CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

(Notes and Cases)

By

Atty. GALLANT D. SORIANO, MNSA

Lt. Col. PN (M)
 DOCTRINE
OF
STATE IMMUNITY
 DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY
ART. XVI, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution - the State may not be
GENERAL RULE sued…

1. impairment of dignity of the State;

BASIS 2. challenge to its supposed infallibility.

1. INFRINGEMENT OF THE STATE’S SOVEREIGNTY:

US SC Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. - “there can be no legal

right against the authority which makes the law on which the right
depends.”
JUSTIFICATION
2. IMPRACTICALITY OF SUITS:

“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.”

ART. XVI, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution - when the State gives its
EXCEPTION consent.
 DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY
GENERAL RULE ART. XVI, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution - the State may not be sued…

EXCEPTION ART. XVI, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution - when the State gives its consent.

FORMS OF CONSENT TO BE SUED (WAIVER OF IMMUNITY)

a. GENERAL LAW- Act 3083 (March 16, 1923) - Govt. of P.I. hereby consents and submits to be sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability
arising from contract, express or implied, which could serve as basis of civil action between private parties.

Illustrative Case: DA vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 104269. Nov. 11, 1993 - DA may be sued for money claims based on contract for security services
because of express consent contained in Act 3083.

1. b. SPECIAL LAW - Act No. 2457 (Feb. 3, 1915) - “authorizing Merritt to bring suit against the Govt. of P.I.”

EXPRESS Illustrative Case: Merritt vs. Govt. of P.I., G.R. No. L-11154. Mar. 21, 1916 - in 1913 an ambulance of General Hospital collided with
motorcycle driven by Merritt for which he was severely injured. Congress passed Act 2457 in 1915 authorizing him to sue the government.
CONSENT
Illustrative Case: Republic vs. Purisima, G.R. No. L-36084. Aug. 31, 1977 - The consent, to be effective, must come from the State acting
through a duly enacted statute. Whatever counsel for RCA agreed to had no binding force on the government

Illustrative Case: Republic vs. Feliciano, G.R. No. 70853. Mar. 12, 1987 - Waiver of immunity can only be made by an act of the legislative
body. Proclamation is not a legislative act.

a. STATE COMMENCES THE SUIT - whether in the performance of governmental or proprietary function.

Illustrative Case: Froilan vs. Pan Oriental Shipping, G.R. No. L-6060. Sept. 30, 1950 - government impliedly allowed itself to be sued when it
filed complaint in intervention for recovery of a vessel filed by Froilan.

Illustrative Case: Lim vs. Brownell, G.R. No. L-8587. Mar. 24, 1960 - there is no waiver where the state, as one of the defendants merely
2. resisted a claim against it precisely on the ground, among others, of its privileged position which exempts it from suit.

IMPLIED Illustrative Case: Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 90478. Nov. 21, 1991 - The suggestion that State makes no implied waiver of immunity
by filing suit except when it acts in its proprietary capacity, is unacceptable; it attempts a distinction without support in principle or precedent.
CONSENT b. STATE ENTERS INTO CONTRACT - only when it enters into business contracts. It does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise
of its sovereign functions.

Illustrative Case; Mobil Phil. vs. Customs Arrastre Service, G.R. No. L-23139. Dec. 17, 1966 - Although arrastre function may be deemed
proprietary, it is a necessary incident of the primary and governmental function of BOC, so that engaging in the same does not necessarily render
said Bureau liable to suit.
EXPRESS CONSENT

(Illustrative Cases)
 EXPRESS CONSENT TO BE SUED (Jurisprudence)

1. Act No. 2457 (enacted Feb. 3, 1915) - was passed Merritt vs. Govt. of P.I.
authorizing Merritt to bring suit against the Govt. of P.I. G.R. No. L-11154. Mar. 21, 1916

2. The consent to be sued, to be effective though,

must come from the State acting through a duly Republic vs. Purisima
enacted statute. - The waiver made by the lawyer of RCA is not G.R. No. L-36084. Aug. 31, 1977
binding on the State.

3. Proclamation is not a legislative act. Waiver of

State immunity can only be made by an act of the
legislative body. - The exclusion of existing private rights from the Republic vs. Feliciano
G.R. No. 70853. Mar. 12, 1987
reservation established by Proclamation No. 90 can not be construed
as a waiver of the immunity of the State from suit.

4. Act No. 3083, gives the consent of the State to be

"sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability
arising from contract, express or implied. - Claims for DA vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 104269. Nov. 11, 1993
underpayment of wages, etc, arising from Contract for Service, clearly
constitute money claims.
IMPLIED CONSENT

(Illustrative Cases)
 IMPLIED CONSENT TO BE SUED (Jurisprudence)
1. Government impliedly allowed itself to be sued when it filed
complaint in intervention - in an action for recovery of a vessel filed by Froilan vs. Pan Oriental
G.R. No. L-6060. Sept. 30, 1950
Froilan.

2. There is no waiver where the State, as one of the

defendants merely resisted a claim against it precisely on the
ground, among others, of its privileged position which Lim vs. Brownell
exempts it from suit. - Republic intervened in the case merely to unite with G.R. No. L-8587. Mar. 24, 1960
the US Attorney General in resisting plaintiff's claims, and for that reason asked no
affirmative relief against any party in the answer in intervention it filed.

3. Although said arrastre function may be deemed proprietary,

it is a necessary incident of the primary and governmental
function of BOC, so that engaging in the same does not Mobil Phil. vs. C.A.S.
G.R. No. L-23139. Dec. 17, 1966
necessarily render said Bureau liable to suit. - For otherwise, it could
not perform its governmental function without necessarily exposing itself to suit.

4. State is immune from suit. But it is axiomatic that in filing

an action, it divests itself of its sovereign character and sheds
its immunity from suit, descending to the level of an ordinary Republic vs.
litigant. - The suggestion that the State makes no implied waiver of immunity by Sandiganbayan
filing suit except when in so doing it acts in, or in matters concerning, its proprietary G.R. No. 90478. Nov. 21, 1991
or non-governmental capacity, is unacceptable; it attempts a distinction without
support in principle or precedent.
 WHO MAY AVAIL
OF STATE IMMUNITY
(DOMESTIC)
 WHO MAY AVAIL OF STATE IMMUNITY - DOMESTIC
a. Rationale: State is insulated from jurisdiction of courts of justice.

Illustrative Case No. 1: Garcia vs. Chief of Staff, G.R. No. L-20213. Jan. 31, 1966 - claim for damages filed by Mariano
LOCAL Garcia for injuries he sustained while undergoing military training albeit filed against AFP Chief of Staff was actually suit
against the State, which should be dismissed because the State had not given its consent.
STATE
Illustrative Case No. 1: Amigable vs. Cuenca, G.R. No. L-26400. Feb. 29, 1972 - where government takes away private
property for public use without expropriation or negotiated sale, aggrieved party may sue government without violating the
doctrine of immunity from suit. The doctrine cannot serve as instrument for perpetrating injustice on citizen.

a. Requisites: 1. acts must be performed in discharge of official duties; 2. within the scope of their authority.

Illustrative Case No. 1: Festejo vs. Fernando, G.R. No. L-5156. Mar. 11, 1954 - Public Works Director Isaias Fernando, who without
PUBLIC authority took property owned by Carmen Festejo and constructed irrigation canal thereon, cannot claim that he is a public agent acting
OFFICERS under the color of his office.

Illustrative Case No. 2: Veterans Manpower vs. CA, G.R. No. 91359. Sept. 25, 1992 - Veteran Manpower’s claim for damages
against PC Chief is suit against the State, since it was against public officer in the discharge of governmental functions.

a. If incorporated (possesses juridical personality) - consult charter: suable if charter says so regardless of function.

Illustrative Case No. 1: PNR vs. IAC, G.R. No. 70547. Jan. 22, 1993 - PNR is created to operate transport service which
is essentially a business concern, and thus barred from invoking immunity from suit.

b. If unincorporated - determine function: suable - if proprietary; not suable: if governmental.

GOVT. Illustrative Case Case No. 2 Bureau of Printing vs. BOPEA, G.R. No. L-15751. Jan. 28, 1961 - as an office of the
AGENCIES Government, without any corporate or juridical personality, BOP cannot be sued.

Illustrative Case Case No. 3: Rayo vs. CFI-Bulacan, G.R. No. L-55273. Dec. 19, 1981 - NPC as a GOCC, has a
personality of its own, distinct and separate from that of the Government. The charter provision that NPC can "sue and be
sued in any court" is without qualification on the cause of action.

Illustrative Case No. 4: Farolan vs. CTA, G.R. No. 42204. Jan. 21, 1993 - as an unincorporated government agency
without any separate juridical personality of its own, BOC enjoys immunity from suit.
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
(unincorporated)
 GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (unincorporated)

1. BUREAU OF PRINTING (BOP) - as an office of the

Government, without any corporate or juridical personality. cannot be BOP vs. BOPEA
G.R. No. L-15751. Jan. 28, 1961
sued without its consent, much less over its objection.

2. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE (Bureau of Customs) -

although arrastre function may be deemed proprietary, it is a necessary
incident of the primary and governmental function of the Bureau of Mobil Phil. vs. C.A.S.
G.R. No. L-23139. Dec. 17, 1966
Customs, so that engaging in the same does not
necessarily render said Bureau liable to suit.

3. PC CHIEF AND PC-SUSIA - being instrumentalities of the

national government exercising a primarily governmental function of
regulating the organization and operation of private detective, watchmen, Veterans Manpower vs. CA
G.R. No. 91359. Sept. 25, 1992
or security guard agencies, may not be sued without the
Government’s consent.

4. BUREAU OF CUSTOMS (BOC) - as an unincorporated

government agency without any separate juridical personality of its own,
enjoys immunity from suit. BOC performs the governmental Farolan vs. CTA
G.R. No. 42204. Jan. 21, 1993
function of collecting revenues which is definitely not a proprietary
function.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
(Local Government Units)
 WHO MAY AVAIL OF STATE IMMUNITY - DOMESTIC

a. RULE: Municipal corporations, for example, like provinces and cities, are
agencies of the State when they are engaged in governmental functions and
therefore should enjoy the sovereign immunity from suit. Nevertheless, they
are subject to suit even in the performance of such functions
because their charter provided that they can sue and be sued.

b. Section 22, R.A. 7160: - (a) Every local government unit, as a

corporation, shall have the following powers: (2) To sue and be
sued;

LOCAL Illustrative Case No. 1: Torio vs. Fontanilla, G.R. No. L-29993. Oct. 23,
GOVERNMENT 1978 - under Philippine laws municipalities are political bodies corporate and
UNITS as such are endowed with the faculties of municipal corporations to be
exercised by and through their respective municipal governments in
conformity with law, and in their proper corporate name, they may inter alia
sue and be sued, and contract and be contracted with.

Illustrative Case No. 2: Mun. of San Fernando vs. Judge Firme, G.R. No.
L-52179. Apr. 8, 1991 - Municipal corporations, for example, like provinces
and cities, are agencies of the State when they are engaged in governmental
functions and therefore should enjoy the sovereign immunity from suit.
Nevertheless, they are subject to suit even in the performance of such
functions because their charter provided that they can sue and be sued.
 WHO MAY AVAIL
OF STATE IMMUNITY
(FOREIGN)
 WHO MAY AVAIL OF STATE IMMUNITY - FOREIGN

a. Rationale: par in parem non habet imperium (an equal has no power over an
equal).

Illustrative Case No. 1: The Holy See vs. Rosario, G.R. No. 101949. Dec.
1, 1994 - The Holy See is duly accredited diplomatic mission exempt from
FOREIGN local jurisdiction and entitled to immunities.
STATES
Illustrative Case No. 2: Arigo vs. Swift, G.R. No. 206510.  Sept. 16, 2014 - US
respondents were sued in their official capacity as commanding officers of the
US Navy. Considering that the satisfaction of a judgment against said officials
will require remedial actions and appropriation of funds by the US
government, the suit is deemed to be one against the US itself.

a. Requisite: when acting within the directives of his government.

DIPLOMATIC
AGENTS Illustrative Case No. 1: Minucher vs. CA, G.R. No. 142396. Feb. 11, 2003 - a
US DEA Agent (Arthur Scalzo) allowed by the Philippine government to help contain
the problem on the drug traffic, is entitled to the defense of state immunity from suit.

a. raison d'etre: assurance of unimpeded performance of their functions..

INTERNATIONAL
ORGANIZATONS Illustrative Case No. 1: Callado vs. IRRI, G.R. No. 106483. May 22, 1995
- IRRI is an international organization entitled to immunity..
INTERNATIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS
 INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES OR ORGANIZATIONS

1. SOUTHEAST ASIA FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CENTER

(SEAFDEC) - as an international agency, enjoys diplomatic
immunity. The obvious reason for this is that the subjection of such
SEAFDEC vs. Acosta
an organization to the authority of the local courts would afford a G.R. No. 97468. Sept. 2, 1993
convenient medium thru which the host government may interfere in
their operations or even influence or control its policies and decisions of
the organization.

2. UN REVOLVING FUND FOR NATURAL RESOURCES

EXPLORATION (UNRFNRE) - diplomatic immunity is
recognized, in accordance with the 1946 Convention on the
Privileges and Immunities of the UN which Philippines is a signatory. It Lasco vs. UNRFNRE
is not engaged in a commercial venture in the Philippines. Its presence G.R. No. 109095. Feb. 23, 1995
here is by virtue of a joint project entered into by the Philippine
Government and the United Nations for mineral exploration in Dinagat
Island.

3. INTERNATIONAL RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE (IRRI) -

enjoys immunity from a ny penal, civil a nd Callado vs. IRRI
administrative proceedings, except insofar as that immunity G.R. No. 106483. May 22, 1995
has been expressly waived, pursuant to P.D. 1620.
SUABILITY
vs.
LIABILITY
 SUABILITY vs. LIABILITY
SUABILITY the result of express or implied consent of the State to sued.

LIABILITY is determined after hearing based on relevant laws and established facts.

RULE waiver of immunity ≠ concession of liability.

Merritt vs. Govt. of P.I., G.R. No. L-11154. Mar. 21, 1916 - Merritt albeit allowed to
sue by virtue of special law but was unable to hold defendant liable when it was shown
that his injuries were caused by regular driver of the government. By consenting to be sued
the state simply waives its immunity from suit. It does not thereby concede its liability.

Palafox vs. Prov. of Ilocos Norte, G.R. No. L-10659. Jan. 31, 1958 - claim for damages
against the province failed when it was shown that the injury suffered occurred in
connection with the repair of streets being undertaken by the province through its regular
ILLUSTRATIVE
agents.
CASES
Torio vs. Fontanilla, G.R. No. L-29993. Oct. 23, 1978 - municipality is liable for a tort
committed in connection with the celebration of town fiesta, which was considered as
proprietary function.

Mun. of San Fernando vs. Judge Firme, G.R. No. L-52179. Apr. 8, 1991 - municipality
is liable for a tort committed in connection with the celebration of town fiesta, which was
considered as proprietary function.
 TORIO vs. FONTANILLA
VICENTE FONTANILLA :
died when a makeshift stage collapsed during
the celebration of town fiesta.
VICTIM CAUSE OF ACTION:
Respondeat superior: an employer is
responsible for the actions of employees
performed within the course of their
employment.
MUNICIPALITY OF MALASIQUI:
DEFENSE:
RESPONDENT
holding of a town fiesta was an exercise of its
governmental functions from which no liability
can arise to answer for the negligence of any
of its agents.
under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the-
S. C. municipality is to be held liable for damages for
the death of Vicente Fontanilia if that was
RULING attributable to the negligence of the
municipality's officers, employees, or agents.
PALAFOX vs. PROV. of I. NORTE
PROCESO PALAFOX :
died when he was ran over by a truck driver (Sabas
Torralba), employed by the provincial government of
Ilocos Norte in the course of his (Torralba) work at
the construction of a road.
CAUSE OF ACTION:
Respondeat superior: the master shall answer
for negligent acts of its employees.
PROV. OF ILOCOS NORTE:
DEFENSE:
The construction or maintenance of roads in which
the driver worked at the time of the accident is a
governmental activity.
the province could not be made liable because its
employee was in the performance of a
governmental function - the construction and
maintenance of roads. the death of Palafox
imposed on the province no duty to pay monetary
consideration.
SCOPE OF CONSENT
 SCOPE OF CONSENT (Jurisprudence)

1. Public funds cannot be the object of garnishment proceeding

even if the consent to be sued had been previously granted and Republic vs. Villasor
the state liability adjudged. - Disbursements of public funds must be G.R. No. L-30671. Nov. 28, 1973
covered by corresponding appropriation as required by law.

2. Funds belonging to government corporations (PVTA) (whose

charter provide that they can sue and be sued) that are deposited
with a bank are not exempt from garnishment. - By engaging in a PNB vs. Pabalan
particular business thru the instrumentality of a corporation, the government G.R. No. L-33112. June 15, 1978
divests itself pro hac vice (for this particular occasion) of its sovereign
character, so as to render the corporation subject to the rules of law
governing private corporations.

3. All the funds of municipality in the possession of the Municipal

Treasurer of San Miguel, as well as those in the possession of the
Provincial Treasurer of Bulacan, are also public funds and as such
they are exempt from execution. they are held in trust for the people, Mun. of San Miguel vs. Fernandez
intended and used for the accomplishment of the purposes for which G.R. No. L-61744. June 25, 1984
municipal corporations are created, and that to subject said properties and
public funds to execution would materially impede, even defeat and in some
instances destroy said purpose."
 SCOPE OF CONSENT (Jurisprudence)
4. NEA is a GOCC, which has juridical personality separate and
distinct from the government, with capacity to sue and be sued.
As such GOCC, NEA cannot evade execution; its funds may be NEA vs. Morales
garnished or levied upon in satisfaction of a judgment rendered G.R. No. 154200. July 24, 2007
against it. However, before execution may proceed against it, a claim for
payment of the judgment award must first be filed with the COA.

5. All government funds deposited in any official depositary of the

Philippine Government, remain government funds and may not be
subject to garnishment or levy, in the absence of a corresponding City of Caloocan
appropriation as required by law. However, the rule admits of a
vs.
well-defined exception, that is, when there is a corresponding
appropriation as required by law. In such a case, the monetary Judge Allarde
G.R. No. 107271. Sept. 10, 2003
judgment may be legally enforced by judicial processes. City Council of
Caloocan already approved and passed Ordinance allocating the amount for
Santiago’s back-wages plus interest.

6. Like NEA, UP is a juridical personality separate and distinct

from the government and has the capacity to sue and be sued.
Thus, also like NEA, it cannot evade execution, and its funds may Lockheed vs. U.P.
be subject to garnishment or levy. However, before execution may be G.R. No. 185918.  Apr. 18, 2012
had, a claim for payment of the judgment award must first be filed with the
COA.
 FOREIGN
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
 ACTS JURE IMPERII (by right of dominion)

1. Lease by foreign government of apartment Syquia vs. Almeda Lopez

buildings for use of its military officers. G.R. No. L-1648. Aug. 17, 1949

2. Conduct of public bidding for the repair of USA vs. Ruiz

wharf at US Naval Station. G.R. No. L-35645. May 22, 1985

3. Change of employment status of base Sanders vs.Veridiano

employees. G.R. No. L-46930. June 10, 1988

ACTS JURE GESTIONIS (by right of management)

1. Hiring of cook in recreation center at John

USA vs. Rodrigo
Hay Air Station to cater to American G.R. No. 79470. Feb. 26, 1990
servicemen and the general public.

2. Bidding for operation of barber shops in USA vs. Guinto

Clark Air Base. G.R. No. 76609. Feb. 26, 1990
END