Manila Hotel
The rule as reiterated, in the case of Company, Funds of public
Republic of the Philippines vs Villasor, is that corporations which can sue and be
9|Page – Political Law (Oral Recitation) -2nd Meeting
Incorporated agency - test of its suability is Ruling: The SC held that the petitioner was
found in its charter. The simple rule is that it is “an agency of the Government not
suable if its charter says so regardless of the performing a purely governmental or
functions it is performing. sovereign function, but was instead involved
in the management and maintenance of
Unincorporated agency – there is no charter the Loakan Airport, an activity that was not
to consult since it has no separate juridical the exclusive prerogative of the State in its
personality, any suit filed against it is sovereign capacity.”
necessarily an action against
the Philippine Government of which it is a Non-suability of unincorporated
part. It is necessary to determine the nature Bureau of Printing v. Bureau of Printing
of the functions in which the agency is Employees Association (Cannot be sued,
engaged so as to hold it suable if they are the propriety function it discharged is merely
governmental. The test in every case is the incidental )
nature of the primary nature being
discharged. • The Bureau of Printing is an office of
the Government created by the
Cases example -Incorporated Administrative Code of 1916 (Act No.
2657).
Bemoy v. Philippine Normal College, suit
was filed by the personnel of the defendant • it operates under the direct
corporation for recovery of salary supervision of the Executive
differentials and overtime pay. Secretary, Office of the President
Note: Important thing was that the charter • is 'charged with the execution of all
of the college provided that it could sue printing and binding, including work
and be sued regardless if the public agency incidental to those processes,
engaged in a governmental function. required by the National
Government
Cases example -Unincorporated
• It has no corporate existence, and its
National Airports Corporation v. Teodoro appropriations are provided for in
the General Appropriations Act.
Issue: Whether or not the Civil Aeronautics
Administration, an unincorporated agency
of the government undertaking the • Designed to meet the printing needs
operations of airports and authorized to of the Government, it is primarily a
service bureau and, obviously, not
11 | P a g e – P o l i t i c a l L a w ( O r a l R e c i t a t i o n ) - 2 n d M e e t i n g
sustained by the owner TAKE THE FORM of State can never be held liable if it does not
interest at the legal rate. first consent to be sued. Liability is not
conceded by the mere fact that the state
Note: It has also been held that statutes of has allowed itself to be sued. When the state
limitation do not run against the State unless does waive its sovereign immunity, it is only
the contrary is expressly provided by law, giving the plaintiff the chance to prove, if it
although this rule is not observed where the can, that the defendant is liable."
State is engaged in private business.
Merritt v. Government of the Philippine
Republic v. Garcia Islands
Ruling: it was held that the government " the plaintiff was allowed to sue by virtue of
could not be assessed one-half of the fees a special law but was unable to hold the
paid to the commissioner who determined defendant liable when it was shown at the
the just compensation for the property trial that the injuries sustained by him were
under expropriation. caused by a regular driver of the
government. The law applied was what is
Suability vs. Liability now Article 2180 of the Civil Code, which
provides that the State shall be responsible
General Rule: The mere fact that the State is for torts only when it acts through a special
suable does not mean that it is liable; or to agent and not when the damage has been
put it another way, waiver of immunity by caused by the official or employee to whom
the State does not mean concession of its the task done properly pertains.
liability.
Note: Municipal corporations ARE SUABLE
Suability - is the result of the express or because their charters grant them the
implied consent of the State to be sued. competence to sue and be sued. But they
ARE NOT liable for torts committed by them
Liability -is determined after hearing on the in the discharge of governmental functions
basis of the relevant laws and the and can be held answerable only if it can
established facts. When, therefore, the State be shown that they were acting in a
allows itself to be sued, all it does in effect is proprietary capacity.
to give the other party an opportunity to
prove, if it can, that the State is liable. The In permitting such entities to be sued, the
State, in many cases, may be suable but not State merely gives the claimant the right to
liable. show that the defendant was not acting in
its governmental capacity when the injury
University of the Philippines v. Dizon was committed or that the case comes
under the exceptions recognized by law.
Held: the Supreme Court, citing Municipality Failing this, the claimant cannot recover.
of San Fernando, La Union v. Firme, stressed
that a "marked distinction exists between In one case, for example, a claim for
suability of the State and its liability." recovery of damages against a provincial
government failed when it was shown that
Distinction between suability of the State the injury complained of occurred in
and its liability connection with the repair of streets then
being undertaken by the defendant
Suability depends on the consent of the through its regular agents. This was clearly a
state to be sued, governmental function. By contrast, a
municipality was held liable in another case
liability on the applicable law and the for forcibly and illegally ejecting a lessee
established facts.
13 | P a g e – P o l i t i c a l L a w ( O r a l R e c i t a t i o n ) - 2 n d M e e t i n g
from certain fishponds belonging to the As such, GSIS cannot claim immunity from
former in its proprietary capacity. the enforcement of the final and executory
judgment against it."
Torio v. Fontanilla
In contrast,
GSIS v. Group Management Corporation