July 16, 2018- Malicay Remember, just because the government consents to be sued, it does not

mean that it is automatically liable in case it loses in the sue, so okay this
Last week we started our discussion on sovereignty, the state is sovereign
but it has limited sovereignty, and of course the related, more important
Doctrine of State Immunity from Suit.
Which is in the Constitution, the reason, why is that again, you already know
that as a rule the state cannot be sued, for purposes of:
1. It is the origin of all the rights on which you are allowed to sue,
and so you cannot sue the entity which gives you the right in the
first place; and
2. For purposes of practicality, if state is allowed to sued left and
right, then it cannot function properly, it would be left to defend
itself, in perpetuity that is why there is this doctrine of Royal
Prerogative of Dishonesty.
involves a money claim, I lost but it doesn’t mean I am ordered to pay the
award.
The money award that was awarded to Roxas, to the amount that he is
claiming could not be recovered for a Motion for Reconsideration.
What was the award by the RTC? Gi-allow, granted and specific performance,
you can purchase the property and this price, it also granted the award of
Attorney’s fees, in the form of an additional compensation. So this is a money
claim, so according to NHA, both of this cannot be implemented.
So is the NHA correct?
The court said that NHA is partly correct:

We also learn last meeting the instances when the suit is one against the
state, against the republic by name, against the officials which the liability
would fall upon the state, against the unincorporated government agency,
against other suit.
So if there is ah, mahulog ang suit didto among the examples, then that is
one, that is when the state can invoke its right in its immunity from suit. Of
course the rule is that:
General Rule: You cannot sue the state.
1. Firs the NHA is not immune from suit, because under its charter, it
can sue and it can be sued, and therefore NHA is not immune to
suits and that is the rule for the NHA.
However, the court distinguish, as to the implementation of the award in so
far as the execution thereof is concern. The decree of the specific
performance, katong order of the court that Roxas can purchase the property
at its original price, that can be executed, however, in so far as the grant for
Attorney’s fees are concerned that is another story, because it is already a
money claim from the government.

Exception: Unless it allows itself to be sued. What is the distinction anyways? If it is a money-claim you have to go to the
proper procedure, you present your claim before the COA
So the state can allow itself to be sued, his consent may be given:

1. Expressly; or
2. Impliedly

And we learn in the subsequent discussions.

Anyways, we finish the cases here, the last on the matter being

NHA vs ROXAS

The National Housing Authority, you know this is a suable government entity,
it is charged among others with the development of this Dagat-Dagatan
development project somewhere in Navotas, Metro Manila, so Roxas applied
for commercial lots in a certain location/ portion of property to be developed
and so his application was approved by the NHA and ofcourse since, ang
iyang purpose was to purchase the property from the NHA, and the NHA
issued notice of award of the lots infavor of Roxas, at an original price of
1,500/sqm, and he made a downpayment.

However, the NHA conducted a final survery, which caused the increase of
the property applied for by Roxas here, nidako from 176/sqm to 303/sqm
more or less, ni increase by almost half or double, and so he was informed of
this increase, and yes he agreed to it, he wanted to be the price at the
original price 1500 of the increased area but this was not favorably approved
by the NHA. Higher ang gusto ni NHA, in other words NHA is forcing Roxas to
purchase the portion of the property at the higher price.

Roxas’ argued that why should he be forced to purchase this property after
the survey at the increased price, and if you force me to buy that dapat
original price.

They went to the RTC, he commenced therefore (Roxas) an action for specific
performance for damages, to comply with the original agreement NHA, this is
the only price ill pay for the property, and the RTC rendered judgment
against NHA to allow him pay for this tended or the larger portion at the
original price.

The case reached to the SC, NHA argued that the judgment of the RTC could
not lie against it because its submission to the litigation did not necessarily
imply that government has given its right to consent, to liability.