CONSTITUTIONAL LAW NOTES, CHAPTER 4 - DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY

BASIS
APPLICATION

Liang v. People

The petitioner, an economist at Asian Development Bank engaged in defamatory quarrel with his
co - worker Joyce Cabal, who eventually charged him with slander. The petitioner with the
intervention of DFA, raised that the Liang has immunity against suit.
The Supreme Court aver contrary to the contention of the petitioner that he was immune from suit.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner is immune against suit in a criminal offense?
Under the ADB agreement to the Philippine, sec 45. , states only immunity from official capacity,
or work related.
Liang acted ultra vires, when he defamed Cabal, meaning he acted beyond the scope of his
authority.

PETITION was DENIED.

Heirs of Rallos v. City of Cebu

The petitioner, Lucena Rallos, impleaded the City of Cebu on the ground of expropriating their
property to be used as public road.
The Regional Trial Court ruled that the City of Cebu was liable to pay the heirs of Rallos. The
respondent subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration but later denied. The petitioner in its
letter to the City of Cebu, compelling them to pay thefull g balance including the attorneys and
litigiation fees with interest.
The petitioner was not satisfied with staggared payment of City of Cebu, filed for motion for
mandamus before CA compelling to City of Cebu to pay the remaining balance.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner can compel the City of Cebu for immediate execution of the
judgment.:
The Supreme Court said the petitioner cannot compel the State (the City of Cebu) to pay remaining
balance, because it needs an ordinance appropriation from public funds prior to the disbursment.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, the authority of the court ends, when the writ of execution is render.

The court also added that despite the rendition of executory judgment, it is essential or sine qua
non for all money claim against the governement to be filed before the COA. (REMEMBER COA
PROCESS AND JUDICIAL REMEDY under the rules of court).

Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers, Inc. v. GCC Approved Medical
Centers Association, Inc.

The petitioner, AMCOW, assailed the decision of the Regional Trial Court, granting the petition
of prohibition filed GCC Approved Medical Centers Association (GAMCA) against Department
of Health.

The DOH, first directed the decking of equal distribution of workers and later suspended the
referral system. Under RA 10022, section 16 the DOH regulates the activities clinics whether it is
medical, physical, optical, dental and the like, in the same section it prohibits referral decking
system.

The RTC in its said decision Section 16 is constitutional but it does not applied to GAMCA.

The Supreme Court, RTC legally erred when it grants the prohibition against the DOH, the
regulation, suspension, prohibition of referral system under section 16, renders a valid exercise of
police power. The court further added, under principle of sovereign equality, the GAMCA a
foreign entity (bahrain, kuwait, saudi, oman, qatar and uae) cannot question the authority of
another sovereign, such as the Philippines, it is up to us, how to conduct our business in this matter
the referral of our workers.

PETITION GRANTED.
 The City of Bacolod v. Phuture Vision Co.

The petitioner, City of Bacolod, assailed the decision of the Court of Appeals before the Supreme
Court.

The City of Bacolod, order the business closure of the respondent, Phuture Vision Co, a PAGCOR
registered business on the ground of early conducting business prior to the released of the official
permit. Whereas,

Phuture Vision applied business permit to conduct business in SM Bacolod in February, to be

released on March 16. But they started prior to March 16. In addition to that Phuture errorneously
indicate the nature of the business and the address of the business.

The RTC decided in favor to the State, City of Bacolod which later reversed by the CA.

ISSUE: Now since CA favored Phuture Vision, can they compel the City of Bacolod to be liable
for damages

The Supreme Court ruled, there is no compeling reason to deviate from the prevailing rule, the
City of Bacolod did not give their consent to be sued. Therefore the City of Bacolod cannot be
sued, they further reteraites issuance of permits and licenses is a valid exercise of police power,
thus, it is regulatory in nature. The City of Bacolood has the power to GRANT, DENY, or
SUSPEND licenses and permit in their domain. And whatever decision of the State is valid, legal
, and enforceable.

PETITION GRANTED, previous decision of CA ANNULED.

Taisei Shimizu Joint Venture v. Commission on Audit

The Petitioner, Taisei Shimizu Joint Venture (TSJV) petition for certiorari before the Supreme
Court assailing the decision of COA disapproving an arbitral award which was final and executory.

The award was in relation with the New Ilolo Airport.

In this case, the COA disapproved an award which was rendered by tribunal Construction Industry
Arbitration Commission (CIAC).

Does COA have exclusive jurisdiction over money claim against government

In the exercise of its audit power, can COA annull or disapprove decision of courts, tribunals, or
other adjudicative bodies

The Supreme Court said,

First o, there is nothing in the Constitution, laws, or even the COA rules expressly granting the
COA original and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims due from or owing to the government.

The COA has no appellate review power over the decisions of any other court or tribunal also the
COA is devoid of power to disregard the principle of immutability of final judgments. Thus, in
nullifying an arbitration award which is final and executory, COA commit a grave abused
discretion without or in excess of jurisdiction over the subject matter.

PETITION GRANTED, previous DECISION DENIED.

WAIVER OF IMMUNITY

Arigo v. Swift

The petitioner Reverend Arigo, filed a judicial remedy, which is the Writ of Kalikasan before the
Honorable Court, the petitioner also want to nullify the VFA among others.
In relation to the Tubbataha incident, where the USS Guardian a US Warship, ran aground to the
Tubbataha reef, thus damaging the same.
The petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging operations of the USS
Guardian causing environmental damage which is a matter of fact
ISSUE: Can the Supreme Court take cognizance and compel the United States thru its respondent,
Commander Swift, for civil indemnification due to the Tubbataha incident?

The Court pointed, there is no compelling reason to devitiate from the prevailing rule in the
Doctrine of State Immunity. The Supreme Court is bar to exercise jurisdiction to the respondent
who was at the time of the incident is exercising governmental duties.

1.) The VFA is constutionally upheld in the case of Bayan vs Ermita, Art.5 only criminal
jurisdiction is waived , judicial remedy such as writ of kalikasan under the rules is applicable only
for a civil action

2.) Civil indeminification of the damages in tubbataha requires appropriation from the congress
of the United States, where we don't have a jurisdiction also under the principle of sovereign
equality of states, compelling them will unduly vex the peace on nations.

That is why the petition is DENIED

DOTC v. SPOUSES ABECINA

The petitioner, DOTC, assailed the decision of CA upon its affirmation of the decision of RTC to
vacate properties to digitel.
The respondets, spouses Abecina, owner of the property on which the DOTC awarded to digitel
without former's knowldge, the respondents , order to vacate their property on which the DOTC
refused.
RTC decided in favor of the Abecinas, latter affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The petitioner, aggrieved by the decision of the lower courts, appealled before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Can DOTC invoke the doctrine of immunity in the case at bar
The Supreme Court said, 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.
In this case since they enter commercial contract it is implied.
The Supreme Court further reiterates, "it held that government immunity from suit could not be
used as an instrument to perpetuate an injustice on a citizen."

PETITION DENIED, previous decisions of lower courts AFFIRMED.

BUISAN v. COA

In 1989, the DPWH undertook the construction of the Liguasan Cut-off hannel (Project) in
Tunggol, Pagalungan, Maguindanao, to minimize the perennial problem of flooding in the area.
This project caused injury to properties of the petitioners,

The petitioners, Madag Buisan et al, filed a case somewhere om 2010 , the petitioners refused the
initiative of the Montawal Mayor, claiming the latter has no authority to represent them and further
stated that they have a seperated money claim filed before the COA.

DPWH refused to acknowledge the petitioners.

COA rendered a decision claiming that the petitioners committed laches because they did not file
a case in reasonable time. Furthermore, the petitioners' cause of action had already prescribed in
view of Article 1146 of the Civil Code.

ISSUE: Whether COA committed grave abused of discretion in its claim that petitioners were
barred of laches and prescription

The Supreme Court said, Hence, the Doctrine of Non-Suability clothes the DPWH from being held
responsible for alleged damages it performed in consonance with its mandated duty. Nowhere does
it appear in the petition that the State has given its consent, expressly or impliedly, to be sued
before the courts. The failure to allege the existence of the State's consent to be sued in the
complaint is a fatal defect, and on this basis alone, should cause the dismissal of the complaint.
FORMS OF CONSENT
SUITS AGAINST GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES

BPI v. Central Bank of the Philippines

The petitioner, BPI and respondent Citibank are both member of the clearing house established
and supervised by the Central Bank of the Philippines.
The petitioner contend that there was descrepancy of about 9 million that was charged on its
demand deposit. They refer the matter to NBI.
Later NBI found by series of transaction between BPI Laoang and Citibank Greenhills that there
was an internal fraud perpetuated by CBP employees , Valentino and Estacio.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not CBP may be sued on its governmental and/or proprietary functions.

2. Whether or not CBP is performing a proprietary function when it entered into clearing
operations of regional checks of its member institutions.

3. Whether or not CBP exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in supervising the two
employees involved in the bank fraud.

4. Whether or not Citibank as the sending bank shall bear the damage caused to petitioner BPI as
per Central Bank Circular No. 580, Series of 1977, as amended.

The Court ruled that,

1. CBP is a corporate body performing governmental functions. Operating a clearing house
facility for regional checks is within CBP's governmental functions and duties as the central
monetary authority,
2. CBP is not immune to suit although it performed governmental functions.

3. CBP is not liable for the acts of its employees because Valentino and Estacio were not
"special agents".
Even on the assumption that CBP is performing proprietary functions, still, it cannot be held
liable because Valentino and Estacio acted beyond the scope of their duties.

Petition to review for Certiorari is Denied

EXEMPTION FROM LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

SUABILITY v. LIABILITY

Republic v. NLRC

Pursuant to Proclamation No.50, creating Asset Privatization Act, that disposing non performing
government assets.

The Petitioner, the Republic, assailed the decision of the Court of Appeals that affirms the issuance
by NLRC of seperation benefits of Bicolandia Sugar Development Corporation.

As a result, several members of the NACUSIP/BISUDECO were laid off, NACUSIP/BISUDECO

is a labor organization by the way. Who filed before the Labor Arbiter unfair practice against the
Asset Privazation Trust, BSDC, PSC and other corporations involved.

The Labor Arbiter rendered out right dismissal because the petiton was lacking of merit. However,
the Labor Arbiter found that there was a board resolution authorizing the release of seperation pay
and benefits to Bicolandia Sugar Development Corporation employees.

ISSUE: Whether there is a need to file a seperated money claim before COA.

RULLING : In this instance, private respondents' separation benefits may be released to them
without filing a separate money claim before the Commission on Audit.

Petition Denied, previous decision upheld.

BPI v. Central Bank of the Philippines

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND STATAE POLICIES

Preamble
Republicanism
The Defense of State
Peace and Order
The Incorporation Clause