REPUBLIC v.

PURISIMA
Suits vs the Philippine
State
G.R. No. Ponente Date
L-36084  ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE FERNANDO August 31, 1977
Petitioners Respondents
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, HONORABLE AMANTE P. PURISIMA, the
Presiding Judge of the court of first Instance
of Manila (Branch VII), and YELLOW BALL
FREIGHT LINES, INC.,

DOCTRINE:
Constitutional law; State immunity from suit; The doctrine that the State may not be sued
without its consent applies to the Rice and Corn Administration.—This certiorari and
prohibition proceeding arose from the failure of respondent Judge x x x to apply the wellknown
and oft-reiterated doctrine of the non-suability of a State, including its offices and agencies,
from suit without its consent. It was so alleged in a motion to dismiss filed by defendant Rice
and Corn Administration in a pending civil suit in the sala of respondent Judge for the
collection of a money claim arising from an alleged breach of contract, the plaintiff being
private respondent Yellow Ball Freight Lines, Inc. x x x. At that time, the leading case of Mobil
Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Service, where Justice Bengzon stressed the
lack of jurisdiction of a court to pass on the merits of a claim against any office or entity acting
as part of the machinery of the national government unless consent be shown, had been
applied in 53 other decisions. There is thus more than sufficient basis for an allegation of
jurisdiction infirmity against the order of respondent Judge denying the motion to dismiss
dated October 4, 1972. What is more, the position of the Republic has been fortified with the
explicit affirmation found in this provision of the present Constitution: “The State may not be
sued without its consent.” The merit of the petition for certiorari and prohibition is thus obvious.

Same; Same; The consent to he sued to be effective must come from, the State thru a statute,
not through any agreement made by counsel for the Rice and Corn Administration.—
Apparently respondent Judge was misled by the terms of the contract between the private
respondent, plaintiff in his sala, and defendant Rice and Corn Administration which, according
to him, anticipated the case of a breach of contract within the parties and the suits that may
thereafter arise. The consent, to be effective though, must come from the State acting through
a duly enacted statute as pointed out by Justice Bengzon in Mobil. Thus, whatever counsel for
defendant Rice and Corn Administration agreed to had no binding force on the government.
That was clearly beyond the scope of his authority

I. Facts of the case

● In a motion to dismiss filed by Rice and Corn Administration on September 7, 1972 in

connection with a pending civil suit before the Manila Court of First Instance Branch 7
headed by Presiding Judge Amante P. Purisima for the collection of a money claim
arising from an alleged breach of contract, the plaintiff in the instant case is Yellow Ball
Freight Lines, Inc.

● At that time, the leading case of Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre
Service, where Justice Bengzon stressed the lack of jurisdiction of a court to pass on
the merits of a claim against any office or entity acting as part of the machinery of the
national government unless consent be shown, had been applied in 53 other decisions.

● There is thus more than sufficient basis for an allegation of jurisdiction infirmity against
Judge Purisima who issued an Order dated October 4, 1972 which denied the motion
to dismiss. Thus Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza filed a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition before this Court assailing the Order of Judge Purisima. What is more, the
position of the Republic has been fortified with the explicit affirmation found in this
provision of the present Constitution: "The State may not be sued without its consent."

II. Issue/s

Can an agreement between the Rice and Corn Administration and Yellow Ball Freight
Lines, Inc. operate as a waiver of the national government from suit?
III. Ratio/Legal Basis

● NO, the agreement between the Rice and Corn Administration and Yellow Ball Freight
Lines Inc. DOES NOT operate as a waiver of the national government from suit.

● The Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by the Republic is GRANTED, and the
Order issued by Judge Purisima of the CFI Manila Branch 7 dated October 4, 1972 must
be REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.

● Judge Purisima apparently was misled by the terms of the contract between the Yellow
Ball Freight Lines Inc, and the Rice and Corn Administration which, according to him,
anticipated the case of a breach of contract within the parties and the suits that may
thereafter arise. The consent, to be effective though, must come from the State acting
through a duly enacted statute as pointed out by Justice Bengzon in Mobil. Thus,
whatever counsel for Rice and Corn Administration agreed to had no binding force on
the government. That was clearly beyond the scope of his authority. At any rate, Justice
Sanchez, in Ramos v. Court of Industrial Relations, was quite categorical as to its "not
[being] possessed of a separate and distinct corporate existence. On the contrary, by the
law of its creation, it is an office directly 'under the Office of the President of the
Philippines."

IV. Disposition

WHEREFORE, the petitioner for certiorari is granted and the resolution of October 4,
1972 denying the motion to dismiss filed by the Rice and Corn Administration nullified
and set aside and the petitioner for prohibition is likewise granted restraining respondent
Judge from acting on civil Case No. 79082 pending in his sala except for the purpose of
ordering its dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. The temporary restraining order issued on
February 8, 1973 by this Court is made permanent terminating this case. Costs against
Yellow Ball Freight Lines, Inc.