Facts: Rubrico was abducted during a pabasa in Dasma.

Rubrico accused PAF

personnel behind her abduction. They sought help of Ombudsman, however, it did
not act upon Rubricos actions.

HelD: Separation of Powers; Presidential Immunity; The presidential immunity from

suit remains preserved under our system of government, albeit not expressly
reserved in the present constitution. Settled is the doctrine that the President,
during his tenure of office or actual incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or
criminal case, and there is no need to provide for it in the Constitution or law. It will
degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the Head of State, if he can
be dragged into court litigations while serving as such. Furthermore, it is important
that he be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or distraction to enable
him to fully attend to the performance of his official duties and functions. Unlike the
legislative and judicial branch, only one constitutes the executive branch and
anything which impairs his usefulness in the discharge of the many great and
important duties imposed upon him by the Constitution necessarily impairs the
operation of the Government. Rubrico vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, 613 SCRA 233,
G.R. No. 183871 February 18, 2010

Argo v. Swift USS Guardian sumadsad sa Tubataha Reef, mga aktibista, galit na
galit, kaya nagfile sila ng kaso laban kila Pnoy.

Constitutional Law; State Immunity from Suit; This traditional rule of State immunity
which exempts a State from being sued in the courts of another State without the
formers consent or waiver has evolved into a restrictive doctrine which
distinguishes sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) from private,
commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis).This traditional rule of State
immunity which exempts a State from being sued in the courts of another State
without the formers consent or waiver has evolved into a restrictive doctrine which
distinguishes sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) from private,
commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis). Under the restrictive rule of State
immunity, State immunity extends only to acts jure imperii. The restrictive
application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of
commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or
economic affairs. Arigo vs. Swift, 735 SCRA 102, G.R. No. 206510 September 16,
2014)

Same; Same; State Immunity from Suit; Visiting Forces Agreement; Writ of
Kalikasan; The waiver of State immunity under the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)
pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as the
present petition for issuance of a writ of Kalikasan.The VFA is an agreement which
defines the treatment of United States troops and personnel visiting the Philippines
to promote common security interests between the US and the Philippines in the
region. It provides for the guidelines to govern such visits of military personnel, and
further defines the rights of the United States and the Philippine government in the
matter of criminal jurisdiction, movement of vessel and aircraft, importation and
exportation of equipment, materials and supplies.

Holy See v. Rosario

Facts: In view of the refusal of the squatters to vacate the lots sold to private
respondent, a dispute arose as to who of the parties has the responsibility of
evicting and clearing the land of squatters. Complicating the relations of the parties
was the sale by petitioner of Lot 5-A to Tropicana Properties and Development
Corporation (Tropicana). Holy See, The vs. Rosario, Jr., 238 SCRA 524, G.R. No.
101949 December 1, 1994

Held: A state or international agency requests the Foreign Office of the state where
it is sued to convey to the court that it is entitled to immunity. The right of a foreign
sovereign to acquire property, real or personal, in a receiving state, necessary for
the creation and maintenance of its diplomatic mission, is recognized in the 1961
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Holy See, The vs. Rosario, Jr., 238 SCRA
524, G.R. No. 101949 December 1, 1994

Republic v. Purisima

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.

Collado v. IRRI

Facts: Collado was dismissed becase he was drunk during office hours, and
committed serious misconduct for not reporting the car was not starting and
overstayed in Manila for two hours.
Held: A categorical recognition by the Executive Branch that the IRRI enjoys
immunities accorded to international organizations is a determination which is
considered a political question conclusive upon the Courts. (Collado vs. International
Rice Research Institute, 244 SCRA 210, G.R. No. 106483 May 22, 1995) xxx An
express waiver by the IRRIs Director-General is the only way by which the IRRI may
relinquish or abandon its immunity. Ibid. A memorandum meant for internal
circulation within the IRRI cannot be considered as an express waiver of diplomatic
immunity. Collado vs. International Rice Research Institute, 244 SCRA 210, G.R. No.
106483 May 22, 1995

Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping

Facts: For various reasons, among them the non-payment of the installments,
Froilan, who bought a ship to Shipping Commission, had been dispossed by the
same. It subsequently sold the ship to Pan Oriental. After obtaining a favorable
judgement, and despite repeated demands, Pan Oriental refused to return the ship.
So he filed a complaint. Subsequently, the Government filed a complaint in
intervention, demandin Froilan to pay the remaining balance.

Held:FILING OF COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION BY THE GOVERNMENT is WAIVER OF

NONSUABILITY Froilan vs. Pan Oriental Shipping Co., 95 Phil. 905, No. L-6060
September 30, 1954

US v. Ruiz

Facts: In the US Naval Base in Subic, it needed to undergone repair of its wharfs.
Thus, it submitted an invitation to bid to all bidders, one of them was Eligio de
Guzman & Co.,. US Navy sent a letter, disqualifying the company for its previous
unsatisfactory performance rating on a repair contract for the sea wall at the boat
landings of the U.S. Naval Station in Subic Bay. The letter further said that the
projects had been awarded to third parties. As a result Eligio filed a complaint
against US.

Held: States may be sued only when the proceedings arise out of commercial
transactions. Infrastructure projects of U.S. Naval Base in Subic involve
governmental functions. United States of America vs. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487, No. L-
35645 May 22, 1985

Republic v. Sandoval

Facts: After the Mendiola Massacre, the beleaguered heirs filed a complaint against
the officials of CAPCOM. The Solicitor General filed a Motion to Dismiss on the
ground that the State cannot be sued without its consent. Petitioners opposed,
maintaining that the State has waived its immunity from suit and that the dismissal
of the instant action is contrary to both the Constitution and the International Law
on Human Rights. Judge Sandoval, in his first questioned Order, dismissed the
complaint as against the Republic of the Philippines on the ground that there was no
waiver by the State.

Held: Acts or utterances of President sympathetic to the cause of the petitioners,

not indicative of State's waiver of its immunity from suit nor an admission of its
liability Republic vs. Sandoval, 220 SCRA 124, G.R. No. 84607, G.R. No. 84645 March
19, 1993

Some instances when a suit against the State is proper are: (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
that ultimate liability will belong not to the officer but to the government. Republic
vs. Sandoval, 220 SCRA 124, G.R. No. 84607, G.R. No. 84645 March 19, 1993

While it is true that nothing is better settled than the general rule that a sovereign
state and its political subdivisions cannot be sued in the courts except when it has
given its consent, it cannot be invoked by both the military officers to release them
from any liability, and by the heirs and victims to demand indemnification from the
government. The principle of state immunity from suit does not apply, as in this
case, when the relief demanded by the suit requires no affirmative official action on
the part of the State nor the affirmative discharge of any obligation which belongs
to the State in its political capacity, even though the officers or agents who are
made defendants claim to hold or act only by virtue of a title of the state and as its
agents and servants. This Court has made it quite clear that even a "high position in
the government does not confer a license to persecute or recklessly injure another."
Republic vs. Sandoval, 220 SCRA 124, G.R. No. 84607, G.R. No. 84645 March 19,
1993

Department of Agriculture v. NLRC

Facts: The Department of Agriculture (herein petitioner) and Sultan Security

Agency entered into a contract3 on 01 April 1989 for security services to be
provided by the latter to the said governmental entity. several grounds of the Sultan
Security Agency filed a complaint for underpayment of wages, non-payment of 13th
month pay, uniform allowances, night shift differential pay, holiday pay and
overtime pay, as well as for damages. The Executive Labor Arbiter rendered a
decision on 31 May 1991, finding herein petitioner jointly and severally liable with
Sultan Security Agency for the payment of the money claims, aggregating
P266,483.91, of the complainant security guards. The petitioner and Sultan Security
Agency did not appeal the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Thus, the decision became
final and executory.

Held: 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. Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC, 227 SCRA 693, G.R. No. 104269
November 11, 1993

In the instant case, the Department of Agriculture has not pretended to have
assumed a capacity apart from its being a governmental entity when it entered into
the questioned contract; nor that it could have, in fact, performed any act
proprietary in character.

But, be that as it may, the claims of private respondents, i.e., for underpayment of
wages, holiday pay, overtime pay and similar other items, arising from the Contract
for Security Services, clearly constitute money claims. Act No. 3083, aforecited,
gives the consent of the State to be sued upon any moneyed claim involving
liability arising from contract, express or implied, x x x. Pursuant, however, to
Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 327, as amended by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
1445, the money claim should first be brought to the Commission on Audit. Thus, in
Carabao, Inc., vs. Agricultural Productivity Com Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC,
227 SCRA 693, G.R. No. 104269 November 11, 1993

Philrock v. Board of Liquidators

Facts: PHILROCK filed a complaint against the Board of Liquidators for Specific
Performance or Revaluation with Damages, praying that the defective rock
pulverizing machinery which it purchased from REPACOM be replaced with a new
one in good and operable or, in the alternative, to refund the value of the defective
rock pulverizing machinery at 31% of its contract price. The Board contended that
the defect was attributed to PHILROCKs improper use of the machinery; and that
PHILROCK is now in estoppel and guilty of laches for not calling REPACOMs
attention to the alleged defects within the equipments warranty period.

Issue: Whether the funds of REPACOM in the account of the Board of Liquidators in
the Philippine National Bank may be garnished to satisfy a money judgment against
the BOARD. Philippine Rock Industries, Inc. vs. Board of Liquidators, 180 SCRA 171,
G.R. No. 84992 December 15, 1989

Held: The sale of the rock pulverizing plant to PHILROCK by the Board of
Liquidators, although proprietary in nature was merely incidental to the
performance of the Boards primary and governmental function of settling and
closing the affairs of the REPACOM. Hence, its funds in the Philippine National Bank
are public funds which are exempt from garnishment (p. 75, Rollo). Philippine Rock
Industries, Inc. vs. Board of Liquidators, 180 SCRA 171, G.R. No. 84992 December
15, 1989