U.S.A.

vs Guinto, 182 SCRA 644

FACTS: The private respondents are suing several officers of the US Air Force in Clark Air base in
connection with bidding conducted by then 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 included in his bid an
area not included in the invitation to bid, and also, to 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.

Issue: Whether or not the defense were immune from suit in the RP-US Bases Treaty.

Ruling: Both were denied by the trial court. A petition for certiorari and prohibition for preliminary
injunction were filed before the Supreme Court and a TRO was issued.

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.

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.