#2 before August 31, 2023

DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY

DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY
Under this doctrine, the State cannot be
sued without its consent. (Sec. 3, Art.
XVI, 1987 Constitution). It reflects
nothing
less than recognition of the sovereign
character of the State and an express
affirmation of the unwritten rule
effectively
insulating it from the jurisdiction of
courts. It is based on the very essence of
sovereignty. (Department of Agriculture
v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 104269, November 11,
1993)
There can be no legal right against the
authority which makes the law on which
the right depends (Republic vs. Villasor,
GRN
L‐30671, November 28, 1973).
However, it may be sued if it gives
consent, whether express or implied.
#2 before August 31, 2023

Express consent of the State may be

manifested through general or special
law. Solicitor General cannot validly
waive
immunity from suit. Only the Congress
can (Republic v. Purisima, G.R. No. L‐
36084, Aug.31, 1977).
Implied consent is given when the State
itself commences litigation or when it
enters into a contract. There is an implied
consent when the state enters into a
business contract. (US v. Ruiz, G.R. No.
L‐35645 May 22, 1985). However, this
rule is not
absolute.
Not all contracts entered into by the
government operate as a waiver of its
nonsuability. Distinction must still be
made
between one which is executed in the
exercise of its sovereign function and
another which is done in its proprietary
#2 before August 31, 2023

capacity. A State may be said to have

descended to the level of an individual
and can this be deemed to have actually
given
its consent to be sued only when it enters
into business contracts. It does not apply
where the contract relates to the
exercise of its sovereign functions.
(Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 104269, November 11, 1993)
A suit considered as suit against the State
under the following instances:
1. When the Republic is sued by name;
2. When the suit is against an
unincorporated government agency;
3. When the suit is on its face against a
government officer but the case is such.
While the doctrine appears to prohibit
only suits against the state without its
consent, it is also applicable to
complaints
filed against officials of the state for acts
allegedly performed by them in the
#2 before August 31, 2023

discharge of their duties. The rule is that

if the
judgment against such officials will
require the state itself to perform an
affirmative act to satisfy the same, such
as the
appropriation of the amount needed to
pay the damages awarded against them,
the suit must be regarded as against the
state itself, although it has not been
formally impleaded.
It is a different matter where the public
official is made to account in his capacity
as such for acts contrary to law and
injurious to the rights of plaintiff.
Inasmuch as the State authorizes only
legal acts by its officers, unauthorized
acts of govt.
officials or officers are not acts of the
State, and an action against the officials
or officers by one whose rights have been
invaded or violated by such acts, for the
protection of his rights, is not a suit
#2 before August 31, 2023

against the State within the rule of

immunity of
the State from suit. The doctrine of state
immunity cannot be used as an
instrument for perpetrating an injustice.
The cloak of immunity is removed from
the moment the public official is sued in
his individual capacity such as where he
acts without authority or in excess of the
powers vested in him. A public official
may be liable in his personal capacity for
whatever damage he may have caused by
his act done with malice and in bad faith,
or beyond the scope of his authority or
jurisdiction. In this case, the officers are
liable for damages.
The doctrine is also available to foreign
States insofar as they are sought to be
sued in the courts of the local State. The
added basis in this case is the principle of
the sovereign equality of States, under
w/c one State cannot assert jurisdiction
#2 before August 31, 2023

over another in violation of the maxim

par in parem non habet imperium. To do
so would "unduly vex the peace of
nations."
DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY
Under this doctrine, the State cannot be
sued without its consent. (Sec. 3, Art.
XVI, 1987 Constitution). It reflects
nothing
less than recognition of the sovereign
character of the State and an express
affirmation of the unwritten rule
effectively
insulating it from the jurisdiction of
courts. It is based on the very essence of
sovereignty. (Department of Agriculture
v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 104269, November 11,
1993)
There can be no legal right against the
authority which makes the law on which
the right depends (Republic vs. Villasor,
GRN
#2 before August 31, 2023

L‐30671, November 28, 1973).

However, it may be sued if it gives
consent, whether express or implied.
Express consent of the State may be
manifested through general or special
law. Solicitor General cannot validly
waive
immunity from suit. Only the Congress
can (Republic v. Purisima, G.R. No. L‐
36084, Aug.31, 1977).
Implied consent is given when the State
itself commences litigation or when it
enters into a contract. There is an implied
consent when the state enters into a
business contract. (US v. Ruiz, G.R. No.
L‐35645 May 22, 1985). However, this
rule is not
absolute.
Not all contracts entered into by the
government operate as a waiver of its
nonsuability. Distinction must still be
made
#2 before August 31, 2023

between one which is executed in the

exercise of its sovereign function and
another which is done in its proprietary
capacity. A State may be said to have
descended to the level of an individual
and can this be deemed to have actually
given
its consent to be sued only when it enters
into business contracts. It does not apply
where the contract relates to the
exercise of its sovereign functions.
(Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 104269, November 11, 1993)
A suit considered as suit against the State
under the following instances:
1. When the Republic is sued by name;
2. When the suit is against an
unincorporated government agency;
3. When the suit is on its face against a
government officer but the case is such.
While the doctrine appears to prohibit
only suits against the state without its
#2 before August 31, 2023

consent, it is also applicable to

complaints
filed against officials of the state for acts
allegedly performed by them in the
discharge of their duties. The rule is that
if the
judgment against such officials will
require the state itself to perform an
affirmative act to satisfy the same, such
as the
appropriation of the amount needed to
pay the damages awarded against them,
the suit must be regarded as against the
state itself, although it has not been
formally impleaded.
It is a different matter where the public
official is made to account in his capacity
as such for acts contrary to law and
injurious to the rights of plaintiff.
Inasmuch as the State authorizes only
legal acts by its officers, unauthorized
acts of govt.
#2 before August 31, 2023

officials or officers are not acts of the

State, and an action against the officials
or officers by one whose rights have been
invaded or violated by such acts, for the
protection of his rights, is not a suit
against the State within the rule of
immunity of
the State from suit. The doctrine of state
immunity cannot be used as an
instrument for perpetrating an injustice.
The cloak of immunity is removed from
the moment the public official is sued in
his individual capacity such as where he
acts without authority or in excess of the
powers vested in him. A public official
may be liable in his personal capacity for
whatever damage he may have caused by
his act done with malice and in bad faith,
or beyond the scope of his authority or
jurisdiction. In this case, the officers are
liable for damages.
#2 before August 31, 2023

The doctrine is also available to foreign

States insofar as they are sought to be
sued in the courts of the local State. The
added basis in this case is the principle of
the sovereign equality of States, under
w/c one State cannot assert jurisdiction
over another in violation of the maxim
par in parem non habet imperium. To do
so would "unduly vex the peace of
nations."
DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY
Under this doctrine, the State cannot be
sued without its consent. (Sec. 3, Art.
XVI, 1987 Constitution). It reflects
nothing
less than recognition of the sovereign
character of the State and an express
affirmation of the unwritten rule
effectively
insulating it from the jurisdiction of
courts. It is based on the very essence of
sovereignty. (Department of Agriculture
v.
#2 before August 31, 2023

NLRC, G.R. No. 104269, November 11,

1993)
There can be no legal right against the
authority which makes the law on which
the right depends (Republic vs. Villasor,
GRN
L‐30671, November 28, 1973).
However, it may be sued if it gives
consent, whether express or implied.
Express consent of the State may be
manifested through general or special
law. Solicitor General cannot validly
waive
immunity from suit. Only the Congress
can (Republic v. Purisima, G.R. No. L‐
36084, Aug.31, 1977).
Implied consent is given when the State
itself commences litigation or when it
enters into a contract. There is an implied
consent when the state enters into a
business contract. (US v. Ruiz, G.R. No.
L‐35645 May 22, 1985). However, this
rule is not
#2 before August 31, 2023

absolute.
Not all contracts entered into by the
government operate as a waiver of its
nonsuability. Distinction must still be
made
between one which is executed in the
exercise of its sovereign function and
another which is done in its proprietary
capacity. A State may be said to have
descended to the level of an individual
and can this be deemed to have actually
given
its consent to be sued only when it enters
into business contracts. It does not apply
where the contract relates to the
exercise of its sovereign functions.
(Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 104269, November 11, 1993)
A suit considered as suit against the State
under the following instances:
1. When the Republic is sued by name;
2. When the suit is against an
unincorporated government agency;
#2 before August 31, 2023

3. When the suit is on its face against a

government officer but the case is such.
While the doctrine appears to prohibit
only suits against the state without its
consent, it is also applicable to
complaints
filed against officials of the state for acts
allegedly performed by them in the
discharge of their duties. The rule is that
if the
judgment against such officials will
require the state itself to perform an
affirmative act to satisfy the same, such
as the
appropriation of the amount needed to
pay the damages awarded against them,
the suit must be regarded as against the
state itself, although it has not been
formally impleaded.
It is a different matter where the public
official is made to account in his capacity
as such for acts contrary to law and
#2 before August 31, 2023

injurious to the rights of plaintiff.

Inasmuch as the State authorizes only
legal acts by its officers, unauthorized
acts of govt.
officials or officers are not acts of the
State, and an action against the officials
or officers by one whose rights have been
invaded or violated by such acts, for the
protection of his rights, is not a suit
against the State within the rule of
immunity of
the State from suit. The doctrine of state
immunity cannot be used as an
instrument for perpetrating an injustice.
The cloak of immunity is removed from
the moment the public official is sued in
his individual capacity such as where he
acts without authority or in excess of the
powers vested in him. A public official
may be liable in his personal capacity for
whatever damage he may have caused by
his act done with malice and in bad faith,
or beyond the scope of his authority or
#2 before August 31, 2023

jurisdiction. In this case, the officers are

liable for damages.
The doctrine is also available to foreign
States insofar as they are sought to be
sued in the courts of the local State. The
added basis in this case is the principle of
the sovereign equality of States, under
w/c one State cannot assert jurisdiction
over another in violation of the maxim
par in parem non habet imperium. To do
so would "unduly vex the peace of
nations."
Under this doctrine, the State cannot be sued without its consent. (Sec. 3, Art. XVI,
1987 Constitution). It reflects nothing less than recognition of the sovereign character of
the State and an express affirmation of the unwritten rule effectively insulating it from the
jurisdiction of courts. It is based on the very essence of sovereignty. (Department of
Agriculture v.NLRC, G.R. No. 104269, November 11, 1993)

There can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which the
right depends (Republic vs. Villasor, GRN L‐30671, November 28, 1973). However, it may
be sued if it gives consent, whether express or implied.

Express consent of the State may be manifested through general or special law.
Solicitor General cannot validly waive immunity from suit. Only the Congress can
(Republic v. Purisima, G.R. No. L‐36084, Aug.31, 1977).

Implied consent is given when the State itself commences litigation or when it
enters into a contract. There is an implied consent when the state enters into a business
contract. (US v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L‐35645 May 22, 1985). However, this rule is not absolute.
Not all contracts entered into by the government operate as a waiver of its non-suability.

Distinction must still be made between one which is executed in the exercise of its
sovereign function and another which is done in its proprietary capacity. A State may be
said to have descended to the level of an individual and can this be deemed to have
actually given its consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts. It does
not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions.
(Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC G.R. No. 104269, November 11, 1993)
#2 before August 31, 2023

A suit considered as suit against the State under the following instances:

1. When the Republic is sued by name;

2. When the suit is against an unincorporated government agency;
3. When the suit is on its face against a government officer but the case is such.

While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its
consent, it is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts
allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. The rule is that if the
judgment against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to
satisfy the same, such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages
awarded against them, the suit must be regarded as against the state itself, although it
has not been formally impleaded.

It is a different matter where the public official is made to account in his capacity as
such for acts contrary to law and injurious to the rights of plaintiff. Inasmuch as the State
authorizes only legal acts by its officers, unauthorized acts of govt. officials or officers are
not acts of the State, and an action against the officials or officers by one whose rights
have been invaded or violated by such acts, for the protection of his rights,

is not a suit against the State within the rule of immunity of the State from suit. The
doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice.

The cloak of immunity is removed from the moment the public official is sued in his
individual capacity such as where he acts without authority or in excess of the powers
vested in him. A public official may be liable in his personal capacity for whatever damage
he may have caused by his act done with malice and in bad faith, or beyond the scope of
his authority or jurisdiction. In this case, the officers are liable for damages. The doctrine
is also available to foreign States insofar as they are sought to be sued in the courts of the
local State. The added basis in this case is the principle of the sovereign equality of
States, under w/c one State cannot assert jurisdiction over another in violation of the
maxim par in parem non habet imperium. To do so would "unduly vex the peace of
nations."