USA v.

GUINTO
G.R. No. 76607, February 26, 1990
CRUZ, J.:

DOCTRINE
These cases have been consolidated because they all involve the doctrine of
state immunity. The United States of America was not impleaded in the
complaints below but has moved to dismiss on the ground that they are in
effect suits against it to which it has not consented. It is now contesting the
denial of its motions by the respondent judges.

FACTS:
The cases have been consolidated because they all involve the doctrine of
state immunity. In GR No. 76607, private respondents regarding suing
several officers of the US Air Force in connection with the bidding for
barbering services in Clark Air Base. In GR No. 80018, Luis Bautista was
arrested following a buy-bust operation for a violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act. Bautista then filed a complaint for damages claiming that because
of the acts of the respondents, he lost his job. In GR No. 79470, Fabian
Genova filed a complaint for damages against petitioner for his dismissal as
cook in the US Air Force. In GR No. 80258, complaint for damage was filed
by the respondents against petitioners for injuries allegedly sustained by
plaintiffs. All cases invoke the doctrine of state immunity as a ground to
dismiss the same.
ISSUE:
Are the petitioners immune from suit?
RULING:
It is clear that the petitioners in GR No. 80018 were acting in the exercise of
their official functions. They cannot be directly impleaded for the US
government has not given its consent to be sued. In GR No. 79470,
petitioners are not immune because restaurants are commercial enterprises,
however, the claim of damages by Genove cannot be allowed on the
strength of the evidence presented. Barber shops are also commercial
enterprises operated by private persons, thus, petitioners in GR No. 76607
cannot plead any immunity from the complaint filed. In GR No. 80258, the
respondent court will have to receive the evidence of the alleged irregularity
in the grant of the barbershop concessions before it can be known in what
capacity the petitioners were acting at the time of the incident.