Scribd
Upload
100 views1 page

Consti - State Immunity - Republic v. Purisima G.R. No. L 36084 August 31 1977

The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of non-suability of the State was applicable in this case. A motion to dismiss a civil suit against the Rice and Corn Administration for breach of contract was denied by the trial court. The Supreme Court held that whatever was agreed to in the contract did not constitute consent by the State to be sued, as only the State acting through statute can give such consent. As the Rice and Corn Administration is not a separate corporate entity but an office under the President, it cannot waive the State's immunity from suit. The doctrine of non-suability remains a fundamental principle of Philippine constitutional law.

Uploaded by

Nover Keithley Mente
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
100 views1 page

Consti - State Immunity - Republic v. Purisima G.R. No. L 36084 August 31 1977

The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of non-suability of the State was applicable in this case. A motion to dismiss a civil suit against the Rice and Corn Administration for breach of contract was denied by the trial court. The Supreme Court held that whatever was agreed to in the contract did not constitute consent by the State to be sued, as only the State acting through statute can give such consent. As the Rice and Corn Administration is not a separate corporate entity but an office under the President, it cannot waive the State's immunity from suit. The doctrine of non-suability remains a fundamental principle of Philippine constitutional law.

Uploaded by

Nover Keithley Mente
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Republic v. Purisima, G.R. No.

L-36084, August 31, 1977

Facts: A motion to dismiss was filed on September 7, 1972 by defendant Rice and Corn Administration in
appending 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. 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
beenapplied in 53 other decisions. Respondent Judge Amante P. Purisima of the Court of First Instance
of Manila denied the motion to dismiss dated October 4, 1972. Hence, the petition for certiorari and
prohibition.

Issue: Whether the doctrine of the non-suability of a State applicable in this case?

Ruling: Yes. 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. “Even if such a
principle does give rise to problems, considering the vastly expanded role of government enabling it to
engage in business pursuits to promote the general welfare, it is not obeisance to the analytical school
of thought alone that calls for its continued applicability. “The doctrine of non-suability of the
government without its consent, as it has operated in practice, hardly lends itself to the charge that it
could be the fruitful parent of injustice, considering the vast and ever-widening scope of state activities
at present being undertaken. Whatever difficulties for private claimants may still exist is, from an
objective appraisal of all factors, minimal. In the balancing of interests, so unavoidable in the
determination of what principles must prevail if government is to satisfy the public weal, the verdict
must be, as it has been these so many years, for its continuing recognition as a fundamental postulate of
constitutional law.” (Switzerland General Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Republic of the Philippines) 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
nonbinding 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."

You might also like