STATE IMMUNITY CASES

1. REPUBLIC v. SANDOVAL

FACTS: Mendiola Massacre. Citizen’s Mendiola Commission. Recommended that the deceased and
wounded victims of the Mendiola Incident to be compensated by the government. Caylao group filed a
formal letter of demand for compensation from the government. It was endorsed by the Executive
Secretary to the DBM. After almost a year, petitioners filed an action for damages against RPH. SolGen
filed MoD on the ground that the State cannot be sued without its consent. Petitioner argues that the
State has waived its immunity from suit through the recommendation made the Commission for the
government to indemnify the heirs and victims of the Mendiola incident and by the public addresses
made by Pres. Aquino in the aftermath of the killings. and that the dismissal of the action is contrary to
Constitution and ILHR. Judge Sandoval dismissed the complaint as against the RPH on the ground that
there was no waiver by the State.

HELD:
• This is a suit against the State without its consent.
• State immunity – Art. XVI, Section 3.
• The principle is based on
o the very essence of sovereignty, and on the practical ground that there can be no legal
right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends.
o Public policy – public service would be hindered, and the public endangered, if the
sovereign authority could be subjected to law suits at the instance of every citizen and
consequently controlled in the uses and dispositions of the means required for the
proper administration of the government.
• Argument regarding the Commission’s recommendation
o Recommendation does not in any way mean that liability automatically attaches to the
State
o The same findings of the commission shall only serve as the cause of action in the event
that any party decides to litigate his/her claim.
• Arguments regarding acts or utterances of Pre. Aquino
o Those are not tantamount to the State having waived its immunity from suit.
o It was an act of solidarity by the government with the people
• Although consent may be given impliedly, it cannot be maintained such consent was given
considering the circumstances obtaining the instant case.
o Instances when a suit against the State is proper are:
▪ When the Republic is sued by name;
▪ When the suit is against an unincorporated government agency
▪ When the suit is on its face against a government officer but the case is such
that ultimate liability will belong not to the officer but to the government.
• When the Republic in this case is sued by name, the ultimate liability does not pertain to the
government.
• As early as 1954, the Court pronounced that an officer cannot shelter himself by the plea that is
public agent acting under the color of his office when his acts are wholly without authority.
o Immunity from suit cannot institutionalize irresponsibly ad non-accountability nor grant
a privileged status not claimed by any other official of the republic.
 • While it is true that nothing is better settled than the general rule that a sovereign state and its
political subdivisions cannot be sued in the courts except when it has given consent, it cannot be
invoked by both the military officers to release them from any liability, and by the heirs and
victims to demand indemnification from the government.
• The principle of state immunity from suit does not apply, as in this case, when the relief
demanded by the suit requires no affirmative official action on the part of the State nor the
affirmative discharge of any obligation which belongs to the State in its political capacity.
• The conclusion is that the State cannot be held civilly liable for the deaths the followed that
incident.
o Instead the liability should fall on the named defendants in the lower court.

2. US v. GUINTO

FACTS: blah blah blah… USA and the individually named defendants argued that the suit was in effect a
suit against the US which has not given its consent to be sued. The defendants were also immune from
suit under the RP-US Bases Treaty for acts done by them in the performance of their official functions.

HELD:
• Rule that a state may not be sued without its consent is one of the generally accepted principles
of international law that we have adopted as part of the law of our land under Art. II, Sec. 2.
• The consent of the state to be sued may be manifested expressly or impliedly. Express consent
may be embodied in a general law or a special law.
o Consent is implied when:
▪ State enters into a contract or
▪ It itself commences litigation.
• Merritt v. Government of the Philippine Islands – a special law was passed to enable a person to
sue the government for an alleged tort.
o When the government enters into a contract, it is deemed to have descended to the
level of other contracting party and divested of its sovereign immunity from suit with
its implied consent.
• Express consent is effected only by the will of the legislature through the medium of a duly
enacted statute.
• NOT ALL CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BY THE GOVERNMENT WILL OPERATE AS A WAIVER OF
ITS NON-SUABILITY. DISTINCTION MUST BE MADE:
o Sovereign acts
o Proprietary acts.
• US like any other state will be deemed to have impliedly waived its non-suability if it has entered
into a contract in its proprietary or private capacity.
o It is only when the contract involves its sovereign or governmental capacity that no such
waiver may be implied.
• US v. Ruiz. Contract in question involved the improvement of the wharves in the naval
installation at Subic Bay. As this was clearly a governmental function, we held that the contract
did not operate to divest the US of its sovereign immunity from suit.
• SUABILITY v. LIABILITY
o Suability – depends on the consent of the state to be sued.
o Liability – depends on the applicable law and the established facts.
o The circumstance that a state is suable does not necessarily mean that it is liable.
 o It can never be held liable if it does not first consent to be sued.

3. SANDERS v. VERIDIANO

HELD:
• Moreau – what he is claimed to have done was write the Chief of Naval Personnel for
concurrence with the conversion of the private respondent’s type of employment even before
the grievance proceedings had even commenced.
o Such was clearly official in nature.
• Petitioners were legally speaking being sued as officers of the US government.
• As they have acted on behalf that government, and within the scope of their authority, it is that
government, and not the petitioners personally, that is responsible for their acts.
o Assuming the trial can proceed and it is proved that the claimants have a right to the
payment of damages, such award will have to be satisfied not by the petitioners in their
personal capacities but by the US government.
• Such compliant cannot prosper unless the government sought to be held ultimately liable has
given its consent to be sued.
• In case of foreign states, the rule is derived from the principle of sovereign equality of states
which admonishes that par in parem non habet imperium and that a contrary attitude would
unduly vex the peace of nations.
• A public officer may not be sued as such without the previous consent of the state.
o EXCEPTIONS.
▪ Compel him to do an act required by law
• RoD refuses to record a deed of sale
• Restrain a Cabinet member from enforcing a law claimed to be
unconstitutional
• In the case at bar, comes under the rule and not under any of the recognized exceptions.
o US government has not given its consent to be sued for the official acts of the
petitioners, who cannot satisfy any judgement that may be rendered against them.
▪ As it is the US government itself that will have to perform the affirmative act of
appropriating the amount that may be adjudged for the private respondents

4. Merritt v. Government of the PH

FACTS: As the negligence which caused the collision is a tort committed by an agent or employee of the
Government, the inquiry at once arises whether the government is legally laible for the damages
resulting therefrom.
• Act No. 2457. Act authorizing Merritt to bring suit against the government of PH.

ISSUE: Did the defendant PH, in enacting the above quoted act, simply waived its immunity from suit or
did it also concede its liability to the plaintiff?

HELD:
• The plaintiff was authorized to bring this action against the government in order to fix the
responsibility for the collision between his motorcycle and the ambulance and to determine the
amount of damages if any, to which Merritt is entitled.
 • Responsibility of the state is limited by Art. 1903 to the case wherein it acts through a special
agent
• SPECIAL AGENT – one who receives a definite and fixed order or commission, foreign to the
exercise of the duties of his office if he is a special official.
o This concept DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY EXECUTIVE AGENCY WHO IS AN EMPLOYEE OF
THE ACTIVE ADMINISTRATION WHO IN HIS OWN RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMS THE
FUNCTIONS WHICH ARE INHERENT IN AND NATURALLY PERTAIN TO HIS OFFICE.
o Duly empowered by a definite order or commission to perform some act or charged
with some definite purpose which gives rise to the claim.

5. The Holy See v. Rosario

FACTS: Petitioner is the Holy See who exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City. In the PH, the practice
is for the foreign government or the international organization to first secure an executive endorsement
of its claim of sovereign or diplomatic immunity.

HELD:
• TWO concepts of sovereign immunity
o Classical or absolute theory
▪ A sovereign cannot, without its consent, be made a respondent in the courts of
another sovereign.
o Newer or restrictive theory
▪ Immunity of a sovereign is recognized only with regard to public acts (acts jure
imperii) of a state but not with regard to private acts (acts jure gestonis)
o Acts jure imperii
▪ Lease be a foreign government of apartment buildings for use of its military
officers
▪ Conduct of public bidding for the repair of a wharf at a US Naval Station
▪ Change of employment status of base employees.
o Acts jure gestionis
▪ Hiring of a cook in the recreation center, consisting of 3 restaurants, cafeteria,
bakery, store and a coffee and pastry shop at John Hay Air Station
▪ Bidding for the operation barber shops in Clark Air base
• TEST IS acts jure imperii or act jure gestonis
o Whether the foreign state is engaged in the activity in the regular course of business.
o If not engaged regularly in a business or trade, the particular act must then be tested by
its nature.
o IF THE ACT IS IN PURSUIT OF A SOVEREIGN ACTIVITY, OR AN INCIDENT THEREOF, THEN
IT IS AN ACT JURE IMPERII, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS NOT UNDERTAKEN FOR GAIN OR
PROFIT.
• In THE CASE AT BAR
o If petitioner has bought and sold lands in the ordinary course of real estate business,
surely said transaction can be categorized as an act jure gestionis.
o HOWEVER, petitioner denied that the acquisition and subsequent disposal of the lots
were made for profit but instead it acquired said property for the site of its mission or
the Apostolic Nunciature in the PH.
 o Lot 5-A was acquired by petitioner as a donation from the archdiocese of Manila. The
donation was not made for commercial purpose, but for the use of petitioner to
construct the official place of residence of the Papal Nuncio.

CLASSIFICATIONS OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

1. Incorporated – possesses a juridical personality independent of the state
2. Unincorporated – has no juridical personality separate and distinct from the government

SUABILITY OF INCORPORATED AGENCY

• CHARTER
o If the charter provides that the agency can sue and be sued – suit will lie
• IF CHARTER IS SILENT
o Inquire into the functions based on the purpose
▪ PROPRIETARY – SUABLE
• Purpose is to earn profit
▪ GOVERNMENTAL – NOT SUABLE
• Purpose is for benefit of public welfare.

SUABILITY OF UNINCORPORATED AGENCY

• If it performs government functions – NOT SUABLE WITHOUT CONSENT
• IF it performs proprietary functions – SUABLE
o EXCEPTION: When the proprietary functions are indispensable in the discharge of its
governemental functions