USA v.

Guinto, 182 S 644 (1990)

FACTS:

USA vs. Guinto. On February 24, 1986, the U.S. Air Force stationed in Clark Air Base
solicited bids for barbershop concessions. Ramon Dizon won the bidding.
Respondents objected, claiming that Dizon had made a bid for four facilities which
includes an area not included in the bidding. The petitioners explained that Dizon was
already operating the concession, and informed the respondents that solicitation for
the barber service contracts would be available by the end of June before which the
respondents would be notified. On June 30, 1986, the private respondents filed a
complaint in court to compel the Philippine Area Exchange (PHAX) and the petitioners
to cancel the award to Dizon, to conduct a rebidding for the barbershop concessions,
and to allow the respondents through a writ of preliminary injunction to continue
operating the concessions pending litigation. The court issued an ex parte order
directing the individual petitioners to maintain the status quo. Petitioners then filed a
motion to dismiss and opposed the petition for preliminary injunction, stating that the
action was in effect a suit against the United States of America which had not waived
its non-suability. The defendants who are official employees of the U.S. Air Force
were also immune from suit. The trial court denied the application for a writ of
preliminary injunction.

USA v. Rodrigo. Fabian Genove who worked as a cook in the U.S. Air Force Recreation
Center at the John Hay Air Station in Baguio City, filed a complaint for damages
against petitioners Anthony Lamachia, Wilfredo Belsa, Rose Cartalla and Peter
Orascion for his dismissal from work. Belsa, Cartalla, and Orascion had testified
during an investigation that Genove had poured urine into the soup stock used in
cooking the vegetables served to the club customers. As club manager, Lamachia
suspended Genove and referred the case to a board of arbitrators. The board
unanimously found Genove guilty and recommended his dismissal. Lamachia, et. al.,
joined by the United States of America moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging that
Lamachia was an officer of the U.S. Air Force and was thus immune from suit. They
argued that the suit was in effect against the United States which had not given its
consent to be sued. The trial court denied the motion, saying that the defendants went
beyond their functions that brought them out of the protective mantle of whatever
immunities they may have initially had such that the plaintiff’s allegation that the acts
complained of were illegal, done with extreme bad faith and with preconceived sinister
plan to harass and finally dismiss the plaintiff gains significance.

USA v. Ceballos. Luis Bautista, who was employed as a barracks boy in Camp O’
Donnell, was arrested following a buy-bust operation conducted by the petitioners
who were special agents of the Air Force Office of Special Investigators (AFOSI). A
charge was filed against Bautista in violation of R.A. 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act
which caused his dismissal from employment. Bautista thus filed a complaint for
damages against the petitioners who filed an answer without the assistance of
counsel or authority from the U.S. Department of Justice. The petitioners alleged that
they had only done their duty in enforcing the laws of the Philippines inside the
American bases pursuant to the RP-US Military Bases Agreement. The law firm
representing the defendants filed a motion to withdraw the answer and dismiss the
complaint on the ground that the defendants were just acting in their official capacity
and that the complaint against them was in effect a suit against the United States
which did not give its consent to be sued. The motion was denied by the trial court
which stated that the claimed immunity under the Military Bases Agreement covered
only criminal and not civil cases and that the defendants had come under the
jurisdiction of the court when they submitted their answer.

USA v. Vergara. Plaintiffs alleged that they were beaten up by the defendants,
handcuffed, and allowed to be bitten by dogs which caused extensive injuries to the
plaintiffs. The defendants denied the claim and asserted that the plaintiffs were
arrested for theft and were bitten by the dogs because they struggled and resisted
arrest. The defendants claimed that the dogs were called off and the plaintiffs were
immediately taken to the medical center where they were treated for their wounds.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and argued that the suit was
in effect a suit against the United States which had not given its consent to be sued.
The defendants stated that there were immune from suit under the RP-US Military
Bases Agreement for acts they did in performing their official functions. The motion
to dismiss was denied by the trial court.

ISSUE:

Are the defendants right in invoking the State’s immunity from suit for acts done by
them in the performance of their official duties?

HELD:

USA v. Guinto. The Supreme Court ruled that the barbershop concessions granted by
the United States government are commercial enterprises operated by private
persons and are not agencies of the United States Armed Forces. All the barbershop
concessionaires were under the terms of their contracts and were required to remit
fixed commissions to the United States government. Thus, the petitioners cannot
plead any immunity from the complaint filed by the private respondents. The Court
though could not directly resolve the claims against the defendants because the
evidence of the alleged irregularity in the grant of the barbershop concessions is
lacking. This means that the Court must receive the evidence first so it can later
determine if the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief they seek.

USA v. Rodrigo. The restaurant services offered at the John Hay Air Station is of the
nature of a business enterprise undertaken by the United States government in its
proprietary capacity. Thus, the petitioners cannot invoke the doctrine of state
immunity to justify the dismissal of the damage suit against them by Genove even if it
is established that they were acting as agents of the United States when they
investigated and later dismissed Genove. Not even the United States government
itself can claim such immunity because by entering into an employment contract with
Genove, it impliedly divested itself of its sovereign immunity from suit. But still, the
Court dismissed the complaint against the petitioners since, while suable, the
petitioners were found to be not liable. A thorough investigation established beyond
doubt that Genove had in fact polluted the soup stock with urine.
USA v. Ceballos. The court found that the petitioners were only exercising their
official functions when they conducted the buy-bust operation. The petitioners were
connected with the Air Force Office of Special Investigators and were assigned to
prevent the distribution, possession and use of prohibited drugs and to prosecute
those guilty of such acts. As such, the petitioners were not acting in their private or
unofficial capacity when they apprehended and later testified against the complainant.
For discharging their duties as agents of the United States, they cannot be directly
prosecuted for acts imputable to their principal which has not given its consent to be
sued.

USA v. Vergara. The Supreme Court found the factual allegations in this case
contradictory and recommended a closer study of what actually happened to the
plaintiffs. The Court found the record scant of information to indicate if the
defendants were really discharging their official duties or had actually exceeded their
authority when the incident in question occurred. The Court then could not directly
decide this case and ruled that the required inquiry must first be made by the lower
court to assess and resolve the conflicting claims of the parties based on the evidence
yet to be presented at the trial. The Court will determine, if it is still necessary, if the
doctrine of state immunity is applicable only after the determination of what capacity
the petitioners were acting at the time of the incident in question.