So nagfile ug case ang owner, there was accommodation by the commissioners appointed by the court

including proceedings uh bayran ug just compensation ang tag-iya and value was adopted by the trial
court, NHA did not agree but could not do anything, the judgment of the trial court to order the NHA to
pay the owners of - - - -, final and executory . And the nature judgment and motion for execution which
was granted by the trial court. Basically nakadaog ang party diri pabayron na ang gobyerno. Then which
state nga to effect the decision, by issue of writ of execution of the trial court and the properties were
garnished gikuha na, or rather gi earmarked na siya per agreement. So may the properties of the NHA
be garnished? The court said that YES, there is a general rule on the garnishment of government
property and land, as a general noh that properties cannot be object for garnishment proceedings even
if the consent to be sued has been granted by the state. So we have the distinction between suability
and liability. Even if the state can be sued it does not mean that the judgment against (---intermission
coughing background---), thats the general rule noh. The basis of the suit is that state may limit its claim
and action , may limit its consent noh, on the claimants action only up to the completion of the
proceedings , prior to the stage execution and the power of the courts end when the judgment is
rendered. It cannot force the state to pay you because government and public funds may not be
seized. These funds are already devoted for a specific purpose. Disbursement of public funds must be
covered with specific appropriations, unless its agency has a, disbursement there noh nakabutang sa
ilang account payment for losses of suits, wala man siya theres no disbursement for that purpose then
dili as a general rule magarnish ang kwarta sa gobyerno except if the funds belong to a public
corporation or a GOCC , construed with a personality of its own, separate and distinct from that of the
government, its funds are not excempt from garnishment. This is so because the government enters
into commercial business and by that it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any
other corporation. In the case of NHA, it was determined by the court that its predecessor the GHCC is a
GOCC whose funds cannot be excempt from garnishment. Therefore the funds of NHA here are not
excempt. Now why is there a distinction between GOCC and an unincorporated government agency,
ngano kani unincorporated agency just like the BIR, this DILG, why do they require the consent of the
state before it can be sued? It is because if the sue is directed against this unincorporated government
agency, literally it is a sue directly against the state, why? these government agencies do not possess
any juridical personality of its own. GOCC on the other hand do not possess these characteristics. They
are not excempt from suit because you are not suing the state in this case, this GOCCs are distinct
personalities from the state. If the government conducts a business in GOCC or in a nongovernment
agency set up for this purpose, it enjoys no immunity from suit, even if there is no express grant of
authority to sue or be sued. Having a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government,
funds of that GOCC and noncorporate agency are not excempt from garnishment. Not only can it be
sued but properties can be garnished.

So we discuss the instances noh where the state expressly gives its consent to be sued by the issuance of
a law: general or special ; Act 3083. Remember. Now we go to the instances where the government
gives its implied consent to be sued. Among of which if (1) the government enters into a business
contract, dapat moadhere siya sa provisions of that contract, it can be subjected noh, to suits or breach
of that contract; (2) if there is an inequitable claim to immunity that would do injustice to other party (3)
if the government initiates a complaint against a private-party, because by doing that it opens itself to
counterclaim. Also in cases of gross-negligence as well discuss later.

In PTA vs PGDEI, here the Philippine Tourism Authority entered into a contract with the construction of
Intramuros Golf Course expansion with a certain contractor. Wala nabayran ang balance nga 11.8
million. The contractor filed a suit against the PTA for the recovery and of course the PTA argued that it
cannot be sued without its consent. Can the PTA invoke state immunity from suit? The court said that it
cannot, why? Because it was acting in a proprietary character. The application of state immunity is
proper only when the proceedings arise to sovereign exceptions and not to cases of commercial
activities. So again naa toy distinction, if the states acts in its capacity or does acts that are jure imperii
dili siya pwede ma.sue but if its acts are jue gestiones kani naa ni business/commercial it can be sued.
Here, PTA was not acting in a sovereign capacity.

Another instance where the state can be sued is inequitable claim to immunity or claim to immunity is
unjustified. We call this quantum meruit meaning as much as one deserves or one has earned. Here in
EPG Construction vs Vigilar, there is a contract between the ministries of public works and highways as
well as several contractor for the building of sites, construction of several highways. Now, there was an
agreement between these contractors and the ministry of highways on additional construction by the
completion of housing units. However kani na contract noh, there was no appropriation, there was even
no written contract to cover which the expenses for this additional constructions. So there was a
balance of 5.9 million pursuant to this additional construction, so gisingil na ang DPWH over this. The
dpwh recognized nga nay implied contract between dpwh and contractors. It forwarded the claims with
COA, but now DPWH Secretary denied the money claims because according to it walay appropriation,
walay available funds for payments, plus the contracts are void daw. So di ba there were houses build by
the government but wala nibayad ang government. Is there something anomalous with that? The court
said that yes, the court said that the contract for the additional houses are void, these additional houses
violate certain legal requirement, however in the interest daw of substantial justice, the court said that
the contractors here can be compensated for the construction of additional houses applying the
principle of quantum meruit. So kung unsa tong amount nga nagasto, kana pud ang bayaran sa
gobyerno. The court said here that the contracts were not illegal per se, but because of ,, they were not
intrinsically illegal because of wala lang gyud silay appropriation, wala lang nabayaran ang contractors.
The court said that it would be an apex of injustice and highly inequitable, contractors to be not paid to
the actual work performed by them and the government already reaped the benefits of the resources
given or used by the contractors. Now can the DPWH here invoke state immunity from suit? It cannot be
invoked as an instrument and making injustice. Another instance where the state can be sued, because
it impliedly gives it consent to be sued if it commits gross negligence.

So in Republic vs UNIMEX , this UNIMEX shipped a container filled with cartridges, video games, and it
arrived in the port. The bureau of customs instructed the shipment and discovered that it did not
declare its value in the manifest so it instituted civil proceedings against the shipper. And eventually the
goods were forfeited. However, the UNIMEX as the owner of the goods sued the commissioner of
customs before the court of tax appeals, and the CTA ruled in favor of the UNIMEX, so karon si BoC na
sad giorder sa court nga ideliver to however it was discovered that the shipment could no longer be
found. Nasuko noh si owner, filed and the CTA ordered BoC the commercial value of goods then the BOC
invoked state immunity from suit, the court said that no. the BoC must pay, an exception to the rule in
state immunity from suit is if gross negligence is involved. The court said here it can not turn a blind
eye to the gross negligence of BoC in safekeeping of the goods here. So thats it.

Now the state may also be sued noh, if it is the one which initiates the complaint against a private
individual. And here we have Froilan vs PAN oriental, wala nadeliver sa iya vessel and apparently
delivered the vessel to another entity called PAN oriental. So froilan sued the shipping commission and
PAN oriental para ihatag sa iya ang vessel. So writ of replevin, para ideliver ang personal property, now
this was granted by trial court. Govt of the Philippines intervened ngano naadto sa PAN oriental ang
vessel, froilan pailed to pay the shipping commission the balance of the vessel. So naadto sa lain, PAN
oriental then filed a counter complain against the government, so the government filed a motion to
dismiss the counterclaim on the ground that it is immune from suit, because of that the lower court
dismissed the counter complaint of PAN oriental. Did the court act correctly in dismissing the counter-
claim complain of PAN Oriental? The court said it did not act correctly, the invocation of state
immunity from suit is tenable because theyre filing the complaint in intervention of government
waived its right from nonsuability. The immunity of the state from being sued was not applied. The
president cannot be sued, but if the president filed a suit he can be sued. Iya na giwaive iya right to
immunity from suit , and so the state here by filing its complaint by intervention divested or waived its
right or privilege by immunity. The state comes down to the level of defendant. Therefore the trial
court erred in dismissing the counterclaim on the ground of state immunity.

In the case of Sandiganbayan, this involves the case of ill-gotten wealth of Benedicto. He was the owner
of several shares of Negros Occidental , naa siya shares. So the republic of the Philippines through the
PCGG filed, in the meantime si PCGG sa ang nag administer nag take care sa shares, now the Executives
of PCGG in that day, ballooned to 2.5 million, because of that PCGG filed a complaint for injunction with
the RTC. The republic and benedicto, the owner of the shares entered into the compromise agreement
nga irelease daw ang shares niya for a certain prize, naa siyay makuha in exchange. Pursuant to the
compromise agreement, dapat ideliver sa Republic ang shares, however they did not. So benedicto filed
a motion for release of his shares pursuant to the compromise agreement which was granted by the
Sandiganbayan. So ipadeliver na sa PCGG ang shares kang Benedicto? Can that be done? Can the state
through the PCGG invoke state immunity from suit so that it can not be compelled to deliver the shares
to Benedicto. The court said it cannot. Here, ang government man ang primary suitor in the
SAndiganbayan for the recovery because of that siya ni sue kang Benedicto dili siya immune plus there
was this compromise agreement issued between the State and Benedicto, and the court said it may be
sued because by entering into a contract it descends to the level of a citizen. So two exceptions are
present here the state is the one suing and also there was a compromise agreement/contract.

Now what is the scope of the consent given by Act 3083? Does it allow the prevailing party to execute
the judgment in its favor? Take note that it does not, noh. The limit of the consent is in section 1
..hereby consents and submits to be sued upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from
contract, express or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil action between private parties.
So we have the case of commissioner vs San Diego, involving the complaint of eminent domain,
giexpropriate ang property sa owners ug gibuhat ug highway now known as EDSA. Gihimo ninyo ug
highway wala mi ninyo gibayran. So it went to court and the trial court ruled in the owners favor and
ordered the bureau of public highways to pay the sum demanded. Eventually nag issue na ang judge ug
notice of garnishment , gi earmarked na ang mga funds. Of course it was contested to because these are
public funds. Can the funds of the DPWH be garnished? Before we go there, what does the state do
when it initiates expropriation proceedings? It submits itself to the courts jurisdiction and therefore it
cannot invoke state immunity from suit. In expropriation proceedings the court submits itself to the
courts jurisdiction. The extent of the consent, when the state gives its consent, it may limit the consent
only up to the completion of proceedings prior to the stage of execution. the dirbursement of public
funds must be garnished with appropriation of the law.

Now in PNB vs CIR, the lawyer who represented a certain assoc here against NHA. Nakadaog sila sa case,
so gisingil na ni lawyer bayri nako. Because of that the court ordered here the payment of NHA , now
NHA argued that these funds cannot be garnished because these are public in character. Is the NHA
correct? The court said that it is wrong, because the NHA is a GOCC. It is not excempt from suit, and its
funds are not excempt from garnishment. As we discussed earlier, why is there a distinction bet GOCC
and unincorporated government agency. It is because the GOCC has a separate and distinct personality
from the state, and also GOCC or commissions noh they are the APEC for monetary purposes. Now can
the ADB be sued or can the funds be garnished? Thats the question in DFA vs NLRC. In this case, kato
mga empleyado nga natrench niadto ug labor arbiter, and notifies the ADB. Now the ADB is covered
from immunity of legal processes. Or giinsulate from the legal processes, still the ADB had waived its
immunity from suit because it entered into a contract with these employees. Did the labor arbiter act
correctly? The court said that no, the ADB enjoys immunity from legal processes. Take note of the basis
of the immunity, charter of the ADB. The bank shall enjoy immunity from legal processes except in
connection with the exercise to right of obligations. If transactions made by bank it cannot claim
immunity, other than that it is suable. What about the argument that it entered into a contract with
these employees. It divested itself its right to immunity? Is he correct. The court said that no, it did not
enter into a contract as commercial transaction. Act was jure imperii.

Now why are these granted immunity? The reason for granting these international organizations
immunity from local jurisdiction is that, to subject them to the jurisdiction of local courts would abhor a
convenient medium to which the government may interfere in their corporations or control its policies
and decisions. Just because you are contracting with another sovereign does not mean it is entirely
immuned. If the act involved is jure imperii, it cannot be sued. But if it is an act jure gestiones a private
act it may open to suits. The mere entering into a contract is not enough, here the pact entered into is
pursuant to sovereign capacity/functions.

In republic vs NLRC, we have here the assets which was foreclosed. One of the assets seized by PCGG for
being an ill gotten wealth, as a cost saving measure pantranco did a retrenchment. Employees went to
labor arbiter. Pantranco was held jointly liable for the payment to the employees, now the APT contest
that they cannot be liable 1. I cannot be employed from suit and 2. Even if nakadaog dili pwede magamit
ang public funds. So is the APT correct? First the court said the ATP can be sued, it provides that atp can
sue and be sued. But just because you are suable do not automatically imply you are liable. Here, the
garnishment issued by the labor arbiter were not valid in so far as the affected, the properties of the
ATP itself. But kato mga properties sa pantranco nga ginagunitan sa APT kato pwede to magarnish. So
that is the distinction. The court here nullified the writs of garments against ATP but the assets it held
with pantranco its okay.

In republic vs hidalgo, wala may gihimo ang state diri daog na ang tag iya, final na ang judgment iexecute
na. the court said it cannot order the government to order the payment of the suit, second error is the
writ of execution issued. The writs here are void, why? The state may give its consent to be sued does
not mean na pwede na enforce ang judgment. When the state waives its immunity, all it does is to give
the other party to prove that the state has liability and diha lang na siya kutob.

Now we have provisions under CC on torts and quasi delicts, so under the CC Art. 2176, quasi delict is an
act or omission which causes damage to another caused by fault or negligence. If you commit a
negligence you are obliged to pay, can the state be liable for quasi delict? The state is responsible in
quasi delicts if it acts through quasi delicts that is a limited instance when the state is liable for quasi
delict.

Merit vs Govt. Here merit was peacefully riding his motorcycle, then nabanggaan by a drunk driver.
Anyway, suddenly this general howpital ambulance nalagpot siya nabanggaan siya he was do severely
injured his faculties depreciated severely. So nagfile siya ug suit, and the govt gave its consent by act
2457, authorized merit to bring a suit for the provision. So naa siyay law allowing him to sue, so the
court eventually rendered its decision to pay 2,000 pesos. This is contested by the republic. Can it be
done? The court determined that there is liability in so far as the driver is concerned. What , pwede ba
maliable ang state for the damages here? Did the state ahh, is the state rather liable under 2176 and
2180? The court said that no. why? Under the provisions of the law, the state is not liable for damages
suffered by private individuals or consequential acts performed by its employees in the discharge of
their functions. Why? Because neither fault nor negligence can be imposed on the part of the state or
organization or in the appointment of its agents. In other words, the state cannot be answerable in acts
done by its agents. There is a distinction however if the act or quasi delict is done by the special agent.
And that is under 2180, who is a special agent? Is one in the sense that he receives authority or
commission in the exercise of his office. For example if the driver of the ambulance then nay gipahimo
sa imoha ang mayor siguro magpanday ka or whatever, so you are doing something beyond your office
so you are doing something as a special agent. Therefore you cannot hold the state liable for acts
committed by an employee who in his responsibility perform the functions given and naturally pertained
to his office. It is only when the agent involved is a special agent. Here the court determined, the driver
was acting as a driver. Dili siya gwardiya gipadrive, it was his job. Because of that he was a normal agent
of the state, it cannot claim liability against the state. Can go for damages from driver but not the state.
How can merit get from driver? Go to congress, ask for appropriations. In the same way, in the case of
mun. vs judge, one of the people died. And so the heirs of the deceased filed a complaint with driver
and municipality. The heirs of the driver prevailed and damages were awarded in their favor.
Did the judge acted correctly in imposing liability? The court said it did not act correctly, now that is a
distinction discussed by the court. Municipal are suable because in the laws creating them they can sue
and be sued. Now can they be liable? We have to determine the nature of the act done by the
municipality kung unsa ang act nga ghimo.

When can the municipality be held liable for torts? It is only to be shown that the municipality is acting
in a proprietary capacity. Just because the municipality here can be sued, does not mean it can be
automatically liable.

In this case the court determined the driver was doing his job and therefore pe was performing his job
and a normal agent, so the municipality can not be sued.

In the case of mun. vs dumdum, kani nagpalit ug mga props and equipment for public purposes however
no payments were made, compelled the proprietor for collection of payments. And the trial court issued
a writ of preliminary attachment against the funds of municiplaty. It was contend by the municipality
that these are public funds. The generic defenses. Was the trial court correct in issuing preliminary
attachment against municipality? It did not act correctly. Even if again, municipalities are suable does
not mean that they are liable. In this case, the attachment must be resolved, because first it was public
funds, number two contracts were not proven that they entered into contract. Wala giallow sa SC ang
writ of preliminary attachment.

Take note of the definition of the Philippines. We discussed the two fold functions in BAcani vs NACOCO,
the Constituent and Ministrant functions. Take note kung unsa ni nga mga functions.