Digest 7 - RP Vs Purisima August 31, 1977
Digest 7 - RP Vs Purisima August 31, 1977
Facts:
A motion to dismiss was 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. The motion to dismiss
was filed on September 7, 1972. The respondent judge denied the motion to dismiss on October 4,
1972. He was misled by the terms of the contract between the private respondent, plaintiff in his sala,
and defendant Rice and Corn Administration, a government agency. According to him, the defendant
anticipated the case of a breach of contract within the parties and the suits that may thereafter arise.
However, for the State to be sued, consent must be shown. The consent, to be effective though, must
come from the State acting through a duly enacted statute as pointed out by Justice Bengzon in the case
of Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Service. In this case, whatever the counsel
for the defendant, Rice and Corn Administration agreed had no binding force on the government,
because it was clearly beyond the scope of his authority.
Issue:
1) Whether or not there is failure of the respondent to apply the doctrine of the non-suability of a
State, including its offices and agencies, from suit without its consent
Ruling:
There is failure of the respondent to apply the doctrine of State immunity. It is clearly stated that
the State may not be sued without its consent. The doctrine includes offices and agencies as part of the
machinery of the national government. 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.