IMPLIED CONSENT 28-30

JUSMAG PHILIPPINES, Petitioner VS NLRC and FLORENCIO SACRAMENTO, Respondent

G.R. No. 108813, Dec. 15, 1994
Facts: Private respondent Florencio Sacramento, a security assistance support personnel at
JUSMAG was dismissed due to the abolition of his position. He filed a complaint with the
Dept. of Labor and Employment on the ground that he was illegally suspended and dismissed
by petitioner JUSMAG. JUSMAG filed a Motion to dismiss invoking its immunity from suit as
an agency of the United States.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint of Florencio Sacramento who appealed to
the National Labor Relation Commission which held that JUSMAG lost its right not to be sued.
Issue: Whether or not JUSMAG can invoke immunity from suit?
Held: It was held in this case that JUSMAG has immunity from suit. It was created
between the government of the Philippines and the U.S. government and from the
agreement of both government, JUSMAG was performing a governmental function on behalf
of the US, hence, the suit is one against the US government.
The Philippines adopts the generally accepted principle of international law one of
which is immunity that is, the exemption of the state and its organs from judicial jurisdiction
of another state under the principle an equal has no power over an equal.

1.
2.
3.

When can a state be sued?

When a state/govt. enters into a contract thru its officers/agents.
Where mutual/reciprocal benefits accrue
If contract does not provide the name of the officer

Doctrine of immunity from suit has been restricted to sovereign or governmental

activities and not commercial, private or proprietary acts.
If the contract was entered in the discharge of its governmental functions, the
sovereign state cannot be deemed to have waived its immunity from suit.

Fernando Froilan, plaintiff-appellee v. Pan Oriental Shipping, defendant-appelant, Republic of

the Phil., Intervenor-appellee (GR No. L-6060 Sept. 30, 1954)

Facts: Froilan, plaintiff purchased from the Shipping Commission FS-197, a vessel for
P200,000, paying P 50,000 as down payment. To secure payment of the balance price, he
executed a chattel mortgage on the vessel in favor of the Shipping Commission. For non payment of the installment, the Shipping Commission took the vessel and delivered
possession to defendant, Pan Oriental subject to approval of the President of the Philippines.
Froilan appealed to the President and the cabinet restored his right to the vessel. Pan
Oriental refused to deliver possession and Froilan filed a petition for replevin for delivery to
him of the vessel that the court granted.
Pan Oriental filed an answer, the Republic of the Philippines filed an intervention alleging
that Froilan failed to pay the balance price of the vehicle. Pan Orient al filed an answer to the
complaint in intervention.
Froilan on the other hand tendered payment of the balance price to the Board of Liquidators
and the court dismissed the complaint in intervention without prejudice to the case between
the Republic and Pan Oriental.

The government of the Rep. of the Phil. move to dismiss the counter claim of Pan Oriental
against it that the court granted. Pan Oriental appealed the Order dismissing the counter
claim. One of the assigned error was that the state is immune from suit.
Issue: Whether or not the Rep. of the Phil., is immune from suit when it filed a complaint in
intervention?
Held: No, the Rep. of the Phil., is not immune from suit when it filed a complaint in
intervention. It in effect waived its right of non-suability. The immunity of the state from the
suit does not deprive it of its right to sue private parties in its own court. By filing an action
against a private party, the state surrenders its privileged position and levels down to that of
the defendant.

SANTIAGO, petitioner v. THE GOVT., OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by

the Director, Bureau of Plant Industry and the Regional Director Region 1X, Zamboanga City
GR No. L-48214 Dec. 19, 1978

Facts: Petitioner Santiago filed a complaint for revocation of a deed of donation against
respondent Bureau of Plant Industry. The latter contrary to the terms in the deed of
donation failed to install lighting facilities and water system on the property donated and to
build an office building and parking lot to be constructed on or before Dec. 7, 1974.
The Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that respondent Republic of the Phil.,
represented by the Director of the Bureau of Plant Industry cannot be sued without its
consent.
Issue: Is the Rep. of the Phil., represented by the Dir. Of the Bureau of Plant and Industry
immune from suit when it violated the terms in the deed of donation?

Held: The defense of immunity from suit without the consent in this case is unavailing. The
Republic is a done that breached the conditions of the donation. By its failure to comply with
the terms in the contract, the Republic impliedly gave up its non -suability. It would be unfair
and an injustice to Santiago, the donor. It was declared that the failure to abide with the
condition under which a donation was given should not prove an insuperable obstacle to a
civil action, the consent likewise being presumed.