REPUBLIC VS PURISIMA

 There was a pending case in the sala of Judge Purisima which was sought to
be dismissed by the Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza for being a suit
against the state wherein Yellow Ball Freight Lines sued the Rice and Corn
Administration.
 The motion was denied
 At this time, the leading case of Mobil Philippines vs Customs Arrastre was
applied where a claim against the state will not prosper unless consent is
shown

Won the denial of the motion is correct?

 The SC ruled it was not correct to deny the motion.

 The SC again stated the line eof Justice Holmes as regards non-suability
wherein “there can be no legal right against the authority that makes the law
upon which the right depends”
 The non-suablity of the state has been recognized even before the 1935
Constitution according to Switzerland General Insurance vs. Republic.
 Also, there can be no injustice to private parties who deal with the
government. They could still seek to collect their claims to the Auditor
General subject to appeal to judicial tribunals
 The SC also pointed out that the consent to be effective must come from the
State through a duly enacted statute and should not be based on what the
counsel of the defendant and Rice and Corn Administration agreed to.

FROILAN VS PAN ORIENTAL

 Froilan purchased in installments a vessel from the Shipping Commission
 He defaulted in his payments and the vessel was delivered to Pan Oriental
 Froilan appealed to the Office of the president and was granted. So he
demanded that the vessel was delivered back to him but Pan oriental refused
to return
 A petition for writ of replevin was applied by Froilan and was granted by the
court
 The Government filed a complaint in intervention for the balance of the
vessel which Froilan wasn’t able to pay
 Froilan paid the balance
 Pan oriental filed a counter-claim against the government to deliver the
vessel to him
 Government filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim invoking immunity
from suit

WON the Republic as interevenor is immune from suit?

HELD:
  By filing the complaint for intervention against a private party, the State
surrendered its privileged position and comes down to the level of the
defendant
 The immunity of the state from suits does not deprive it of the right to sue
private parties.

REPUBLIC VS VILLASOR
 As a result of an Arbitration Award in favor of PJ Kiener Co. an alias writ of
execution was issued by Judge Villasor which ordered the garnishment of
monies in several banks including those due the Armed Forces of the
Philippines in the form of deposits which were in Philippine Veterans
Bankand PNB which were allocated for payment of pensions and other
allowances
 The AFP Comptroller argued that the judge acted in excess of its jurisdiction
and that the writ was null and void invoking immunity from suit

WON the funds of the AFP can be subject of garnishment?

HELD:
 NO. As a general rule, the state cannot be sued without its consent because
there can be no legal right against the authority that makes the law upon
which the right depends.
 The AFP funds are not subject of garnishment because public policy forbids
it.
 Also, disbursements of public funds need a corresponding appropriation and
in this case, the funds of the AFP cannot BE DIVERTED since this will disrupt
and paralyze the functions of the state.
 To SUBJECT ITS FUNDS TO GARNISHEMENT IS TO ALLOW INDRECTLY
WHAT IS PROHIBITED DIRECTLY

PNB VS PABALAN
 A judgment was rendered against Phil, Virginia Tobacco Admin in the amount
of 12k
 Judge Pabalan ordered the garnishment of the funds of PVTA in PNB
 PNB questioned the order saying that it is immune from suit

WON it was right for PNB to invoke immunity from suit to avoid garnishment?

HELD:
 NO. As a general rule, the state cannot be sued without its consent because
there can be no legal right against the authority that makes the law upon
which the right depends. The consent to be sued can be made expressly or
impliedly such as when the state enters to a commercial contract which
divests it of its sovereign privilege.
  PVTA IS A GOCC which has a personality of its own. The state has entered to
a commercial business.
ARCEGA VS CA
 Petitioner doing business under Fairmont Ice Cream filed a case for the
refund of special excise tax for unauthorized payments to PNB on foreign
exchange.
 PNB argued that it is being sued as an agent of the Central Bank and argues
that it is immune for suit
 Central bank also invokes immunity form suit since it constitutes a legal
charge against the government
 Lower Court dismissed the complaint and CA affirmed it

WON CENTRAL BANK IS IMMUNE

HELD:
 NOT IMMUNE. As a general rule, the state cannot be sued without its consent
because there can be no legal right against the authority that makes the law
upon which the right depends. The consent to be sued can be made expressly
or impliedly such as when the state enters to a commercial contract which
divests it of its sovereign privilege.
 The charter of the Central Bank under Sec 5 of RA 601 directs the refund of
taxes. The consent of the state has been given.

RAYO VS CFI BULACAN

 Due to Storm Kading in 1978, the officers of the National Power Corportion
opened simultaneously the 3 floodgates of the Angat River Dam which
resulted to the deaths of hundreds of the relatives of the petitioners
 The Petitioners filed a complaint for damages against the Superintendent of
the Angat Dam
 The officers contended that they were doing a purely government function
and hence immune from suit
 Petitioners invoked that they are proprietary functions
 CFI dismissed the complaint

WON NPC CAN BE SUED?

HELD:
 YES. government has organized a private corporation, put money in it and
has allowed it to sue and be sued in any court under its charter.
 Under its Charter, it can sue and be sued. It is a GOCC with personality of its
own.

PNR VS IAC
  Collision in Calumpit Laguna of PNR Train from San Fernando to Manila, with
a bus travelling from Manila to Hagonoy Bulacan
 Bus got stalled in the railway and as a result 18 died while 53 were injured.
 Bus sued PNR for damages saying it was negligent since there were no bars,
semaphores or flagman in the railway crossing. Also the train was moving in
a highspeed since it dragged the bus 190meters.
 PNR on the otherhand argued that bus was negligent since he did not heed
the call of the bystanders
 Among the defenses of PNR is that it is immune form suit

WON IT IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT

HELD:
 NO. Firstly, there was an averment of the counsel of PNR that it is not
immune as provided under RA 4156. They are estopped for the admission.
 Secondly, there was an implied consent to be sued from the faculty to transact
business under Sec 4 of RA 4156.
 Hence, the PNR is a private entity created not to discharge a govenemnt
function but to operate a transport service and thus barred from invoking
immunity from suit