STATE IMMUNITY

Philosophy behind the Immunity:

1.Art XVI, Sec.3 of the Constitution
2.Time Immemorial Practice that no legal right as against the
authority who makes the right
3.Logical and Practical Consideration
Principles in Suability of State
1)The State cannot be sued without its consent.
2)When considered a suit against the State
a).The Republic is sued by name;
b).Suits against an un-incorporated government agency;
c).Suit is against a government official, but is such that ultimate
liability shall devolve on the government

CONSENT TO BE SUED
A. Express consent:
it must be in the form of legislation & can be in general or special
law. It must come from statute no by mere agreement of
parties.
The law expressly grants the authority to sue the State(like RA
3083) or any of its agencies. Examples:
a). A law creating a government body expressly providing that
such body may sue or be sued.
b). Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, which creates liability against the
State when it acts through a special agent. (an accounting clerk
who was ordered to drive a garbage truck tapos nakabangga, so
state is liable coz its acting on behalf of a special agent because an
accounting clerks work is not to drive garbage trucks but to
balance worksheets)

i. When a public officer acts in bad faith, or beyond the scope of

his authority, he can be held personally liable for damages.
ii. BUT: If he acted pursuant to his official duties, without malice,
negligence, or bad faith, they are not personally liable, and the suit
is really one against the State.

B. Implied consent:

Not a suit against a state even if Republic is sued by name if

the decision would not result in the state paying sums of money
out of the public treasury (since money was already given to
PVA for payment of benefitsPVA v. Begosa)

1). The State enters into a private contract.

The State enters into an operation that is essentially a business
operation.

3) This rule applies not only in favor of the Philippines but also in
favor of foreign states.
4) The rule likewise prohibits a person from filing for interpleader,
with the State as one of the defendants being compelled to
interplead.

2006 notes: immunity can be invoked by the state even on appeal.

2006 notes: immunity is invoked only by the national government,

as such, with regard Local Government Units, there is no issue of
immunity since they are suable and liable.
2006 notes:local government officials can be subject of mandamus
in order to compel them to include you in its appropriations but
with regard national officials (like a congressman),they cannot be
subject of mandamus since they are immune from suit.

a). The contract must be entered into by the proper officer and
within the scope of his authority.
b). Suit against an incorporated government agency.
This is because they generally conduct propriety business
operations and have charters which grant them a separate juridical
personality.
UNLESS: The contract is merely incidental to performance of a
governmental function.
--- Thus, when the State conducts business operations through a
GOCC, the latter can generally be sued, even if its charter contains
no express sue or be sued clause.
2). The State files suit against a private party/ a complaint/
which makes state open to counterclaim
UNLESS: The suit is entered into only to resist a claim.
3.)Inequitable for state to claim immunity (since it takes
property without compensation)
Govt takes property through legal process of expropriation or
negotiated sale.

4.)in case of implied contracts

5.)when it accepts a conditional donation.

Garnishment of government funds:

GENERAL RULE: NO. Whether the money is deposited by way
of general or special deposit, they remain government funds and
are not subject to garnishment.
EXCEPTION: A law or ordinance has been enacted appropriating
a specific amount to pay a valid government obligation, then
the money can be garnished.

Consent to be sued is not equivalent to consent to liability:

1) The Fact that the State consented to being sued does not mean
that the State will ultimately be held liable.
2) Even if the case is decided against the State, an award cannot be
satisfied by writs of execution or garnishment against public
funds. Reason: No money shall be paid out of the public
treasury unless pursuant to an appropriation made by law.
Scope of consent to be sued is only good from inception of the
action up to rendition of the judgement,no execution will lie
against the government.
Republic Act 3083 states that money judgment shall have to be
submitted to the proper govt office (COA) to determine whether
there is excess funds for the payment of money judgment. If
there is none, the money judgment will have to be submitted to
the President which will be the basis to be included in the budget
next year, files a proposal w/c Congress may or may not
appropriate money for that.
--in case of INCORPORATED Government entities, they are not
considered public money coming from treasury for w/c reason,
there can be issuances of writ of execution since to satisfy
judgment, it would not require appropriation from Congress.
--state is responsible when it acts through a special agent, but not
when damage has been caused by the official to whom task done
properly pertains(2176 CC). Special Agent receives a definite
order foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office.