Case Summary (G.R. No. L-36084)
Key Dates
• Motion to dismiss filed by Rice and Corn Administration: September 7, 1972
• Order denying motion to dismiss: October 4, 1972
• Temporary restraining order by the Supreme Court: February 8, 1973
• Decision date: August 31, 1977
Applicable Law
• 1973 Philippine Constitution, Article XV, Section 16 (“The State may not be sued without its consent.”)
• Doctrine of non-suability of the State and its agencies absent express legislative consent
Factual and Procedural Background
Yellow Ball Freight Lines, Inc. initiated a civil action in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the Rice and Corn Administration for breach of contract and claimed money damages. On September 7, 1972, the Administration moved to dismiss on the ground that it, as a government agency, enjoyed immunity from suit unless statutory consent existed. Judge Purisima denied the motion on October 4, 1972.
Legal Issue
Whether a trial court may entertain a money claim against a government office or agency absent clear constitutional or statutory waiver of immunity.
Doctrine of Non-Suability and Jurisprudential Foundation
The petition invoked the long-standing principle that a sovereign—and its instrumentalities—cannot be sued without its consent, a doctrine recognized under Philippine law prior to and reaffirmed in successive Constitutions. Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Service established that courts lack jurisdiction over claims against government entities unless consent appears in law. Subsequent rulings—including Switzerland General Insurance Co. v. Republic and Providence Washington Insurance Co. v. Republic—underscored the practical necessity of this immunity to preserve governmental efficiency. Post-1973-Constitution decisions such as Del Mar v. Philippine Veterans Administration and Republic v. Villasor further reaffirmed Article XV, Section 16’s explicit bar on suit against the State without consent.
Contractual Consent versus Statutory Consent
The trial judge’s view that the underlying contract anticipated suit and thus constituted consent was legally erroneous. Any agreement by counse
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-36084)
Facts of the Case
- The Rice and Corn Administration (RCA), an office under the Office of the President, was sued by Yellow Ball Freight Lines, Inc. for collection of money allegedly due under a freight‐handling contract.
- RCA filed a motion to dismiss on September 7, 1972, invoking the doctrine of the State’s non-suability without consent.
- Judge Amante P. Purisima of the Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch VII) denied the motion to dismiss by order dated October 4, 1972.
- Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza, on behalf of the Republic, petitioned for certiorari and prohibition to challenge the judge’s refusal to apply the constitutional doctrine.
Procedural History
- Motion to dismiss RCA as defendant: filed September 7, 1972.
- Denial of motion: October 4, 1972 (subject of certiorari and prohibition).
- Temporary restraining order by the Supreme Court: February 8, 1973.
- Final resolution by the Supreme Court: August 31, 1977.
Legal Issue
- Whether a court has jurisdiction to entertain a money‐claim action against a government office or agency without express statutory consent of the State.
Applicable Constitutional Provision
- Article XV, Section 16 of the 1973 Constitution: “The State may not be sued without its consent.”
Jurisprudential Antecedents
- Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Servi