G.R. No. 91359 – 214 SCRA 286 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – State Immunity From Suit – Waiver of Immunity – Consent By Law – No such waiver by mere memorandum
In 1969, R.A. No. 5487 was enacted. The law sought to regulate private security agencies. The law created the PADPAO (Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency Operators, Inc.) which aids the Chief of the Philippine Constabulary in regulating security agencies.
In 1987, Veterans Manpower and Protective Services, Inc. (VMPSI), a security agency, was not granted the authority to continue providing security services on the ground that it engaged in cut-throat services (its rates were lower than other security agencies). VMPSI then sued the Philippine Constabulary. The trial court ruled in favor of VMPSI but the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court on the ground that VMPSI was suing without the State’s consent.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA is correct.
HELD: Yes. VMPSI’s suit contained claims for damages. Such allegation is already sufficient for the dismissal of the case. Even if its action prospers, the payment of its monetary claims may not be enforced because the State did not consent to appropriate the necessary funds for that purpose.
VMPSI further argued that there was a Memorandum entered into between the Chief of the Philippine Constabulary and PADPAO; that under the Memorandum, the State is giving its consent to be sued. Is this argument valid?
No. Waiver of the State’s immunity from suit, being a derogation of sovereignty, will not be lightly inferred, but must be construed strictissimi juris. The consent of the State to be sued must emanate from statutory authority, hence, from a legislative act, not from a mere memorandum. Without such consent, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction.
