U.S.A. vs Guinto, 182 SCRA 644
Both were denied by the trial
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: The cases brought before the Supreme
Court are consolidated for they are issues on
immunity of the state from being sued.
In G.R. No. 76607 (U.S.A et. al vs. Guinto et. al. Feb.
26, 1990), the private respondents sued several
officers of the US Air Force regarding a bidding for
barbering services contract. A bid from Okinawa
Area Exchange was solicited through James Shaw, a
contracting officer. Private respondents and
concessionaires inside the Clark Air Base, Roberto T.
Valencia, Emerenciana C. Tanglao and Pablo C. del
Pilar, were among the bidders, however, Ramon
Dizon 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.
court. A petition for certiorari and prohibition for
preliminary injunction were filed before the
Supreme Court and a TRO was issued.
In G.R. No. 79470, Fabian Genove filed a complaint
for damages against petitioners Anthony Lamachia,
Wilfredo Belsa, Rose Crtalla and Peter Orascion for
his dismissal as a cook in the US Air Force
Recreation Center. Belsa, Cartalla and Orascion
testified that Genova poured urine into the soup
stock that was served to customers. Lamachia
suspended him and referred the case to a board of
arbitrators who found Genove guilty and
recommended his dismissal. Genove then filed an
MS complaint in the RTC of Baguio against the
individual petitioners, who moved to dismiss the
case in the basis that Lamachia was immune from
suit as per acts done in his official capacity as an
officer of the US Air Force. 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 G.R. No. 80018, the respondent, Louis Bautista,
was arrested pursuant to RA 6425 (Dangerous
Drugs Act) in a buy-bust operation conducted by
the petitioners, Tomi J. King, Darrel D. Dye and
Stephen F. Bostick, who were officers and special
agents of the US Air Force and Air Force Office of
Special Investigators. He was charged before the
RTC which caused his dismissal as a barracks boy in
Camp O’Donnell, an extension of Clark Air base.
Bautista then filed a complaint against the
petitioners. 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. Ergo,
the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and
prohibition for preliminary injunction. A TRO was
issued.
In G.R. No. 80258, the private respondents, Ricky
Sanchez, et. al., filed a complaint for damages
against the respondents, Major General Michael
Carns, et. al., for the extensive injuries allegedly
sustained by the petitioners, who beat them up,
handcuffed and unleashed dogs on them who bit
them. The petitioners denied the accusation and
instead said that the respondents were bitten by
dogs because they resisted arrest when they
committed theft, and they were brought to the
medical center for treatment thereafter. 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 , 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.
Reason: 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.
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.