G.R. No.

L-15751 January 28, 1961

BUREAU OF PRINTING, SERAFIN SALVADOR and MARIANO
LEDESMA, petitioners,
vs.THE BUREAU OF PRINTING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (NLU), PACIFICO
ADVINCULA, ROBERTO MENDOZA, PONCIANO ARGANDA and TEODULO
TOLERAN, respondents.
FACTS:
A complaint was filed against Bureau of Printing (BOP). The complaint alleged that Serafin
Salvador and Mariano Ledesma have been engaging in unfair labor practices by interfering with,
or coercing the employees of the Bureau of Printing particularly the members of the complaining
association petition, in the exercise of their right to self-organization an discriminating in regard
to hire and tenure of their employment in order to discourage them from pursuing the union
activities.
Answering the complaint, the petitioners Bureau of Printing, Serafin Salvador and Mariano
Ledesma denied the charges of unfair labor practices attributed to the and, by way of affirmative
defenses, alleged, among other things, that respondents Pacifico Advincula, Roberto Mendoza
Ponciano Arganda and Teodulo Toleran were suspended pending result of an administrative
investigation against them for breach of Civil Service rules and regulations petitions; that the
Bureau of Printing has no juridical personality to sue and be sued; that said Bureau of Printing is
not an industrial concern engaged for the purpose of gain but is an agency of the Republic
performing government functions
ISSUE:
Whether BOP may be sued.
RULING:
BOP cannot be sued.
The Bureau of Printing is an office of the Government created by the Administrative Code of
1916 (Act No. 2657). As such instrumentality of the Government, it operates under the direct
supervision of the Executive Secretary, Office of the President. It has no corporate existence, and
its appropriations are provided for in the General Appropriations Act. Designed to meet the
printing needs of the Government, it is primarily a service bureau and obviously, not engaged in
business or occupation for pecuniary profit.
Indeed, as an office of the Government, without any corporate or juridical personality, the
Bureau of Printing cannot be sued. (Sec. 1, Rule 3, Rules of Court). Any suit, action or
proceeding against it, if it were to produce any effect, would actually be a suit, action or
proceeding against the Government itself, and the rule is settled that the Government cannot be
sued without its consent, much less over its objection.
G.R. No. 104269 November 11, 1993

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, petitioner, vs. THE NATIONAL LABOR

RELATIONS COMMISSION, et al., respondents.

FACTS:
The Department of Agriculture (herein petitioner) and Sultan Security Agency entered into a
contract3 on 01 April 1989 for security services to be provided by the latter to the said
governmental entity. On 13 September 1990, several guards of the Sultan Security Agency filed
a labor case against DA and SSA.
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 (includes motor
vehicles).

A petition for injunction, prohibition and mandamus, with prayer for preliminary writ of
injunction was filed by the petitioner with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),
Cagayan de Oro, alleging, inter alia, that the writ issued was effected without the Labor Arbiter
having duly acquired jurisdiction over the petitioner, and that, therefore, the decision of the
Labor Arbiter was null and void and all actions pursuant thereto should be deemed equally
invalid and of no legal, effect. The petitioner also pointed out that the attachment or seizure of its
property would hamper and jeopardize petitioner's governmental functions to the prejudice of the
public good.

In this petition for certiorari, the petitioner charges the NLRC with grave abuse of discretion for
refusing to quash the writ of execution. The petitioner faults the NLRC for assuming jurisdiction
over a money claim against the Department, which, it claims, falls under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit. More importantly, the petitioner asserts, the NLRC has
disregarded the cardinal rule on the non-suability of the State.
The private respondents, on the other hand, argue that the petitioner has impliedly waived its
immunity from suit by concluding a service contract with Sultan Security Agency.

ISSUE:

Whether the rule on the non-suitability of the State applies.

RULING:
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
function 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.

But, be that as it may, the claims of private respondents, i.e. for underpayment of wages, holiday
pay, overtime pay and similar other items, arising from the Contract for Service, clearly
constitute money claims. Act No. 3083, aforecited, gives the consent of the State to be "sued
upon any moneyed claim involving liability arising from contract, express or implied. Pursuant,
however, to Commonwealth Act ("C.A.") No. 327, as amended by Presidential Decree ("P.D.")
No. 1145, the money claim must first be brought to the Commission on Audit.

We fail to see any substantial conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of C.A. No. 327
and the Labor Code with respect to money claims against the State. The Labor code, in relation
to Act No. 3083, provides the legal basis for the State liability but the prosecution, enforcement
or satisfaction thereof must still be pursued in accordance with the rules and procedures laid
down in C.A. No. 327, as amended by P.D. 1445.
Republic vs. Sandoval, 220 SCRA 124
FACTS:
Farmer-rallyists (KMP), led by its national president, Jaime Tadeo, presented their problems and
demands, among which were: (a) giving lands for free to farmers; (b) zero retention of lands by
landlords; and (c) stop amortizations of land payments.

There was a marchers-police confrontation which resulted in the death of 12 rallyists and scores
were wounded. As a result, then Pres. Aquino issued AO 11 creating the Citizens Mendiola
Commission for the purpose of conducting an investigation. The most significant
recommendation of the Commission was for the heirs of the deceased and wounded victims to be
compensated by the government. Based on such recommendation, the victims of Mendiola
massacre filed an action for damages against the Republic and the military/police officers
involved in the incident.

Issues:
1. Whether the State has waived its immunity from suit.
2. Whether the case qualifies as a suit against the State.

Held:
1. NO. Art. XIV, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution: The State may not be sued without its consent.
The recommendations by the Commission do not in any way mean that liability
automatically attaches to the State. The Commission was simply a fact-finding body; its
findings shall serve only as cause of action for litigation; it does not bind the State
immediately.

2. NO. Some instances when a suit against the State is proper:

1. When the Republic is sued by name;
2. When the suit is against an unincorporated government agency
3. When the suit is on its face against a government officer but the case is such that
the ultimate liability will belong not to the officer but to the government

Although the military officers and personnel were discharging their official
functions during the incident, their functions ceased to be official the moment they
exceeded their authority. There was lack of justification by the government forces in the use of
firearms. Their main purpose in the rally was to ensure peace and order, but they fired at the
crowd instead.
The State cannot be made liable because the military/police officers who allegedly were
responsible for the death and injuries suffered by the marchers acted beyond the scope of their
authority. It is a settled rule that the State as a person can commit no wrong. The military and
police officers who were responsible for the atrocities can be held personally liable for damages
as they exceeded their authority, hence, the acts cannot be considered official.