business or trade, the particular act or transaction must then be

HOLY SEE VS. ROSARIO tested by its nature. If the act is in pursuit of a sovereign activity, or
an incident thereof, then it is an act jure imperii, especially when it
Petitioner: The Holy See is not undertaken for gain or profit.
Respondent: Hon. Edilberto Rosario, Jr., in his capacity as Presiding In the case at bench, if petitioner has bought and sold lands in the
Judge of RTC Makati, Branch 61, and Strabrights Sales Enterprises, ordinary course of a real estate business, surely the said
Inc. transaction can be categorized as an act jure gestionis. However,
Facts: petitioner has denied that the acquisition and subsequent disposal
Petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of land. Lot of Lot 5-A were made for profit but claimed that it acquired said
5-A, registered under the name of Holy See, was contiguous to Lot property for the site of its mission or the Apostolic Nunciature in the
5-B and 5-D under the name if Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC). Philippines. Private respondent failed to dispute said claim.
The land was donated by the Archdiocese of Manila to the Papal Lot 5-A was acquired by petitioner as a donation from the
Nuncio (considered as the ambassador of the Holy See) for his Archdiocese of Manila. The donation was made not for commercial
residence. Holy See exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City, purpose, but for the use of petitioner to construct thereon the
Rome, Italy. official place of residence of the Papal Nuncio. The right of a foreign
Said lots were sold through an agent (Msgr. Domingo A. sovereign to acquire property, real or personal, in a receiving state,
Cirilos Jr.) to Ramon Licup who assigned his rights to respondents necessary for the creation and maintenance of its diplomatic
When the squatters refuse to vacate the lots, a dispute mission, is recognized in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
arose between the two parties because both were unsure whose Relations (Arts. 20-22). This treaty was concurred in by the
responsibility was it to evict the squatters from said lots. Philippine Senate and entered into force in the Philippines on
Respondent Starbright Sales Enterprise Inc insists that Holy See November 15, 1965.
should clear the property while Holy See responded that the In Article 31(a) of the Convention, a diplomatic envoy is granted
respondent corporation (Starbright) should do it or the earnest immunity from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the
money will be returned. With this Cirilios, the agent, subsequently receiving state over any real action relating to private immovable
returned the P100k earnest money. property situated in the territory of the receiving state which the
The same lots were then sold to Tropicana Properties and envoy holds on behalf of the sending state for the purposes of the
Development Corporation. Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc. filed a mission. If this immunity is provided for a diplomatic envoy, with all
suit for annulment of the sale (the sale to Tropicana), specific the more reason should immunity be recognized as regards the
performance (the fulfillment of prior sale) and damages against sovereign itself, which in this case is the Holy See.
Msgr. Cirilios, PRC as well as Tropicana Properties and Development The decision to transfer the property and the subsequent disposal
Corporation. The Holy See and Msgr. Cirilos moved to dismiss the thereof are likewise clothed with a governmental character.
petition for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity from Petitioner did not sell Lot 5-A for profit or gain. It merely wanted to
suit. RTC denied the motion to dismiss on ground that petitioner dispose off the same because the squatters living thereon made it
already ‘shed off’ its sovereign immunity by entering into a almost impossible for petitioner to use it for the purpose of the
business contract. The subsequent MFR was also denied hence this donation. The fact that squatters have occupied and are still
special civil action for certiorari was forwarded to the SC. occupying the lot, and that they stubbornly refuse to leave the
Nota Bene: premises, has been admitted by private respondent in its complaint
DFA intervened in this case and officially certified thru
Memorandum and Certification that the Embassy (Papal Nuncio) of
the Holy See is a duly accredited diplomatic mission to the Republic WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION VS.
of the Philippines exempt from local jurisdiction and entitled to all
the rights, privileges and immunities of a diplomatic mission or AQUINO, G.R. NO. L-35131
embassy in this country.)
Issue: Facts:
WON Holy See can invoke sovereign immunity from suit.
Held: Dr. Leonce Verstuyft was assigned by WHO to its regional office in
The court held that Holy See may properly invoke Manila as Acting Assistant Director of Health Services. His personal
sovereign immunity for its non-suability. Restrictive Theory was effects, contained in twelve (12) crates, were allowed free entry
applied in this case. Restrictive Theory means that the immunity of from duties and taxes. Constabulary Offshore Action Center
the sovereign is recognized only with regard to public acts (acts jure (COSAC) suspected that the crates “contain large quantities of
imperii) of a state, but not with regard to private acts (acts jure highly dutiable goods” beyond the official needs of Verstuyft. Upon
gestionis). application of the COSAC officers, Judge Aquino issued a search
This Court has considered the following transactions by a foreign warrant for the search and seizure of the personal effects
state with private parties as acts jure imperii: of Verstuyft.
(1) The lease by a foreign government of apartment buildings for
use of its military officers (Syquia v. Lopez, 84 Phil. 312 [1949]; Secretary of Foreign Affairs Carlos P. Romulo advised Judge Aquino
(2) The conduct of public bidding for the repair of a wharf at a that Dr. Verstuyft is entitled to immunity from search in respect for
United States Naval Station (United States of America v. his personal baggage as accorded to members of diplomatic
Ruiz, supra.); and missions pursuant to the Host Agreement and requested that the
(3) The change of employment status of base employees (Sanders search warrant be suspended. The Solicitor General accordingly
v. Veridiano, 162 SCRA 88 [1988]). joined Verstuyft for the quashal of the search warrant but
On the other hand, this Court has considered the following respondent judge nevertheless summarily denied the
transactions by a foreign state with private parties as acts jure quashal. Verstuyft, thus, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition
gestionis: with the SC. WHO joined Verstuyft in asserting diplomatic immunity.
(1) The hiring of a cook in the recreation center, consisting of three
restaurants, a cafeteria, a bakery, a store, and a coffee and pastry Issue:
shop at the John Hay Air Station in Baguio City, to cater to American
servicemen and the general public (United States of America v. Whether or not personal effect of Verstuyft can be exempted from
Rodrigo, 182 SCRA 644 [1990]); and search and seizure under the diplomatic immunity.
(2) The bidding for the operation of barber shops in Clark Air Base
in Angeles City (United States of America v. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644 Held:
[1990]). The operation of the restaurants and other facilities open
to the general public is undoubtedly for profit as a commercial and Yes. The executive branch of the Phils has expressly recognized that
not a governmental activity. By entering into the employment Verstuyft is entitled to diplomatic immunity, pursuant to the
contract with the cook in the discharge of its proprietary function, provisions of the Host Agreement. The DFA formally advised
the United States government impliedly divested itself of its respondent judge of the Philippine Government's official position.
sovereign immunity from suit. The Solicitor General, as principal law officer of the gorvernment,
Certainly, the mere entering into a contract by a foreign likewise expressly affirmed said petitioner's right to diplomatic
state with a private party cannot be the ultimate test. Such immunity and asked for the quashal of the search warrant.
an act can only be the start of the inquiry. The logical question is
whether the foreign state is engaged in the activity in the regular It is a recognized principle of international law and under our
course of business. If the foreign state is not engaged regularly in a system of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is

Verstuyft is entitled to Verstuyft did not abuse his diplomatic immunity. 1972" disregarding Foreign matter. 1972. 2. but notwithstanding the government. inviolability of the of the search warrant. is entitled to diplomatic immunity. respondent judge issued his order of the same officer of the government. officer of the Government. The unfortunate fact that respondent judge chose to rely on the Upon protest of March 6. as duly nevertheless summarily denied quashal of the search warrant per recognized by the executive branch of the Philippine Government his order of May 9. at the instance of respondents COSAC (Constabulary Offshore Action Center) officers for the search and seizure of the personal The Solicitor General accordingly joined petitioner Verstuyft's effects of petitioner official of the WHO (World Health Organization) prayer for the quashal of the search warrant. 1972 by respondents that accordingly "Dr. 1951 between respondents COSAC officers. and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is duties and taxes. or date maintaining the effectivity of the search warrant issued by other officer acting under his discretion. Secretary Romulo's plea of diplomatic immunity on behalf of Dr. Verstuyft. Petitioner Verstuyft has in this Court warrant in question." justify respondent judge's denial of the quashal of the search warrant. among other diplomatic petitioner's right to diplomatic immunity and asked for the quashal privileges and immunities. limited purpose of pleading his diplomatic immunity and motion to quash search warrant of April 12. unless restrained by a higher court. Secretary of crates unopened contain contraband items" rather than on the Foreign Affairs Carlos P. The crates were directly stored at the Eternit recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the government Corporation's warehouse at Mandaluyong. Romulo. pursuant to the provisions of the Host Agreement. seizure of ten crates consigned to petitioner Verstuyft and stored at the Eternit Corporation warehouse on the ground that they "contain The writs of certiorari and prohibition should issue as prayed for. 1972. 1972 for the foreign relations. and the case was thereafter court summons without violating an obligation in international law deemed submitted for decision. The Department of Foreign Affairs formally advised The Court thereafter called for the parties' memoranda in lieu of respondent judge of the Philippine Government's official position oral argument. 1972. Upon filing of the petition. search warrant. The Solicitor-General. which was based immunity from search in respect of his personal baggage as in turn on the official positions taken by the highest executive accorded to members of diplomatic missions" pursuant to the Host officials with competence and authority to act on the matter. system of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is When petitioner Verstuyft's personal effects contained in twelve essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look (12) crates entered the Philippines as unaccompanied baggage on beyond a determination by the executive branch of the January 10. exemptions and facilities accorded to diplomatic petitioners and seeking to justify their act of applying for and envoys in accordance with international law" under section 24 of securing from respondent judge the warrant for the search and the Host Agreement. Leonce Verstuyft. personally wired on the same date categorical assurance of the Solicitor-General that petitioner respondent Judge advising that "Dr. 1972 upon application on the same date of respondents COSAC arm of the government in conducting foreign relations. Hence. he did not abuse his diplomatic immunity." diplomatic immunity. and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is official plea of diplomatic immunity interposed by a duly authorized recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the government representative of the Department of Foreign Affairs who furnished as in the case at bar. large quantities of highly dutiable goods" beyond the official needs 1. Berg. 1971 by the WHO from his last having been allowed free entry from all customs duties and taxes. as to embarrass the executive 3. in violation of the tariff and customs code as claimed by pursuant to the Host Agreement executed on July 22." other officer acting under his direction. the Court issued on June 6. station in Taipei to the Regional Office in Manila as Acting Assistant may not be baselessly claimed to have been "unlawfully imported" Director of Health Services. 72-138 for alleged violation of Republic accepted doctrine that "in such cases the judicial department of Act 4712 amending section 3601 of the Tariff and Customs (this) government follows the action of the political branch and will Code 3 directing the search and seizure of the dutiable items in said not embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction. of the Philippine Government" and asked for the quashal of the It is undisputed in the record that petitioner Dr. respondent judge issued on March seizure and detention of property. "pending his as in the case at bar. jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in not ordering the quashal of the search warrant issued by him in disregard of the At the hearing thereof held on May 8. therefore. 7 likewise expressly affirmed said Such diplomatic immunity carries with it.essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look Respondent judge set the Foreign Secretary's request for hearing beyond a determination by the executive branch of the and heard the same on March 16. Verstuyft cannot be the subject of a Philippine and on August 21. 1972 "for the same reasons already stated in and to prohibit respondent judge from further proceedings in the (his) aforesaid order of March 16. WHO Regional suspicion of respondents COSAC officers "that the other remaining Director for the Western Pacific with station in Manila. as principal law the Philippine Government and the World Health Organization. Respondent judge notwithstanding his being entitled to diplomatic immunity. the Solicitor General in this case. the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs and of Finance. as to embarass the executive arm of the government in conducting Petitioner Verstuyft's special appearance on March 24. holds the respondent judge acted without judge. it is then the duty of the courts to accept the relocation into permanent quarters upon the offer of Mr. Vice claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law President of Eternit who was once a patient of Dr. personal inviolability. the Office of the diplomatic immunity of petitioner Verstuyft. the Solicitor General in this case. could not "pending clarification of the matter from the ASAC. The executive branch of the Philippine Government of said petitioner "and the only lawful way to reach these articles has expressly recognized that petitioner Verstuyft is entitled to and effects for purposes of taxation is through a search warrant. it is officers search warrant No. Verstuyft in the officer of the government. or Congo. been joined by the World Health Organization (WHO) itself in full assertion of petitioner Verstuyft's being entitled "to all privileges Respondents COSAC officers filed their answer joining issue against and immunities. 1972 of Dr. 1972 by petitioners. 1972 failed to move respondent The Court. they were accordingly allowed free entry from government. . it is then the duty of the courts to accept the the respondent judge with a list of the articles brought in by claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law petitioner Verstuyft. Solicitor General appeared and filed an extended comment stating the official position of the executive branch of the Philippine Government that petitioner Verstuyft is entitled to diplomatic (Full Text) immunity. the petition at bar. Rizal. and that court An original action for certiorari and prohibition to set aside proceedings in the receiving or host State are not the proper respondent judge's refusal to quash a search warrant issued by him remedy in the case of abuse of diplomatic immunity. which were filed on August 3. their jurisdiction by seizure and detention of property. since his personal effects and baggages after who was assigned on December 6. Agreement and requesting suspension of the search warrant order namely. and It is a recognized principle of international law and under our exemption from taxation and customs duties. Francisco Dy." crates. 1972 a restraining order enjoining respondents from executing the search Hence. official's properties. as above stated. in adherence to the settled principle that courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction by Nevertheless. exemption from local jurisdiction. Courts may not so exercise him.

C. as confirmed by the Solicitor-General as the principal law officer of Held. Relying on this law. Discussion. The tenability of the claim of universal jurisdiction by CONGO V. Where a foreign minister is suspected of down in Article VII of the Convention on the Privileges and humanitarian violations.. in accordance equivalent to that enjoyed by diplomats and heads of states. crimes against repetition occurs and for other recourses. does such a minister enjoy full immunity from criminal pronouncements of both the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs and of jurisdiction in another state’s court? Finance that petitioner Verstuyft is entitled to diplomatic immunity.R. (Judge not identified in casebook excerpt) Yes. and the temporary restraining order heretofore which a serving minister enjoys does not imply that such minister issued against execution or enforcement of the questioned search take pleasure for the crimes he or she commits of have committed. Fernando. has the force and effect of law. Makalintal. is hereby made As jurisdictional immunity is procedural.C. (P) the proper remedy. Hence on this premise. Belgium’s (D) international arrest warrant jurisdiction is allowed in the cases of those offenses considered the against the Democratic Republic of Congo’s (D. nullified. be held accountable for his crimes.C. a Belgian commitment voluntarily assumed by the Philippine Government and judge issued an international arrest warrant for the foreign minister as such. J. to which respondents officers belong. subject-matter of the case at bar.C. reserves his vote. to ensure that no case of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. diplomatic activities are duties which a foreign minister performs. such a minister enjoys full immunity from criminal officers themselves to obtain the quashal of the search warrant jurisdiction in another state’s court. the argument of Belgium jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in not ordering the that immunities is not applicable to foreign ministers when they are quashal of the search warrant issued by him in disregard of the accused of committing war crimes or crimes against humanity is diplomatic immunity of petitioner Verstuyft. the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) was also continuation of the search warrant proceedings before him was not notified.C. (p). addition to this. capacity. the writs of certiorari and prohibition prayed for are However and with much emphasis. the Philippine Government is bound by the procedure laid Synopsis of Rule of Law. He should.C. The International criminal courts may also try the minister where they have the jurisdiction to do so. Where a foreign minister is suspected of humanitarian disregard and go against the authoritative determination and violations. Such executive determination properly foreign minister is suspected of humanitarian violations and even implemented should have normally constrained respondents war crimes. The Belgium law also denotes that any Hence.R. concur. judge had some ground to prefer respondents COSAC officers' The arrest warrant was circulated internationally and the suspicion that there had been an abuse of diplomatic immunity. BELGIUM domestic courts was not decided in this case although some of the judges in a separate opinion expressed the belief that universal Brief Fact Summary.) (P) foreign most heinous by the international community. if so warranted. In with the aforementioned Convention. so too is criminal permanent. it can therefore be goods or chattels are seized or attached and makes it a penal established that an acting Minister of Foreign Affairs enjoys offense for "every person by whom the same is obtained or full immunity from criminal jurisdiction and inviolability so prosecuted. the COSAC. seemingly to Issue. jurisdiction over another state’s foreign minister and an order of provisional measures of protection on the ground that the warrant It therefore shows that there is no common ground amongst the effectively prevented the foreign minister from leaving the D. The safety nest provided by this immunity is process. The Belgian law provides for universal jurisdiction in the occurrence of the abuse alleged. whether as party or as attorney. a minister is recognized processes sued out or prosecuted whereby inter alia the person of under international law as a representative of the state. even assuming arguendo as against the categorical immunity which is conferred by an individual’s official capacity does assurance of the executive branch of government that respondent not curtail the application of universal jurisdiction. such a minister enjoys full immunity from Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations for criminal jurisdiction in another state’s court. The appropriate with regard to the matters mentioned in paragraph 3 minister also do not enjoy such immunity after he vacates office hereof.J. C. and every officer that he or she may not be hindered in the discharge of his concerned in executing it" to obtain or enforce such writ or or her duties. The D. This action of Belgium was therefore the basis of D.R. consultations between the Host State and the United Nations agency concerned to determine. so that the warrant minister was contended by the D. the Court has noted with concern the apparent lack of curtailed the foreign minister from leaving the D. immunity from jurisdiction hereby granted. holds that respondent judge acted without offense occurred. Said Act declares as null and void writs or he holds and not because of his person..R. Hence. ACCORDINGLY. in the first instance the fact of Facts. and if so. representative in international meeting and negotiations. Makasiar. because of the office taken into account. coordination between the various departments involved in the thus gave its judgment on this case. So ordered. an ambassador or public minister is arrested or imprisoned or his Drawing from this submission. which is hereby declared null and void.C.). of the D. acts committed during the time he/she was in office in a private Castro.C. Zaldivar.J. therefore. believe that there had been such abuse of diplomatic immunity to D. in deference to the suit against it at the International Court of Justice (I.R.As already stated above.. (P) also claimed that its minister should also enjoy immunity the Department of Foreign Affairs for it to deal with. Acting as the state’s secured by them rather than oppose such quashal up to this Court. regardless of whether the purported crimes were committed in the minister’s “official or private” capacity and regardless of when the The Court. judges on the issue of universal jurisdiction as exercised by (P) was sought by the defendant . exclusive competence and jurisdiction of the executive branch of (P) asserted that the warrant against its foreign minister was a clear government to act on the matter. JJ. The I. Finally. travelling to the embarrassment of said department heads. have acceded to the quashal of violation of international law because Belgium purported by this act the search warrant. The foreign minister also has the power to bind the state in the The seriousness of the matter is underscored when the provisions course of his duties and he must be in constant communication of Republic Act 75 enacted since October 21. subsequent to the time he/she was in office as well as in respect of Antonio and Esguerra. No costs. and forwarded his findings or grounds to to exercise jurisdiction over its foreign minister. 1946 to safeguard the with his state and its diplomatic missions around the world as well jurisdictional immunity of diplomatic officials in the Philippines are as with representatives of other states. Barredo. Where a the Government. The The clerk of court is hereby directed to furnish a copy of this minister may thus be brought before the courts in his/her own state decision to the Secretary of Justice for such action as he may find and may lose his/her immunity once his/her state waives it. none having been immunity does not operate to exempt the minister who may under prayed for. certain circumstances. nevertheless. The respondent court is hereby commanded to desist responsibility a matter of substantive law. and may subsequently be charged for acts committed prior to or Concepcion. if not of the internationally and overseeing the smooth running of the state’s Philippine Government itself vis a vis the petitioners.C.R. (P) on the ground that the for the arrest of the plaintiffs foreign minister did not as such arrest contravened international law by purporting to exercise contravene international law. the plaintiff also sought an order of provisional measures of protection on the ground that the warrant effectively 3. and brought to respondent court's attention.J.R.R.C (P) on the premise of grave violations of humanitarian laws to be tried in Belgium. so that jurisdictional from further proceedings in the matter. warrant. which made it possible for a small unit. This is a treaty humanity and other serious offenses.

1975. nullifying and setting aside the writ Personnel explaining the change of the private of preliminary injunction. that a foreign sovereign without its consent is haled into court in the doctrine of state immunity. Jr.B. which renders more obvious the lack of jurisdiction of the November 8.domestic/local courts.S. backwages. What was of their personal and proprietary rights. There should be no misinterpretation of the scope of the decision ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioners were performing their reached by this Court.S. He may therefore be proceeded against in his personal HELD: Yes capacity.S. who died two years ago. wherein it joined petitioner for the grant of the was thereafter filed before this Court. 1977 on the doing an affirmative act pertaining directly and immediately to the main ground that the petitioners had not presented any evidence most important public function of any government . insulate him from suability and liability for an act imputed to him as a personal tort committed without or in excess of his authority. reaction was to protest this conversion and to institute A restraining order was issued by respondent Judge on November grievance proceedings conformably to the pertinent rules 23. a letter purportedly coming from petitioner Moreau as the commanding general of the U. or when the action taken by him cannot be imputed to the  It is stressed at the outset that the mere allegation that a government which he represents. The letter did not carry his signature but was signed by W. 1976. "by direction. consequently. Bataan and that the American Naval Base authorities stopped his logging  Private respondents were advised that their employment operations." The U. Commander of the United both employed as gameroom attendants in the special States Naval Base in Olongapo. respondent Edgardo Gener. effective October 18. as plaintiff. 1964. The invocation of the doctrine of immunity respondent's employment status and requesting from suit of a foreign state without its consent is appropriate concurrence therewith. Moreover. as the Commander of the United official duties when they did the acts for which they have States Naval Base in Olongapo. though not in name. The private sought by private respondent and what was granted by respondent respondents made it clear that the petitioners were being Judge amounted to an interference with the performance of the sued in their private or personal capacity. upon instructions of the American and regulations of the U. duties of petitioner in the base area in accordance with the powers possessed by him under the Philippine-American Military Bases In a motion to dismiss filed under a special appearance.  On November 7. Sanders Whether the contention of the petitioner that the respondent judge disagreed with the hearing officer's report and asked for acquires no jurisdiction on the ground that the suit was one against the rejection of the abovestated recommendation. which includes the said station. services department of the NAVSTA. In any event therefore. The plaintiffs claimed that the letters courts of his country. The doctrine of state immunity is not limited to cases which would the court had no jurisdiction over them under the doctrine of state result in a pecuniary charge against the sovereign or would require immunity. Municipality of Morong. Israel claimed universal jurisdiction when it kidnapped the former Nazi Adolf Eichmann from Argentina in 1961 and tried him in an Israeli court and executed him. does not possess diplomatic been sued for damages by the private respondents immunity. the connection with acts performed by it pursuant to treaty provisions mere invocation of official character will not suffice to and thus impressed with a governmental character. Prevention of a sovereign from The motion was denied in an order dated March 8. interpretation of the relevant treaty provision by our government is made clear in the aforesaid manifestation and memorandum This petition for certiorari. the allegation in the complaint was that the defendants affirmative act. Department of Defense. the doing of an affirmative act by it. as so was private filed a complaint for injunction with the Court of First Instance of respondent Wyer. at the time the incident in question occurred. CRUZ. there is always a precedent when a domestic court exercises universal jurisdiction. The Ambassador to the Philippines. Naval The contention of the petitioner is tenable. TIZON the commanding officer of the Subic Naval Base. the state — is equally as untenable as requiring it to do an moreover. Naval Station (NAVSTA) in Olongapo City. SANDERS V VERIDIANO For instance. the private Government without the latter's consent but it is of a citizen filing respondent filed in the Court of First Instance of Olongapo an action against a foreign government without said government's City for damages against the herein petitioners on consent. 1964. Moore. The writ of certiorari Station in Subic Bay was sent to the Chief of Naval prayed for is granted. Facts:  Private respondent Rossi is an American citizen with On November 17. By the same token. Donald Baer." prejudgment of the grievance proceedings was an invasion The solidity of the stand of petitioner is therefore evident." That such an appraisal is not opposed to the had acted maliciously and in bad faith.:  Petitioner Sanders was. this is not only a case of a citizen filing a suit against his own  On the basis of these antecedent facts. Government has not given its consent to the filing of this presumably of Moreau. Petitioner. a foreign sovereign without its consent. Petitioner Moreau was BAER V. above-narrated acts of the respondent court are tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.the defense of that their acts were official in nature and not personal torts. on the contention that the remedy prayed for. entered their appearance for the result was a recommendation from the hearing officer who purpose of contesting the jurisdiction of respondent Judge on the conducted the proceedings for the reinstatement of the ground that the suit was one against a foreign sovereign without its private respondents to permanent full-time status plus consent. petitioners argued that the acts complained of were performed by them in the discharge of their official duties and that. Their from interfering with his logging operations. the special services director of the U. . area situated in Barrio Mabayo. They were Bataan against petitioner. prohibition and preliminary injunction as amicus curiae. government functionary is being sued in his personal capacity will not automatically remove him from the The insuperable obstacle to the jurisdiction of respondent Judge is protection of the law of public officers and. 1975. if appropriate. Issue:  In a letter addressed to petitioner Moreau. The principles of law behind this rule are so contained libelous imputations that had exposed them to elementary and of such general acceptance that we deem it ridicule and caused them mental anguish and that the unnecessary to cite authorities in support thereof. had been converted from permanent full-time to He prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction restraining petitioner permanent part-time. permanent residence in the Philippines. the former having He alleged that he was engaged in the business of logging in an been hired in 1971 and the latter in 1969. Counsel for petitioner.S. before the start of the grievance Ruling: YES hearings. J. the Agreement. suit which is essentially against her.

the complaint Moreover. outside the JUSMAG premises in front of many people and upon the orders of Bradford. hereinafter referred to as Bradford. thus making the plaintiff and informed her that she needed to search her bags. Navy Exchange (NEX) at the Joint United States Military Assistance Group Given the official character of the above-described letters. that is American citizen who was the activity exchange manager at the responsible for their acts. Maxine Bradford.That on the way to her car while already government to perform an affirmative act to satisfy outside the store. to repeat. officers of the United States government. the territory where she exercises such authority. Yong Kennedy in the doctrine. as director of the special services department of HELD: NAVSTA.) checker at the U. depends. thus appealing to the Supreme Court. Sanders. the petioners were. In a been shown to form part of the facility of which she was the letter addressed to petitioner Moreau.S. that the letters contained libellous imputations which caused them These well-settled principles are applicable not only to the officers to be ridiculed and thus filed for damages against petitioners. who cannot satisfy HELD: any judgment that may be rendered against them. legally speaking. legally speaking. the Chief of Naval Personnel for concurrence with the conversion of the private respondents' type of employment US V REYES even before the grievance proceedings had even commenced. The practical justification for the person. Ms. Navy and stationed in San Francisco. Petitioner behalf of that government. That plaintiff went to defendant. California. Montoya filed said civil case for admonishes that par in parem non habet imperium and that a damages against Bradford which were granted by the lower courts. employed as an identification (I. we have (JUSMAG) headquarters in Quezon City. as Holmes put it. who has the propensity for laying suspicion on Filipinos for theft or shoplifting. is that "there can be no legal right presence of the defendant and numerous curious onlookers. the complaint an "illegal search" on her "person and belongings" conducted must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 1987. She is married to one to conclude that the petitioners were. is likewise an it is that government. being sued as information regarding the case of the private respondents.That the search was thereafter made on the has given its consent to' be sued. Maxine Bradford. As they have acted on the U. he still was cannot prosper unless the government sought to be held ultimately within his rights in reacting to the hearing officer's liable has given its consent to be sued. number of well-recognized exceptions. the other petitioner. hereinafter referred to as Montoya.That against the authority which makes the law on which the right having found nothing irregular on her person and belongings. after working as the duty ID checker in their personal capacities but by the United States from 7:45 to 11:45 a. The private respondents criticism—in effect a direct attack against him—-that must pursue their claim against the petitioners in accordance with Special Services was practicing "an autocratic form of the laws of the Unites States of which they are all citizens and supervision. at the parking area which has not converted from permanent full-time to permanent part-time. and within the scope of their authority. that is. By their motion to dismiss. also an ID checker. of the local state but also where the person sued in its courts pertains to the government of a foreign state. for the official acts of the petitioners. even in the absence of such request. not to say that in no case may a public officer be sued as such Bradford filed for certiorari to the appellate court but fails to follow without the previous consent of the state. Sanders disagreed with the manager. car and bags of the plaintiff by Mrs. plaintiff went shopping and left the store government as their principal. The act is clearly official in nature. a Filipino-American serviceman employed by as officers of the United States government. On October 3. and not the petitioners personally. at the time material to this case. comes under the rule and not sovereign. under any of the recognized exceptions. 16 In the case of foreign states. outside the respondents were advised that their employment had been the NEX-JUSMAG — particularly. As such. Yong Kennedy.S. is directly answerable to Naval Personnel in matters involving an American citizen who. FACTS: Petitioner Dale Sanders was the special services of the US Naval Howsoever viewed. in her private capacity — but also outside in the special services department of NAVSTA. upon the the judgment." under whose jurisdiction the alleged offenses were committed for  As for Moreau. Private respondents Anthony action is premised on the theory that the acts complained of were Rossi and Ralph Wyers are American citizens permanently residing committed by Bradford not only outside the scope of her authority in the Philippines and who were employed as gameroom attendants — or more specifically. there are a procedure. the appropriation of the necessary instruction of the store manager. As it is The court held against the petitioner for lack of merit. retail store with the following facts: such award will have to be satisfied not by the petitioners That on January 22. Mrs. who was then outside the store talking to some men. Given the official character from his superior. to protest the search but she was informed by There should be no question by now that such complaint cannot the defendant that the search is to be made on all Jusmag prosper unless the government sought to be held ultimately liable employees that day. . contrary attitude would "unduly vex the peace of nations. said JUSMAG Headquarters. An incident occurred on January 22 where Montoya was  Assuming that the trial can proceed and it is proved that searched and harassed by the order of Bradford at the NEX JUSMAG the claimants have a right to the payment of damages. principle of the sovereign equality of states which wisely On the month of May. It is averred that the said search (Another Source) was directed only against Montoya. This will require that at l2:00 noon of that day. undoubtedly had supervision over its personnel. To be sure. being sued Edgardo H. approached amount to cover the damages awarded. It is not disputed that the petitioner are being called to account were performed by them the letter he had written was in fact a reply to a request in the discharge of their official duties. was the special services department of NAVSTA. Montoya.D. the rule is derived from the plaintiff was allowed to leave the premises. ISSUES: W/N the prior suit should take to effect against a foreign  The case at bar. performed FACTS: by Moreau as the immediate superior of Sanders and Private respondent. public petitioner and Bradford hearing officer’s report of the reinstatement of private respondents are deemed to have hypothetically admitted the truth of the to permanent full-time status plus backwages. 1975." All this is but for a smaller amount on the reliefs prayed for by the Montoya. 1) Were the petitioners acting officially or only in their private capacities when they did the acts for which the private respondents  It is abundantly clear in the present case that the acts for sued them for damages? which the petitioners are being called to account were 2) Does the court have jurisdiction over the case? performed by them in the discharge of their official duties. viz. the American government itself that will have to perform The court viewed that: the affirmative act of appropriating the amount that may The complaint for damages arising from what Montoya describes as be adjudged for the private respondents. what he is claimed to have done was write the Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over the case. it is beyond doubt that Montoya's cause of Station (NAVSTA) in Olongapo city. for more of the letters.. The government W/N petitioner is immune from acts pursuant to her of the United States has not given its consent to be sued assigned function as manager. Respondents allege allegation in the complaint which support this theory. as in the present ISSUE: case. It is abundantly clear in the present case that the acts for which including the private respondents. action a suit against that government without its consent.m.

has sovereign immunity from suit and The rule of State immunity exempts a State from being sued in the cannot be sued as a party-defendant in the Philippines. electrical facilities. for the protection of his rights. allegations therein. represented by its Counselor. preliminary injunction to restrain the petitioners from entering into Hence. or for the petitioners to pay damages and to issue a writ of compliance with the standards set in the Maintenance Agreement. Such act within the constitutional provision that the State may not is only the start of the inquiry. In this case. Siti necessarily inconsistent with sovereign immunity. the respondent that the renewal of the agreement shall be at the company received two telegrams requesting it to confirm its price. as Philippines. Inc. Minister In June 1972. as the portion of the agreement did not the State from suit. the case falls within the exception to the generator sets. "Inasmuch as the State authorizes only legal acts by its ISSUE: Whether or not. the the doctrinaire of state immunity cannot be used as an instrument establishment of a diplomatic mission encompasses its for perpetrating an injustice. he violates or invades the necessary consequence of the principles of independence and personal and property rights of the plaintiff. by entering into such officers. The aforesaid provision contains language not The Republic of Indonesia. under an equality of States. state immunity now extends only to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and therefore enjoy governmental acts of the state.” maintenance and upkeep. water heaters. courts of another state without its consent or waiver. such provision may also be meant to apply with respondent James Vinzon. The Maintenance Agreement stated that respondent shall. the Indonesia. the courts The Maintenance Agreement provides in that – of the Philippines have no jurisdiction over the case for the US “Any legal action arising out of this Maintenance government has not given consent to the filing of this suit. Philippines and by the proper court of Makati City. the Indonesia has expressly waived its immunity from suit. they informed responded to the invitation and submitted bids. 2000. the State may enter into contracts with private entities to her private or personal capacity for acts allegedly done beyond the maintain the premises. he allegedly found petitioners demanding that the company perform the work on the respondents work and services unsatisfactory and not in projects.” ascribed in Shauf vs. unauthorized acts of government officials or agreement. said and the living quarters of its agents and officials. The sovereign immunity. Embassy Annex Building and the Wisma Duta. The 2000. the proper court may have no proper equipment covered by the Maintenance Agreement are air action. letter dated August 31. A. In turn. respondent filed on March 20. When Minister Counsellor Kasim assumed the position of company then sued the United States of America and individual Chief of Administration in March 2000. electrical facilities. and Indonesia elevated in his capacity as such for acts: the case to the Supreme Court. It is likewise stated therein that the agreement shall be effective for a period of four years and will US V RUIZ renew itself automatically unless cancelled by either party by giving thirty days prior written notice from the date of expiry. water heaters. who was expected to arrive in February company did not qualify to receive an award for the projects. conditioning units. it has been said that constitute waiver of immunity from suit: an action at law or suit in equity against a State officer or the director of a State department on the ground that. Agreement shall be settled according to the laws of the . Respondent filed a 2) Does the Court have jurisdiction over the case? complaint against petitioners (RTC) of Makati. Eligio de Guzman & Co. The mere entering into a contract by a foreign unconstitutional act or under an assumption of authority State with a private party cannot be construed as the ultimate test which he does not have. that they had earlier verbally informed ISSUE: respondent of their decision to terminate the agreement. There is the discussion on the exceptions to State Immunity. respondent claims that the aforesaid functions? termination was arbitrary and unlawful. immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of an Opposition to the said motion alleging that the Republic of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign. as a HELD: foreign sovereign State. by virtue of state immunity. indisputably. or otherwise waives its immunity by any subsequent act. the Philippine laws in its totality. CA: It is a different matter where the public official is made to account The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. generator sets. furnishings and equipment of the embassy scope and even beyond her place of official functions. The republic of Indonesia cannot be deemed to have waived its immunity to suit. Since it is apparent from the complaint that Bradford was sued in Hence. Subsequently. including the principle recognizing official residence of petitioner Ambassador Soeratmin. alleging that the Republic of Indonesia. the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. and water motor doctrine of state immunity pumps of the Indonesian Embassy and the official residence of the WHEREFORE. the Indonesian Embassy terminated the agreement in a contracts with third parties concerning the project. except to dismiss it. Hence. It is therefore complaint is not then vulnerable to a motion to dismiss based on clear that petitioner Republic of Indonesia was acting in pursuit of a the grounds relied upon by the petitioners because as a sovereign activity when it entered into a contract with respondent consequence of the hypothetical admission of the truth of the for the upkeep or maintenance of the air conditioning units. The Indonesian ambassador. 1) Do the petitioners exercise governmental or proprietary On the other hand. sole proprietor of Vinzon Trade and where the sovereign party elects to sue in the local courts. However. and an action against the officials or officers by one whose rights have been invaded RULING: No. Partinah. by way of settling the case. or violated by such acts. or before August 1999. Services. The rule that a State may not be sued without its consent is a while claiming to act or the State. The existence alone of a paragraph in a contract stating that any legal action arising out of the agreement shall be REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA VS VINZON settled according to the laws of the Philippines and by a specified court of the Philippines is not necessarily a waiver of sovereign FACTS: immunity from suit. a function Agreement. Petitioners claim. the company received a letter which said that the Counsellor Azhari Kasim. discretion of the incoming Chief of Administration. This is a The said motion further alleged that Ambassador Soeratmin and necessary consequence of the principles of independence and Minister Counsellor Kasim are diplomatic agents as defined under equality of states. had waived its immunity from suit. 2001. for a consideration. the said agreement. He based projects are integral part of the naval base which is devoted to the this claim upon the following provision in the Maintenance defense of the USA and Philippines which is. officers are not acts of the State. Temporary Restraining Order of 7 December 1987 is hereby LIFTED. FACTS: Sometime in May 1972. moreover. A sovereign State does not merely be sued without its consent. is The Supreme Court reversed the trial court and ordered that the not a suit against the State within the rule of immunity of complaint be dismissed. of the government. As such. maintain specified equipment at the Embassy The applicability of Philippine laws must be deemed to include Main Building. entered into a Maintenance Agreement in August 1995 On the other hand. the United States invited the submission of Petitioners claim that sometime prior to the date of expiration of bids for certain naval projects. Costs against petitioner Bradford B. The restrictive application of State diplomatic immunity." The rationale for this ruling is that establish a diplomatic mission and leave it at that. In the same tenor. and water motor pumps. is not a suit against the State of whether or not it is an act jure imperii or jure gestionis. petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss.

S. that the complaint James F. the U. 1986 by Col. the defendants beat them up. The temporary restraining order dated December Camp O'Donnell. explained that the Civil Engineering concession had not handcuffed them. The which had not waived its non-suability Private respondents submitted their bids because they are concessionaire inside the Clark air base for several years. was 11. to . The individual defendants. conduct a rebidding for the barbershop concessions and to allow the private respondents by a writ of preliminary US V GUINTO injunction to continue operating the concessions pending litigation Facts: The private respondents are suing several officers of the  Respondent court directed the individual petitioners to U. Petitioners Yvonne Reeves and to dismiss Frederic M. which had not waived its  His dismissal was effected on March 5. June  Fabian Genove filed a complaint for damages against 30. 1988 PACAF Clark Air Force Base RTC denied the petitioners motion to dismiss on the ground that the  Genove filed a complaint in the RTC of Baguio contract is commercial in nature between the plaintiffs as well as the defendants.December 11. immune from suit for the acts done by him in his official capacity. 1986 the private respondents file a complaint to RTC to compel petitioners Anthony Lamachia. The petition is dismissed and the respondent judge is directed to proceed with the hearing and decision of Civil  Luis Bautisa. Air Force through its and opposition to the petition for preliminary injunction on Western Pacific Contracting Office in Okinawa Area Exchange the ground that the action was in effect a suit against USA solicited bids through the contracting officer. Rose PHAX and the petitioners to cancel the award to defendant Dizon Cartalla and Peter Orascion for his dismissal as cook in the and to conduct re-bidding of the barbershop concession and to US Air Force Recreation Center at the John Hay Air Station allow respondent to continue operating pending on ligation by writ in Baguio City of preliminary injunction. the petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the said base. the defendants had come under  Bidding was won by Ramon Dizon over the objection of the the jurisdiction of the court when they submitted their private respondents who claimed that he had made a bid answer for 4 facilities. US Air Force. 1986. Air Force USA. Dye and Stephen F. Air Force. 1986. 1986. 1988. 1986 petitioner file motion to dismiss and opposition to the the soup stock used in cooking the vegetables served to preliminary injunction. 4772. del Pilar not civil cases. the defendants file a petition  The defendants.S. upon the private respondents' complaint. King. Shaw was in effect a suit against the US without its consent  Among those who submitted their bids were private  Motion was denied by respondent judge: immunity under respondents Roberto T. for certiorari and prohibition and preliminary injunction to the moved to dismiss the complaint. Valencia. 1986.S. Darrel D. James F. and the conclusion reached inUnited Sates of America v Ruiz case On the third suit: cannot be applied. claiming that it was because of their  In the 4 consolidated suits. Kimball. On February 24. Air Force station in Clark Air Base in connection with the maintain the status quo bidding conducted by them for contracts for barbering services in  On July 22. who was employed as a barracks boy in Case No. trial court denied the application for a bidding was won by the defendant Ramon Dizon with objection of writ of preliminary injunction the private respondents because the defendant submitted bidding  On Oct. as officials/employees of C. David non-suability. moreover. 1986. Emerenciana C. Okinawa Area Exchange. the Military Bases Agreement covered only criminal and and Pablo C. 1986 is lifted. Wilfredo Belsa. Smouse explained that bidding is not awarded to Dizon On the second suit: but an extension of his present contract until August 31. through its  Complaint for damages was filed by private respondents representatives petitioners Yvonne Reeves and Frederic M.Suits not against the state . The U. were also immune from suit. Tanglao. the Western Pacific Contracting Agreement Office. which had not given its consent to be sued were immune from suit?  Motion was denied by respondent judge: although acting intially in their official capacities. on the ground that the action was in effect a the club customers suit against the United States of America. the defendants went beyond what their functions called for. arrested following a buy-bust operation conducted by the individual petitioners Tomi J. against the petitioners (except USA) Smouse. they argued that the suit was in effect against Issue: Whether or not the officials/employees of the U. then arrested for theft and were bitten by dogs because they known as the NCO club concession were struggling and resisting arrest  On June 30. trial court denied the petitioners' motion not mention in the solicitation. solicited bids  The counsel for the defense invoked that the defendants for barber services contracts through its contracting officer were acting in their official capacity. 10. an extension of Clark Air Base. and unleashed dogs on them been awarded to Dizon  Defendants deny this and claim that the plaintiffs were  But Dizon was already operating this concession.  It had been ascertained that Genove had poured urine into July 22. alleging that Lamachia Supreme Court on the decision of the RTC denying the motion to (the manager) as an officer of the US Air Force was dismiss the case.S. 1986. The respondent court issued an ex parte order directing individual petitioner to maintain status quo. Bostick. pursuant to the RP-US Military Bases  On February 24. Shaw.Failure to raise  Bautista was dismissed from his employment as a result of immunity as defense the filing of the charge  He then filed a complaint for damages against the Facts: individual petitioners. including the Civil Engineering Area which was not included in the invitation to bid On the fourth suit:  The Philippine Area Exchange (PHAX). this brought them Held: The court ruled that that the petitioner cannot plead any out of the protective mantle of whatever immunities they immunity from the complaint filed by the private respondents. 1986. the USA moves to dismiss the acts that he was removed cases on the ground that they are in effect suits against it  Defendants alleged that they had only done their duty in which it has not consented the enforcement of laws of the Philippines inside the On the first suit: American bases. October 10. officers of the US Air Force and special agents of the Air Force of Special Investigators (AFOSI) Topic: Sovereignty . but the  On July 22.  According to the plaintiffs. the private respondents filed a  USA and the defendants argued that the suit was in effect complaint in the court below to compel PHAX and the a suit against the United States which had not given its individual petitioners to cancel the award to Dizon. The may have had in the beginning contracts in question being decidedly Commercial. Commander of the 3rd Combat Support Group. joined by the United States of America.

who at the time of the ship’s entry into the United States territory.) Held:  3rd suit: Yes. Holding and Ratio: Spain. not have jurisdiction over the case. a foreign sovereign and his diplomatic representatives were closer study. On appeal. owned by John M'Faddon and William Greetham. the U. When the vessel later enterprises operated by private persons. declaration to do so. 11 U. It is clear that the petitioners were acting in Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court. and affirmed the district with Genove. [13] This system was only revised in favor of judicial interpretations with the Held. Additionally. Petitioner thru the DFA ministers. A nation’s jurisdiction within its sovereign territory is exclusive and absolute. exempted by consent of the power of the friendly jurisdiction whose port the ship enters. While a nation could close its ports to Brief Fact Summary. the exemption of the person of the sovereign from arrest or notified the respondent that it was immune from suit except in imprisonment within a foreign country. it impliedly divested itself of its sovereign court's dismissal of the action. Maryland. 1809.[7] From this. the petitioners are only suable. Marshall also noted that under international custom not given its consent to be sued. Reversed. with the privileges that Facts. C. it would have to issue some form of entitlements to the schooner Exchange. The United States’ (D) request for the dismissal of ownership and release of the ship was Significance: granted by the district court. 1810. The petitioners cannot invoke the doctrine of dispute. MCFADDON. He noted that by the the exercise of their official functions. For  4th suit: The contradictory factual allegations deserve a instance. would be exempt from the jurisdiction of the country.S and France were on friendly terms. private ships do not carry with them the sovereign status of military ships. consent to be sued. it generally implied a waiver of jurisdiction over that army. [4] This custom was firmly enough established and necessary for international relations that it would be wrongful for a country to violate it without prior notice. which has jurisdiction. if they were ever court. immunity from suit. Only after can it be known in what capacity the petitioners if a state granted permission for a foreign army free passage across its were acting at the time of the incident. Two Americans (P) claimed they owned and were entitled to the accompany it. On December 30. currently under the control and supervision of a foreign power. nation's implied consent). the Exchange was seized by order of Napoleon Bonaparte. Case should be remanded to the lower court. foreign state immunity". M'Faddon and Greetham filed agencies of the US Armed forces. the LA still proceed to take cognizance of the case and rendered decision adverse to that of the .J. that they were also immune from suit Another Source: under the RP-US Bases Treaty for acts done by them in the performance of their official functions The Schooner Exchange v. The claim which the customary international law.S. determined that there was no admitted by the defendants jurisdiction. such sovereign is understood provided by its charter. state immunity. (Marshall. on October 27. Inquiry must first be made by the lower court. At this point in time. claiming that it had been immunity. M'Faddon. For discharging their definition of sovereignty. Are National ships of war viewed as been exempted by the consent of some explicit dicta. and military ships. Even after the notification. The Exchange been a public armed ship. Marshall arrived at the conclusion that. to mean he has ceded a portion of his territorial jurisdiction. The district court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the  2nd suit: No. Issue:  Whether or not the suits above are in effect suits against Facts: United States of America without its consent  In relation. The absolute form of sovereign immunity from judicial Facts: jurisdiction was implicated in this case.S. interpreting customary international law. generally free from the jurisdiction of domestic courts when visiting. DFA V NLRC Discussion. Two Americans (P) laid claims of ownership and the warships of another country. jurisdiction was presumed to be waived in a number of situations. Three principles were brought forward Respondent filed a case against petitioner for violation of by the court in this case. The restaurants are commercial and ordered the district court to proceed to the merits of the case. along with Issue. 116 (1812) is a United  Motion to dismiss was denied by the trial court: the acts StatesSupreme Court case concerning the Federal courts' jurisdiction over a claim against a friendly foreign military vessel visiting an American port.[6]Marshall further Synopsis of Rule of Law. this judgment was reversed by the circuit court and this did not prevent the United States (D) from appealing to The decision is regarded as the "first definitive statement of the doctrine of the U. by maritime custom a nation's ports were presumptively open to all friendly ships.[5] SCHOONER EXCHANGE V. was at peace with the United States. sailed from Baltimore. a friendly foreign warship could enter a nation's port with its implied consent. Petitioners cannot plead an action in the district court to seize the vessel. the immunity that all civilized nations allow to foreign “Labor only” law in the Larbor arbiter. and when a sovereign permits troops cases of borrowing of money. They are not docked in Philadelphia due to storm damage.[12] led to a tradition of great deference by the courts to the power of the friendly jurisdiction whose port the ship enters? official and individual determinations of immunity by the State Department. the circuit court reversed the decision of the district court. territory. taken illegally. By entering into the employment contract Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decision. not liable. they cannot be directly its own territory. 11 Marshall further noted that while the right of free passage by an army need U. guaranties and sale of securities as of a foreign prince to pass through his territory. National ships of war are viewed as been distinguished the difference between private merchant ships and citizens exempted by consent of the power of the friendly jurisdiction whose port the (who are subject to a nation's jurisdiction when they enter its ports with the ship enters. The cannot be considered Acts of State. The barbershops concessions are commercial as a French warship under the name of Balaou. a state has absolute and exclusive jurisdiction within duties as agents of the US. the ship which was owned by the Emperor of France had been Applying this analysis to the facts at hand. a friendly warship that enters a nation's open United States Attorney (D) put forward for the prevention of the ship leaving port are exempted from that nation's jurisdiction. Without such a declaration. However. the unwillingness of the Court to find jurisdiction without action by the political branches of government.) Yes. Namely. [3]Similarly.S. must be viewed as having entered the states territory under an implied promise that while in such environment. Marshall found that the courts did forced to enter the port of Philadelphia due to bad weather conditions. by schooner Exchange they seized on the high seas. from suit for acting within their official functions. but that it could also by implied or express consent waive impleaded for acts attributable to their principal.[2] Moreover.[8] was that. (However. Supreme Court. National ships of war are viewed as been passage of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act in 1976. whether or not the defendants are also immune The schooner Exchange. The Exchange was then armed and commissioned  1st suit: No.[1] The enterprises. 116 (1812) usually be explicitly granted (likely because such passage inevitably involves physical damage of some sort). for San Sebastián.

to the cloak of invincibility against suit. Won the petitioner was immune from suit. in view of violation of applicable laws. the amount of P5.918. the petitioner is immune from suit official function or duties. 1996. if not consent. . Unpaid balance for the additional constructions amounted to P5. respondent Secretary Gregorio Administration. 1995. faithful copy of its original. Trial court denied the motion to dismiss. verbal contracts between the immunity. poseur-buyer during the buy-bust operation. in adherence to the settled principle that courts may not so By virtue of the MOA. as to embarrass the executive arm of petitioners EPG. an Iranian national. . being a special agent of the United States Drug Enforcement In a letter dated August 26. only around "2/3 of each housing unit" Petitioners agreed to undertake and perform "additional constructions" for the completion of the housing units despite the MINUCHER V CA fact that there was only a verbal promise. Lower court denied the petition on February 18. it is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity undertook to develop the housing site and construct thereon 145 upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of the housing units government.819. Private respondent argues that. 1997 ISSUE Issue: Whether or not Arthur Scalzo is indeed entitled to diplomatic Whether or not the implied. Phil. MPWH forged individual contracts with exercise their jurisdiction . ADB has descended to The job description of Scalzo has tasked him to conduct surveillance the level of an ordinary party to a commercial transaction giving on suspected drug suppliers and. (what one has earned) and should be forwarded to the Commission on Audit (COA) Minucher later on filed for damages due to trumped-up charges of In a Letter of the Undersecretary of Budget and Management dated drug trafficking made by Arthur Scalzo. He attached Vigilar denied the subject money claims to his motion Diplomatic Note of the United States Embassy Petitioners filed before the RTC of QC. declaration or prohibition by law. by entering into service contracts with different private companies. and De Leon doctrine that 'in such cases the judicial department of government Araneta Construction for the construction of the housing units follows the action of the political branch and will not embarrass the Under the contracts. the COA referred Administration of the United States Department of Justice. Performance Builders. where heroin was said to have been petitioners' money claims should be based on quantum meruit seized.The Charter and the Headquarters EPG CONSTRUCTION V. Whether or not the State is immune from suit? RULLING Holding: YES. A4-1303-04-41-303 his official duties as being merely an agent of the Drug Enforcement In an indorsement dated December 27. operating within a territory. and then becoming a principal witness in the criminal case against Minucher.63 Violation of the “Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.00 was then released for the payment of the petitioners' money claims under Scalzo on his counterclaims that he had acted in the discharge of Advise of Allotment No.” was filed against Minucher following a “buy-bust operation” conducted by Philippine Upon a demand letter from the petitioners. and not a written contract by the MPWH Undersecretary Aber Canlas that additional Facts funds will be available and forthcoming. Scalzo anew the money claims to the DPWH subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that. can be cloaked Yes. Held: Scalzo hardly can be said to have acted beyond the scope of his Yes. for Legal Affairs recommends their the “buy-bust operation” conducted at the residence of Minucher at compensation. and lack of legal requirements. on November 14. the Ministry of Human Settlement (MHS). Ciper. .petitioner under the impression that the latter has waived its activities within Philippine territory of agent Scalzo of the United immunity. petitioners and then Undersecretary Canlas should be upheld.315. States Drug Enforcement Agency. the scope of construction and funding covered latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction. police narcotic agents accompanied by Scalzo in the house of DPWH Asst. after having ascertained the rise to a waiver of its immunity from suit target. certifying that the note is a true and claims plus damages and attorney's fees. Hence. December 20. The respondent may not conveniently hide under the State's government has given its imprimatur. 1994. it still finds merit in the The consent or imprimatur of the Philippine government to the instant petition activities of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency. The illegality of the implied contracts proceeds from an express can be gleaned from the undisputed facts in the case. While the court agrees with the respondent that the implied with immunity from suit as long as it can be established that he is contracts are void. Glass World. The charter of the said corporation provides that it is immune from suit. In 1983. the government in conducting foreign relations.316. however. not from any intrinsic illegality The official exchanges of communication between agencies of the "in the interest of substantial justice. . applying the principle of quantum Certifications from officials of both the Philippine Department of meruit Foreign Affairs and the United States Embassy Participation of members of the Philippine Narcotics Command in Even the DPWH Asst. . he was entitled to diplomatic immunity. VIGILAR Agreement granting these immunities and privileges are treaty covenants and commitments voluntarily assumed by the Philippine Facts: government which must be respected. . Home Construction. and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is The MHS entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the government Ministry of Public Works and Highways (MPWH) where the latter . 1988. or other officer acting under his direction. Secretary Madamba opined that payment of Minucher. rules. . Plumbing. except in cases of borrowing money. Sec. later acting as the . A foreign agent." petitioners-contractors' right government of the two countries to be compensated is upheld. to inform local law enforcers who would then be expected to make the arrest. even the DPWH Auditor did not object to the the behest of Scalzo payment of the money claims These may be inadequate to support the “diplomatic status” of the latter but they give enough indication that the Philippine No. auditing acting within the directives of the sending state. intiated a housing project on a our system of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is government property along the east bank of Manggahan Floodway essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look in Pasig beyond a determination by the executive branch of the government. Branch 226 a Petition for addressed to DOJ of the Philippines and a Certification of Vice Mandamus to order the respondent to pay petitioners their money Consul Donna Woodward. Septa. and sale of its securities. through the "It is a recognized principle of international law and under BLISS Development Corporation. guaranties. Minucher was later acquitted by the court. it is accepted World Builders. considering that this principle yields to certain settled exceptions. Issue: In conducting surveillance activities on Minucher. .

which the Act explicitly renders irrelevant to the determination of an activity's commercial character. Nelsons to nothing under their theory of the case. Banco Central (collectively “Argentina”) (defendants) know. In any United States for family members who might wish to reach Nelson event. rather than those powers the Cayman Islands. This was to be charges. They insisted on receiving full under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. This Court has ruled that King Faisal Specialist Hospital in Riyadh. and attended an orientation session that retaliation for his reporting of safety violations. The intentional conduct alleged here (the hospital under an agreement signed with Saudi Arabia.S. The Court of payment. When a foreign government defaults on its bonds. the hospital's corporate purchasing sovereign immunity. and The District Court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction refused to accept the rescheduling. Argentina and its central statement written in that language. and offered bondholders substitute instruments as a way to seeking damages for personal injury. government agents assume the risk of currency depreciation in cross-border transferred Nelson to the Al Sijan Prison "to await trial on unknown transactions involving Argentine borrowers. The advertisement drew the exercise of that power has long been understood for purposes of attention of respondent Scott Nelson. lack of personal jurisdiction. The Hospital Corporation of America. In the course of that commercial in character. However periodical seeking applications for a position as a monitoring monstrous such abuse undoubtedly may be. The hospital's response to Nelson's reports changed when certain ARGENTINA V WELTOWER. statutory context confirms that the phrase requires something more court. An exception to foreign sovereign immunity “commercial” . The creditors then had the option of substituting the Argentine government for It was only at the personal request of a United States Senator that the original private debtors. HCA placed an advertisement in a trade Nelson) boils down to abuse of the power of the police. RTC decision reversed and set aside. a hospital employee who was supposed to act as Nelson's instituted a foreign exchange insurance contract (FEIC) program in interpreter advised him to sign "anything" the agents gave him to 1981. recruits Americans for employment at the peculiar to sovereigns. FACTS: (b) Petitioners' tortious conduct fails to qualify as "commercial Petitioner Kingdom of Saudi Arabia owns and operates petitioner activity" within the meaning of the Act. the Act therefore confers no jurisdiction over their suit. an independent corporation existing under the laws of can also be exercised by private citizens. Argentina still lacked sufficient foreign exchange to retire In 1988. if any. Argentina moved to dismiss for Held: The Nelsons' action is not "based upon a commercial lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In its Saudi Government's wrongful arrest. when he discovered safety defects in the hospital's oxygen semantic ploy. and and forum non conveniens. Argentina unilaterally extended the time it had to pay the the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida bonds. though a Saudi official eventually told dollars to cover its contractual obligations. against him. Hospital officials instructed restrictive theory of foreign sovereign immunity. Nelson to ignore the problems. Inc. such foreign government may be amenable to suit in a U. issuing government bonds to the foreign creditors. Issue. whenever they matured. activity under that theory where it exercises only those powers that Ltd. if proven. To give jurisdictional significance to this feint of language officials of the safety defects and reported the defects to a Saudi would effectively thwart the Act's manifest purpose to codify the Government commission as well . Unfortunately. (Weltover) (plaintiff) and two other foreign corporations were all holders of the bonds. Although foreign government may be amenable to suit in a U. those facts alone entitle the Petition granted. While thesearguably commercial activities may have led to the commission of the torts that allegedly injured the Nelsons. or relation to. activity" within the meaning of the first clause of §1605(a)(2). Although police interrogators repeatedly questioned him in Arabic. and was therefore HCA conducted for hospital employees. government agents forced him to sign a the instability of the Argentinian currency. The Nelsons' an employment contract with the hospital satisfied personnel argument that respondent husband's mistreatment constituted processing requirements. hospital employees summoned him to the hospital's security office where agents of the Saudi Government arrested him. Nelson repeatedly advised hospital warn. in an emergency. The agents Facts transported Nelson to a jail cell. Argentina did not pay. respondent Vivian Nelson.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.S. it is only those torts upon which their action is "based" for purposes of the SAUDI ARABIA V NELSON Act. the number of U. reschedule the debts. dollars necessary to repay their foreign debts Nelson did not learn the nature of the charges.S. 39 days after his arrest. commercial activity. does not alter the fact that the powers program. (HCA). accomplished by Argentina selling to its domestic borrowers. The FEIC program provided that Argentina would effectively avoid further beatings Two days later. Weltover relied on the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA) of 1976 as the basis for jurisdiction. that argument goes to the purpose of petitioners' conduct. that he could arrange for remedy the situation by refinancing its FEIC-backed debts by her husband's release if she provided sexual favors. In December 1983. Weltover. the Saudi Government allowed Nelson to leave the country.. Nelson went to Saudi Arabia and began work at the hospital. in which they shackled. the Saudi Government failed to advise Nelson's due in 1982. Appeals reversed. Nelson and his wife filed this action against petitioners in them. or maintaining their relationship with the Saudi Government released Nelson. the content of which he did not bank. The State's immunity cannot serve as an instrument perpetrating Even taking the Nelsons' allegations about respondent husband's injustice recruitment and employment as true. the hospital. and designated New York as the place for payment. and the bonds. J) Yes. and Weltover brought suit against Argentina ISSUE: Whether or not the US can exercise jurisdiction under the in federal district court. when the government bonds began to mature in 1986. in exchange for a contractually determined amount of local currency. he signed the restrictive theory as peculiarly sovereign in nature. Argentina attempted to Nelson'swife. When a foreign government defaults on its entitle a plaintiff to relief under his theory of the case. and that a state engages in commercial agent in the United States. imprisonment. the private Argentine debtor and accepting the Argentine Seven days later. after failing to convince him to return to work at government as a guarantor. can such (a) This action is not "based upon" a commercial activity." the phrase is most naturally read to mean those elements of a claim that. However. After the interview. as well as petitioner the Act largely codifies the so called "restrictive" theory of foreign Royspec Purchasing Services. than a mere connection with. and torture of recruitment effort. tortured To assist Argentinian businesses engaging in foreign transactions and beat him and kept him four days without food Although Nelson and remedy problems with these businesses obtaining funds due to did not understand Arabic. He did his job without significant incident until March (c) The Nelsons' attempt to claim failure to warn is merely a 1984. court? the Act does not define "based upon. when the FEIC contracts came For several days. INC. HCA identified Royspec as the point of contact in the allegedly abused were those of police and penal officers. a foreign state's systems engineer at the hospital. A plaintiff could recast virtually any claim of and nitrous oxide lines that posed fire hazards and otherwise intentional tort committed by sovereign act as a claim of failure to endangered patients' lives. Argentina did not possess sufficient reserves of U. (Scalia. family of his whereabouts. would Held.

(f) The District Court correctly determined that none of the exceptions enumerated in the FSIA applies to the facts of this case. § 1333. and "the principle of universal cause of action in the United States. a vessel or cargo of a foreign state. A foreign state over civil actions by an alien for a tort committed in violation of the cannot waive its immunity under § 1605(a)(1) by signing an law of nations or a treaty of the United States. Even though a person does not participate entitled to immunity. Inc. Amerada Hess also international agreement that does not mention a waiver of brought suit under the general admiralty and maritime jurisdiction immunity to suit in United States courts or even the availability of a of federal courts.S.488 U. Affirmed. or the activities of which affect. it is doubtful that even instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been the most meticulous draftsman would have concluded that committed." and the U. unless the indictment is found or the information is comprehensiveness of the FSIA's scheme. but are governed by 18 U.C. directly correctly dismissed the action because the FSIA did not authorize or indirectly. States [was] a party at the time of the enactment of this Act[. The common-law rule: affirmative defenses were matters for the defendant to prove.S. . It means that withdrawal states in cases involving property taken in violation of international terminates the defendant’s liability for post-withdrawal acts of his law in § 1605(a)(3). Conspiracy is carried out when two (a) The FSIA's text and structure demonstrate Congress' intention or more people agreed to commit a crime covered by the specific that the FSIA be the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a conspiracy statute. If it is applicable.S. Congress also needed to amend pro tanto the ATS and presumably other grants of subject matter jurisdiction in Title 28. SMITH V US 1607. The Act refers to any person employed by or associated Yes. 28 U. Court of Appeals reversed.S.S. the act of (b) From Congress' decision in the FSIA to deny immunity to foreign conspiracy is thought to be accomplished. .. § 846 and 18 U. ruling that their actions were barred by the Foreign that United States and Liberian nationals shall have access to the Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA).S. was severely damaged when it occurs in the United States. . or punished for any offense. Whether or not the Argentine Republic is immune from the Rule jurisdiction of the US Courts under FSIA.S. and further provides in 28 U. foreign state . This case does not happens outside the shores of the United States. subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" cannot be Republic over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) off the Argentine construed to include petitioner's attack on the high seas.S. Since conspiracy is a jurisdiction when a foreign state is entitled to immunity.S. Respondents brought separate actions against petitioner in Federal District Court for the damage they sustained in the attack.C. the plain implication is that immunity is granted co-conspirators.C. but he remains guilty of conspiracy.C. foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction" of United States courts except as provided in 28 U. The FSIA provides the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over with any enterprise engaged in. holding that the District Court had jurisdiction over respondents' consolidated action under the ATS. That Treaty provides jurisdiction. The exception will courts when it enacted the FSIA.C. recognized in customary international law. (2) is in tandem involve two statutes that supplement one another.C. and chartered to respondent Amerada Hess its terms to cases in which the damage to or loss of property Corp. Whether the government has entered the marketplace of United States courts except as provided in §§ 1605-1607. § 1962(d) makes unlawful violation the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (the Act) as of criminal Held: conspiracy. which confers original jurisdiction on district courts United States do not create an exception to the FSIA. and the express provision in § 1604 that "a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction" Discussion. part by the lack of certainty as to whether the ATS conferred no person shall be prosecuted. nor is it a case with commerce and (3) has a direct impact on the United States.] a 441-443. also a Liberian corporation. SHIPPING CORP. a defendant who has joined a conspiracy 1330(a) confers jurisdiction on district courts to hear suits brought continues to violate the law through every moment of the by both United States citizens and aliens when a foreign state is not conspiracy’s existence." The District Friendship. tried. coast. 18 U. foreign sovereign immunity in the FSIA.. An activity falls within the exception in line of FSIA if (1) it so implication are disfavored does not apply here. jurisdiction in suits against foreign states. Smith. A crude oil tanker owned by respondent United Carriers. continental and during the war between Great Britain and petitioner Argentine insular. He was a to which the foreign state is not entitled to immunity" member of the conspiracies which continued within the applicable under §§ 1605-1607 or any applicable international agreement.S. The statute-of-limitations period.activities’ has been created by the Foreign Sovereign Immunity of (d) The rule of statutory construction under which repeals by 1976. Sections 1604 and 1330(a) proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he/she knowingly and work in tandem: § 1604 bars United States courts from exercising willfully participated in the agreement. and § continuing offense. In light of the not capital.S. as to any claim for relief in personam with respect was convicted of conspiracy in an illegal drug business. in those cases involving alleged violations of international law that do not come within one of the FSIA's exceptions 21 U. Procedural History The US Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of ISSUE: Appeals. § 1330(a) that "[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction without regard The Facts to amount in controversy of any nonjury civil action against a The defendant. Section 1605(b) expressly permits however not be applicable if it undertakes an activity that is an in personam suit in admiralty to enforce a maritime lien against peculiar to a sovereign. exception applies in any given case. § 1962(d) do not contain their (c) Congress' failure in the FSIA to enact a pro tanto repealer of the own limitations periods. (g) The Geneva Convention on the High Seas and the Pan American They invoked the District Court's jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Maritime Neutrality Convention entered into by petitioner and the Statute (ATS). except as otherwise expressly provided by law. ATS when it passed the FSIA in 1976 may be explained at least in which provides that. § 3282(a). the FSIA applies because the activities of Argentina (D) with respect Congress' decision to deal comprehensively with the subject of to the bonds were commercial in nature. pattern of racketeering activity. Unless the present case is within § 1605(b) or another exception to the FSIA. To convict a person of conspiracy it must be foreign state in United States courts. who petitioned with the US Supreme Court. a The exception for noncommercial torts in § 1605(a)(5) is limited by Liberian corporation. Nor does the Treaty of jurisdiction. to conduct or participate. and the District Court interstate or foreign commerce. The FSIA provides in 28 courts of each country "on conforming to the local laws. th commercial activity exception to implication an earlier statute dealing with a narrower subject. Commerce and Navigation between the United States Court dismissed respondents' complaints for lack of subject matter and Liberia carve out an exception to the FSIA. is very important in determining if the commercial activity preclude a construction of the ATS that permits the instant action. Pp. where a more general statute is claimed to have repealed by Based on these three premises. a foreign state in United States courts. in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a jurisdiction over petitioner under the facts of this case. AMERADA HESS federal courts does not authorize this suit against petitioner..C. it is to be (e) Congress dealt with the admiralty jurisdiction of the federal treated under the FSIA as a private player. the statute conferring general admiralty and maritime jurisdiction on the ARGENTINE REPUBLIC V. The FSIA's definition of "United States" was attacked in international waters by Argentine military aircraft in § 1603(c) as including all "territory and waters.C. in committing criminal act due to earlier withdrawal. §§ 1605.S. S. § 1604 that FSIA is clearly one of the "local laws" to which respondents must "[s]ubject to existing international agreements to which the United conform before bringing suit in United States courts.

Alvarez-Machain was found not guilty for lack of evidence. like any other an individual bring suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act for a false litigant. The court that our State Department has taken toward the claim of such found that Jose Francisco Sosa. Held: Alvarez-Machain then filed a group of civil suits in federal court against the United States and the Mexican nationals who had The dismissal of the counterclaim was not proper. It wants our law. After an denominating them setoffs and including additional data. respondent sought to withdraw the funds. Because Alvarez- illegal drug business. however. Subsequently. ruling that the DEA could not authorize a accorded significant weight by this Court. the courts that a sovereign be granted immunity from a particular On appeal. the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the district suit. and respondent brought suit in Federal District Court under. the Court unanimously The Issue ruled that the ATS did not create a separate ground of suit for violations of the law of nations. The respondent pleaded sovereign immunity. captured him under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). On the Alien Tort Statute claim. so they hired several therefore. On the ATS claims. affirm the lower And so we come to the immediate situation before us. convince Mexico to extradite Alvarez-Machain. the Court ruled The Holding/Reasoning that the arrest had taken place outside the United States and Passive non-participation in a continuing scheme does not negate therefore was exempted from the Act. however. 2. it was not permitted by the ATS. of time. rests firmly on petitioner. but that the abduction itself might violate international and provide grounds for a civil suit. it was intended only to give (a) Whether the initial trial court paid due regard to all factual courts jurisdiction over traditional law of nations cases . or piracy. REPUBLIC OF CHINA did not negate an element of the charged conspiracy crimes. TRAJANO V. The District Court denied leave. investigation. The government argued that the FTCA applied the competence of this Court.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) special agent was leave from the District Court to amend the counterclaims by kidnapped and murdered by a Mexican drug cartel in 1985.those circumstances before charging the defendant for conspiracy in involving ambassadors. soil and therefore him from the sovereign. established a be nearly impossible for the government to prove the negative that $200. had violated international law and was affairs. The federal district court disagreed with the government's At that early day Congress decided that when the United States contention that the FCTA claim did not apply. upholding the judgment against the matter is that we are not dealing with an attempt to bring a Sosa. The DEA. defeat the purpose of conspiracy and to dissociate from his confederates. MARCOS “Establishing individual withdrawal was a burden that rested firmly on petitioner regardless of when the purported withdrawal took place. one of the Mexican nationals who immunity. AGENCY 3. which the District Court dismissed the counterclaims. Mexican nationals argued that the ATS gave federal courts But even the immunity enjoyed by the United States as territorial jurisdiction to hear tort claims against foreign citizens. but it wants our law free from the claims of justice. the court then ruled that the DEA had acted lawfully when they arrested Alvarez-Machain and was therefore not More immediately touching the evolution of legal doctrines liable. The Shanghai-Nanking Railway Administration. it would be an invasion of respondent's sovereign Mexican nationals to capture him and bring him back to the United immunity. to examine the extent to which the foreign country? considerations which led this Court to bar a suit against a sovereign Conclusion in The Schooner Exchange are applicable here to foreclose a court . the government and the recognized by the United States. for example. office of petitioner National City Bank of New York. the individual can set off all debts properly due capture Alvarez-Machain was developed on U. an official affirmative defense does negate an element of the crime… It would agency of respondent Republic of China. was unable to based on the subject matter of respondent's suit and. recognized foreign government into one of our courts as a Question defendant and subject it to the rule of law to which Does the Alien Tort Statute permit private individuals to bring suit nongovernmental obligors must bow. Further. His subsequent trial went all the way to the Supreme Court. A warrant for his arrest was issued the denial on the ground that the counterclaims were not by a federal district court. and while the appeal was pending sought A U. which found that the government could try a person who had been Issue: forcibly abducted. NOVOSTI PRESS petitioner refused to pay.634. therefore. States. As the responsible agency for the conduct of foreign kidnapped Alvarez. ALVAREZ 4.432 on defaulted Treasury Notes of respondent owned by petitioner. However. citizen's arrest of Alvarez-Machain in another country and was therefore liable. SOSA V. The short of court's finding on the ATS claim. The Republic and its only to claims arising from actions that took place in the United governmental agencies enjoy a foreign sovereign's States and therefore did not cover Alvarez-Machain's case because immunities to the same extent as any other country duly the arrest took place in Mexico. the court rejected the argument that regarding a foreign sovereign's immunity is the restrictive policy private individuals could not bring suit under the Act. as the defense of withdrawal NATIONAL CITY BANK V. the State Department is the normal means of suggesting to therefore liable under the ATS. and the Alien Tort 1. but YESSENIN-VOLPIN V. On the FTCA claim.000 deposit account in 1948 with the New York head an act of withdrawal never happened”. 5. and (b) whether burden of proving withdrawal Machain's claim did not fall into one of these traditional categories. Petitioner interposed two counterclaims seeking an affirmative judgment for $1. When the case Whether or not the dismissal of the counterclaim was proper. The appeals court did.S. but did not sovereign is a legal doctrine which has not been favored by the test allow private individuals to bring those suits. We have a foreign against foreign citizens for crimes committed in other countries in government invoking our law but resisting a claim against it which violation of the law of nations or treaties of the United States? May fairly would curtail its recovery.Machain. the DEA concluded that Humberto Alvarez-Machain 6. Allocating to petitioner the burden of proving withdrawal did not violate the Due Process Clause. Its failure or refusal to suggest such immunity has been court's FTCA decision. finding that plan to sues an individual. Petitioner appealed. which permits suits against foreign citizens in matter for determination by the Executive and is outside American courts. It rejected Alvarez-Machain's the meeting of minds peculiar to conspiracy. To avert a continuing argument that the exemption should not apply because the arrest criminal activity there must be affirmative action of defendant to had been planned in the United States. which allows the federal government to be sued on tort claims.” The Supreme court held further that “the State is foreclosed from Facts: shifting the burden of proof to the defendant only when an 1. went back to the district court for trial. covered. It arrest that was planned in the United States but carried out in a becomes vital. No and No. The status of the Republic of China in our courts is a Statute (ATS). Instead. CA affirmed the dismissal and had participated in the murder.

claim 'based on the subject matter of the suit' or 'growing out of the same transaction. There is great diversity among courts on what The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal is and what is not a claim 'based on the subject matter of the suit' and the denial on the ground that the counterclaims were not based or 'growing out of the same transaction. but it is beside the point. indeed too capricious.from determining. its own courts. it -No doubt the present counterclaims cannot fairly be would be an invasion of respondent's sovereign immunity for our deemed to be related to the Railway Agency's deposit of courts to permit them to be pursued funds except insofar as the transactions between the Republic of China and the petitioner may be regarded as Issue: whether or not the counter claims should have been aspects of a continuous business relationship. that the ultimate thrust of the consideration of fair dealing which allows a setoff or counterclaim based on the same subject matter Held: Yes. to mark the bounds of the government invoking our law but resisting a claim against it limitations on the doctrine of sovereign immunity. reaches the present situation. (a) The Court of Claims is available to foreign nationals (or their governments) on a simple condition: that the foreign national's (c) The contention that the counterclaim here involved is not based government can be sued in its courts on claims by our citizens. . The Republic of China sued an American bank in a Federal matter of a sovereign's suit is allowed to cut into the District Court to recover $200. A foreign sovereign from its 'exclusive and absolute' jurisdiction. -More immediately touching the evolution of legal doctrines regarding a foreign sovereign's immunity is the restrictive policy (c) Respondent urges that fiscal management falls within the that our State Department has taken toward the claim of such category of immune operations of a foreign government as defined immunity. This is proof positive that the doctrine governmental agency of the Republic. A sovereign has freely come as a the courts that a sovereign be granted immunity from a particular suitor into our courts. suit. fair dealing. An on the subject matter of the Republic's suit does not require a American or a Chinese could sue in the Court of Claims for default different result. dealing which allows a setoff or counterclaim based on the same subject matter reaches the present situation. the implication deriving from standards of public morality. As expounded in The Schooner Exchange. and that considerations of fair play must be counterclaims seeking an affirmative judgment for $1. our State Department opinion. according to prevailing law. therefore. The considerations found controlling in The SchoonerExchange are not here present. -It is recognized that a counterclaim based on the subject 1. It wants our law. the State Department is the normal means of suggesting to denied. or could counterclaim—to the extent of the Government's claim—in a suit by the United States in any court. the of China's claim against the National City Bank would be unjustly Republic of China and its governmental agencies enjoy a foreign enforced by disregarding legitimate claims against the Republic of sovereign's immunities to the same extent as any other country China. indeed too sovereign immunity. -Thus it seems only fair to subject a foreign sovereign. neither has been asked nor has it given the slightest intimation that in its judgment allowance of counterclaims in such a situation would embarrass friendly relations with the Republic of China. (d) It is recognized that a counterclaim based on the subject matter -And so we come to the immediate situation before us. This is proof positive that the doctrine is not absolute. recognized by the United States. and respect for The point is that the ultimate thrust of the consideration of fair the 'power and dignity' of the foreign sovereign. -Respondent urges that fiscal management falls within the category of immune operations of a foreign government as defined by the The judgment of the Court of Appeals must be reversed and the State Department's 1952 pronouncement. Accordingly. The bank interposed is not absolute. capricious. As expounded in The Schooner related to the Railway Agency's deposit of funds except insofar as Exchange. and Americans have the same rights as Chinese in those courts. This is not to be case remanded to the District Court with directions to reinstate the denied. on a United States bond. -The status of the Republic of China in our courts is a matter for Thus it seems only fair to subject a foreign sovereign. whether the Republic (a) Having been recognized as a sovereign by the Executive.432 on taken into account in its application. recognized foreign government into one of our courts as a and that considerations of fair play must be taken into account in defendant and subject it to the rule of law to which its application. and no consent to immunity can properly be implied. This is not to be affairs. to mark the bounds of the limitations on the doctrine of sovereign immunity.' -whether the Republic of China's claim against the National City Bank would be unjustly enforced by disregarding legitimate claims No doubt the present counterclaims cannot fairly be deemed to be against the Republic of China. As the responsible agency for the conduct of foreign by the State Department's 1952 pronouncement. government is invoking our law but resisting a claim against it which fairly would curtail its recovery. coming into our courts by its own choice. but it is beside the point. The short of of a sovereign's suit is allowed to cut into the doctrine of the matter is that we are not dealing with an attempt to bring a immunity.000 deposited in the bank by a doctrine of immunity. the counterclaims should be dismissed. we start with the fact that the Republic and own Government long ago willingly assumed. to a liability substantially less than our this Court. coming into determination by the Executive and is outside the competence of our courts by its own choice. but it wants our law free from the claims There is great diversity among courts on what is and what is not a of justice. the doctrine is one of implied consent by the territorial the transactions between the Republic of China and the petitioner sovereign to exempt the foreign sovereign from its 'exclusive and may be regarded as aspects of a continuous business relationship. We have a foreign too indeterminate. which fairly would curtail its recovery. The point is dismissed. The considerations found controlling in The SchoonerExchange are not here present. But the limitation of 'based on the subject matter' is nongovernmental obligors must bow.634. A sovereign has freely counterclaims and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this come as a suitor into our courts. But the limitation of defaulted treasury notes of the Republic. reciprocal self-interest. the doctrine is one of (b) This case does not involve an attempt to bring a recognized implied consent by the territorial sovereign to exempt the foreign foreign government into court as a defendant. absolute' jurisdiction. Reversed.' on the subject matter of respondent's suit (whether they be treated as requests for affirmative relief or as setoffs) and. The Republic pleaded 'based on the subject matter' is too indeterminate. like any other litigant. its governmental agencies enjoy a foreign sovereign's immunities to the same extent as any other country duly recognized by the (b) The Republic of China is apparently suable on contract claims in United States.

80258) A complaint for damages was filed by private respondents against petitioners (US military officers) for injuries allegedly sustained by the former when defendants beat them up. to conduct a rebidding. Mr. USA vs VERGARA (GR No. An information was filed against Bautista and at the trial. 80018) Bautista. Reversed. which was won by Dizon. USA vs RODRIGO (GR No. The petitioners deny this and claim that respondents were arrested for theft but resisted arrest. Justice DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. and also. ISSUE: . The United States of America was not impleaded in the case at bar but has moved to dismiss on the ground that they are in effect suits against it to which it has not consented. The club manager suspended him and thereafter referred the case to a board of arbitrators. He then filed for damages against petitioners claiming that it was because of the latter’s acts that he lost his job. As a result of the charge. which unanimously found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. Reversed and remanded with directions. 79470) Genove filed a complaint for damages for his dismissal as cook in the US Air Force Recreation Center at Camp John Hay Air Station. was arrested following a buy-bust operation conducted by petitioners. Bautista was dismissed from his employment. petitioners testified against him. FACTS: 1. 76607) The private respondents are suing several officers of the US Air Force in Clark Air Base in connection with the bidding conducted by them for contracts for barber services in the said base. USA vs GUINTO (GR No. a barracks boy in Camp O’ Donnell. USA vs CEBALLOS (GR No. These are cases that have been consolidated because they all involve the doctrine of state immunity. It had been ascertained after investigation that Genove had poured urine into the soup stock used in cooking the vegetables served to the club customers. who were USAF officers and special agents of the Air Force Office. thus incurring the injuries.The judgment of the Court of Appeals must be reversed and the case remanded to the District Court with directions to reinstate the counterclaims and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. The respondents wanted to cancel the award because they claimed that Dizon had included in his bid an area not included in the invitation to bid. 3. handcuffed them and unleashed dogs on them. 4. 2.

No implied consent. will be deemed to have impliedly waived its non-suability if it has entered into a contract in its proprietary or private capacity (commercial acts/jure gestionis). as they were operated for profit. the court still dismissed the complaint against petitioners on the ground that there was nothing arbitrary about the proceedings in the dismissal of Genove. except for the paucity of the record as the evidence of the alleged irregularity in the grant of the barbershop concessions were not available. In US vs RODRIGO. There is no question that the USA. the suit must be regarded as against the state although it has not been formally impleaded.Whether or not the defendants were immune from suit under the ITS CONSENT TO BE SUED ONLY WHEN IT ENTERS INTO BUSINESS RP-US Bases Treaty for acts done by them in the performance of CONTRACTS. The record was too meager to indicate if the defendants were really discharging their official duties or had actually exceeded their authority when the incident occurred. this case was remanded to the court below for further proceedings. Not even the US government can claim such immunity because by entering into the employment contract with Genove in the discharge of its proprietary functions. NOTE: 1. Accordingly. When the government enters into a contract. It bears stressing at this point that the aforesaid principle do not confer on the USA a blanket immunity for all acts done by it or its agents in the Philippines. In US vs GUINTO. Neither may the other petitioners claim that they are also insulated from suit in this country merely because they have acted as agents of the United States in the discharge of their official functions. (US v. we would still be bound by the generally accepted principles of international law under the doctrine of incorporation. it is deemed to have descended to the level of the other contracting party and divested of its sovereign immunity from suit with its implied consent. like any other state. A STATE MAY BE SAID TO HAVE DESCENDED TO THE LEVEL OF AN INDIVIDUAL AND CAN THUS BE DEEMED TO HAVE TACITLY GIVEN . it was clear that the petitioners were acting in the exercise of their official functions when they conducted the buy- bust operation and thereafter testified against the complainant. which has not given its consent to be sued. in the exercise of The rule that a State may not be sued without its consent is one of sovereign functions. as the petitioners acted quite properly in terminating Genove’s employment for his unbelievably nauseating act. Ruiz. All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. In US vs CEBALLOS. as a commercial and not a governmental activity. it is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the states for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. But. The needed inquiry must first be made by the lower court so it may assess and resolve the conflicting claims of the parties. Under this doctrine. It is only when the contract involves its sovereign or governmental capacity (governmental acts/jure imperii) that no such waiver may be implied. (US vs Guinto) RULING: Jure Imperii – by right of sovereign power. such principles are deemed incorporated in the law of every civilized state as a condition and consequence of its membership in the society of nations. In US vs VERGARA. it impliedly divested itself of its sovereign immunity from suit. their official duties. the court finds the barbershops subject to the concessions granted by the US government to be commercial enterprises operated by private persons. 2. the restaurant services offered at the John Hay Air Station partake of the nature of a business enterprise undertaken by the US government in its proprietary capacity. For discharging their duties as agents of the United States. as accepted by the majority of the states. The rule is that if the judgment against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same. Jure Gestionis – by right of economic or business relations. may be sued. the contradictory factual allegations in this case need a closer study of what actually happened. Even without such affirmation. While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent. The Court would have directly resolved the claims against the defendants as in USA vs RODRIGO. they cannot be directly impleaded for acts imputable to their principal. 136 SCRA 487) the generally accepted principles of international law that were have adopted as part of the law of our land.