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.
NOTE:
1. A STATE MAY BE SAID TO
HAVE DESCENDED TO THE LEVEL OF AN INDIVIDUAL AND CAN THUS BE DEEMED TO HAVE
TACITLY GIVEN ITS CONSENT TO BE SUED ONLY WHEN IT ENTERS INTO BUSINESS
CONTRACTS.
2. 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)
No comments:
Post a Comment