Subject: Constitutional Law 1
Topic: Sovereign Immunity: Doctrine of Non-Suability of the State
Title: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, petitioner, vs. THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL., respondents.
Citation: G.R. No. 104269. November 11, 1993.
Facts:
For consideration are the incidents that flow from the familiar doctrine
of non-suability of the state.
In this petition for certiorari, the Department of Agriculture seeks to
nullify the Resolution, dated 27 November 1991, of the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC), Fifth Division, Cagayan de Oro City, denying
the petition for injunction, prohibition and mandamus that prays to enjoin
permanently the NLRC's Regional Arbitration Branch X and Cagayan de Oro
City Sheriff from
enforcing the decision of 31 May 1991 of the Executive Labor Arbiter and
from attaching and executing on petitioner's property.
The Department of Agriculture (herein petitioner) and Sultan Security
Agency entered into a contract on 01 April 1989 for security services to be
provided by the latter to the said governmental entity. Save for the increase
in the monthly rate of the guards, the same terms and conditions were also
made to apply to another contract, dated 01 May 1990, between the same
parties. Pursuant to their arrangements, guards were deployed by Sultan
Agency in the
various premises of the petitioner.
On 13 September 1990, several guards of the Sultan Security Agency
filed a complaint for underpayment of wages, non-payment of 13th month
pay, uniform allowances, night shift differential pay, holiday pay and
overtime pay, as well as for damages, before the Regional Arbitration Branch
X of Cagayan de Oro City, docketed as NLRC Case No. 10-09-00455-90 (or
10-10-00519-90, its original docket number), against the Department of
Agriculture and Sultan
Security Agency.
The Executive Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on 31 May 1991,
finding herein petitioner jointly and severally liable with sultan Security
Agency for the payment of the money claims, aggregating P266,483.91, of
the complainant security guards. The petitioner and Sultan Security Agency
did not appeal the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Thus, the decision became
final and executory.
On 18 July 1991, the Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution,
commanding the City Sheriff to enforce and execute the judgment against
the property of the two respondents. Forthwith, or on 19 July 1991, the City
Sheriff levied on execution the motor vehicles of the petitioner, i.e., one (1)
unit Toyota Hi-Ace, one (1) unit Toyota Mini Cruiser, and one (1) unit Toyota
Crown. These units were put under the custody of Zacharias Roa, the
property custodian of the petitioner, pending their sale at public auction or
the final settlement of the case, whichever would come first.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the Department of Agriculture is covered by the
principle of the non-suability of the State.
2. Whether or not it was COA that has exclusive jurisdiction over
money claims against the Government.
Ruling:
1. NO. The Court held that the rule, in any case, is not really absolute
for it does not say that the state may not be sued under any circumstance.
On the contrary, as correctly phrased, the doctrine only conveys, "the state
may not be sued without its consent;" its clear import then is that the State
may at times be sued. The States' consent may be given either expressly or
impliedly. Express consent may be made through a general law or a special
law. In this jurisdiction, the general law waiving the immunity of the state
from suit is found in Act No. 3083, where the Philippine government
"consents and submits to be sued upon any money claim involving liability
arising from contract, express or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil
action between private parties." Implied consent, on the other hand, is
conceded when the State itself commences litigation, thus opening itself to a
counterclaim 16 or when it enters into a contract. In this situation, the
government is deemed to have descended to the level of the other
contracting party and to have divested itself of its sovereign immunity. This
rule, relied upon by the NLRC and the private respondents, is not, however,
without qualification. Not all contracts entered into by the government
operate as a waiver of its non-suability; distinction must still be made
between one which is executed in the exercise of its sovereign functions and
another which is done in its proprietary capacity.
In the instant case, the Department of Agriculture has not pretended to
have assumed a capacity apart from its being a governmental entity when it
entered into the questioned contract; nor that it could have, in fact,
performed any act proprietary in character.
2. YES. The Court ruled that money claims against the Government
should be filed before the Commission on Audit pursuant to CA Act No. 327
as amended by PD No. 1445. In the instant case, underpayment of wages,
holiday pay, overtime pay, and other similar items arising from the Contract
for Service clearly constitute money claims. As such, the writ of execution
issued by the Labor Arbiter and the resolution issued by NLRC were reversed
by the Court in favor of the Department of Agriculture.
