The Doctrine of State Immunity Flashcards
What is just compensation in the Philippines?
is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the loss of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. Its true measure is not the taker’s gain, but the owner’s loss.
BPEA (respondents) filed a complaint by an acting prosecutor of the Industrial Court against petitioners BOP (secretary of Department of General Services and Director of BOP). The complaint alleged that both the secretary of DOG and the director of BOP have been engaging in unfair labor practices. Answering the complaint, the petitioners (BOP), denied the charges of unfair labor practices attributed to them and alleged that the BPEA complainants were suspended pending result of administrative investigation against them for breach of Civil Service rules and regulations; that the BOP is not an industrial concern engaged for the purpose of gain but of the republic performing governmental functions. For relief, they prayed that the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. But later on January 27, 1959, the trial judge of Industrial Court sustained the jurisdiction of the court on the theory that the functions of the BOP are “exclusively proprietary in nature,” since they receives outside jobs and that many of its employees are paid for overtime work on regular working days and holidays, therefore consequently denied the prayed for dismissal, which brought the petitioners (BOP) to present petition for certiorari and prohibition.
As an office of the Government, without any corporate or juridical personality, the BOP cannot be sued (Sec.1, Rule 33, Rules of court).
It is true that BOP receives outside jobs and that many of its employees are paid for overtime work on regular working days and holidays, but these facts do not justify the conclusion that its functions are “exclusively proprietary in nature”. Overtime work in the BOP is done only when the interest of the service so requires. As a matter of administrative policy, the overtime compensation may be paid, but such payment is discretionary with the head of the Bureau depending upon its current appropriations, so that it cannot be the basis for holding that the functions of said Bureau are wholly proprietary in character.
Four cases of rotary drill parts were shipped from abroad consigned to Mobil Philippines. The Customs Arrastre later delivered to the broker of the consignee three cases only of the shipment. Mobil Philippines Exploration Inc. filed suit in the CFI against the Customs Arrastre Service and the Bureau of Customs to recover the value of the undelivered cases plus other damages.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that not being a person under the law, defendants cannot be sued.
After the plaintiff opposed the motion, the court dismissed the complaint on the ground that neither the Customs Arrastre Service nor the Bureau of Customs is suable.
NO. The Bureau of Customs, acting as part of the machinery of the national government in the operations of arrastre service, pursuant to express legislative mandate and a necessary incident of its prime governmental function, is immune from suit, there being no statute to the contrary.
Petitioners sought the payment of just compensation for a registered lot alleging that in 1927 the National Government through its authorized representatives took physical and material possession of it and used it for the widening of a national road, without paying just compensation and without any agreement, either written or verbal. There was an allegation of repeated demands for the payment of its price or return of its possession, but defendants Public Highway Commissioner and the Auditor General refused to restore its possession.
ISSUE: Whether or not the defendants are immune from suit.
NO. Where the judgment in such a case would result not only in the recovery of possession of the property in favor of said citizen but also in a charge against or financial liability to the Government, then the suit should be regarded as one against the government itself, and, consequently, it cannot prosper or be validly entertained by the court except with the consent of said Government.
Can the president make a waiver of immunity
NO because waiver must be controlled by the legislature and not by the executive.
Take Note
When the state consents to be sued, it cannot be inferred from such consent that the state concedes its liability. Consent simply means waiver of immunity from suit and it does not deprive the state of the right to interpose any lawful defense.
Petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages after being dismissed from their employment with the United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration (UNRFNRE) which was involved in a joint project of the Philippine Government and the United Nations for exploration work in Dinagat Island. The UNRFNRE filed a Motion to Dismiss and alleged that respondent Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over its personality since the UNRFNRE enjoyed diplomatic immunity pursuant to the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, stating that the presence of the private respondent in the Philippines was not because of a commercial venture but because of a joint project entered into by the Philippine Government and the United Nations for mineral exploration in Dinagat Island. The mission of the UNRFNRE was not to exploit our natural resources and gain monetarily but to help improve the quality of life of the people which included that of the petitioners.
Petitioner Ernesto Callado was employed as a driver at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). On February 11, 1990, while driving an IRRI vehicle on an official trip to the Ninoy Aquino International Airport and back to the IRRI, petitioner figured in an accident. After evaluating petitioner’s answer, explanations and other evidence by IRRI’s Human Resource Development Department Manager, the latter issued a Notice of Termination to petitioner on December 7, 1990.
Petitioner then filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension and indemnity pay with moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Private respondent likewise informed the Labor Arbiter, through counsel, that the Institute enjoys immunity from legal process by virtue of Article 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1620, and that it invokes such diplomatic immunity and privileges as an international organization in the instant case filed by petitioner, not having waived the same.
However, the Labor Arbiter finds private respondent IRRI to have waived its immunity considered the defense of immunity no longer a legal obstacle in resolving the case.
The Court ruled in the negative and vote to dismiss the petition. There’s no merit in petitioner’s arguments, thus IRRI’s immunity from suit is undisputed.
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.
ACT NO. 3083
AN ACT DEFINING THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS MAY BE SUED
Commonwealth Act No. 327.—An Act fixing the time within which the Auditor General shall render his decisions and prescribing the manner of appeal therefrom.
In all cases involving the settlement of accounts or claims, other than those of accountable officers, the Auditor General shall act and decide the same within sixty days, exclusive of Sundays and holidays, after their presentation.
Article 2176 Civil Code
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
Article 2180 Civil Code
The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
During the height of that infamous typhoon “KADING” the respondent corporation, acting through its plant superintendent, Benjamin Chavez, opened or caused to be opened simultaneously all the three floodgates of the Angat Dam. And as a direct and immediate result of the sudden, precipitate and simultaneous opening of said floodgates several towns in Bulacan were inundated. Hardest-hit was Norzagaray. About a hundred of its residents died or were reported to have died and properties worth million of pesos destroyed or washed away. Cases were filed against the respondent.Respondent argued that “in the operation of the Angat Dam,” it is “performing a purely governmental function”, hence it “can not be sued without the express consent of the State.”
Were the functions of National Power Corporation in the management of dam non-governmental and that it can be sued for tort?
YES.
It is not necessary to write an extended dissertation on whether or not the NPC performs a governmental function with respect to the management and operation of the Angat Dam. It is sufficient to say that the government has organized a private corporation, put money in it and has allowed it to sue and be sued in any court under its charter. As a government owned and controlled corporation, it has a personality of its own, distinct and separate from that of the Government. Moreover, the charter provision that the NPC can “sue and be sued in any court” is without qualification on the cause of action and accordingly it can include a tort claim such as the one instituted by the petitioners.
The Court clarifies that there are two kinds of consent:
(1) express consent, which may be made either through a general law or a special law; and (2) implied consent, which is conceded when the State either commences litigation or enters into a contract.
On April 1, 1989, the Department of Agriculture (DoA) office in Cagayan de Oro and Sultan Security Agency (SSA) entered into a contract where the latter was to provide security services to the former. On September 13, 1990, several guards from SSA filed a complaint for underpayment of wages, non-payment of 13th month pay, uniform allowances, night shift differential pay, holiday pay, as well as for damages, against DoA and SSA. Both the DoA and SSA were subsequently found guilty by the Executive Labor Arbiter, which also held both of them liable for the payment of money claims amounting to P266,483.91.
(a) Whether or not it was COA that has exclusive jurisdiction over money claims against the Government.(b) Whether or not DoA, as an agency of the State, is covered by the principle of the non-suability of the State.
A. Yes, the Court ruled that money claims against the Government should be filed before the Commission on Audit pursuant to CA Act No. 327 as amended by PD No. 1445. In the instant case, underpayment of wages, holiday pay, overtime pay, and other similar items arising from the Contract for Service clearly constitute money claims.
B. No, DoA cannot use the principle of non-suability of the State as an excuse not to be sued.
Section 3, Art. XVI of the 1987 Constitution states that “the State may not be sued without its consent.” This principle reflects a recognition of the sovereign character of the State and an express affirmation of the unwritten rule effectively insulating it from the jurisdiction of the courts.
