United States of America vs. Guinto
182 SCRA 644

 FACTS: These cases are consolidated because they all involve the doctrine of state immunity.
1)US VS GUINTO (GR No. 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 which was won by a certain Dizon. The respondents wanted to cancel the award to the bid winner because they claimed that Dizon had included in his bid an area not included in the invitation to bid, and subsequently, to conduct a rebidding.
2} US VS RODRIGO (GR No 79470)
Genove, employed as a cook in the Main Club at John Hay Station, was dismissed after it had been ascertained in an investigation that he poured urine in the soup stock. Genove filed a complaint for damages against the club manager who was also an officer of USAF.
2)US VS CEBALLOS (GR No 80018)
Luis Bautista, a barracks boy in Camp ODonnel, was arrested following a buy-bust operation conducted by petitioners who were USAF officers and special agents of the Air Force Office. A trialensued where petitioners testified against respondent Bautista. As a result of the charge, Bautista was dismissed from his employment. He then filed for damages against petitioners claiming that because of the latters acts, he was removed from his job.
3)US VS ALARCON VERGARA (GR No 80258)
Complaint for damages was filed by private respondents against individual petitioners for injuries allegedly sustained by handcuffing and unleashing dogs on them by the latter. The individual petitioners, US military officers, deny this stressing that the private respondents were arrested for theft but resisted arrest, thus incurring the injuries.In all these cases, the individual petitioners claimed they were just exercising their official functions. The USA was not impleaded in the complaints but has moved to dismiss on the ground that they are in effect suits against it to which it has not consented.

ISSUE: Whether the defendants were also immune from suit under the RP-US Bases Treaty for acts done by them in the performance of their official duties.

HOLDING: The rule that a State may not be sued without its consent is one of the generally accepted principles of international law that were have adopted as part of the law of our land. Even without such affirmation, we would still be bound by the generally accepted principles of international law under the doctrine of incorporation. Under this doctrine, as accepted by the majority of the states, 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. All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent, it is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the states for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. The rule is that if the judgment against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same, the suit must be regarded as against the state although it has not been formally impleaded. When the government enters into a contract, 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. In the case Of US, the customary law of international law on state immunity is expressed with more specificity in the RP-US Bases Treaty. There is no question that the US, like any other state, will be deemed to have impliedly waived its non-suability if it has entered into a contract in its proprietory or private capacity. It is only when the contract involves its sovereign or governmental capacity that no such waiver may be implied.It is clear from a study of the records of GR No. 80018 that the petitioners therein were acting in the exercise of their official functions when they conducted the buy-bust operations against the complainant and thereafter testified against him at his trial. It follows that for discharging their duties as agents of the US, they cannot be directly impleaded for acts imputable to their principal, which has not given its consent to be sued.As for GR No. 80018, the record is too meager to indicate what really happened. The needed inquiry first be made by the lower court so it may assess and resolve the conflicting claims of the parties on the basis of evidence that has yet to be presented at the trial.
Ruling
1)US VS GUINTO (GR No 76607)The court finds the barbershops subject to the concessions granted by the US government to be commercial enterprises operated by private persons. The petitioners cannot plead any immunity from the complaint, the contract in question being decidedly commercial. Thus, the petition is DISMISSED and the lower court directed to proceed with the hearing and decision of the case.
2)US VS RODRIGO (GR No 79470)The restaurant services offered at the John Hay Station operated for profit as a commercial and not a government activity. The petitioners cannot invoke the doctrine of self immunity to justify the dismissal of the damage suit filed by Genove. Not even the US government can claim such immunity because by entering into the employment contract with Geneove in the discharge of its proprietary functions, it impliedly divested itself of its sovereign immunity from suit.Still, the court holds that the complaint against petitioners in the lower court be dismissed.There was nothing arbitrary about the proceedings in the dismissal of Genove, the petitioner acted quite properly in terminating the private respondent’s employment for his unbelievably nauseating act of polluting the soup stock with urine.
3)US VS CEBALLOS (GR No 80018)It was clear that the individually-named petitioners were acting in the exercise of their official functions when they conducted the buy-bust operation and thereafter testified against the complainant. For discharging their duties as agents of the United States, they cannot be directly impleaded for acts imputable to their principal, which has not given its consent to be sued. The conclusion of the trial court that the answer filed by the special counsel of Clark Air Base was a submission of the US government to its jurisdiction is rejected. Express waiver cannot be made by a mere counsel of the government but must be effected through a duly-enacted statute. Neither does it come under the implied form of consent. Thus, the petition is granted and the civil case filed in the lower court dismissed.
4)US VS ALARCON VERGARA (GR No 80258)The contradictory factual allegations in this case need a closer study of what actually happened. The record were too meager to indicate that the defendants were really discharging their official duties or had actually exceeded their authority when the incident occurred. Only after the lower court shall have determined in what capacity the petitioners were acting will the court determine, if still necessary, if the doctrine of state immunity is applicable.

NOTE: 1.  A STATE MAY BE SAID TO HAVE DESCENDED TO THE LEVEL OF AN INDIVIDUAL AND CAN THUS BE DEEMED TO HAVE TACITY GIVEN ITS CONSENT TO BE SUED ONLY WHEN IT ENTERS INTO BUSINESS CONTRACTS.

NOTE: 2. implied consent
1. When the State enters into a private contract. The contract must be entered into by the proper officer and within the scope of his authority. UNLESS: the contract is merely incidental to the performance of a governmental function.
2. When the State enters into a business contract. UNLESS: The operation is incidental to the performance of a governmental function (e.g. arrastre services). Thus, when the State conduct business operations through GOCC, the latter can be generally be sued, even if its charter contains no express “sue or be sued” clause.
 Jure Gestionis – by right of economic or business relations, may be sued. (US vs Guinto)
Jure Imperii– by right of sovereign power, in the exercise of sovereign functions. No implied consent
(US v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

People vs. Sunico, et al [C.A., 50 o.g. 5880]

FACTS: The accused were election inspectors and poll clerks whose duty among others was to transfer the names of excess voters in other precincts to the list of a newly created precinct.Several voters were omitted in the list.Because their names were not in the list, some of them were not allowed to vote. The accused were prosecuted for violation of Secs. 101 and 103 of the Revised Election Code. The accused claimed that they made the omission in good faith.The trial court seemed to believe that notwithstanding the fact that the accused committed in good faith the serious offense charged, the latter are criminally responsible therefor, because such offense is malum prohibitum, and, consequently, the act constituting the same need not be committed with malice or criminal intent to be punishable. ISSUE: Is the act of the accused merely a mala prohibita? HELD: The acts of the accused cannot be merely mala prohibita - they are mala in se . The omission or failure to include a voter’s...
Read more

US v. Serapio [23 P 584]

FACTS: Defendant was charged with the crime of libel. Upon said complaint the defendant was duly arraigned. Upon arraignment the defendant, by his attorneys, presented the following demurrer:I. The facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute a crime. II. It appears from the allegation in the complaint that if there were a crime it has prescribed. With reference to the second ground, counsel for the defense maintains that the crime has prescribed under the provisions of the laws in force in the Islands and supports such conclusion by asserting that in the absence of a definite provision in Act No. 277 of the Philippine Commission, which fixes the time during which the penal action arising from the crime of libel may be exercised, the time which article 131 of the Penal Code fixes for the prescription of the crimes of calumny and insults is strictly applicable. Against this contention of the defense, the Attorney-General and the private prosecutor maint...
Read more

People v Macatanda [109 S 35]

FACTS: Charged with and convicted on a plea of guilty, in the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, Branch IV in Iligan City, for the crime of cattle rustling, Saglala Macatanda. From the judgment of conviction, Saglala Macatanda (hereinafter referred to as appellant) appealed direct to this Court. The Solicitor General comes up with a reply that Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code does not apply to penalties prescribed by special laws. He considers P.D. 533, otherwise known as "Anti- Cattle Rustling Law of 1974" as a special law, and in accordance with existing rulings, 8 the penalty should not be governed by the Revised Penal Code. ISSUE: Whether the contention of the Solicitor-General is valid. RULING: The court do not agree with the Solicitor General that P.D. 533 is a special law, entirely distinct from and unrelated to the Revised Penal Code. From the nature of the penalty imposed which is in terms of the classification and duration of penalties as prescribe...
Read more