DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY
The State cannot be sued without its consent.
Basis: There can be no legal right against the
authority which makes the law on which the
right depends. However, it may be sued it if it
gives consent, whether express or implied. The
doctrine is also known as the Royal Prerogative
of Dishonesty. It grant the State the prerogative
to defeat legitimate claim against it by simply
invoking its non-suability.
Immunity of Foreign States & Diplomats
-consonant with the public international law
principle of principle of par in parem non habet
imperium. The Head of State, who is deemed the
personification of the State he heads, is
inviolable, and thus, enjoys immunity from suit.
The Holy See vs RTc, G.R. 101949, Dec. 1,
19914
Petitioner is the Holy See who exercises
sovereignty over the Vatican City in Rome,
Italy, and is represented in the Philippines by the
Papal Nuncio; Private respondent, Starbright
Sales Enterprises, Inc., is a domestic corporation
engaged in the real estate business.
This petition arose from a controversy over a
parcel of land consisting of 6,000 square meters
located in the Municipality of Paranaque
registered in the name of petitioner. Said lot was
contiguous with two other lots registered in the
name of the Philippine Realty Corporation
(PRC).
The three lots were sold to Ramon Licup,
through Msgr. Domingo A. Cirilos, Jr., acting as
agent to the sellers. Later, Licup assigned his
rights to the sale to private respondent.
The private respondent filed a complaint before
the RTC of Makati against the petitioner and
three other defendants: Msgr. Domingo Cirilos,
who acted as agent to the sellers, the PRC and
Tropicana. It prayed for: 1) annulment of the
Deeds of Sale between petitioner and the PRC
on the one hand and Tropicana on the other; 2)
the reconveyance of the lots in question; 3)
specific performance of the agreement to sell
between it and the owners of the lots and; 4)
damages.
The private respondent filed a complaint with
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Makati,
Metro Manila for annulment of the sale of the
three parcels of land, and specific performance
and damages against petitioner, represented by
the Papal Nuncio, and three other defendants:
namely, Msgr. Domingo A. Cirilos, Jr., the PRC
and Tropicana
petitioner and Msgr. Cirilos separately moved to
dismiss the complaint petitioner for lack of
jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity from
suit, and Msgr. Cirilos for being an improper
party. An opposition to the motion was filed by
private respondent.
The trial court issued an order denying, among
others, petitioners motion to dismiss after
finding that petitioner shed off [its] sovereign
immunity by entering into the business contract
in question Petitioner forthwith elevated the
matter to us. In its petition, petitioner invokes
the privilege of sovereign immunity only on its
own behalf and on behalf of its official
representative, the Papal Nuncio.
Issue: Whether or not Holy See can invoke
sovereign immunity.
Ruling: The Supreme Court granted the petition
and the complaint against the petitioner is
dismissed.
Reason: Generally, there are two accepted
concepts of sovereignty: a) classical or absolute
theory, wherein a sovereign cannot be made as
respondent to courts of another sovereign
without its consent and; b) restrictive theory,
which puts conditions on when to recognize
immunity.
Under the restrictive theory, sovereign immunity
is only recognized with regard to public acts or
acts jure imperii (or those in pursuant to
governmental functions) . If the act is private or
acts jure gestionis (those that are for profit), then
immunity cannot be invoked.
In this case, the petitioner had denied that the
acquisition and subsequent disposal of the Lot 5-
A were made for profit. It claimed that it
acquired the property for its mission or the
Apostolic Nunciature in the Philippines. The lot,
allegedly, was acquired by donation from the
Archdiocese of Manila for the purpose of
building official residence of Papal Nuncio.
However, when the informal settlers refused to
leave the property, the petitioner decided to
dispose the property, not for commercial
purpose. The DFA intervened as they
established in a Memorandum and Certification
the privilege of sovereign immunity of the
petitioner, stating that they are a duly accredited
diplomatic mission to the Philippines exempt
from local jurisdiction and has title to all rights,
privileges and immunities of a diplomatic
mission or embassy in the country. When the
plea of immunity has been recognized by the
executive department, such shall be conclusive
to courts
Determination of Immunity by the
Department of Foreign Affairs
Liang vs People, G,R.. 125865, January 28,
2000
Petitioner is an economist working with the
Asian Development Bank (ADB). Sometime in
1994, for allegedly uttering defamatory words
against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal, he was
charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court
(MeTC) of Mandaluyong City with two counts
of grave oral defamation docketed as Criminal
Cases Nos. 53170 and 53171. Petitioner was
arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the
MeTC. After fixing petitioner's bail at P2,400.00
per criminal charge, the MeTC released him to
the custody of the Security Officer of ADB.
The latter filed a motion for reconsideration
which was opposed by the DFA. When its
motion was denied, the prosecution filed a
petition for certiorari and mandamus with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City which
set aside the MeTC rulings and ordered the latter
court to enforce the warrant of arrest it earlier
issued. After the motion for reconsideration was
denied, petitioner elevated the case to this Court
via a petition for review arguing that he is
covered by immunity under the Agreement and
that no preliminary investigation was held before
the criminal cases were filed in court.
The petition is not impressed with merit.
ISSUES: Whether or not the petitioner is
covered by immunity under the agreement and
that no preliminary investigation was held before
the criminal cases were filed in court.
Held: No. The DFA's determination that a
certain person is covered by immunity is only
preliminary which has no binding effect in
courts. The needed inquiry in what capacity
petitioner was acting at the time of the alleged
utterances requires for its resolution evidentiary
basis that has yet to be presented at the proper
time.
It has been ruled that the mere invocation of the
immunity clause does not ipso facto result in the
dropping of the charges.
Under Section 45 of the Agreement: "Officers
and staff of the Bank including for the purpose
of this Article experts and consultants
performing missions for the Bank shall enjoy the
following privileges and immunities: immunity
from legal process with respect to acts
performed by them in their official capacity
except when the Bank waives the
immunity." The immunity mentioned is not
absolute, but subject to the exception that the act
was done in "official capacity."
Slandering a person could not possibly be
covered by the immunity agreement because our
laws do not allow the commission of a crime,
such as defamation, in the name of official duty.
Being purely a statutory right, preliminary
investigation may be invoked only when
specifically granted by law. The absence of
preliminary investigation does not affect the
court's jurisdiction nor does it impair the validity
of the information or otherwise render it
defective.
Immunity of International Organization
and Agencies

SEAFDEC VS NLRC, 241 SCRA 580

CALLADO VS IRRI, 244 SCRA 210

Immunity of Government Agencies

Incorporated
-possesses a judicial personality independent
of the State If its character provides that the
agency can sue and be sued, then suit will
lie, including one for tort.
Municipality of San Fernando vs Judge Firme,
195 SCRA 692

Unincorporated
-agency has no juridical personality independent
of the Government. To determine its suability,
one has to inquire into principal functions of the
agency.

Farolan vs CTA 217, SCRA 298

Suits against Public Officers

Veterans Manpower vs. CA 214 SCRA 286

Wylie vs Rarang, 209 SCRA 357

Consent to be sued