Section 3.

State Immunity
Suability of State
When considered as suit against the state?
SC Case CFI/RTC Case 1.Is the
republic
sued by
name?
2.Suits
against
an un-
incorpora
ted
goernm
ent
agency!
".Suit is against
a goernment
o##icial$ but is
such that
ultimate liability
shall deole on
the goernment
%& The rule li'e(ise
prohibits a person
#rom #iling #or
interpleader$ (ith the
State as one o# the
de#endants being
compelled to
interplead.
HELD
1.)errit s. *oernment o# the
+hilippine Islands
.)errit s. *oernment o#
the +hilippine Islands
,-S .should hae
been this-
neglect o#
drier&
It is a suit against the state$ but the chau##eur
being a regular employee .and no agent-in
/rt.2101 o# Ciil Code& is not a special
agent.
2. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, C/+T. 2/)-S -.
*/3345/,$ 5I33I/) I.
C433I6S and R47-RT
*48I-R$ petitioners$
s.
HON. V. M. RUIZ, +residing
2udge o# 7ranch 9:$ Court o#
First Instance o# Ri;al and
ELIGIO DE GUZMAN & CO.,
INC.,
.This is a petition to reie($ set
aside certain orders and
Ciil Case 6o. <<=-)$ the
company .Eligio de
Gu!an and Co., In"&
sued the Uni#ed S#a#e$ o%
A!e&i"a and )essrs.
2ames -. *allo(ay$
5illiam I. Collins and
Robert *ohier all members
o# the -ngineering
Command o# the >.S.
6ay.
./ suit #or speci#ic
per#ormance (as #iled by
,-S ,-S The traditional role o# the state immunity
e?empts a state #rom being sued in the
courts o# another state (ithout its consent or
(aier.
The restrictie application o# state immunity
is proper only (hen the proceedings arise
out o# commercial transactions o# the #oreign
soereign. Its commercial actiities o#
economic a##airs. In this case$ the pro@ect
are integral part o# the naal base (hich is
deoted to the de#ense o# both >S and
restrain the respondent @udge
#rom trying Ciil Case 6o. <<=)
o# the de#unct Court o# First
Instance o# Ri;al.
Company against the >S.& +hilippines$ indisputably$ a #unction o# the
goernment o# highest order$ they are not
utili;ed #or$ nor dedicated to commercial or
business purposes.
3.Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
(2
nd
Deivision)
4. MOBIL PHILIPPINES
EXPLORATION, INC. Vs
.CUSTOMS ARRASTRE
SERVICE and BUREAU of
CUSTOMS
YES The 7ureau o# Customs$ acting as part o#
the machinery o# the national goernment
in the operation o# the arrastre serice$
pursuant to e?press legislatie mandate
and as a necessary incident o# its prime
goernmental #unction$ is immune #rom suit
5 PNB vs. Pabalan
.!inis"e#io vs. $%& $ebu
'.D() vs. P*il P*a#+a,eal"*
&nc.
-.EP. $ons"#uc"ion
$o.vs./igila# in *is $apaci"y as
DP0) Sec#e"a#y
YES
1us"ice and e2ui"y s"e#nly de+and "*a" "*e
S"a"e3s cloa4 o5 invincibili"y agains" sui" be
s*#ed in "*is pa#"icula# ins"ance6 and "*a"
pe"i"ione#s7con"#ac"o#s be duly co+pensa"ed
7 on "*e basis o5 quantum meruit 7 5o#
cons"#uc"ion done on "*e public ,o#4s
*ousing p#o8ec".
9.San"iago vs.Republic 8ere petitioner Ilde#onso
Santiago
'
#iled on
/ugust =$ 1=<A an action
in the Court o# First
Instance o# Bamboanga
City naming as
de#endant the
goernment o# the
YES:
Bu#eau o5
Plan"
&ndus"#y
YES 4ur decision$ it must be emphasi;ed$ goes
no #urther than to rule that a donor$ (ith
the Republic or any o# its agency being the
donee$ is entitled to go to court in case o#
an alleged breach o# the conditions o# such
donation. 8e has the right to be heard.
>nder the circumstances$ the #undamental
postulate o# non-suability cannot stand in
Republic o# the
+hilippines represented
by the Cirector o# the
7ureau o# +lant Industry.
(
8is plea (as #or the
reocation o# a deed o#
donation e?ecuted by
him and his spouse in
2anuary o# 1=<1$
the (ay.
;<.=o#io vs. %on"anilla
These +etitions #or reie(
present the issue o# (hether
or not the celebration o# a
to(n #iesta authori;ed by a
municipal council under Sec.
2202 o# the )unicipal 3a( as
embodied in the Reised
/dministratie Code is a
goernmental or a corporate
or proprietary #unction o# the
municipality.
YES The Court o# /ppeals in its decision no(
under reie( held that the celebration o# a
to(n #iesta by the )unicipality o# )alasiDui
(as not a goernmental #unction. 5e
upheld that ruling. The legal conseDuence
thereo# is that the )unicipality stands on
the same #ooting as an ordinary priate
corporation
4n these people 5e absole >se
municipal councilors #rom any liability #or
the death o# :icente Fontanilla. The
records do not sho( that said petitioners
directly participated in the de#ectie
construction o# the E;ar;uelaE stage or that
they personally permitted spectators to go
up the plat#orm.
;;.!unicipali"y o5 San
%e#nando la >nion vs. %i#+e
This is a petition #or certiorari
(ith prayer #or the issuance o#
a (rit o# preliminary
E2uana Rimando 7aniFa$
et al. s. )acario
6ieeras$ et al.E
YES /#ter a care#ul e?amination o# e?isting la(s
and @urisprudence$ 5e arrie at the
conclusion that the municipality cannot be
held liable for the torts committed by its
regular employee, who was then engaged
in the discharge of governmental functions.
mandatory in@unction see'ing
the nulli#ication or modi#ication
o# the proceedings and the
orders issued by the
respondent 2udge Romeo 6.
Firme$ in his capacity as the
presiding @udge o# the Court o#
First Instance o# 3a >nion$
Second 2udicial Cistrict$
7ranch I:$ 7auang$ 3a >nion
in Ciil Case 6o. 11<-7*$ $
1=<= ordering de#endants
)unicipality o# San Fernando$
3a >nion and /l#redo 7islig to
pay$ @ointly and seerally$ the
plainti##s #or #uneral e?penses$
actual damages consisting o#
the loss o# earning capacity o#
the deceased$ attorneyGs #ees
and costs o# suit and
dismissing the complaint
against the -state o# )acario
6ieeras and 7ernardo
7alagot.
8ence$ the death o# the passenger HH
tragic and deplorable though it may be HH
imposed on the municipality no duty to pay
monetary compensation.
;2.Republic vs. )idalgo
;3.!unicipali"y o5 !a4a"i
vs.$?
;4.@oc4*eed De"ec"ive and
0a"c*+an ?gency vs. >P
;5.$oscuella vs. $?
;.)oly See vs. Rosa#io
;'.!inuc*e# vs.$?
;-.$*ina Na"ional !ac*ine#y A
E2uip+en" vs. San"a+a#ia
;9.P$.. vs. Sandiganbayan
2<.@iang vs. People
SC Case CFI/RTC Case i.0*en a public
o55ice# ac"s in bad
5ai"*6 o# beyond "*e
scope o5 *is
au"*o#i"y6 *e can be
*eld pe#sonally
liable 5o# da+ages.
ii.)e ac"ed pu#suan" "o
*is o55icial du"ies6
,i"*ou" +alice6
negligence6 o# bad
5ai"*6 "*ey a#e no"
pe#sonally liable6 and
"*e sui" is #eally one
agains" "*e S"a"e.
iii.=*is #ule applies
no" only in 5avo# o5
"*e P*ilippines bu"
also in 5avo# o5
5o#eign s"a"es.
(Sui" agains"
5o#eign s"a"e)
HELD
1.)errit s. *oernment o# the
+hilippine Islands
.)errit s. *oernment o#
the +hilippine Islands
2. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, C/+T. 2/)-S -.
*/3345/,$ 5I33I/) I.
C433I6S and R47-RT
*48I-R$ petitioners$
s.
HON. V. M. RUIZ, +residing
2udge o# 7ranch 9:$ Court o#
First Instance o# Ri;al and
ELIGIO DE GUZMAN & CO.,
INC.,
.This is a petition to reie($ set
aside certain orders and
restrain the respondent @udge
#rom trying Ciil Case 6o. <<=)
Ciil Case 6o. <<=-)$ the
company .Eligio de
Gu!an and Co., In"&
sued the Uni#ed S#a#e$ o%
A!e&i"a and )essrs.
2ames -. *allo(ay$
5illiam I. Collins and
Robert *ohier all members
o# the -ngineering
Command o# the >.S.
6ay.
./ suit #or speci#ic
per#ormance (as #iled by
Company against the >S. &
o# the de#unct Court o# First
Instance o# Ri;al.
3.Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
(2
nd
Deivision)
4.!obil P*ils. $o#po#a"ion vs.
$us"o+s ?##as"#e Se#vice
5.PNB vs. Pabalan
.!inis"e#io vs. $%& $ebu A.)inisterio s.+ublic
8igh(ay Commissioner
and the /uditor *eneral
+etitioners as plainti##s in
a complaint #iled (ith the
Court o# First Instance o#
Cebu$ dated /pril 1"$
1=AA$ sought the
payment o# @ust
compensation #or a
registered lot$
YES
Unauthori!d a"ts of
#o$!rn%!nt o&"ia's or
o&"!rs ar! not a"ts of th!
Stat! and an a"tion
a#ainst th! o&"ia's or
o&"!rs () on! *hos!
ri#hts ha$! (!!n in$ad!d or
$io'at!d () su"h a"ts, for th!
+rot!"tion of his ri#hts, is not
a suit a#ainst th! Stat!
*ithin th! ru'! of i%%unit)
of th! Stat! fro% suit.
'.D() vs. P*il P*a#+a,eal"*
&nc.
Responden" "*us
5iled a co+plain" 5o#
in8unc"ion6 +anda+us
and da+ages ,i"*
p#aye# 5o# "*e issuance
o5 a ,#i" o5 p#eli+ina#y
in8unc"ion andBo# =R(
,i"* "*e Regional =#ial
YES
=*e suabili"y o5 a gove#n+en" o55icial
depends on ,*e"*e# "*e o55icial
conce#ned ,as ac"ing ,i"*in *is
o55icial o# 8u#isdic"ional capaci"y6 and
,*e"*e# "*e ac"s done in "*e
pe#5o#+ance o5 o55icial 5unc"ions ,ill
#esul" in a c*a#ge o# 5inancial liabili"y
agains" "*e gove#n+en".
$ou#" o5 Pasig $i"y
p#aying6 inter alia6 "*a"
"*e "#ial cou#" Cnulli5y
"*e a,a#d and di#ec"
de5endan" D()6
de5endan"
Ro+ualdeD6e" al. "o
decla#e plain"i55
P*a#+a,eal"* as "*e
lo,es" co+plying
#esponsible bidde#.6 and
Cad8udge de5endan"s
Ro+ualdeD6 .alon and
@opeD liable6 8oin"ly
and seve#ally "o
plain"i556 5o# E"*e
"*e#ein speci5ied
da+agesF.G
;
&n "*e p#esen" case6 suing individual
pe"i"ione#s in "*ei# pe#sonal capaci"ies
5o# da+ages in connec"ion ,i"* "*ei#
alleged ac" o5 CillegalElyF abusEingF
"*ei# o55icial posi"ions "o +a4e su#e
"*a" plain"i55 P*a#+a,eal"* ,ould no"
be a,a#ded "*e BenDa"*ine con"#ac"
E,*ic* ac" ,asF done in bad 5ai"* and
,i"* 5ull 4no,ledge o5 "*e li+i"s and
b#ead"* o5 "*ei# po,e#s given by
la,G
2
is pe#+issible6
?s #ega#ds pe"i"ione# D()6 "*e
de5ense o5 i++uni"y 5#o+ sui" ,ill
no" avail despi"e i"s being an
uninco#po#a"ed agency o5 "*e
gove#n+en"6 5o# "*e only causes o5
ac"ion di#ec"ed agains" i" a#e
p#eli+ina#y in8unc"ion and
+anda+us.
-.EP. $ons"#uc"ion
$o.vs./igila#
9.San"iago vs.Republic
;<.=o#io vs. %on"anilla
;;.!unicipali"y o5 san
%e#nando la >nion vs. %i#+e
,
-
;2.Republic vs. )idalgo
Even"ually6 "*e "#ial cou#"
#ende#ed a 8udg+en" by
de5aul"
3
5o# !endoDa and
agains" "*e Republic. =o "*e
"#ial cou#"6 "*e Republic
*ad ve#i"ably con5isca"ed
!endoDa3s p#ope#"y6 and
dep#ived *e# no" only o5 "*e
use "*e#eo5 bu" also denied
*e# o5 "*e inco+e s*e could
*ave *ad o"*e#,ise #ealiDed
du#ing all "*e yea#s s*e ,as
illegally dispossessed o5
"*e sa+e.
YES YES
=*e i+pe#a"ives o5 5ai# dealing
de+and no less. ?nd "*e $ou#" ,ould
be #e+iss in "*e disc*a#ge o5 i"s du"ies
as dispense# o5 8us"ice i5 i" does no"
eH*o#" "*e (55ice o5 "*e P#esiden" "o
co+ply ,i"* ,*a"6 in la, and e2ui"y6
is i"s obliga"ion. &5 "*e sa+e o55ice
,ill unde#"a4e "o pay i"s obliga"ion
,i"* #easonable dispa"c* o# in a
+anne# accep"able "o "*e p#iva"e
#esponden"6 "*en si+ple 8us"ice6 ,*ile
pe#*aps delayed6 ,ill *ave i"s day
;3.!unicipali"y o5 !a4a"i
vs.$?
)unicipality o# )a'ati
against priate
respondent /dmiral
Finance Creditors
Consortium$ Inc.$ 8ome
7uilding System I Realty
Corporation and one
/rceli +. 2o$
/#ter this decision
became #inal and
e?ecutory$ priate
respondent moed #or the
The StateGs po(er o# eminent domain
should be e?ercised (ithin the bounds o#
#air play and @ustice. In the case at bar$
considering that aluable property has
been ta'en$ the compensation to be paid
#i?ed and the municipality is in #ull
possession and utili;ing the property #or
public purpose$ #or three ."& years$ the
Court #inds that the municipality has had
more than reasonable time to pay #ull
compensation.
58-R-F4R-$ the Court Resoled to
.
issuance o# a (rit o#
e?ecution. This motion
(as granted by
respondent RTC @udge.
/#ter issuance o# the (rit
o# e?ecution$ a 6otice o#
*arnishment dated
2anuary 1%$ 1=00 (as
sered
4RC-R petitioner )unicipality o# )a'ati
to immediately pay +hilippine Saings
7an'$ Inc. and priate respondent the
amount o# +%$=J"$J1A.%J. +etitioner is
hereby reDuired to submit to this Court a
report o# its compliance (ith the #oregoing
order (ithin a non-e?tendible period o#
SI9T, .A1& C/,S #rom the date o# receipt
o# this resolution.
;4.@oc4*eed De"ec"ive and
0a"c*+an ?gency vs. >P
;5.$oscuella vs. $?
;. THE HOL) SEE,
petitioner$
s.
THE HON. ERI*ERTO U.
ROSARIO, +R., a$ ,&e$iding
+udge o% #-e Regional T&ial
Cou&# o% Ma.a#i, *&an"- /0
and STAR*RIGHT SALES
ENTER,RISES, INC.,
4n 2anuary 2"$ 1==1$
priate respondent #iled a
complaint (ith the
Regional Trial Court$
7ranch A1$ )a'ati$ )etro
)anila #or annulment o#
the sale o# the three
parcels o# land$ and
speci#ic per#ormance and
damages against
petitioner$ represented by
the +apal 6uncio$ and
three other de#endantsK
namely$ )sgr. Comingo
/. Cirilos$ 2r.$ the +RC
and Tropicana .Ciil Case
6o.
=1-10"&.
YES YES The issue o# petitionerGs non-suability can
be determined by the trial court (ithout
going to trial in the light o# the pleadings$
particularly the admission o# priate
respondent. 7esides$ the priilege o#
soereign immunity in this case (as
su##iciently established by the
)emorandum and Certi#ication o# the
Cepartment o# Foreign /##airs.
+riate respondent is not le#t (ithout any
legal remedy #or the redress o# its
grieances. >nder both +ublic
International 3a( and Transnational 3a($
a person (ho #eels aggrieed by the acts
o# a #oreign soereign can as' his o(n
goernment to espouse his cause through
diplomatic channels.
;'.!inuc*e# vs.$?
;-.$*ina Na"ional !ac*ine#y A
E2uip+en" vs. San"a+a#ia
;9.P$.. vs. Sandiganbayan
2<.@iang vs. People
Consent to be sued. HELD
A. E!ress consent ". Im!lied consent#
=*e la, eHp#essly g#an"s "*e
au"*o#i"y "o sue "*e S"a"e o# any o5
i"s agencies.
;). =*e S"a"e en"e#s
in"o a p#iva"e
con"#ac".
2). =*e S"a"e en"e#s in"o
an ope#a"ion "*a" is
essen"ially a business
ope#a"ion.
3). Sui" agains"
an inco#po#a"ed
gove#n+en"
agency.
4). =*e S"a"e 5iles
sui" agains" a
p#iva"e pa#"y.
$ase a). ? la, c#ea"ing
a gove#n+en"
body eHp#essly
p#oviding "*a"
suc* body C+ay
sue o# be sued.G
b). ?#". 2;-< o5
"*e $ivil $ode6
,*ic* c#ea"es
liabili"y agains"
"*e S"a"e ,*en
i" ac"s "*#oug*
a special agen".
a). =*e con"#ac" +us"
be en"e#ed in"o by "*e
p#ope# o55ice# and
,i"*in "*e scope o5
*is au"*o#i"y.
b). >N@ESSI =*e
con"#ac" is +e#ely
inciden"al "o "*e
pe#5o#+ance o5 a
gove#n+en"al
5unc"ion.
a). >N@ESSI =*e
ope#a"ion is inciden"al "o
"*e pe#5o#+ance o5 a
gove#n+en"al
5unc"ion (e.g. a##as"#e
se#vices)
b). =*us6 ,*en "*e S"a"e
conduc"s business
ope#a"ions "*#oug* a
.($$6 "*e la""e# can
gene#ally be sued6 even i5
i"s c*a#"e# con"ains no
eHp#ess Csue o# be suedG
clause.
a) =*is is
because "*ey
gene#ally
conduc" p#op#ie"y
business
ope#a"ions and
*ave c*a#"e#s
,*ic* g#an" "*e+
a sepa#a"e
8u#idical
pe#sonali"y.
>N@ESSI =*e
sui" is en"e#ed
in"o only "o #esis"
a clai+.
;.!e##i" vs. .ove#n+en" o5
"*e P*ilippine &slands
2.>S vs. RuiD
3.Republic vs.
Sandiganbayan (2
nd

Deivision)
4.!obil P*ils. $o#po#a"ion
vs. $us"o+s ?##as"#e Se#vice
YES (B)
5. . +8I3I++I6-
6/TI46/3 7/6L$
petitioner$
s.
846. 2>C*- 2/:I-R
+/7/3/6$ 2udge o# the
Court o# First Instance$
7ranch III$ 3a >nion$
/*44 T47/CC4
+3/6T-RS
.The reliance o#
petitioner
+hilippine
6ational 7an' in
this certiorari
and prohibition
proceeding
against
respondent
2udge 2aier
YES:? That #unds o#
public
corporations
(hich can sue
and be sued
(ere not
e?empt #rom
garnishment.
/s respondent
+hilippine
/SS4CI/TI46$ I6C.$
+8I3I++I6- :IR*I6I/
T47/CC4
/C)I6ISTR/TI46$ and
+/6FI34 +. 2I)-6-B$
Ceputy Sheri##$ 3a >nion$
respondents.
+abalan (ho
issued a (rit o#
e?ecution$
0

#ollo(ed
therea#ter by a
notice o#
garnishment o#
the #unds o#
respondent
+hilippine
:irginia Tobacco
/dministration$&
:irginia
Tobacco
/dministration
is li'e(ise a
public
corporation
.!inis"e#io vs. $%& $ebu
'.D() vs. P*il
P*a#+a,eal"* &nc.
-.EP. $ons"#uc"ion
$o.vs./igila#
9.San"iago vs.Republic
;<.=o#io vs. %on"anilla
;;.!unicipali"y o5 san
%e#nando la >nion vs. %i#+e
;2.Republic vs. )idalgo
;3.!unicipali"y o5 !a4a"i
vs.$?
;4.@oc4*eed De"ec"ive and
0a"c*+an ?gency vs. >P
;5.$oscuella vs. $?
;.)oly See vs. Rosa#io
;'.!inuc*e# vs.$?
;-.$*ina Na"ional
!ac*ine#y A E2uip+en" vs.
San"a+a#ia
;9.P$.. vs.
Sandiganbayan
2<.@iang vs. People
$arnishment of go%ernment funds# Consent to be sued is not e&ui%alent to consent to liability#
$ase ;) .ENER?@ R>@EI N(.
0*e"*e# "*e +oney is deposi"ed
by ,ay o5 gene#al o# special
deposi"6 "*ey #e+ain gove#n+en"
5unds and a#e no" sub8ec" "o
ga#nis*+en".
2) EJ$EP=&(NI ? la, o#
o#dinance *as been enac"ed
app#op#ia"ing a speci5ic a+oun" "o
pay a valid gove#n+en" obliga"ion6
"*en "*e +oney can be ga#nis*ed.
;) =*e %ac" "*a" "*e S"a"e
consen"ed "o being sued
does no" +ean "*a" "*e
S"a"e ,ill ul"i+a"ely be
*eld liable.
2) Even i5 "*e case is decided agains" "*e
S"a"e6 an a,a#d canno" be sa"is5ied by
,#i"s o5 eHecu"ion o# ga#nis*+en" agains"
public 5unds. ReasonI No +oney s*all be
paid ou" o5 "*e public "#easu#y unless
pu#suan" "o an app#op#ia"ion +ade by la,.
;.!e##i" vs. .ove#n+en"
o5 "*e P*ilippine &slands
YES
2.>S vs. RuiD
3.Republic vs.
Sandiganbayan (2
nd

Deivision)
4.!obil P*ils.
$o#po#a"ion vs. $us"o+s
?##as"#e Se#vice
5.PNB vs. Pabalan
.!inis"e#io vs. $%&
$ebu
'.D() vs. P*il
P*a#+a,eal"* &nc.
-.EP. $ons"#uc"ion
$o.vs./igila#
9.San"iago vs.Republic
;<.=o#io vs. %on"anilla
;;.!unicipali"y o5 san
%e#nando la >nion vs.
%i#+e
;2.Republic vs. )idalgo
;3.!unicipali"y o5
!a4a"i vs.$?
;4.@oc4*eed De"ec"ive
and 0a"c*+an ?gency
vs. >P
;5.$oscuella vs. $?
;.)oly See vs. Rosa#io
;'.!inuc*e# vs.$?
;-.$*ina Na"ional
!ac*ine#y A E2uip+en"
vs. San"a+a#ia
;9.P$.. vs.
Sandiganbayan
2<.@iang vs. People