USA v.

Guinto
182 S 644 (1990)
 G.R. No. 76607
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FREDERICK M. SMOUSE AND YVONNE REEVES, petitioners, 
vs.
HON. ELIODORO B. GUINTO, Presiding Judge, Branch LVII, Regional Trial Court, Angeles City,
ROBERTO T. VALENCIA, EMERENCIANA C. TANGLAO, AND PABLO C. DEL
PILAR, respondents.
G.R. No. 79470 February 26, 1990
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ANTHONY LAMACHIA, T/SGT. USAF, WILFREDO BELSA,
PETER ORASCION AND ROSE CARTALLA, petitioners, 
vs.
HON. RODOLFO D. RODRIGO, as Presiding Judge of Branch 7, Regional Trial Court (BAGUIO
CITY), La Trinidad, Benguet and FABIAN GENOVE, respondents.
G.R. No. 80018 February 26, 1990
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TOMI J. KINGI, DARREL D. DYE and STEVEN F.
BOSTICK, petitioners, 
vs.
HON. JOSEFINA D. CEBALLOS, As Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, Capas,
Tarlac, and LUIS BAUTISTA, respondents.
G.R. No. 80258 February 26, 1990
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MAJOR GENERAL MICHAEL P. C. CARNS, AIC ERNEST E.
RIVENBURGH, AIC ROBIN BLEVINS, SGT. NOEL A. GONZALES, SGT. THOMAS MITCHELL,
SGT. WAYNE L. BENJAMIN, ET AL.,petitioners, 
vs.
HON. CONCEPCION S. ALARCON VERGARA, as Presiding Judge, Branch 62 REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, Angeles City, and RICKY SANCHEZ, FREDDIE SANCHEZ AKA FREDDIE
RIVERA, EDWIN MARIANO, AKA JESSIE DOLORES SANGALANG, ET AL., respondents.
Luna, Sison & Manas Law Office for petitioners.
 Facts

• The cases have been consolidated

because they all involve the doctrine of
state immunity.
1.) In GR No. 76607(USA v Guinto), private
respondents regarding suing several
officers of the US Air Force in connection
with the bidding for barbering services in
Clark Air Base. 
 Facts
2.)In GR No. 80018 (USA v Rodrigo), 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.

3.)In GR No. 79470, (USA v Ceballos), Fabian

Genove filed a complaint for damages against
petitioner for his dismissal as cook in the US Air
Force.
 Facts
• 4.)In GR No. 80258 (USA v Vergara),
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
• Whether or not the defendants were
immune from suit under the RP-US Bases
Treaty for acts done by them in the
performance of their official duties.
 Decision
• USA v. Guinto. The Supreme Court ruled that
the barbershop concessions granted by the United States
government are commercial enterprises operated by
private persons and are not agencies of the United States
Armed Forces. All the barbershop concessionaires were
under the terms of their contracts and were required to
remit fixed commissions to the United States
government. Thus, the petitioners cannot plead any
immunity from the complaint filed by the private
respondents. The Court though could not directly resolve
the claims against the defendants because the evidence
of the alleged irregularity in the grant of the barbershop
concessions is lacking. This means that the Court must
receive the evidence first so it can later determine if the
plaintiffs are entitled to the relief they seek.
 Decision
• USA v. Rodrigo. The restaurant services offered at the John
Hay Air Station is of the nature of a business enterprise
undertaken by the United States government in its
proprietary capacity. Thus, the petitioners cannot invoke the
doctrine of state immunity to justify the dismissal of the
damage suit against them by Genove even if it is established
that they were acting as agents of the United States when
they investigated and later dismissed Genove. Not even the
United States government itself can claim such immunity
because by entering into an employment contract with
Genove, it impliedly divested itself of its sovereign immunity
from suit. But still, the Court dismissed the complaint against
the petitioners since, while suable, the petitioners were
found to be not liable. A thorough investigation established
beyond doubt that Genove had in fact polluted the soup
stock with urine.
 Decision
• USA v. Ceballos. The court found that the petitioners
were only exercising their official functions when they
conducted the buy-bust operation. The petitioners were
connected with the Air Force Office of Special
Investigators and were assigned to prevent the
distribution, possession and use of prohibited drugs and
to prosecute those guilty of such acts. As such, the
petitioners were not acting in their private or unofficial
capacity when they apprehended and later testified
against the complainant. For discharging their duties as
agents of the United States, they cannot be directly
prosecuted for acts imputable to their principal which has
not given its consent to be sued.
 Decision
• USA v. Vergara. The Supreme Court found the factual
allegations in this case contradictory and recommended
a closer study of what actually happened to the plaintiffs.
The Court found the record scant of information to
indicate if the defendants were really discharging their
official duties or had actually exceeded their authority
when the incident in question occurred. The Court then
could not directly decide this case and ruled that the
required inquiry must first be made by the lower court to
assess and resolve the conflicting claims of the parties
based on the evidence yet to be presented at the trial.
The Court will determine, if it is still necessary, if the
doctrine of state immunity is applicable only after the
determination of what capacity the petitioners were
acting at the time of the incident in question.