Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 135 views

    Vigilar v. Aquino Digest

    Uploaded by

    April Joy Omboy
    The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of non-suability of the state does not apply in this case. While the state usually has immunity from suit, this doctrine cannot be used to perpetrate an injustice against a citizen. Here, the respondent constructed a dike for the government and was not paid the contract price despite completing the work. Both the government and public received benefits from the project. Under principles of justice and equity, the respondent is entitled to compensation for work performed, even if the original contract is invalid. The Court of Appeals correctly ordered payment to the respondent based on quantum meruit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Vigilar v. Aquino Digest

    Uploaded by

    April Joy Omboy
    135 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of non-suability of the state does not apply in this case. While the state usually has immunity from suit, this doctrine cannot be used to perpetrate an injustice against a citizen. Here, the respondent constructed a dike for the government and was not paid the contract price despite completing the work. Both the government and public received benefits from the project. Under principles of justice and equity, the respondent is entitled to compensation for work performed, even if the original contract is invalid. The Court of Appeals correctly ordered payment to the respondent based on quantum meruit.

    Original Title

    vigilar v. aquino digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of non-suability of the state does not apply in this case. While the state usually has immunity from suit, this doctrine cannot be used to perpetrate an injustice against a citizen. Here, the respondent constructed a dike for the government and was not paid the contract price despite completing the work. Both the government and public received benefits from the project. Under principles of justice and equity, the respondent is entitled to compensation for work performed, even if the original contract is invalid. The Court of Appeals correctly ordered payment to the respondent based on quantum meruit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    135 views1 page

    Vigilar v. Aquino Digest

    Uploaded by

    April Joy Omboy
    The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of non-suability of the state does not apply in this case. While the state usually has immunity from suit, this doctrine cannot be used to perpetrate an injustice against a citizen. Here, the respondent constructed a dike for the government and was not paid the contract price despite completing the work. Both the government and public received benefits from the project. Under principles of justice and equity, the respondent is entitled to compensation for work performed, even if the original contract is invalid. The Court of Appeals correctly ordered payment to the respondent based on quantum meruit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    GREGORIO R. VIGILAR, et al. v. ARNULFO D. AQUINO G.R. No.

    180388, 18 January 2011, EN BANC


    (Sereno, J.)

    Facts:

    Respondent was invited to bid for a dike project in Pampanga. Respondent eventually won the bid, and
    finished constructing the dike. However, petitioners who are government officials of the DPWH, refused
    to pay petitioner the contract price. Petitioners refuse because the contract is void for violation of P.D.
    1445, for absence of an appropriation. Respondent brought suit in the RTC, which petitioners sought to
    dismiss, raising the non-suability of the state, as well as non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. The
    lower court ruled for the validity of the contract and ordered payment for the project. Upon appeal, the
    Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the lower court and declared the contract invalid. However, the
    CA ordered the Commission on Audit to determine the value of the services rendered by respondent,
    and compensate him based on quantum meruit.

    ISSUE: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Doctrine of Non-Suability of the State has
    no application in this case

    RULING:

    No. This Court has long established in Ministerio v. CFI of Cebu, and recently reiterated in Heirs of
    Pidacan v. ATO, that the doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for
    perpetrating an injustice to a citizen. As this Court enunciated in EPG Construction: To our mind, it
    would be the apex of injustice and highly inequitable to defeat respondent’s right to be duly
    compensated for actual work performed and services rendered, where both the government and the
    public have for years received and accepted benefits from the project and reaped the fruits of
    respondent’s honest toil and labor. x x x x x x x x x Under these circumstances, respondent may not
    validly invoke the Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty and conveniently hide under the State's cloak of
    invincibility against suit, considering that this principle yields to certain settled exceptions. True enough,
    the rule, in any case, is not absolute for it does not say that the state may not be sued under any
    circumstance. x x x x x x x x x Although the Amigable and Ministerio cases generously tackled the issue of
    the State's immunity from suit vis a vis the payment of just compensation for expropriated property, this
    Court nonetheless finds the doctrine enunciated in the aforementioned cases applicable to the instant
    controversy, considering that the ends of justice would be subverted if we were to uphold, in this
    particular instance, the State's immunity from suit. To be sure, this Court — as the staunch guardian of
    the citizens' rights and welfare — cannot sanction an injustice so patent on its face, and allow itself to be
    an instrument in the perpetration 20 thereof. Justice and equity sternly demand that the State's cloak of
    invincibility against suit be shred in this particular instance, and that petitioners-contractors be duly
    compensated — on the basis of quantum meruit — for construction done on the public works housing
    project.

    You might also like