USA vs.

GUINTO, 182 SCRA 644

These consolidated cases revolve around the principle of state immunity, with the
United States of America (USA) not directly involved but seeking dismissal on the
grounds that the suits essentially target it without its consent.

FACTS:

USA vs GUINTO (GR No. 76607):

1. The private respondents are suing various officers of the US Air Force stationed
at Clark Air Base over a bidding process for barber services. They seek to annul
the contract awarded to Dizon, claiming he included areas not part of the bid
invitation and demand a rebidding.
USA vs RODRIGO (GR No. 79470):
2. Genove filed a damages complaint after being dismissed as a cook at the US Air
Force Recreation Center in Camp John Hay Air Station. Investigation revealed he
contaminated soup with urine, leading to his termination.
USA vs CEBALLOS (GR No. 80018):
3. Bautista, a barracks worker, was arrested in a buy-bust operation conducted by
petitioners, USAF officers. He was subsequently dismissed from his job, blaming
petitioners for his termination.
USA vs VERGARA (GR No. 80258):
4. Private respondents filed a damages complaint against US military officers,
alleging assault, handcuffing, and unleashing dogs on them. Petitioners claim
respondents were arrested for theft and resisted, resulting in injuries.

ISSUE:

Whether the defendants enjoy immunity from suit under the RP-US Bases Treaty for acts
committed in the course of their official duties.

RULING:

The principle that a State cannot be sued without its consent is a well-established
international law, incorporated into our legal system. This extends to suits against state
officials for actions undertaken in their official capacity. If a judgment against these
officials would necessitate state intervention to comply, it's treated as a suit against the
state, even if not formally named.
When a government engages in contracts, it waives its immunity from suit. However,
this waiver applies only to commercial or proprietary activities, not governmental
functions.

In US vs GUINTO, the barbershops were deemed commercial enterprises, thus allowing

direct resolution of the claims. However, due to insufficient evidence, the case was
remanded for further proceedings.

In US vs RODRIGO, the restaurant services at John Hay Air Station were commercial in
nature. Though the US government entered into an employment contract with Genove, it
waived immunity. The dismissal of Genove was upheld due to his misconduct.

In US vs CEBALLOS, petitioners acted within their official capacities, thus protected from
direct suit.

In US vs VERGARA, conflicting claims necessitated further investigation to determine

whether petitioners exceeded their authority.

NOTES:

1. State consent to suit is implied when it enters business contracts.

Jure Gestionis permits suits, involving economic relations.
2. Jure Imperii prohibits suits in sovereign functions.