This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-09-16 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In Shauf v. Court of Appeals,[25] we discussed the limitations of the State immunity principle, thus: It is a different matter where the public official is made to account in his capacity as such for acts contrary to law and injurious to the rights of plaintiff. As was clearly set forth by Justice Zaldivar in Director of the Bureau of Telecommunications, et al. vs. Aligaen, etc., et al.: "Inasmuch as the State authorizes only legal acts by its officers, unauthorized acts of government officials or officers are not acts of the State, and an action against the officials or officers by one whose rights have been invaded or violated by such acts, for the protection of his rights, is not a suit against the State within the rule of immunity of the State from suit. In the same tenor, it has been said that an action at law or suit in equity against a State officer or the director of a State department on the ground that, while claiming to act for the State, he violates or invades the personal and property rights of the plaintiff, under an unconstitutional act or under an assumption of authority which he does not have, is not a suit against the State within the constitutional provision that the State may not be sued without its consent." The rationale for this ruling is that the doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice. | |||||
|
2014-09-16 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Shauf v. Court of Appeals[183] evolved the doctrine further as it stated that "[the] rational for this ruling is that the doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice."[184] | |||||