Phil Agila Satellite v. Lichauco FACTS: Petitioner Philippine Agila Satellite Inc. is a duly organized corporation, whose President and Chief Executive Officer is copetitioner !ichael C.". #e $uz%an. PASI was esta&lished &y a consortiu% of private teleco%%unications carriers which in '(() *+une - had entered into a !e%orandu% of "nderstanding with the #OC, through its then Secretary *+uly '((/!arch '((- +esus $arcia, concerning the planned launch of a Philippineowned satellite into outer space. he Philippine govern%ent, through the #OC, was tas0ed under the !O" to secure fro% the International eleco%%unication "nion the re1uired or&ital slots and fre1uency assign%ents for the Philippine satellite. hey re1uested the then #O Secretary A%ado S. 2agda%eo, +r. *Apr '(('((3- for official govern%ent confir%ation of the assign%ent of Philippine or&ital slots ''4Eand '564E to PASI for its A$I2A satellites &y a letter dated +une /7, '((. 8hen it was confir%ed, PASI undertoo0 preparations for the launching, operation and %anage%ent %anage%ent of its satellites satellites &y, a%ong other things, o&taining o&taining loans, loans, increasin increasing g its capital, conductin conducting g negotiati negotiations ons with its &usiness &usiness partners, and %a0ing %a0ing an initial initial pay%ent. 8hen they re1uested the 2and &an09s confir%ation of its participation in a clu& loan for the govern%ent9s assign%ent to PASI of or&ital slots ''4E and '564E, #OC "ndersecretary +osefina . 2ichauco sent a letter to the &an0 controverting the said assign%ent, clearly stating that or&ital slot '56:E can no longer &e assigned to PASI. She su&se1uently issued a ;otice of Offer for several or&ital slots including '564E in #ece%&er '((3. PASI, clai%ing that the offer was without its 0nowledge and that it su&se1uently ca%e to learn that another co%pany whose identity had not &een disclosed had su&%itted a &id and won the award for or&ital slot '564E, filed on +anuary /6,'((7 a co%plaint3&efore the urisdictional capacity and where he perfor%s an act that constitutes grave a&use of discretion tanta%ount to lac0 of >urisdiction. In the latter case, case, the Consti Constitut tution ion itself itself assure assuress the availa availa&il &ility ity of >udic >udicial ial review review,, and it is the offici official al concerned who should &e i%pleaded as the proper party defendant or respondent. As to the first two causes o" action, action , the Court ruled that the defense defense of state i%%unity i%%unity fro% suit do not apply since said causes of action cannot &e properly considered as suits against the State in constitutional conte%plation. hese causes of action do not see0 to i%pose a charge or financial financial lia&ility lia&ility against against the State, &ut %erely %erely the nullifica nullification tion of state action. action. he prayers attached to these two causes of action are for the revocation of the ;otice of Bid and the nullification of the purported award, nothing %ore. ad it &een so that petitioner additionally sought da%ages in relation to said causes of action, the suit would have &een considered as one against the State. ad the petitioner i%pleaded the #OC itself, an unincorporated govern%ent agency, and not 2ichauco herself, the suit would have &een considered as one against the State. But neither circu%stance o&tains in this case. he doctrine, as su%%arized in Shauf v. Court of Appeals states F8hile the doctrine appears to prohi&it only suits against the state without its consent, it is also applica&le to co%plaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly perfor%ed &y the% in the discharge of their duties. he rule is that if the judgment against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same , such as the appropriation of the a%ount needed to pay the da%ages awarded against the%, the suit must be regarded as against the state itself although it has not not been been formal formally ly implea impleaded ded . It %ust &e note noted, d, howe howeve ver, r, that that the the rule rule is not not so all all enco%passing as to &e applica&le under all circu%stances.G circu%stances.G It is a different %atter where the pu&lic official is %ade to account in his capacity as such for acts contrary to law and in>urious to the rights of plaintiff. As was clearly set forth &y +ustice Haldiva Haldivarr in #irect #irector or of the Bureau Bureau of elec eleco%% o%%uni unicat cation ions, s, et al. vs. Aligaen, Aligaen, etc., etc., et al. al. FInas%uch as the State authorizes only legal acts &y its officers, unauthorized acts of govern%ent officials or officers are not acts of the State, and an action against the officials or officers &y one whose rights have &een invaded or violated &y such acts, for the protection of his rights, is not a suit against the State within the rule of i%%unity of the State fro% suit. In the sa%e tenor, it has &een said that an action at law or suit in e1uity against a State officer or the director of a State depart%ent on the ground that, while clai%ing to act for the State, he violates or invades the person personal al and proper property ty rights rights or the plaint plaintiff iff,, under under an uncons unconstit tituti utiona onall act or under under an assu%ption of authority which he does not have, is not a suit against the State within the constitutional constitutional provision that the State %ay not &e sued without its consent. he rationale for this ruling is that the doctrine of state i%%unity cannot &e used as an instru%ent for perpetrating an in>ustice. RATI&NALE: 8hen a pu&lic officer acts without or in excess of >urisdiction, any in>ury caused &y hi% is his own personal lia&ility and cannot &e i%puted to the State. *p.6), Political 2aw, Isagani Cruz-
