Topic :The Doctrine of State Immunity

Title :Department of Agriculture vs. The National Labor Relation Commission

Citation: G.R. No. 104269 November 11, 1993

I. Facts :

Petitioner Department of Agriculture (DA) and Sultan Security Agency entered

into a contract for security services to be provided by the latter to the said
governmental entity. Pursuant to their arrangements, guards were deployed by
Sultan Security Agency in the various premises of the DA. Thereafter, several
guards filed a complaint for underpayment of wages, nonpayment of 13th month
pay, uniform allowances, night shift differential pay, holiday pay, and overtime
pay, as well as for damages against the DA and the security agency. The Labor
Arbiter rendered a decision finding the DA jointly and severally liable with the
security agency for the payment of money claims of the complainant security
guards. The DA and the security agency did not appeal the decision. Thus, the
decision became final and executory. The Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution
to enforce and execute the judgment against the property of the DA and the
security agency. Thereafter, the City Sheriff levied on execution the motor vehicles
of the DA.

II. Issue:

Whether or not the doctrine of non-suability of the State applies in the case.

III. Ruling:

The basic postulate enshrined in the Constitution that the State may not be
sued without its consent reflects nothing less than a recognition of the sovereign
character of the State and an express affirmation of the unwritten rule effectively
insulating it from the jurisdiction of courts. It is based on the very essence of
sovereignty. A sovereign is exempt from suit based on the logical and practical
ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law
on which the right depends. The rule is not really absolute for it does not say that
the State may not be sued under any circumstances.

The State may at times be sued. The States consent may be given expressly or
impliedly. Express consent may be made through a general law or a special law.
Implied consent, on the other hand, is conceded when the State itself commences
litigation, thus opening itself to a counterclaim, or when it enters into a contract. In
this situation, the government is deemed to have descended to the level of the other
contracting party and to have divested itself of its sovereign immunity.