You are on page 1of 1

Subject: Constitutional Law 1

Topic: The Doctrine of State of Immunity


Title: Ruiz v. Cabahug
Citation: 54 O.G. 351

Facts:
The Secretary of National Defense, defendant Hon. Sotero B. Cabahug, accepted the bid
of Allied Technologists, Inc. on July 31, 1950 for the furnishing of the architectural and
engineering services in the construction of the Veterans Hospital at the price of Php 302,
700. The architectural requirements were submitted by Allied Technologies through
Enrique Ruiz, Jose Herrera and Pablo Panlillo and were approved by the United States
Veterans Administration and a contract was signed due to the technical objection to the
capacity of the said company in the practice of architecture and upon the advice of the
Secretary of Justice. The defendants allegedly took 15% of the sum due to Allied
Technologies, Inc. at the time of the payment of the contract price for the reason that
Panlillo asserted that he is the sole architect of the Veterans Hospital, excluding Ruiz and
Herrera, the assertion of which was abetted by defendant Jimenez (the first cause of
action). The plaintiffs were to be deprived of their share of professional services and their
professional prestige and standing were to be gravely damaged unless the defendants are
prevented from recognizing Panlillo as the sole architect. Furthermore, the second cause
of action is Title II of the contract where at any time prior to six months after completion
and acceptance of the work under Title I, the Government may direct Allied Technologists,
Inc. to do the services stated in said Title II yet nevertheless the completion the
government declined to direct the plaintiffs to perform the job.

Issue:
Whether or not the government can be sued for withholding the 15% of the sum and
depriving the plaintiffs of their share.

Held:

The case is a not a suit against the government, which could not be sued without its
consent. It was found that the government has already allotted the full amount for the
contract price; it was the defendant-officials which were responsible for the allegation.
This was to be directed to the officials alone, where they are compelled to act in
accordance with the rights established by Ruiz and Herrera or to desist them from paying
and recognizing the rights and interests in the funds retained and the credit for the job
finished. The order of dismissal was reversed and set aside and the case was remanded
to the court a quo for further proceedings with costs against the defendants.