DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY

GENERAL RULE

BASIS

ART. XVI, Sec. 3., 1987 Constitution The State may not be sued without its consent.
1. impairment of dignity of the State
2. challenge to its supposed infallibility
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. there can be no legal rights against the authority which makes

JUSTIFICATION

the law on which the night depends.

Additional Justification. demands and inconveniences of litigation will divert time and resources of the
State from more pressing matters demanding its attention to the prejudice of public welfare.
WHO MAY AVAIL OF STATE IMMUNITY
Garcia v. Chief of Staff, 16 SCRA 120 claim for damages filed by
Rationale:

STATE

State is insulated from jurisdiction of

courts of justices

Mariano Garcia for injuries he sustained while undergoing military

training albeit filed against AFP Chief of Staff was actually suits
against the State, which should be dismissed because the State has
not given its consent.

Amigable v. Cuenca, 43 SCRA 360 where government takes away

private property (owned by Victoria Amigable) for public use (road)
without expropriation negotiated sale, aggrieved party may sue
govt. (PH Commissioner, Nicolas Cuenca) without violating the
doctrine of immunity from suit.
Veterans Manpower v. CA, 214 SCRA 286 Veteran Manpowers
claim for damages against PC Chief is suit against the State, since it
Acts Performed:
PUBLIC OFFICERS

a) in the discharge of official duties

b) within the scope of their authority

was against public officer in the discharge of official governmental

functions.
Festejo v. Fernando, 50 O.G. 1556 Public Works Director Isaias
Fernando, who without authority took property owned by Carmen
Festejo and constructed irrigation canal theron, cannot claim that
he is a public agent acting under the color of his office.

Incorporated: consult charter;

PNR v. IAC, 217 SCRA 401 Baliwag Transit filed suits against PNR

a) suable if charter says so for damages it sustained arising from vehicular collision arising from
GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES

regardless of function

PNRs negligence. PNR invoked the defense of immunity from suit.

Unincorporated: determine function;

HELD:

a) suable - proprietary

essentially a business concern, and thus barred from invoking

b) not suable: governmental

immunity from suit.

PNR is created to operate transport service which is

Farolan v. CTA, 217 SCRA 298 BOC cannot be held liable for
actual damages which Bagong Buhay Trading sustained with regard
to its missing goods in the custody of BOC for it would violate the
doctrine of sovereign immunity. As an unincorporated government
agency without any separate juridical personality of its own, BOC
enjoys immunity from suit.
Bureau of Printing v. BOPEA, 1 SCRA 340 BOPEA filed with CIR
complaint for unfair labor practices against officials of BOP, who
interposed the defense that BOP has no juridical personality to sue
and be sued. HELD: as an office of the Government, without any
corporate or juridical personality, BOP cannot be sued.

with immunity when sued in Holy See v. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524 Starbright filed complaint for
courts of local State.
FOREIGN STATES

annulment of sale and damages against the Holy See in connection

with a property owned by the latter which is the subject matter of

Rationale: par in parem non habet a contract to sell. Trial Court ruled that Holy See shed off its
imperium (an equal has no power sovereign immunity by entering into business contract in question.
over an equal)

HELD: Holy See is duly accredited diplomatic mission exempt from

local jurisdiction and entitled to immunities.

Minucher v. CA, G.R. No. 142396, Feb. 11, 2003 Minucher filed
with immunity when acting suit for damages against Arthur Scalzo, US DEA Agent, who
DIPLOMATIC
AGENTS

within

the

directives

of

government

his together with Phil. narcotic agents conducted buy-bust operations

against Minucher. HELD: a US DEA Agent allowed by the Phil.
govt to help contain the problem on the drug traffic, is entitl4ed to
the defense of state immunity from suit.

with immunity:
INTERNATIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS

Callado v. IRRI, 244 SCRA 210 Ernesto Callado, driver at IRRI,

figured in vehicular accident while driving an IRRI vehicle and under

raison

detre:

assurance

of the influence of liquor. He filed complaint before Labor Arbiter for

unimpeded performance of their illegal dismissal. IRRI interposed the defense of immunity. HELD:
functions

IRRI is an international organization entitled to immunity.

WAIVER OF IMMUNITY
I. EXPRESS CONSENT
GENERAL LAW

Act 3083 (March 16, 1923)

DA v. NLRC, 227 SCRA 693 ...may constitute money claims. DA

- Govt. Of P.I. hereby consents and may be sued for money claims based on contract for security
submits to be

sued

moneyed

involving

claim

upon any services because of express consent contained in Act. 3038

liability

arising from contract, express or Republic v. Feliciano, 148 SCRA 424 Proclamation is not a
implied, which could serve as basis of legislative act. Waiver of immunity can only be made by an act of
civil action between private parties.

the legislative body.

Republic v. Purisma, 78 SCRA 470 Whatever counsel for RCA
agreed to had no binding force on the government. The consent, to
be effective, must come from the State acting through a duly
enacted statute.

SPECIAL LAW

Act 2457 (Feb. 3, 1915)

Merritt v. Govt of P.I., 18 SCRA 1120 in 1913 an ambulance of

- authorizing E. Merritt to bring suit General Hospital called with motorcycle driven by Merritt for
against the Govt of P.I.

which he was severely injured. Congress passed Act 2457 in 1915

authorizing him to sue the govt.

2. IMPLIED CONSENT
STATE
COMMENCES

Rule:

it becomes vulnerable

counterclaim

LITIGATION

to Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping, G.R. No. L-6060, Sept. 30, 1950
Govt. Impliedly allowed itself to be sued when it filed complained in
intervention for recovery of a vessel filed by Fernando Froilan.
Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 204 SCRA 212 PCGC filed case against
Bienvenido Tantoco, who filed counterclaim. HELD: PCGC cannot
resist the counterclaim against it. The suggestion that State makes
no implied waiver of immunity by filing suit except when it acts in
its proprietary capacity, is unstoppable; it attempts a distinction
without support in principle or precedent.

STATE ENTERS

suable in its proprietary capacity;

INTO CONTRACT

Mobil Phil. v. Customs Arrastre Service, 18 SCRA 1120 For its

missing shipment, Mobil filed claim for damages against CAS and

not suable in its governmental BOC. HELD:

capacity.

Although arrastre function may be deemed

proprietary, it is a necessary incident of the primary and

governmental function of BOC, so that engaging in the same does
not necessarily render said Bureau liable to suit.

SCOPE OF CONTENT
RULE

Consent to be sued does not include consent to the execution of judgment against it.
Republic v. Villasor, 54 SCRA 84 Republic filed petition for prohibition against Judge Guillermo Villasor,
who ordered the garnishments of AFP funds deposited with PVB and PNB. HELD: Public funds cannot be

ILLUSTRATIVE

the object of garnishment proceeding even if the consent to be sued had been previously granted and the

CASES

state liability adjudged. Disbursements of public funds must be covered by corresponding appropriation as
required by law.
PNB v. Pabalan, 83 SCRA 595 Judge Javier Pabalan issued a notice of garnishment of the funds of PVTA
deposited with PNB. Thus, PNB instituted petition for prohibition against Judge Pabalan. HELD: Funds
belonging to government corporations (whose charter provide that they can sue and be sued) that are
deposited with a bank are not exempt from garnishment.
TWO CONCEPTS OF FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

CLASSICAL

Sovereign cannot, without its consent, be sued in the courts of another sovereign.

(Absolute Theory)
CLASSICAL
(Absolute Theory)

Immunity of sovereign is recognized only with regard to public acts or acts jure imperii of a state, but not
with regard to private acts or acts jure gestionis

COMMENTS ON RESTRICTIVE THEORY

PROBLEM NOT A
SOLUTION
Genesis of
Restrictive Theory

Difficulty in characterizing whether a contact of sovereign state with private part is act jure imperii or act
jur gestionis.
Entry of sovereign states into purely commercial activities. This is particularly true with respect to
communist states, which took control of nationalized business activities and international trading.
ACTS JURE IMPERII (by right of dominion)

public act
Syquia v. Almeda Lopez

1. Lease by foreign government of apartment buildings for use of its military officer.

84 Phil. 312
US v. Ruiz

2. Conduct of public bidding for the repair of wharf at US Naval Station.

136 SCRA 487

Sanders v. Veridano

3. Change of employment status of base employees.

163 SCRA 88

ACTS JURE GESTIONIS (by right of management)

1. Hiring of cook in recreation center at John Hay Air Station to cater to American

USA v. Rodrigo

servicemen and the general public.

USA v. Guinto
2. Bidding for operation of barber shops in Clark Air Base.

182 SCRA 644

SUABILITY v. LIABILITY
SUABILITY

The result of express or implied consent of the State to sue.

LIABILITY

Determined after hearing based on relevant laws and established facts.

RULE

Waiver of immunity concession of liability

Torio v. Fontanilla, 85 SCRA 599 municipality is liable for a tort committed in connection with the
celebration of town fiesta, which was considered as proprietary function.

ILLUSTRATIVE

Merritt v. Govt of P.I., 18 SCRA 1120 Merritt albeit allowed to sue by virtue of special law but

CASES

was unable to hold defendant liable when it was shown that his injuries were caused by regular
driver of the government.
Palafox v. Prov. Ilocos Norte, G.R. No. L-10659 claim for damages against the province failed
when it was shown that the injury suffered occurred in connection with the repair of streets being
undertaken by the province through its regular agents.