Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

SUABILITY VS.

LIABILITY

Republic v. NLRC

Nonetheless, we have likewise since explained29 that suability does not necessarily mean liability on
the part of the particular instrumentality or agency of the government; hence

When the State gives its consent to be sued, it does not thereby necessarily
consent to an unrestrained execution against it. Tersely put, when the State
waives its immunity, all it does, in effect, is to give the other party an
opportunity to prove, if it can, that the State has a liability. In Republic vs.
Villasor this Court, in nullifying the issuance of an alias writ of execution
directed against the funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to satisfy a
final and executory judgment, has explained, thus

The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either by
general law or special law, it may limit claimant's action "only up to the completion of proceedings
anterior to the stage of execution" and that the power of the Courts ends when the judgment is
rendered, since government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or
garnishment to satisfy such judgments, is based on obvious considerations of public policy.
Disbursements of public funds must be covered by the correspondent appropriation as required by
law. The functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or
disrupted by the diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated
by law.30 (Footnotes omitted)

Municipal of Hagonoy Bulacan v. Dumdum

Be that as it may, a difference lies between suability and liability. As held in City of Caloocan v. Allarde,35
where the suability of the state is conceded and by which liability is ascertained judicially, the state is at
liberty to determine for itself whether to satisfy the judgment or not. Execution may not issue upon such
judgment, because statutes waiving non-suability do not authorize the seizure of property to satisfy
judgments recovered from the action. These statutes only convey an implication that the legislature will
recognize such judgment as final and make provisions for its full satisfaction. Thus, where consent to be
sued is given by general or special law, the implication thereof is limited only to the resultant verdict on
the action before execution of the judgment.36

The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either by general
or special law, it may limit claimants action "only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the
stage of execution" and that the power of the Courts ends when the judgment is rendered, since
government funds and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy
such judgments, is based on obvious considerations of public policy. Disbursements of public funds must
be covered by the corresponding appropriations as required by law. The functions and public services
rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the diversion of public funds
from their legitimate and specific objects. x x x39

UP v. Dizon

The funds of the UP are government funds that are public in character. They include the income
accruing from the use of real property ceded to the UP that may be spent only for the attainment of
its institutional objectives.77 Hence, the funds subject of this action could not be validly made the
subject of the RTCs writ of execution or garnishment. The adverse judgment rendered against the
UP in a suit to which it had impliedly consented was not immediately enforceable by execution
against the UP,78 because suability of the State did not necessarily mean its liability.79

A marked distinction exists between suability of the State and its liability. As the Court succinctly
stated in Municipality of San Fernando, La Union v. Firme:80

A distinction should first be made between suability and liability. "Suability depends on the consent
of the state to be sued, liability on the applicable law and the established facts. The circumstance
that a state is suable does not necessarily mean that it is liable; on the other hand, it can never be
held liable if it does not first consent to be sued. Liability is not conceded by the mere fact that the
state has allowed itself to be sued. When the state does waive its sovereign immunity, it is only
giving the plaintiff the chance to prove, if it can, that the defendant is liable.