Macalinao, Romielyn P.

Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic: Non-suability of the State
Title: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE vs. NLRC
Reference: Nov. 11, 1993

FACTS

Petitioner Department of Agriculture and Sultan Security

Agency entered into a contract for security services to be provided by
the latter to the said governmental entity. Pursuant to their
arrangements, guards were deployed by Sultan Security Agency in the
various premises of the Department of Agriculture.

Thereafter, several guards filed a complaint for underpayment

of wages, nonpayment of 13th month pay, uniform allowances, night
shift differential pay, holiday pay, and overtime pay, as well as for
damages against the Department of Agriculture and the security
agency.

The Executive Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding the

Department of Agriculture jointly and severally liable with the security
agency for the payment of money claims of the complainant security
guards. The Department of Agriculture and the security agency did not
appeal the decision. Thus, the decision became final and executory.

Consequently, the Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution to

enforce and execute the judgment against the property of the
Department of Agriculture and the security agency. Thereafter, the
City Sheriff levied on execution the motor vehicles of the petitioner,
i.e. one (1) unit Toyota Hi-Ace, one (1) unit Toyota Mini Cruiser, and
one (1) unit Toyota Crown. 6 These units were put under the custody
of Zacharias Roa, the property custodian of the petitioner, pending
their sale at public auction or the final settlement of the case,
whichever would come first.

A petition for injunction, prohibition and mandamus, with

prayer for preliminary writ of injunction was filed by the petitioner with
the National Labor Relations Commission that the writ issued was
effected without the Labor Arbiter having duly acquired jurisdiction
over the petitioner, and that, the decision of the Labor Arbiter was null
and void and all actions pursuant thereto should be deemed equally
invalid and of no legal, effect.

Furthermore, the petitioner also pointed out that the

attachment or seizure of its property would hamper and jeopardize
petitioner's governmental functions to the prejudice of the public good.

ISSUES

Whether or not doctrine of non suability applies to the case?

RULINGS

Yes, immunity from suit may be invoked.

The basic postulate enshrined in the Constitution that the

State may not be sued without its consent reflects nothing less than a
recognition of the sovereign character of the State and an express
affirmation of the unwritten rule effectively insulating it from the
jurisdiction of courts. It is based on the very essence of sovereignty. A
sovereign is exempt from suit based 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.

In the case at bar, the Department of Agriculture has not

pretended to have assumed a capacity apart from its being a
governmental entity when it entered into the questioned contract; nor
that it could have, in fact, performed any act proprietary in character.

The rule is not really absolute for it does not say that the
State may not be sued under any circumstances. The State may at
times be sued.The States consent may be given expressly or
impliedly. Express consent may be made through a general law or a
special law. Implied consent, on the other hand, is conceded when the
State itself commences litigation, thus opening itself to a counterclaim,
or when it 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 function and another which is done in its proprietary
capacity. A State may be said to have descended to the level of an
individual and can this be deemed to have actually given its consent to
be sued only when it enters into business contracts. It does not apply
where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions.

But, be that as it may, the claims of the complainant security

guards clearly constitute money claims. Act No. 3083 gives the
consent of the State to be sued upon any moneyed claim involving
liability arising from contract, express or implied. Pursuant, however,
to Commonwealth Act 327, as amended by PD 1145, the money claim
must first be brought to the Commission on Audit.