CIVIL LAW > XI. QUASI-DELICTS > B. The Tortfeasor > 2. Persons Made Responsible for Others > b. In Particular > v. State

Under Philippine Civil Law, the doctrine of quasi-delicts (culpa aquiliana) assigns liability to persons for acts or omissions that cause harm or damage to others, even in the absence of contractual relationships. The discussion on the liability of the State for quasi-delicts is a nuanced topic governed by principles enshrined in the Civil Code, the Constitution, jurisprudence, and applicable statutes.

1. Basic Principle: General Immunity of the State

The State is generally immune from suit under the doctrine of state immunity, codified in the maxim "The King can do no wrong" and recognized in Philippine law. This principle is enshrined in Article XVI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, which states:

"The State may not be sued without its consent."

This immunity means that the State cannot be held liable for damages arising from quasi-delicts unless it expressly waives its immunity.

2. Exceptions to State Immunity

The State can be held liable under certain circumstances when:

It consents to be sued explicitly through a statute or impliedly by entering into a commercial transaction or activity that falls within the sphere of a private citizen's operations (proprietary acts).
The act in question arises from torts or quasi-delicts attributable to the State or its agents while engaged in proprietary functions.

a. Express Waiver of Immunity

The Civil Code acknowledges the waiver of state immunity for tortious or quasi-delictual acts:

Article 2180, Civil Code: Imposes liability for quasi-delicts on employers for the acts of their employees. This article has been extended to encompass the State under certain conditions.
Legislative enactments, such as the Administrative Code of 1987, also provide specific instances where the State consents to liability.

b. Proprietary Acts (Jure Gestionis) vs. Governmental Acts (Jure Imperii)

The State may be held liable when it engages in proprietary acts (jure gestionis) akin to those undertaken by private entities. However, it retains immunity for acts performed in its sovereign capacity (jure imperii).

3. Application of Article 2180

Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, liability is imposed on certain persons for the acts or omissions of others, including:

Employers for their employees acting within the scope of their assigned duties.

The liability of the State as an employer under Article 2180 depends on:

Whether the acts of its employees or agents were committed in the performance of governmental or proprietary functions.
Whether negligence or omission is established.

Key Principle: The State cannot escape liability under Article 2180 for quasi-delicts committed by its agents performing proprietary functions. However, immunity is retained for sovereign functions unless explicitly waived.

4. Jurisdictional Considerations

Even in cases where the State waives immunity, procedural requirements must be satisfied:

Actions must be filed in proper courts with jurisdiction over claims against the State, such as the Commission on Audit (COA) or regular courts, as dictated by the subject matter.

5. Jurisprudence

Several cases elucidate the liability of the State for quasi-delicts:

Republic v. Villasor (G.R. No. L-30671, 1973)
- Affirmed the general principle of state immunity, emphasizing the need for explicit waiver.
Ministerio v. Court of First Instance of Cebu (G.R. No. L-31635, 1983)
- Established that the State is liable when it engages in proprietary functions.
Amigable v. Cuenca (G.R. No. L-26400, 1970)
- Held the government liable for acts resulting in damages when property was taken without due process or proper expropriation.
United States of America v. Guinto (G.R. No. 76607, 1990)
- Distinguished between sovereign and proprietary functions in determining liability.
Fontanilla v. Maliaman (G.R. No. 151944, 2005)
- Highlighted that agents of the State performing proprietary acts cannot invoke immunity.

6. Damages Recoverable Against the State

When the State consents to be sued for quasi-delicts, the following may be recovered:

Actual damages: To compensate for direct and provable loss.
Moral damages: If the harm caused is due to bad faith or gross negligence.
Exemplary damages: If warranted by circumstances of fraud or wanton misconduct.
Attorney’s fees: As allowed by law or contract.

However, damages against the State are limited to the extent of its consent and must comply with fiscal laws governing public funds.

7. Challenges in Establishing Liability

Proof of Consent: A clear waiver of immunity must be shown.
Scope of Employment: Whether the employee's act was within the bounds of assigned duties.
Nature of the Function: Differentiating between sovereign and proprietary functions is often a contentious issue.
Limitation on Execution: Even when liability is established, execution of judgments against the State is subject to budgetary and fiscal constraints.

8. State-Owned Corporations and Quasi-Delicts

State-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) are generally not immune from suit, particularly if they perform proprietary functions. The test of function determines whether they can be sued:

Governmental Function: Immunity is retained.
Proprietary Function: Liability attaches, and suits for quasi-delicts may prosper.

Conclusion

The liability of the State for quasi-delicts is circumscribed by the doctrine of immunity and the principles governing the nature of the act or omission. While the Civil Code, Constitution, and jurisprudence provide mechanisms for redress, meticulous attention must be paid to procedural and substantive limitations in claims against the State.