8/12/2019 July 3 2013 Transcript

1/10

July 3 2013 Consitution I Atty Royvenne Jumao-as

Doctrine of Immunity of suit restrictively applies only to Governmental function (Jure imperii) ofthe state and not to the commercial/proprietary (Jure gestionis) acts of the state. Now we

determine whether the suit against the state, we have to now whether or not the ultimatelia!ility falls with the state. "nd that the state is re#uired to perform some positive acts such asappropriating money to satisfy a $udgement against it. %o If it&s the case, it is a suit against thestate notwithstanding the nominal party would !e a government office, agency, instrumentalityor a pu!lic officer. %o when it comes to government offices it is important to now whether thegovernment instrumentality/ agency is incorporated or unincorporated.

Government instrumentality

' Incorporated' has its own charter which means that it has its own $uridical personalityseparate and distinct from the state. In that case generally it can !e sued !ecause generally

its charter would provide that it can sue and it can !e sued.

Now when it comes to pu!lic officers when would you now if it is a suit against thestate If the ultimate lia!ility is with the state to perform positive act.

Now generally also when it comes to suits against pu!lic officers that will usually !e allowed.why ecause even the constitution provides that pu!lic office is a pu!lic trust so how can wemae the officers lia!le or accounta!le it is the * +hrough the filing of suits so suits againstpu!lic officers will !e allowed !ecause even the constitution provides for a $udicial dealing of theacts of the officer. %o generally it is not a suit against the state if he is sued in his officialcapacity or performing a governmental function !ut the suit or the relieve demanded does notre#uire the state to perform an act. or e-ample the suit is only for the officer to !e removedfrom a certain place then there is no lia!ility from the state, then it is not a suit against the state.or e-ample the suit is for a money claim !ut the money is already released in the office of thepu!lic officer !ut he $ust refused to pay or refused to release the money then in that case it isnot a suit against the state, it is a suit against the pu!lic officer. It is also not a suit against thestate if the pu!lic officer is sued in his official capacity !ut for his acts that are called unauthorized acts or illegal acts !ecause the state does not state recognied illegal ---- "cts!y his agents for e-ample in the case of

. D! vs "! pharma #ealth' the relief demanded is in$unction, nullity of contract, andthere0s also for damages. +he damage is a addressed against the pu!lic officers. In thatcase, the 1ndersecretary of D23. %o can that pu!lic officer invoe state Immunity

$C held4 N2 she is !eing sued in her capacity,in the performance of hisfunction, !ut she performed an unauthoried act. In this case she failed to act on herin#uest for an accreditation on registry or product so that product can !e included in the!idding process.

8/12/2019 July 3 2013 Transcript

2/10

+he relief demanded is not one re#uiring the state to perform an act, it is one fornullification of an award or in$unction of the award so in this case it is not a suit the state!ut a suit against the particular pu!lic officer

5. "hilippine Agila vs %ichauco. +his is against 6ichauco. In this case 7"%I has already!een allotted an or!ital slot, !ut then this undersecretary 6ichauco awarded it to theunnown !idder.

+ he same or!ital slot. Now nullification and in$unction was filed, can 6ichauco claimimmunity from suit

$C !&%D 'No. It is a suit against her !eing a pu!lic officer for an un'authoriedact. 2ther than that if It is a suit against D2+8 it will not --- !ecause D2+8 is anincorporated it is performing governmental function. now it&s a suit against her !ut theact complained of is considered unauthoried or illegal so it is not a suit against thestate.

Now let us say it&s a suit against the state, if it&s a suit against the state, can the state claimimmunity

General rule4 9es +he state may not !e sued without its consent. In other words a state :"9 !esued provided that it consented the suit. Now !ased on this premise it is important for us toeep in our mind the restrictive doctrine. We always go !ac to whether it is a governmentalfunction we are dealing with or proprietary , !usiness , !usiness in character, commercial incharacter. %o if its governmental the general rule applies it may not !e sued without its consent .ut if it is proprietary no consent is needed, !ecause the other rule will apply, it may !e sued,

why 8onsent may !e ;-press or implied.

8onsent4

. &(press consent' it is --- that the state consented. 3ow will you now that the statehas consented "n e-press consent is given via a law. 2nly the congress has theauthority to consent for the %tate. +he consent is given pursuant to an enactment ora law, in other words if the consent is given !y a lawyer or a counsel for the state it isnot !inding upon the state !ecause only a law granting the privilege of the state can!e considered as e-press consent to the state. Now e-press consent pursuant to a

law may !e !y virtue of general law or a special law.

8/12/2019 July 3 2013 Transcript

3/10

+here is a general consent for the state or the 73 government to !e sued. In factin section states the 7hilippine government consents and su!mits to !e suedupon any money claims involving lia!ility arising from contract e-pressly implied

which would serve the !asis of civil action !etween private parties. %o, how comethere is a constitution provision that it may !e sued without consent +heconsent in this

6aw actually is not without conditions. It consents to !e sued provided that theclaimant follows certain procedure. In this case, the procedure prescri!ed is aclaim must first !e filed with 8ommission on "udit. %o money claims must !e first!e filed with 82". Now in relation to commonwealth "ct =5A, 8" =5A wasamended !y 7D BBC. +here is a particular period within which the commissionermust act on money claims. +hereafter if the decision is adverse to the claimant orthe 82" fails to act in the prescri!ed period then claimant can file a certioraricase with the %upreme 8ourt. In other words ultimately it consents to !eultimately sued after these procedures and the claimant is not satisfied. +his is"ct =>?= in relation to 8" =5A as amended 7D BBC

=>?=' General law which consents, grants the consent for the state to !e sued.+he proceedings provided in relation to 8" =5A' period provisional period to act.7D law organiing the 82"

&(press consent via general la#

=. Department o) Agriculture v *%RC- there is a suit filed !y %ecurity guards against itssecurity agency for non payment of wages, overtime pay, holiday pay, serviceincentives.+hey were serving with the Department of "griculture. +he N6E8 decided infavour of the %ecurity Guards !ecause these are statutory !enefits. +hese !enefits aremandated !y law particularly the la!or code. ut the decision of N6E8 included D2" asthe party solidarily lia!le with the security agency. %o there is a money $udgement infavour of the security guards, so the security guards filed for the e-ecution of this

$udgement. Now N6E8 issued the writ of e-ecution against the security agency and alsoagainst Department of "griculture. D" refused to pay invoing immunity from suit.efore the ultimate decision the %8 discussed immunity from suit and mentioned 8"=>?= in relation to act =5A and 7D BBC. $C said that money claims must !e first filedagainst the government under 8" act, stating 8" =>?= stands now merely as a general

law waiving the state&s immunity from suit su!$ect to the general limitation e-pressed secA thereof.

+hat&s the general law waiving immunity .Is there&s a special law waiving immunity

8/12/2019 July 3 2013 Transcript

4/10

&(press consent via special la#

%pecial law' congress acts a law specifically allowing a particular person to file a caseagainst the state.

B. +eritt vs ,overnment' :eritt met an accident !y an am!ulance of a Governmenthospital. 3e is fortunate !ecause the legislature enacted a law authoriing meritt to file asuit to state for the determination of who is lia!le. +he congress enacts this law allowingthis particular person to file the suit. %8 held4 the fact the state consented to !e sueddoes mean that the state acnowledges its lia!ility. ased on the definition on who isan agent of the state, in this case the driver of the am!ulance is not acting in hisauthoried capacity. +herefore he is not in that instant considered as an agent of thestate, thus the state is not lia!le.

Implied consent

Impliedly the state has consented to !e sued.

Instances4 .

8/12/2019 July 3 2013 Transcript

5/10

C. Repulic vs $andiganayan +he repu!lic of the 73 initiated a complaint againstNegros 2ccidental golf country 8lu! incorporated for the reconveyance of certainshares of stocs !elonging to Juan enedicto. Now the repu!lic alleges that theseshares of stocs are ill gotten wealth. +herefore they are se#uestering the shares ofstocs. %o the shares of stocs were turned over to the state. "fter, the state failed topay the monthly/regular mem!ersip fees that is demanded or re#uired of mem!ers of

that country clu! !ecause a shareholder is a mem!er and re#uired to pay mem!ershipfees. +he government leave se#uestration, dili na lang siya ill gotten wealth. %o theconse#uence is that they have to return the shares of stoc. ut in this case the statefailed or refuse to return shares of stocs that is why %andigan!ayan issued an orderre#uiring the state to return the shares of stocs if not the stoc certificate themselvesthe value e#uivalent to stocs certificate. Now the state claim immunity from suit

$C !eld'

8/12/2019 July 3 2013 Transcript

6/10

tesda is also an unincorporated agency attached to Department of 6a!or. +;%D" trainscitiens, issues credits, sills, in relation to the training it issues certifications of -- andIDs so it contracted with 7E2HI, the latter will provide hi'tech IDs. Now in the caseunfortunately +;%D" failed to pay 7E2HI, 7E2HI filed money claims to +;%D".

$C !&%D4 +;%D" is immune from suit.

8/12/2019 July 3 2013 Transcript

7/10

A. A vs $pouses Ramos %pouses Eamos who has a lot near the airport runway laterdiscovered that part of the runway actually is their property. +hey had no idea that thegovernment used the portion of their property. %o they made a demand with "+2 ("ir+ransportation 2ffice). %o they negotiated with the "+2 which is the office of the agencyin charge with the administration management of airport so the "+2 agree to thenegotiation and agreed to enter to a deed of sale for the portion of lot.

8/12/2019 July 3 2013 Transcript

8/10

has to !e a law appropriating the use of this pu!lic funds. In other words, you cannot $usttae money from the pu!lic treasury and use it in payment of $udgement() !ecause wehave an appropriation act where the money were appropriated for certain purposes, nowyou cannot tae some of the money to answer the money $udgment in your favour!ecause these were not set aside for that particular purpose. If it is done !y pu!lic officerthat is called malversation, the use of pu!lic funds not in that particular purpose,

redirecting the pu!lic fund appropriated for some other purpose in other words pu!licfunds can only !e released pursuant to appropriation. +herefore a $udge cannot issue a

writ of e-ecution in your favour even if it is already determined that the %tate is lia!le!ecause is not the $udge who issues the appropriation, it is the legislative !ody.

%o in other words sua!ility is not the same as lia!ility. %o the function of the$udge/court ends when the $udgement is rendered, and as the government funds andproperties may not !e ceased under writ of e-ecution/garnishment to satisfy such

$udgment. It is !ased also in pu!lic policy dis!ursement of funds must !e covered !y thecorrespondent appropriation as re#uired !y law otherwise it is diversion of pu!lic funds.

In D2" vs N6E8 involving those security guards, di!a they have a money

$udgement in their favour !ecause it was proven that they were not given statutory!enefits under the la!or code, !ut the D2" claimed immunity from suit what is thererecourse therefore "ct =>?= ''ile their money claims with 82" thereafter file acertiorari. In case of

@. !eirs o) "idacan vs A- this is also an e-propriation proceeding which grant for anaward.() there&s a final and e-ecutionary $udgement of the court (%8 even)in favour ofthe private owners, in this case, so we say the writ of e-ecution cannot !e issued againstthe state, !ut in this case that the garnishment issued !y the Judge is proper, why

ecause in this case it has !een shown that the funds had already !een appropriated forthe payment of the particular e-propriation. %o the funds have actually !eenappropriated for that purpose so garnishment is allowed.

>. *!A vs heirs o) rigodon/4)' here the N3" also e-ercised its power of e-propriation to!uild housing. Now they failed to pay the $ust compensation as ordered !y the 8ourt.8an the funds of the N3" can !e garnished to satisfy the $udgement

+he $C held4 9;% why N3" is an incorporated government agency. Iit is a pu!liccorporation and has a personality separate and distinct from the state. It has funds separatefrom the funds of the state therefore this particular fund can !e garnished.

$uits agains %ocal ,overnment 5nits

Now municipal corporations, provinces, cities, municipalities, these are created pursuantto law, they have a charter on their own. Now the charter provides that they have the capacity to

8/12/2019 July 3 2013 Transcript

9/10

!e sued and sue. ;ven under the 6ocal government code there&s a provision that 6G1 arepu!lic corporations and such corporations they have the capacity to sue and !e sued. Does thatmean that 6G1, cities, provinces, municipalities are ipso facto or automatically are not immunefrom suit Is there already an implied or an e-press consent to !e sued

he $C !&%D4 N2, even if pu!lic corporations such as 6G1 have in their charters this

general characteristic of corporation of the right to !e sued and !e sued, it does not mean thatthey are not immune from suit !ecause it is still an agency of state. It is still a governmentagency although in municipal level and is performing governmental function. 1ltimately we stillhave to determine if it is a governmental or propriety function. ;-ample4

. Jaime vs Apostol' suit !y the parents of a minor who was illed in a vehicular accident.+he car was privately owned, it was driven !y the employee of the :unicipality oforonadal and the passenger was the mayor, the driver is driving him to airport. %o theparents sued the driver, mayor, municipality and the registered owner of the car and thepossessor of the vehicle. +he ultimate decision4 only driver and the registered owner islia!le.

8/12/2019 July 3 2013 Transcript

10/10

,eneral rule ' %ocal government units have the same immunity #ith the state 6ego ac to to determining #hether or not it is per)orming a governmental )unctionor proprietary )unction It is incorporated !y the way so the general rule applies with6G1

=. +aati vs CA' @> %8E" 5>. +his is a case for its e-propriation filed !y themunicipality. +here is a $udgment in favour of the private owner, !ut the municipalityrefused to pay $ust compensation.

$C held4 there is recourse availa!le to the private owner. It can file apetition/case for mandamus so that the court upon $udgment may direct the local%anggunian to appropriate and act an ordinance to appropriate +3; sum of money tosatisfy the $udgment. In this case the private party can file a suit for mandamus. ut taenote that the recourse or option here is only availa!le to local legislative !odies.