Immunity from Suit Flashcards
RP v. Feliciano (immunity from suit)
What happened?
Magsaysay ordered NARRA by proclamation to begin expropriation of a tract of land. Petitioner alleges he is owner of some of the land.
- General Rule and Exception about state immunity.
- When does Plaintiff need to allege immunity was waived?
- Does state does not need to allege immunity. (Sua Sponte)?
- Waiver must be stritissimi juris
RP v. Feliciano (immunity from suit)
- General Rule and Exception
By its caption and its allegation and prayer, the complaint is clearly a suit against the State, which under settled jurisprudence is not permitted, except upon a showing that the State has consented to be sued, either expressly or by implication through the use of statutory language too plain to be misinterpreted. - Plaintiff must allege immunity was waived.
The fact that the State waived its immunity from suit must be alleged immediately. - State does not need to allege immunity. (Sua Sponte)
- Waiver must be stritissimi juris
Waiver of immunity, being a derogation of sovereignty, will not be inferred lightly. but must be construed in strictissimi juris.
RP v. Sandoval (Mendiola Massacre)
- Immunity from Suit?
- Were Cory’s statements a waiver of state immunity?
- What is a suit against the state?
- Firstly, the recommendation made by the Commission regarding indemnification of the heirs of the deceased and the victims of the incident by the government does not in any way mean that liability automatically attaches to the State.
- Secondly, 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.
- Thirdly, the case does not qualify as a suit against the State.
Some instances when a suit against the State is proper are:
(1) When the Republic is sued by name;
(2) When the suit is against an unincorporated government agency;
(3) When the, suit is on its face against a government officer but the case is such that ultimate liability will belong not to the officer but to the government.
Ministerio v. CFI Cebu (Immunity from Suit - Bonus)
SC held that immunity from suit can’t be invoked if eminent domain was not properly invoked. (No just compensation)
(Alfonso v. Pasay - It was made clear in such decision that compensation should have been made “as far back as the date of the taking.)
The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen. Had the government followed the procedure indicated by the governing law at the time, a complaint would have been filed by it, and only upon payment of the compensation fixed by the judgment, or after tender to the party entitled to such payment of the amount fixed, may it “have the right to enter in and upon the land so condemned” to appropriate the same to the public use defined in the judgment.” If there were an observance of procedural regularity, petitioners would not be in the sad plaint they are now. It is unthinkable then that precisely because there was a failure to abide by what the law requires, the government would stand to benefit. It is just as important, if not more so, that there be fidelity to legal norms on the part of officialdom if the rule of law were to be maintained.
ATO v. David (Immunity from Suit - Inequitable to claim)
ATO (Air Transpo Office) was using petitioner’s land as runway. Petitioner found out and agreed to sell the ladn. ATO failed to provide compensation.
ATO as defense invoked immunity from suit.
- Theoretical Reason for Immunity
- Practical Reason for Immunity
- GR - Unincorporated gov. agency immune - WHY?
- Exceptions - Proprietary v. Governmental Function Immunity?
- Theoretical Reason for Immunity
A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but 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.
- Practical Reason for Immunity
Otherwise, and the State is suable at the instance of every other individual, government service may be severely obstructed and public safety endangered because of the number of suits that the State has to defend against.
- GR - Unincorporated gov. agency immune - WHY?
An unincorporated government agency without any separate juridical personality of its own enjoys immunity from suit because it is invested with an inherent power of sovereignty. Accordingly, a claim for damages against the agency cannot prosper; otherwise, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is violated. - Exceptions - Proprietary v. Governmental Function
However, the need to distinguish between an unincorporated government agency performing governmental function and one performing proprietary functions has arisen. The immunity has been upheld in favor of the former because its function is governmental or incidental to such function; it has not been upheld in favor of the latter whose function was not in pursuit of a necessary function of government but was essentially a business.
DOH v. PhilPharmawealth (Immunity from Suit)
- Suability of the Government
Do government officials benefit from state immunity?
Immunity from suit will not avail because according to Sec. 1 Rule 58 of RoC, preliminary injunction may be directed against a party/court, agency/person
The only causes of action against DOH et al. are preliminary injunction and mandamus
State immunity does not apply in causes of action which DO NOT seek to impose a charge/financial liability against the STATE
State immunity is applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts performed by them in the discharge of their duties
This is when judgment against the officials will require the STATE ITSELF to perform a positive act (e.g. pay damages)
BUT, this rule is not all-encompassing (see Shauf v. CA)
UNAUTHORIZED acts of gov’t officials are NOT ACTS OF THE STATE
An action against an official by one whose rights have been violated is not a suit against the state
While claiming to act for the state, they violate the rights of plaintiff (unconstitutional act, assumption of authority he does not have), it is not a suit against the state
State immunity cannot be used as an instrument of injustice
State immunity does not apply where the official is charged for acts that are unauthorized/unlawful/injurious to the rights of others
It does not apply where the official is being sued, not in his official capacity, but in his PERSONAL capacity
In this case, suing individual petitioners (Sec. and Usecs.) for acts done in bad faith, with full knowledge of the limits of their power, is PERMISSIBLE
City of Bacolod v. Phuture Visions (Immunity from suit)
The Bingo Case
- Immunity from suit explanation (Practical)
- Issuance of License governmental or proprietary?
- Liable for damages?
- Estoppel for LGU?
- What is the rationale behind immunity from suit?
The principle of immunity from suit is embodied in Section 3, Article XVI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which states that “[t]he State cannot be sued without its consent.” The purpose behind this principle is to prevent the loss of governmental efficiency as a result of the time and energy it would require to defend itself against lawsuits.29 The State and its political subdivisions are open to suit only when they consent to it. - Issuance of License is Governmental function therefore immunity from suit applies.
However, while the authority of city mayors to issue or grant licenses and business permits is granted by the Local Government Code (LGC),31 which also vests local government units with corporate powers, one of which is the power to sue and be sued, this Court has held that the power to issue or grant licenses and business permits is not an exercise of the government’s proprietary function. Instead, it is in an exercise of the police power of the State, ergo a governmental act.
- Liable for damages?
Petitioners are not liable for damages
-Phuture had no right and/or authority to operate bingo games at SM Bacolod because it did not have a permit
-Petitioners acted lawfully in stopping the bingo operations and closing it due to the lack of the permit
-Permit granted was different from the operations of Phuture
-The location Phuture put in the form was a different location, not SM Bacolod
-We adhere to the principle that injury alone does not give respondent the right to recover damages, but it must also have a right of action for the legal wrong inflicted by petitioners.
Lockheed Detective and Watchmen v. UP (Express Consent)
MONEY CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
- COA
- Act No. 3038
- CA 327 as amended by PD 1445 Section 26.
All COA which has primary jurisdiction to examine, audit and settle “all debts and claims of any sort” due from or owing the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.
UP tried to prevent its money by saying they were PUBLIC FUNDS. It didn’t work since UP is incorporated and the function
CONSENT BY PARTICIPATION in SUIT (Implied)
This Court finds that the CA correctly applied the NEA case. Like NEA, UP is a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government and has the capacity to sue and be sued. Thus, also like NEA, it cannot evade execution, and its funds may be subject to garnishment or levy. However, before execution may be had, a claim for payment of the judgment award must first be filed with the COA. Under Commonwealth Act No. 327, as amended by Section 26 of P.D. No. 1445,23 it is the COA which has primary jurisdiction to examine, audit and settle “all debts and claims of any sort” due from or owing the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. With respect to money claims arising from the implementation of Republic Act No. 6758 their allowance or disallowance is for COA to decide, subject only to the remedy of appeal by petition for certiorari to this Court.
Dep. of Agri v. NLRC (Express Consent)
Act 3083 - is a general waiver of consent for certain situations.
CA 327 as amended by PD 1445 - Procedure for claiming against the government (COA)
Act 3083 is a general waiver of consent.
Act 3083 allows you to sue the DA even if it hired guards pursuant to its GOVERNMENTAL functions and even if DA is UNINCORPORATED.
Carabao, Inc., vs. Agricultural Productivity Commission, 20 we ruled:
(C)laimants have to prosecute their money claims against the Government under Commonwealth Act 327, stating that Act 3083 stands now merely as the general law waiving the State’s immunity from suit, subject to the general limitation expressed in Section 7 thereof that “no execution shall issue upon any judgment rendered by any Court against the Government of the (Philippines), and that the conditions provided in Commonwealth Act 327 for filing money claims against the Government must be strictly observed.”
Meritt v. Gov. of the Philippine Islands (Express Consent)
Vicarious Liability for Special Agents
The Government is only liable for the acts of its agents officers and employees when they a special agents within the meaning of the provision [Art. 2180(6) CC]
If the guy was given a specific order on what and how to do then the government is liable. If the guy had discretion the government is not liable.
CC2180
That according to paragraph 5 of article 1903 of the Civil Code and the principle laid down in a decision, among others, of the 18th of May, 1904, in a damage case, the responsibility of the state is limited to that which it contracts through a special agent, duly empowered by a DEFINITE ORDER or commission to perform some act or charged with some definite purpose which gives rise to the claim, and not where the claim is based on acts or omissions imputable to a public official charged with some administrative or technical office who can be held to the proper responsibility in the manner laid down by the law of civil responsibility.
PNB v. CIR (Express Consent - Incorporated Gov Agency)
In PNB one of the principle contentions is that PHHC was claiming it benefited from immunity from the state. It’s funds were public in character so its funds could not be garnished.
Did the court allow garnishment?
It did because PHHC was a GOCC.
By engaging itself in a particular business through an instrumentality of a corporation, it creates a prohac vice for this case to be sued.
Because GOCC charters usually have provisions saying it may consent to be sued
The main question in this case is whether or not the funds of People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation a Government-Owned and Controlled Corporation (GOCC) can be subject to garnishment. The Court ruled in the affirmative, GOCCs can be subject to garnishment because they are separate juridical entities.
In a 1941 decision, Manila Hotel Employees Association v. Manila Hotel Company, 8 this Court, through Justice Ozaeta, held: “On the other hand, it is well settled that when the government enters into commercial business, it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation. (Bank of the United States v. Planters’ Bank, 9 Wheat, 904, 6 L.ed. 244). By engaging in a particular business thru the instrumentality of a corporation, the governmnent divests itself pro hac vice of its sovereign character, so as to render the corporation subject to the rules of law governing private corporations.”
Mobil Philippines Exploration v. Arrastre Service (Express Consent)
Department under DoF
Unincorporated
-Arrastre is part of BuCo which is under DoF
Customs serves a private function
-Their role is a private function, but the court said no because its private operations are incidental to the primary function.
-It is not a waiver of suit
NEA v. Morales (Execution)
Q — A judgment was rendered against the National Electrification Administration to settle the claims of some employees to extend to them the benefits and allowances to which they are entitled to. Upon its becoming final and executory, a motion for execution was filed which was granted. A writ of execution was issued and thereafter, there was garnishment of funds of the NEA to the extent of P16, 581,429.00. There was a motion to quash the writ which was denied, but ordered the suspension of its implementation. Later on, the RTC denied the Motion for an Order to Implement the Writ of Execution. The CA upon petition for certiorari reversed the order ruling that it is subject to court processes like levy or garnishment. Is the ruling correct? Why?
ANS: No. Without question, NEA is a GOCC, a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government, with capacity to sue, and be sued. (PD 269, Sec. 4). As such, it cannot evade execution; its funds may be garnished or levied upon in satisfaction of a judgment rendered against it. However, before execution may proceed against it, a claim for payment of the judgment award must first be filed with the COA. (Parreño v. COA, G.R. No. 162224, June 7, 2007).
Under Commonwealth Act No. 327, as amended by Section 26 of P.D. No. 1445, it is the COA which has primary jurisdiction to examine, audit and settle “all debts and claims of any sort” due from or owing the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. With respect to money claims arising from the implementation of R.A. No. 6758, their allowance or disallowance is for COA to decide, subject only to the remedy of appeal by petition for certiorari to the Court.
The rule is that, the funds of NEA cannot be proceeded upon pursuant to the decision because the decision sought to be satisfied is not a judgment for a specific sum of money susceptible of execution by garnishment; it is a special judgment requiring petitioner to settle the claims of respondents in accordance with existing regulations of the COA. (Rule 39, Sec. 9(c), Rules of Court; NEA v. Morales, G.R. No. 154200, July 24, 2007).
-Garnishment is proper only when the judgment to be enforced is one for payment of a sum of money. (Rule 39 Sec. 9(c))
-This was
Section 11. Execution of special judgments. — When a judgment requires the performance of any act other than those mentioned in the two preceding sections
The court wanted petitioner and respondent to work out how much they owed I think.
Commissioner of Public Highways v. San Diego (31 SCRA 617, 625 [1970], this Court explicitly stated:
- Judgment only goes until before execution why?
SINCE no separate personality
-Disbursement if government funds must be covered by appropriations as required by law.
- How are claims made?
COA always required if government owned or controlled or part of goverment or separate personality etc ALWAYS.
- Judgment only goes until before execution why?
“The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either by general or special law, it may limit claimant’s action only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution and the power of the court ends when the judgment is rendered, since government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such judgment, is based on obvious considerations of public policy. Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the corresponding appropriation as required by law. The functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects as appropriated by law.” - How are claims made?
Moreover, it is settled jurisprudence that upon determination of State liability, the prosecution, enforcement or satisfaction thereof must still be pursued in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in P.D. No. 1445, otherwise known as the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines (Department of Agriculture v. NLRC, 227 SCRA 693, 701-02 [1993] citing Republic v. Villasor, 54 SCRA 84 [1973]). All money claims against the Government must “first be filed with the Commission on Audit which must act upon it within sixty days. Rejection of the claim will authorize the claimant to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court on certiorari and in effect sue the State thereby (P.D. 1445, Sections 49-50).”
