GR. No.
152318 Whether or not GTZ shall enjoy the
GTZ versus Court of Appeals
FACTS:
On September 7, 1971, Federal
Republic of the Germany and Republic of
the Philippines ratified an agreement
concerning technical co-operation in Bonn,
capital of West Germany back then.
The agreement affirmed to promote
a project called Social Health Insurance,
Networking and Employment (SHINE)
SHINE is designed to enable
Philippine families-especially poor ones to
maintain their health and secure health care
of sustainable quality.
The Federal Republic of Germany
assigned the GTZ as the implementing
program, on the other hand, Republic of the
Philippines designated the Department of
Health and the Philippine Health Insurance
Corporation.
The private respondents this case,
employed under GTZ for the
implementation of the program, SHINE, in
which it had misunderstanding with the
Project Manager of SHINE. This
misunderstanding leads to exchanges of
letters which interpreted to be the
resignation of the private respondents.
Then, took an action by filing a case for
illegal dismissal to the labor Arbiter.
However, GTZ contends that they are
immune from suit since they are accredited
agency of the Federal Republic of Germany
for the project.
ISSUE:
State immunity from suit.
Ruling:
It is noted that it was imperative for
petitioners to secure from the Department
of Foreign Affairs "a certification of
respondents' diplomatic status and
entitlement to diplomatic privileges
including immunity from suits.
The requirement might not
necessarily be imperative. However, had
GTZ obtained such certification from the
DFA, it would have provided factual basis
for its claim of immunity that would, at the
very least, establish a disputable evidentiary
presumption that the foreign party is indeed
immune which the opposing party will have
to overcome with its own factual evidence.
We do not see why GTZ could not
have secured such certification or
endorsement from the DFA for purposes of
this case. Certainly, it would have been
highly prudential(sensible) for GTZ to obtain
the same after the Labor Arbiter had denied
the motion to dismiss.
Still, even at this juncture, we do not
see any evidence that the DFA, the office of
the executive branch in charge of our
diplomatic relations, has indeed endorsed
GTZ's claim of immunity.
It may be possible that GTZ tried,
but failed to secure such certification, due
to the same concerns that we have
discussed herein.

G.R. No. 206484
DOTC vs. Sps. Abecina
FACTS:
Respondents are registered owners
of five parcels of land in Sitio Paltik, Barrio
Sta. Rosa, Jose Panganiban, Camarines
Norte.
On dated February 1993, The
Department of Transportation and
Communication entered with the Digitel
Telecommunication Philippines, Inc. a
contract for the management, operation,
maintenance and development of a
Regional Telecommunications Development
under the National Telephone Program.
Later, The Municipality of Jose
Panganiban, Camarines Sur donated 1200
square meter parcel of land to DOTC for the
implementation of RTDP, was included the
portions of the respondent’s property in
donation.
Sometime, the respondents
discovered the occupation of the Digitel.
Then, they ordered to vacate the place and
pay damages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the DOTC shall enjoy
the State immunity from suit
RULING:
The State may not be sued without
its consent. This fundamental doctrine
stems from the principle that there can be
no legal right against the authority which
makes the law on which the right
depends. This generally accepted principle
of law has been explicitly expressed in both
the 1973 and the present Constitutions.
But as the principle itself implies, the
doctrine of state immunity is not absolute.
The State may waive its cloak of immunity
and the waiver may be made expressly or
by implication.
The Constitution identifies the
limitations to the awesome and near-
limitless powers of the State.
Chief among these limitations are
the principles that no person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law and that private
property shall not be taken for public use
without just compensation.(Bill of Rights)
Consequently, our laws require that
the State's power of eminent domain shall
be exercised through expropriation
proceedings in court. Whenever private
property is taken for public use, it becomes
the ministerial duty of the concerned office
or agency to initiate expropriation
proceedings. By necessary implication, the
filing of a complaint for expropriation is a
waiver of State immunity.
G.R. No. 106483
Callado vs. IRRI
ISSUE:
Ernesto Callado was employed as a
driver at the International Rice Research
Institute.
On dated February 11, 1990, while
he was driving an IRRI vehicle on an official
trip to the NAIA and back to IRRI, Petitioner
figured in an accident.
However, the Petitioner was
terminated after the Preliminary
Investigation conducted by the IRRI,
charging him (1) driving while under the
influence of liquor (2) Serious misconduct
for failure to report about the accident
incurred by the vehicle. (3) Gross and
habitual neglect of his duties.
Callado filed a complaint against
IRRI for Illegal Dismissal, illegal suspension
and indemnity pay with moral and
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees at
Labor Arbiter.
However, IRRI instituted that the
institution enjoys state immunity from legal
process by virtue of Art. 3 PD No. 1620 also
known as GRANTING TO THE
INTERNATIONAL RICE RESEARCH
INSTITUTE (IRRI) THE STATUS,
PREROGATIVES, PRIVILEGES AND
IMMUNITIES OF AN INTERNATIONAL
ORGANIZATION.
Hence, the Petitioner contended that
the IRRI may not be invoked or waived the
virtue of its Memorandum.
ISSUE:
Whether or not IRRI can invoke immunity
from suit.
RULING:
IRRI’s immunity is undisputed.
Art. 3 of P.D. 1620 provides
“Immunity from Legal Process, except in so
far as that immunity has been expressly
waived by the Director General of the
Institute or his authorized representative.
The grant of immunity is clear and
express waiver by its director-general is the
only way by which it may relinquish or
abandon this immunity.
The memorandum, issued by the
former Director-General to a now-defunct
division of the IRRI, was meant for internal
circulation and not as a pledge of waiver in
all cases arising from dismissal of
employees
G.R No. 155108
Republic vs. Nolasco
Facts
The funding for the Agno Rover
Flood Control Project, a public works
project, was to be derived primarily through
a loan from the Japan Bank for
International Cooperation (JBIC)
DPWH constituted a Bid and Awards
Committee (BAC) for the purpose of
conducting international competitive bidding
for the procurement of the contract
Among the 6 pre-qualified bidders
are present intervenors Daewoo and China
International
Nolasco, invoking his right as a
taxpayer, prayed that the DPWH and BAC
be restrained from awarding the contract to
Daewoo and have Daewoo disqualified as a
bidder
He alleged having obtained copies of
"Confidential Reports from an Unnamed
DPWH Consultant"
He said that based on the reports,
Daewoo's bid was unacceptable and the
putative award to Daewoo illegal, immoral,
and prejudicial to the government and the
Filipino taxpayers

March 27, 2002: the RTC of Manila

dismissed Nolasco's petition

According to the RTC, it was a suit

against the State, which had been sued
without its consent

Meanwhile, BAC resolved to

recommend the award of the contract to
Daewoo as it has the lowers bid; DPWH
Secretary Datumanong the recommendation

Issue
Whether or not the petition was a
suit against the State without its consent

Ruling
  Yes.

An unincorporated government
agency such as the DPWH is without any
separate juridical personality of its own and
hence enjoys immunity from suit.

It cannot be said that the DPWH

was deemed to have given its consent to be
sued by entering into a contract, for at the
time the petition was filed by Nolasco, the
DPWH had not yet entered into a contract
with respect to the project

The presumption is that the State

and its elements act correctly unless
otherwise proven.