I.

Examples of laws where the State gave consent to be sued:

1. Act No. 3083 or an Act defining the conditions under which the government
of the Philippine Islands may be sued.

2. Act No. 2457, effective February 3, 1915, authorizing E. Merit to bring suit
against the Government of the Philippine Islands, as cited in E. Meritt v.
Government of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. L-11154, March 21, 1916.

II. Example of contract entered by the State in the exercise of its

sovereign functions:

1. United States of America v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-35645, May 22, 1985, the
United States of America entered into projects involving improvements on
the wharves in the naval installation at Subic Bay. Since the projects
involve the naval base which is devoted to the defense of both the United
States and the Philippines, the contract executed pursuant to the United
States’ sovereign functions.

2. DOTC v. Sps. Abecina, G.R. No. 206484, June 29, 2016, the Department of
Transportation and Communications entered into Facilities Management
Agreements (FMAs), which were entered into the its sovereign functions.

Example of a contract entered by the State in the exercise of its proprietary

functions:

United States v. Guinto, the barbershop concessions granted by the United States
were covered by contracts that are purely commercial in character. Thus, the
United States may not invoke immunity from suit.

III. Dangerous Drugs Board v. Matibag

Short Facts:
The petitioners assert that Matibag does not have security of tenure over her
position because she did not possess CES eligibility. She, however, argues that the
issue has become moot because she has already been appointed as Executive
Director of the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) for which she took her oath of
office on April 7, 2017.

Ruling:

The issue has not become moot and academic since the Court's ruling on whether
Matibag was illegally dismissed has a practical value as it will affect her
entitlement to reinstatement and backwages.

Despite her appointment as Executive Director, there is no showing that she has
been paid her backwages from March 2, 2011 until her appointment on April 7,
2017. It also cannot be said that she has been reinstated to her former position as it
does not appear that the position to which she was appointed to in 2017, Executive
Director, is the same as what she held in 2011, Deputy Executive Director. Thus,
the mere fact that she was appointed as Executive Director of the DDB did not
render the issue of whether she was illegally dismissed moot and academic.

IV. Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators

v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 223505, October 3, 2017.

Short Facts:

The COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 10015, which imposed the “Gun
Ban” during the national and local election period from January 10, 2016 to June 8,
2016. Aside from firearms, it also prohibited the engagement of security services
during such period. Petitioners assailed the validity of Resolution No. 10015
through a Rule 65 petition before the Supreme Court.

The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the issue has become moot and
academic. Resolution No. 10015 is no longer in effect since the election period
already expired on June 8, 2016.

Ruling:
The issue has not been rendered moot and academic.

There are recognized exceptions to the rule:

 1. There is a grave violation of the Constitution;
2. The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest
are involved;
3. When the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling
principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and
4. The case is capable of repetition yet evading review.

The fourth exception applies. It requires that: (1) the challenged action is in its
duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration; and.
(2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be
subjected to the same action.

Here, the election period was only for a total of only 150 days. The petition was
filed only on April 8, 2016. Thus there was not enough time for the resolution of
the controversy. More, the COMELEC has consistently issued rules and
regulations on the Gun Ban for previous elections. Thus, the COMELEC is
expected to promulgate similar rules in the next elections. Prudence accordingly
dictates that the Court exercise its power of judicial review to finally settle this
controversy.

V. Additional examples of entities classified as government

instrumentalities according to MIAA v. CA, G.R. No. 155650, July 20,
2006:

1. Manila International Airport Authority

2. Philippine Fisheries Development Authority
3. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
4. Philippine Rice Research Institute
5. Laguna Lake Development Authority
6. Bases Conversion Development Authority
7. Philippine Ports Authority
8. Cagayan de Oro Port Authority
9. San Fernando Port Authority
10.Cebu Port Authority
11.Philippine National Railways