In summary – Chapter 4:

The Doctrine of State Immunity

Political Law
September 23, 2017
When against the State?
A suit is against the State regardless of who is named
defendant if:

1. It produces adverse consequences to the public treasury

in terms of disbursement of public funds and loss of
government property.

2. It cannot prosper unless the State has given its consent.

When not against the State?
It is held that the suit is not against the State:

1. When the purpose of the suit is to compel an officer charged

with the duty of making payments pursuant to an
appropriation made by law in favor of the plaintiff to make
such payment since the suit is intended to compel performance
of a ministerial duty [Begoso v PVA (1970)].
2. When from the allegations in the complaint, it is clear that
the respondent is a public officer sued in a private capacity.
3. When the action is not in personam with the
government as the named defendant, but an action in rem
that does not name the government in particular.
EXPRESS CONSENT
Effected only by the will of the legislature through the
medium of a duly enacted statute; may be embodied
either in a general law or a special law.
GENERAL LAW
Authorizes any person who meets the conditions
stated in the law to sue the government in
accordance with the procedure in the law; e.g.

1. Money claims arising from contract express or

implied
Act No. 3083
An Act Defining the Conditions under which the
Government of the Philippines may be Sued:
Sec. 1. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the
Government of the Philippines hereby consents and
submits to be sued upon any moneyed claim involving
liability arising from contract, express or implied,
which could serve as a basis of civil action between
private parties.
Sec. 2. A person desiring to avail himself of the
privilege herein conferred must show that he has
presented his claim to the Commission on Audit and
that the latter did not decide the same within two
months from the date of its presentation. xxx

Sec. 5. When the Government of the Philippines is

plaintiff in an action instituted in an action instituted in
any court or original jurisdiction, the defendant shall
have the right to assert therein, by way of set off or
counterclaim in a similar action between parties xxx
(2) Torts
- Liability of local government units

Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages

for the death or injuries suffered by any person by reason of
the defective conditions of the roads, streets, public buildings
and other public works under their control and supervision
[Art. 2189, CC]

Vicarious liability for special agents [Art 2180 (6), CC]

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 agent [Merritt v. Gov’t of the
Philippines Islands, (1916)]

One who performs his regular functions, even if he is

called a “special agent”, is not a special agent within the
context of Government liability [USA v. Guinto, GR 76607,
26 February 1990].
Special Law – may come in the form of a private bill
authorizing a named individual to bring suit on a
special claim.
Implied consent
1. In instances when the State takes private property for public
use or purpose (eminent domain).
2. When the State enters into a business contract (in jure
gestionis or proprietary functions).
3. When it would be inequitable for the State to invoke its
immunity.
4. If the government files a complaint, defendant may file a
counterclaim against it. When the state files a complaint,
suability will result only where the government is claiming
alternative relief from the defendant.
Suits against Government Agencies
Depends on whether the agency is incorporated (i.e.
there is a separate charter) of unincorporated (i.e. no
separate personality).
Incorporated – if the charter provides that the agency
can sue, then, the suit will lie. The provision in the
charter constitutes express consent [SSS vs. CA, 120
SCRA 707, 1983].
Unincorporated – there must be an inquiry unto the
principal functions of government.

If governmental: No suit without consent [Bureau of

Printing vs. Bureau of Printing Employees Association
(1961)]
If proprietary: Suit will lie, because when the state
engages in principally proprietary functions, it
descends to the level of a private individual, and
may, therefore be vulnerable to suit [Civil
Aeronautics Administration vs. CA]. State may only
be liable for proprietary acts [jure gestionis] and not
for sovereign acts [jure imperii].
Incorporated performing governmental or proprietary
functions, can be sued if Charter allows.

Unincorporated performing governmental functions,

cannot be sued unless consent is given. If performing
proprietary functions, can be sued.
Suit against Public Officers
General Rule: The doctrine of state immunity also
applies to complaints filed against officials of the
state for acts performed by them in the discharge
of their duties within the scope of their authority.
Exception: The doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply
and may not be invoked where the public official is being sued
in his:
1. Private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen, or
2. Acts without authority or in excess of the powers vested in
him [Lansang vs. CA].

Acts done without authority are not acts of the State.

Exceptions to Prior Consent Rule
Case law provide that the following are well-
recognized exceptions when the State/public
officer may be sued without prior consent.

- To compel him to do an act required by law;

- To restrain him from enforcing an act claimed to be

unconstitutional.
- To compel the payment of damages from an already
appropriate assurance fund or to refund tax over-payments
from a fund already available for the purpose.

- To secure a judgement that the officer impleaded may satisfy

by himself without the state having to do a positive act to
assist him;

- Where the government itself violated its own laws [Sanders

vs. Veridiane II (1988)].
Scope of Consent
Consent to be sued is not concession of liability. Suability
depends on the consent of the State to be sued, and
Liability on the applicable law and the established facts.
The circumstance that a State is suable does not
necessarily mean that it is liable, but it can never be held
liable if it does not first consent to be sued. When the
State does waive its sovereign immunity, it is only giving
the plaintiff the chance to prove that it liable [US vs.
Guinto, 182 SCRA 644 (1990)].
End 