US v. Ruiz Case Digest

Case for “State Immunity” United States of America vs. Hon. Ruiz [date of SC decision] 13 SCRA !"# $AC%S •

&AC'(R)U*+ &AC'(R)U*+,R. ,R. %-e United States of America had a naval base in Subic,

Zambale Zambaless which which was provid provided ed in the Milita Military ry Bases Bases Agree Agreemen mentt betwee between n the Philippines and the United States. o

Sometime in May !"#, the US opened the submission of bids for the following pro$ects%

o

&epair offender system 'what is this() &epair typhoon damage to certain parts p arts of the base *ligio *ligio de +uman +uman - o., o., /nc. /nc. submi submitte tted d bids. bids. Subse0ue Subse0uent nt theret thereto, o, the

o

company received two telegrams from the US re0uesting it to confirm its  price proposals and the name of its bonding company. 1he company in turn complied with such re0uest. /n 2une 2une !"#, !"#, the company company receiv received ed a letter letter signed signed by 3illi 3illiam am ollin ollinss

o

4direc 4director tor,, contrac contracts ts 5ivisi 5ivision, on, 6aval 6aval 7acili 7acilitie tiess enginee engineerin ring g omman ommand, d, Southwest Pacific, 5ept. of the 6avy of the US8 that says that the company did not 0ualify to receive an award for the pro$ects due to its previous unsatisfactory performance on a repair contract for the sea wall at the boat landings of the US 6aval Station in Subic Bay. 1hat the pro$ects have been awarded to third parties 'the present pro$ects

o

 being bidded() ompany '*ligio de +uman9s() then sued the USA and the members of the

 

*ngineering ommand of the US 6avy. omplaint is to order the said company to perform the wor:s on the 



 pro$ects and the event that specific performance was no longer   possible, to order the defendants to pay damages. '/ do not understand what you mean% the company wants the US to hire them for this pro$ect() 1he company also see: for the issuance of a writ of preliminary in$unct in$unction ion to retrai retrain n 'to train train them them again( again()) the defend defendant antss from from entering into contracts with third parties.

o

1he defendants entered their special appearance for the purpose only of  0uestioning the $urisdiction of this court over the sub$ect matter of the complaint and the persons of defendants, the sub$ect matter of the complaint  being acts and omissions of the individual defendan ts as agents of defendant United States of America, a foreign sovereign which has not given her  consent to this suit or any other suit for the causes of action asserted in the complaint.; Subse0uently the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint 

which included an opposition to the issuance of the writ of   preliminary in$unction. 1he company opposed the motion. 1he trial court denied the motion and issued the writ. 1he defendants moved twice to reconsider but to no avail.
3hether or not the United States can invo:e State /mmunity 'for  what()

H,+ 

/,S. 1he traditional role of the state immunity e=empts a state

from being sued in the courts of another state without its consent or waiver. 1his rule is necessary conse0uence of the principle of  independence and e0uality of states. they are continually and evolving and because the activities of states have multiplied. 

/t has been necessary to distinguish them between sovereign and governmental acts and private, commercial and proprietary acts. 1he result is that state immunity now e=tends only to sovereign and governmental acts.



A state may be 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. /t does not apply where the contracts relates the e=ercise of its sovereign function.



In t-is case0 t-e ro2ects are intera4 art of t-e nava4 5ase 6-ic- is devoted to t-e defense of 5ot- US and t-e 7-i4iines indisuta54y0 a function of t-e overnment of  -i-est order0 t-ey are not uti4ized for 0 nor dedicated to commercia4 or 5usiness uroses.