The State

Sec. 3, Art. XVI, 1987 Constitution. The State may not be

sued without its consent.

Art. 2180 (6), CC. The State is responsible in like manner when
it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has been
caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in
which case what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.

Why the State Cannot be Sued

Neither fault nor negligence can be presumed on the part of the

State in the organization of branches of public service and in the
appointment of its agents. Also, suing the State will divert its
focus from the delivery of necessary public services.

There can be no legal right as against the authority that makes

the law on which the right depend.

“Special Agent” Defined

One who receives a definite and fixed order or commission,

foreign to the exercise of the duties of his office (if he is a special
official). Does not pertain to any executive agent who is an
employee of the active administration and who on his own
responsibility performs functions which are inherent and
naturally pertain to his office [Merritt v. Government of the
Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 11154 (1960)].

It refers to a person especially commissioned to carry out the acts

outside of such agent’s regular duties.
Who may be sued under the State

1. A special agent under Art. 2180

2. Instrumentalities discharging proprietary functions

a. The power to enter into contracts implies the consent

to be sued

b. The charter of the instrumentality may expressly

provide that it may 

be sued

3. Those that consent to be sued

Instances where the State gives its consent to be sued

1. Art. 2180 (6) is an example of an express 


legislative consent. Here, the State assumes a limited
liability for the acts of its special agents.

2. Art.2189 provides for state liability for damages caused by

defective condition of public works.

3. Local Government Code provides for the liability of local

government units for wrongful exercise of its proprietary (as
opposed to its governmental) functions. The latter is the
same as that of a private corporation or individual.
[Mendoza v. de Leon, G.R. No. L-9596 (1916)]
Provinces, cities and municipalities

Art. 2189, CC. Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable

for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person
by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges,
public buildings, and other public works under their control or
supervision.

It is not even necessary that the defective roads or streets belong

to the province, city or municipality for liability to attach. The
article only requires that either control or supervision be
exercised over said street or road.

FLORENTINA A. GUILATCO vs CITY OF DAGUPAN GR

No. 61516, March 21, 1989

FACTS:

Plaintiff Guilatco is boarding his motorcycle at a sidewalk

located at Perez Blvd. (a National Road, under the control and
supervision of the City of Dagupan) accidentally fell into a
manhole causing her right leg to be fractured.

Defendant Alfredo Tangco, City Engineer of Dagupan City

admitted to the existence of said manhole. He also admitted that
said manhole is owned by the National Government and the
sidewalk on which they are found. In his answer, Tangco
admitted that as ex-officio Highway Engineer for Dagupan City,
he exercises supervision and control over National roads,
including Perez Blvd. where the incident happened.

The city further contended that Perez Blvd. where the fatal
drainage hole is located, is a national road that is not under the
control or supervision of the City of Dagupan hence no liability
should attach to the City. It submits that it is actually the Ministry
of Public Highways that has control or supervision through the
Highway Engineer, which, by mere coincidence, is held
concurrently by the same person who is also the City Engineer of
Dagupan.

ISSUE: WON control or supervision over a national

road by the City of Dagupan exists, in effect binding the
city to answer for damages in accordance with Art. 2189
of the Civil Code. (YES)

RULING: Under Art. 2189, it is not necessary for the defective

road or street to belong to the province, city or municipality for
liability to attach. The article requires that either control or
supervision is exercised over the defective road or street. In the
case at bar, the control or supervision is provided for in the
charter of Dagupan, exercised through the City Engineer. The
same charter also provides that the laying out, construction, and
improvement of streets, avenues, and alleys and sidewalks, and
regulation of the use thereof, may be legislated by the Municipal
Board. Thus the charter clearly indicates that the city indeed has
supervision and control over the sidewalk where the open
drainage hole is located. The express provision in the charter
holding the city not liable for damages or injuries sustained by
persons or property due to the failure of any city officer to
enforce the provisions of the charter, cannot be used to exempt
the city, as in the case at bar.

San Juan vs CA - Precilla Chan - Left front wheel - raining hard

- fractured shoulder - MWSS Municipality of San Juan - Liable -
Control and Supervision.

QUEZON CITY GOVERNMENT and Engineer RAMIR J.  
TIAMZON,  Petitioners,   vs.  FULGENCIO   DACARA

FACTS: 
1. Dacara Jr.’s car turned turtle upon hitting a rammed into a pil
e of earthstreet diggings found at Matahimik St., Quezon City,
which was then being repaired by the Quezon City governme
 nt. As a result, Dacarra Jr., his son who was likewise on board 
thecar, sustained bodily injuries and the vehicle suffered extens
ive damage for it turned turtle when it hit the pile of earth..
2. Fulgencio Dacara in behalf of his minor children filed a compl
aint for damages against Quezon City and Engr. Ramir Tiam
zon  before RTC. He prayed for damages.
3. The LGU contended that the fault is with the driver, since the 
LGU have out up warning signs. The trial court ruled that the
 LGU is liable.
4. The CA agreed with the RTC's finding that petitioners' neglig
ence was the proximate cause of the damage suffered by respo
ndent.

ISSUE(S):
Whether or not the Quezon City Government is liable for damage
s due to the injuries suffered by Dacara Jr.?

HELD:  YES. The provisions of Article 2189 of the New Civil C
ode capsulizes the responsibility of the city government relative t
o the
maintenance of roads and bridges since it exercises the control an
d supervision over the same.

RATIO:
Maintaining that they were not negligent, petitioners insist that th
ey placed all the necessary precautionary signs to alert the public 
of a 
roadside construction. They argue that the driver, Fulgencio Daca
ra Jr., of respondent's car was overspeeding, and that his own 
negligence was therefore the sole cause of the incident.
The Court found petitioner, Quezon City, negligent.

Acts of Public Officers

A public officer is not liable for damages which a person may

suffer arising from the just performance of his official duties and
within the scope of his assigned tasks. An officer who acts within
his authority to administer the affairs of the office which he/she
heads is not liable for damages that may have been caused to
another, as it would virtually be a charge against the Republic,
which is not amenable to judgment for monetary claims without
its consent. However, a public officer is by law not immune from
damages in his/her personal capacity for acts done in bad faith
which, being outside the scope of his authority, are no longer
protected by the mantle of immunity for official actions

Presumption of Regularity - aid to the effective and

unhampered administration of government functions.

Gross negligence - omission of slight care which an inattentive

never fail to give. Wilful and intentionally.

Art. 32, CC. Any public officer or employee, or any private

individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates
or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights
and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for
damages:

Varela vs Revalez - reorganization structure and staffing pattern -

Cadiz - SP approved without notice and hearing - all positions to
be vacant except elective and treasurer - termination dec 31 1998
- complaint - WON the mayor was sued in his official capacity -
NO. due to illegal act - personal capacity he merely identified as
a mayor and not specifically sued in his official capacity.

Pascual vs Beltran - private respondent was charged before the

DOTC, Region II, Tuguegarao City, with Conduct Grossly
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service/Gross
Insubordination/Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and
Regulations, Gross Discourtesy in the Course of Official
Functions and Gross Dishonesty Through Falsification of Official
Document, by petitioner, as Regional Director of the
Telecommunications Office, Region II