18.3 Lansang V.

CA

FACTS:

Private respondent General Assembly of the Blind (GABI) were allegedly awarded a verbal contract that
is unclear because there was no document or instrument involved of lease in Rizal Park by the National
Parks Development Committee (NPDC).

With the change of government, the new Chairman of NPDC, petitioner Amado J. Lansang, sought to
clean up Rizal Park and terminated the said verbal agreement with GABI and demanded that they vacate
the area.The notice was signed by the president of GABI, private respondent Jose Iglesias, allegedly to
indicate his conformity to its contents but later on claimed that he was deceived into signing the notice.

On the day of the supposed eviction, GABI filed an action for damages and injunction in the RTC against
the petitioner but it was dismissed, ruling that the complaint was actually directed against the state
which could not be sued without its consent.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and ruled that a government
official being sued in his official capacity is not enough to protest such official from liability for acts done
without or in excess of his authority.

ISSUE:

Whether or not private respondents' complaint against petitioner Lansang, as Chairman of NPDC, is in
effect a suit against the state which cannot be sued without its consent?

RULING:

No, the complaint is not a suit against the state.

The doctrine of state immunity from suit applies to complaints filed against public officials for acts
done in the performance of their duties. The rule is that the suit must be regarded as one against the
state where satisfaction of the judgment against the public official concerned will require the state
itself to perform a positive act.