U.S.A.

vs Guinto, 182 SCRA 644

TITLE: USA et. al. vs. Hon. Guinto, et. al. G.R. No. 76607. February 26 1990
USA et. al. vs. Hon. Rodrigo et. al. G.R. No. 79470 February 26 1990
USA et. al. vs. Hon. Ceballos et. al. G.R. No. 80018 February 26 1990
USA et. al. vs. Hon. Vergara et. al. G.R. No. 80258 February 26 1990
FACTS:
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.
In the first case, G.R. No. 76607, the private respondents are suing several officers of
the U.S. Air Force stationed in Clark Air Base in connection with the bidding conducted
by them for contracts for barber services in the said base. A bid from Okinawa Area
Exchange was solicited through James Shaw, a contracting officer. Among the bidders
are the private respondents and concessionaires inside the Clark Air Base, Roberto T.
Valencia, Emerenciana C. Tanglao and Pablo C. del Pilar. Another bidder is Ramon
Dizon who won the bidding. The private respondents complained with the contention
that Dizon also bid for the Civil Engineering (CE) area which was not included in the
bidding invitation. PHAX or the Philippine Area Exchange, to whom the respondents
complained to, represented by petitioners Yvonne Reeves and Frederick Smouse,
clarified that the CE area is yet to be awarded to Dizon because of a previous
solicitation. Dizon was already operating the NCO club concession, however, and the
contract expiry of the CE barbershop was extended only until the end of June 1986.
Hence, the respondents filed a petition, with a prayer to compel PHAX and the
individual petitioners to revoke the award to Dizon, and conduct a rebidding to allow
the private respondents to continue operating their concessions by a writ of preliminary
injunction pending litigation. To maintain status quo, Respondent court issued an ex
parte order to the petitioners. Petitioners filed a motion for dismissal and petition to
oppose the preliminary injunction. They contended that the action was in effect a suit
against the US Force. Both were denied by the trial court. A petition for certiorari and
prohibition for preliminary injunction were filed before the Supreme Court and a TRO
was issued.
In the second case, G.R. No. 79470, private respondent, Fabian Genove, filed a
complaint for damages against private petitioners for his dismissal as cook in the U.S.
Air Force Recreation Center at the John Hay Air Station. Belsa Cartalla and Orascion
testified that Genove had poured urine into the soup stock used in cooking the
vegetables served to the club customers. Lamachia, as club manager, suspended him
and thereafter referred the case to a board of arbitrators conformably to the collective
bargaining agreement between the Center and its employees. The board unanimously
found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. Genove's reaction was to file Ms
complaint in the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City against the individual petitioners.
The petitioners, joined by the United States of America, moved to dismiss the
complaint, alleging that Lamachia, as an officer of the U.S. Air Force stationed at John
Hay Air Station, was immune from suit for the acts done by him in his official capacity.
They argued that the suit was in effect against the United States, which had not given
its consent to be sued. The motion was denied by the RTC, so the petitioners filed a
petition for Certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction before the Supreme
Court.
In the third case, G.R. No. 80018, Luis Bautista, who was employed as a barracks boy
in Camp O' Donnell, an extension of Clark Air Base, was arrested following a buy-bust
operation conducted by the individual petitioners herein, namely, Tomi J. King, Darrel
D. Dye and Stephen F. Bostick, officers of the U.S. Air Force and special agents of the
Air Force Office of Special Investigators (AFOSI). As a result of the filing of the charge
against Bautista, he was dismissed from his employment. He then filed a complaint for
damages against the herein petitioners claiming that it was because of their acts that
he was removed. The petitioners, in defense, filed a motion to dismiss the case with the
contention that they were acting in official capacity when the acts were committed,
hence the suit against them is, in effect, a suit against the US. The motion was denied
by the judge, with the contention that the immunity covers only civil cases that are not
criminal under the Military Bases Agreement. The petitioners then filed a petition for
certiorari and prohibition for preliminary injunction. A TRO was issued.
In the fourth case, G.R. No. 80258, a complaint for damages was filed by the private
respondents, Ricky Sanchez, et. al., against the herein petitioners, Major General
Michael Carns, et. al., for injuries allegedly sustained by them when the herein
petitioners beat them up, handcuffed them and unleashed dogs on them which bit them
in several parts of their bodies and caused extensive injuries to them. The herein
petitioners deny this and claim that the private respondents were arrested for theft and
were bitten by the dogs because they were struggling and resisting arrest. Petitioners
stressed that the dogs were called off and the respondents were immediately taken to
the medical center for treatment of their wounds. The petitioners, USA together with
Carns et. al., contended that they are immune against this suit, invoking their right
under the RP-US Bases Treaty, as they acted in the performance of their official
functions. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court after their motion was
denied, wherein they filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
injunction. A TRO was issued.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners can use State Immunity (Art. XVI, Sec. 3, 1987
Constitution) as defense.

RULING:
The Supreme Court rendered judgment as follows:
1. In G.R. No. 76607, the petition is DISMISSED and the respondent judge is directed to
proceed with the hearing and decision of Civil Case No. 4772. The temporary restraining
order was LIFTED.
2. In G.R. No.79470, the petition is GRANTED and the Civil Case No.0829-R(298) is
DISMISSED.
3. In G.R. No80018, the petition is GRANTED and the Civil Case No. 115-C-87 is
DISMISSED. The temporary restraining order is made permanent.
4. In G.R. No. 80258, the petition is DISMISSED and the respondent judge is directed to
proceed with the hearing and decision of Civil Case No. 4996. The temporary restraining
order was LIFTED.
Under Art. XVI, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution, “The State may not be sued without its
consent.” However, this does not mean that at all times, the State may not be sued.
There needs to be a consideration on if they were indeed acting within the capacity of
their duties, or if they enter into a contract with a private party. It is necessary to
distinguish what kind of activities they are doing – between sovereign and
governmental acts (jure imperii) and private, commercial and proprietary acts (jure
gestionis). The result is that State immunity now extends only to acts jure imperii.

In G.R. No. 76607, the barbershops, subject of the bidding awarded were commercial
enterprises, operated by private persons, therefore they are not agencies of the US
Armed Forces nor part of their facilities. Although the barbershops provide service to
the military, they were for a fee. State Immunity cannot be invoked by the petitioners
for the fact that they entered into a contract with a private party, commercial in nature.
In G.R. No. 79470, it is in the same principle as in the first case. The petitioner,
Lamachia, is a manager of a privately operated service which generate an income. The
court assumed that they are an individual entity, and the service they offer partake the
nature of a business entered by US in its proprietary capacity. Despite this, the court
ruled in favor of the petitioners as the claim for damages cannot be allowed on the
strength of evidence before the court. It ruled that the dismissal of the private
respondent was justifiable under the circumstance. Further, the Supreme Court
declared that the petitioners in the other cases above, stating that they acted in
performance of their duties, need evidence. The SC was able to make certain that the
petitioners in G.R. No. 80018 were indeed acting in their official capacity, as the state
they represent, USA, has not given its consent to be sued. As such, they cannot be
sued for acts imputable to their state.  However in G.R. No. 80258, more evidence is
needed as the factual allegations were contradictory. There needs to be clear, and
sufficient evidence that they were in the vestige of their duty, and did not exceed it. In
the foregoing, the Supreme Court had decided to make the case be investigated further
by the lower court before proceeding and the final judgment can be rendered.