Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Case Digest No.: Case Title: Citation: Issues: Issue #1: Constilaw1

    Uploaded by

    Dune Acosta
    17 views1 page
    The case involved a dispute over whether the State had waived its immunity from suit in a particular case. The Supreme Court held that the State had not waived its immunity because granting relief would not require any affirmative action by the State and would not discharge any obligation of the State in its political capacity. The Court specified that suits against the State are proper when the Republic is sued by name, an unincorporated government agency is sued, or a government officer is sued but ultimate liability would belong to the government and not the individual officer.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Sovereignty_40_Republic vs. Sandoval, G.R. No. 84607, March 19, 1993

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The case involved a dispute over whether the State had waived its immunity from suit in a particular case. The Supreme Court held that the State had not waived its immunity because granting relief would not require any affirmative action by the State and would not discharge any obligation of the State in its political capacity. The Court specified that suits against the State are proper when the Republic is sued by name, an unincorporated government agency is sued, or a government officer is sued but ultimate liability would belong to the government and not the individual officer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    17 views1 page

    Case Digest No.: Case Title: Citation: Issues: Issue #1: Constilaw1

    Uploaded by

    Dune Acosta
    The case involved a dispute over whether the State had waived its immunity from suit in a particular case. The Supreme Court held that the State had not waived its immunity because granting relief would not require any affirmative action by the State and would not discharge any obligation of the State in its political capacity. The Court specified that suits against the State are proper when the Republic is sued by name, an unincorporated government agency is sued, or a government officer is sued but ultimate liability would belong to the government and not the individual officer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Case Digest No.

    : 40
    Case Title: Republic vs Sandoval
    Citation: G.R. No. 84607, March 19, 1993

    ISSUES:
    Issue #1: ConstiLaw1; Sovereignty
    “Whether the State has waived its immunity from suit and therefore should
    the State be liable for the incident.”

    Held:
    No. The principle of State immunity from suit does not apply when the
    relief demanded by the suit requires no affirmative official action on the part of the
    State nor the affirmative discharge to the state in its political capacity.

    Instances when the suit against the State is proper: 1.) When the Republic is
    sued by name. 2.) When the suit is against an unincorporated government agency. 3.)
    When the suit is against a government officer but the case is such that ultimate liability
    will not belong to the officer but to the government.

    You might also like