F. State Immunity Flashcards
Bishop Arigo of Palawan filed a petition for the issuance of Writ of Kalikasan and impleaded US officials in their capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy. He argues that there is a waiver of immunity from suit found in the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) between the US and the Philippines, and invoke federal statutes in the US under which agencies of the US have statutorily waived their immunity to any action. Is he correct?
A: NO. The VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of United States troops and personnel visiting the Philippines to promote “common security interests” between the aforementioned countries.
The invocation of US federal tort laws and even common law is thus improper considering that it is the VFA which governs disputes involving US military ships and crew navigating Philippine waters in pursuance of the objectives of the agreement.
However, the waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and applicable only to US personnel under VFA and not to special civil actions such as the present petition for issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan.
The principle of State immunity therefore bars the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court over the persons of the US Officials. (Arigo v. Swift, G.R. No. 206510, 16 Sept. 2014)
Give examples of Express consent
i. Act No. 3083 and CA 327 as amended by Secs. 49-50, PD 1445 – Money claims arising from contracts which could serve as a basis of civil action between private parties to be first filed with COA before a suit may be filed in court. The COA must act upon the claim within 60 days. Rejection of the claim authorizes the claimant to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court on certiorari.
ii. Art. 2180, NCC – Tort committed by special agent;
iii. Art. 2189, NCC – LGUs liable for injuries or death caused by defective condition of roads or public works under their control (City of Manila v. Teotico, et al., G.R. No. L-23052, 29 Jan. 1968);
iv. Sec. 22(2), RA 7160, LGC of 1991 – LGUs have power to sue and be sued; and
v. Sec. 24 of LGC – LGUs and their officials are not exempt from liability for death or injury or damage to property
Mendiola massacre: Respondent Judge Sandoval dismissed the complaint on the ground of state immunity from suit. Petitioners argued that the State has impliedly waived its immunity from suit with the recommendation of the Commission to indemnify the heirs and victims of the Mendiola incident by the government and by the public addresses made by then President Aquino in the aftermath of the killings. Is the argument meritorious?
A: NO. The actions of President Aquino cannot be deemed as a waiver of State immunity.
Whatever acts or utterances that then President Aquino may have done or said, the same are not tantamount to the State having waived its immunity from suit.
The President’s act of joining the marchers, days after the incident, does not mean that there was an admission by the State of any liability.
Moreover, petitioners rely on President Aquino’s speech promising that the government would address the grievances of the rallyists.
By this alone, it cannot be inferred that the State has admitted any liability, much less can it be inferred that it has consented to the suit.
(Republic v. Sandoval, G.R. No. 84607, 19 Mar. 1993
How is immunity from suit waived through a special law?
By virtue of PD 1620, the grant of immunity to IRRI is clear and unequivocal, and an express waiver by its Director General is the only way by which it may relinquish or abandon this immunity. (Callado, v. IRRI, G.R. No. 106483, 22 May 1995)
Give the instances when the state gave implied consent of immunity from suit.
a. When the State commences litigation, it
becomes vulnerable to counterclaim.
b. When State enters into a business contract.
Give the capacities of the State in entering into contracts
- In jure gestionis – By right of economic or business relations; commercial, or proprietary acts. MAY BE SUED. (US v. Guinto)
- In jure imperii – By right of sovereign power and in the exercise of sovereign functions. No implied consent. (US v. Ruiz)
When suit is considered as suit against the State
- The Republic is sued by name;
- The suit is against an unincorporated government agency performing propriety functions; and
- The suit is on its face against a government officer but the case is such that ultimate liability will belong to the government. (Republic v. Sandoval)
Spouses Sison sued the Philippine National Railways for damages for the death of their son who fell from an overloaded train belonging to the PNR. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the charter of the PNR, as amended by P.D. No. 741, has made the same a government instrumentality, and thus immune from suit. Is the dismissal proper?
A: NO. The PNR is not immune from suit. It did not remove itself from the operation of Arts. 1732 to 1766 of the Civil Code on common carriers.
Not all government entities, whether corporate or noncorporate, are immune from suits. Immunity from suit is determined by the character of the objects for which the entity is organized.
When the government enters into a commercial business, it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation.
In this case, the State divested itself of its sovereign capacity when it organized the PNR which is no different from its predecessors, the Manila Railroad Company. (Spouses Malong v. PNRC, G.R. No. L-49930, 07 Aug. 1985)
Summ: Immunity from suit is determined by the character of the objects for which the entity is organized.
UNINCORPORATED GOVERNMENT AGENCY PERFORMING GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS vs. UNINCORPORATED GOVERNMENT AGENCY PERFORMING PROPRIETARY FUNCTIONS
Immunity has been upheld in its favor.
Vs.
Immunity has not been upheld in its favor (Air Transportation Office v. Sps. David, G.R. No. 159402, 23 Feb. 2011)
Q: E.A. Ramirez filed before the RTC a Complaint for Breach of Contract with Damages against PTRI and a number of its employees. E.A. Ramirez alleged that PTRI acted in bad faith in terminating their Contract of Work. PTRI et al. filed a Motion to Dismiss, invoking the privilege of state immunity from suit.
They asserted that PTRI is an agency of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) and thus cannot be sued without the consent of the State.
PTRI alleged that the immunity extended to the impleaded employees of PTRI since they were sued while they were performing official or governmental functions.
Is PTRI et al., correct?
A: NO. It is not disputed that PTRI is an unincorporated national government agency. Hence, being an unincorporated government agency that exercises a governmental function, the PTRI enjoys immunity from suit.
Further, its employees acting in their official capacity likewise enjoy this immunity from suit, as public officials may not be sued for acts done in the performance of their official functions or within the scope of their authority.
However, the rule on State immunity from suit is not absolute. The State may be sued with its consent, which may be given either expressly or impliedly.
Express consent may be made through a general law or a special law. As held in Department of Agriculture v. National Labor Relations Commission, “the general law waiving the immunity of the state from suit is found in Act No. 3083, where the Philippine government consents and submits to be sued upon any money claim involving liability arising from contract, express or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil action between private parties.
In this case, PTRI is being sued upon a claim involving liability arising from a contract. Hence, the general law on the waiver of immunity from suit finds application.
There is implied consent when the State 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. However, not all contracts entered into by the government operate as a waiver of its non-suability; distinction must still be made between one which is executed in the exercise of its sovereign functions and another which is done in its proprietary capacity.
Here, not only did PTRI descend to the level of a contracting party by entering into the subject contract, under the subject contract itself, which contemplated a situation wherein legal action may arise from the execution of the agreement and incorporating provisions on the procedures to be undertaken in settling legal disputes, PTRI also manifested unequivocally its consent to be subjected to suit with respect to disputes arising from the subject contract. (Philippine Textile Research Institute, et al. v. Court of Appeals and E.A. Ramirez Construction)
Rule on the liabilities of the following:
- Public officers
- Government agencies
- Government
- Public officers – By their acts without or in excess of jurisdiction: any injury caused by him is his own personal liability and cannot be imputed to the State.
- Government agencies – Establish whether or not the State, as principal which may ultimately be held liable, has given its consent.
- Government – Doctrine of State immunity is available.
What are the instances when a public officer may be sued without the State’s consent (Co-Re-Pa-Ju-Vi)
(Co-Re-Pa-Ju-Vi)
- To Compel him to do an act required by law;
- To Restrain him from enforcing an act claimed to be unconstitutional;
- To compel Payment of damages from an already appropriated assurance fund or to refund tax over-payments from a fund already available for the purpose;
- To secure a Judgment that the officer impleaded may satisfy the judgment by himself without the State having to do a positive act to assist him; or
- Where the government itself has Violated its own laws because the doctrine of State immunity cannot be used to perpetrate an injustice.
For a public officer what is the test whether the suit against him is a suit against the State?
GR: The true test in determining whether a suit against a public officer is a suit against the State is that, if a public officer or agency is sued and made liable, the State will have to perform an affirmative act of appropriating the needed amount to satisfy the judgment. If the State will have to do so, then, it is a suit against the State.
XPNs:
- The public official is charged in his official capacity for acts that are unlawful and injurious to the rights of others. Public officials are not exempt, in their personal capacity, from liability arising from acts committed in bad faith; or
- The public official is clearly being sued not in his official capacity but in his personal capacity, although the acts complained of may have been committed while he occupied a public position. (Lansang v. CA, G.R. No. 102667, 23 Feb. 2000)
Summ: if a public officer or agency is sued and made liable, the State will have to perform an affirmative act of appropriating the needed amount to satisfy the judgment.
- official capacity for acts that are unlawful and injurious to the rights of others.
- personal capacity
Can government funds be garnished? Give exceptions.
GR: Whether the money is deposited by way of general or special deposit, they remain government funds and are not subject to garnishment.
XPN: Where a law or ordinance has been enacted appropriating a specific amount to pay a valid government obligation, then the money can be garnished.
What is the remedy if the local legislative authority refuses to enact a law appropriating the money judgment rendered by the court?
If the local legislative authority refuses to enact a law appropriating the money judgment rendered by the court, the winning party may file a petition for mandamus to compel the legislative authority to enact a law. (Municipality of Makati v. CA)
