Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Ponente: Makalintal
FACTS:
(1) that the action was premature, the claim not having been
filed first with the Office of the Auditor General;
(2) that the right of action for the recovery of any amount
which might be due the plaintiff, if any, had already prescribed;
(3) that the action being a suit against the Government, the
claim for moral damages, attorney's fees and costs had no
jrizzamandap09282010
valid basis since as to these items the Government had not
given its consent to be sued; and
9. On July 29, 1959 said court rendered its decision dismissing the
case on the ground that the state cannot be sued without is
consent. And that the claim for moral damages had long
prescribed and that the court had no jurisdiction over the claim
since the government had not given its consent.
10. Plaintiff then appealed to the CA, which subsequently
certified the case to the SC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the appellant may properly sue the government
under the facts of the case.
HELD: The SC set aside The decision appealed from and the case was
remanded to the court a quo for the determination of compensation,
including attorney's fees, to which the appellant is entitled
jrizzamandap09282010
5. As regards the damages, the plaintiff is entitled to claim the
price of the land from the government, from the time it was
taken up to the time that payment is made.
6. Government will also pay the attorney’s fees.
NOTES:
If the state violates its own laws, it waives his consent to be sued.
jrizzamandap09282010