Republic of the Philippines VS PURISIMA (GR No. L-36084) Constitutional Law

G.R. No. L-36084 August 31, 1977

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.

HONORABLE AMANTE P. PURISIMA, the Presiding Judge of the court of first Instance of Manila (Branch VII), and YELLOW BALL FREIGHT LINES, INC., respondents.

Ponente:

FERNANDO, Acting C.J.

Action:

Petition for certiorari and prohibition

Facts:

A motion to dismiss was filed on September 7, 1972 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. 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 been applied 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.

Issues:

Whether the respondent’s decision is valid.

Ruling:

WHEREFORE, the petitioner for certiorari is granted and the petitioner for prohibition is likewise granted.

Ratio Decidendi:

No. 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. The doctrine of non-suability recognized in this jurisdiction even prior to the effectivity of the [1935] Constitution is a logical corollary of the positivist concept of law which, to para-phrase Holmes, negates the assertion of any legal right as against the state, in itself the source of the law on which such a right may be predicated. The consent, to be effective though, must come from the State acting through a duly enacted statute. Thus, whatever counsel for defendant Rice and Corn Administration agreed to had no binding force on the government. That was clearly beyond the scope of his authority. 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."