USA vs. GUINTO, 182 SCRA 644 Case Digest

USA vs.
GUINTO, 182 SCRA 644 Case Digest

These are cases that have been consolidated because they all involve the doctrine of state
immunity. The United States of America was not impleaded in the case at bar but has moved to
dismiss on the ground that they are in effect suits against it to which it has not consented.
FACTS:
1. USA 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 Dizon. The respondents wanted to cancel the award because they claimed that
Dizon had included in his bid an area not included in the invitation to bid, and also, to conduct a
rebidding.
2. USA vs RODRIGO (GR No. 79470)
Genove filed a complaint for damages for his dismissal as cook in the US Air Force Recreation
Center at Camp John Hay Air Station. It had been ascertained after investigation that Genove had
poured urine into the soup stock used in cooking the vegetables served to the club customers. The
club manager suspended him and thereafter referred the case to a board of arbitrators, which
unanimously found him guilty and recommended his dismissal.
3. USA vs CEBALLOS (GR No. 80018)
Bautista, a barracks boy in Camp O’ Donnell, was arrested following a buy-bust operation
conducted by petitioners, who were USAF officers and special agents of the Air Force Office. An
information was filed against Bautista and at the trial, petitioners testified against him. As a result of
the charge, Bautista was dismissed from his employment. He then filed for damages against
petitioners claiming that it was because of the latter’s acts that he lost his job.
4. USA vs VERGARA (GR No. 80258)
A complaint for damages was filed by private respondents against petitioners (US military officers)
for injuries allegedly sustained by the former when defendants beat them up, handcuffed them and
unleashed dogs on them. The petitioners deny this and claim that respondents were arrested for theft
but resisted arrest, thus incurring the injuries.
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.
RULING:
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.
It bears stressing at this point that the aforesaid principle do not confer on the USA a blanket
immunity for all acts done by it or its agents in the Philippines. Neither may the other petitioners claim
that they are also insulated from suit in this country merely because they have acted as agents of the
United States in the discharge of their official functions.
There is no question that the USA, like any other state, will be deemed to have impliedly
waived its non-suability if it has entered into a contract in its proprietary or private capacity
(commercial acts/jure gestionis). It is only when the contract involves its sovereign or governmental
capacity (governmental acts/jure imperii) that no such waiver may be implied.
In US vs GUINTO, the court finds the barbershops subject to the concessions granted by the
US government to be commercial enterprises operated by private persons. The Court would have
directly resolved the claims against the defendants as in USA vs RODRIGO, except for the paucity of
the record as the evidence of the alleged irregularity in the grant of the barbershop concessions were
not available. Accordingly, this case was remanded to the court below for further proceedings.
In US vs RODRIGO, the restaurant services offered at the John Hay Air Station partake of the
nature of a business enterprise undertaken by the US government in its proprietary capacity, as they
were operated for profit, as a commercial and not a governmental activity. Not even the US
government can claim such immunity because by entering into the employment contract with Genove
in the discharge of its proprietary functions, it impliedly divested itself of its sovereign immunity from
suit. But, the court still dismissed the complaint against petitioners on the ground that there was
nothing arbitrary about the proceedings in the dismissal of Genove, as the petitioners acted quite
properly in terminating Genove’s employment for his unbelievably nauseating act.
In US vs CEBALLOS, it was clear that the 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.
In US vs VERGARA, the contradictory factual allegations in this case need a closer study of
what actually happened. The record was too meager to indicate if the defendants were really
discharging their official duties or had actually exceeded their authority when the incident
occurred. The needed inquiry must first be made by the lower court so it may assess and resolve the
conflicting claims of the parties.

USA vs. GUINTO, 182 SCRA 644 Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USA vs. GUINTO, 182 SCRA 644 Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

USA vs. GUINTO, 182 SCRA 644 Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

USA vs.

GUINTO, 182 SCRA 644 Case Digest

1. USA vs GUINTO (GR No. 76607)

2. USA vs RODRIGO (GR No. 79470)

3. USA vs CEBALLOS (GR No. 80018)

4. USA vs VERGARA (GR No. 80258)

You might also like