Republic v.

Purisima

Facts:

A motion to dismiss was filed on September 7, 1972 by defendant Rice and Corn Administration in a
pending civil suit in the sala of respondent Judge for the collection of a money claim arising from an
alleged breach of contract, the plaintiff being private respondent Yellow Ball Freight Lines, Inc. At that
time, the leading case of Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Service, where Justice
Bengzon stressed the lack of jurisdiction of a court to pass on the merits of a claim against any office or
entity acting as part of the machinery of the national government unless consent be shown, had been
applied in 53 other decisions. Respondent Judge Amante P. Purisima of the Court of First Instance of
Manila denied the motion to dismiss dated October 4, 1972. Hence, the petition for certiorari and
prohibition.

Issue:

WON the respondent’s decision is valid (No)

Ruling:

The position of the Republic has been fortified with the explicit affirmation found in this provision of the
present Constitution: "The State may not be sued without its consent."

"The doctrine of non-suability recognized in this jurisdiction even prior to the effectivity of the [1935]
Constitution is a logical corollary of the positivist concept of law which, to para-phrase Holmes, negates
the assertion of any legal right as against the state, in itself the source of the law on which such a right
may be predicated. Nor is this all, even if such a principle does give rise to problems, considering the
vastly expanded role of government enabling it to engage in business pursuits to promote the general
welfare, it is not obeisance to the analytical school of thought alone that calls for its continued
applicability. Nor is injustice thereby cause private parties. They could still proceed to seek collection of
their money claims by pursuing the statutory remedy of having the Auditor General pass upon them
subject to appeal to judicial tribunals for final adjudication. We could thus correctly conclude as we did
in the cited Providence Washington Insurance decision: "Thus the doctrine of non-suability of the
government without its consent, as it has operated in practice, hardly lends itself to the charge that it
could be the fruitful parent of injustice, considering the vast and ever-widening scope of state activities
at present being undertaken. Whatever difficulties for private claimants may still exist, is, from an
objective appraisal of all factors, minimal. In the balancing of interests, so unavoidable in the
determination of what principles must prevail if government is to satisfy the public weal, the verdict
must be, as it has been these so many years, for its continuing recognition as a fundamental postulate of
constitutional law." [Switzerland General Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Republic of the Philippines]
***The consent, to be effective, must come from the State acting through a duly enacted statute as
pointed out by Justice Bengzon in Mobil. Thus, whatever counsel for defendant Rice and Corn
Administration agreed to had no binding force on the government.