USA v Guinto (Case Digest)



Ca seTi t l e :USAv s .El i odor oB.Gui nt o G. R.noandDat e:G. R.No. 76607 Pone nt e :J us t i c eCr uz



F a c t s





Febr uar y26,1990

These are consolidated cases which involve the doctrine of state immunity. The The United States of   America was not impleade impleaded d 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. 1.

USA vs GUINT !G" No. #$$%#& The private respondents are suing several officers of the US Air 'orce in (lar) Air *ase in connection with the bidding conducted by them for contracts for barber services in the said base+ which was won by ,i-on. The respondents wanted to cancel the award because they claimed that ,i-on had included in his bid an area not included in the invitation to bid+ and also+ to conduct a rebidding.

.

USA vs ","IG !G" No. #/0#%& Genove filed a complaint for damages for his dismissal as coo) in the US Air 'orce "ecreation (enter at (amp ohn 2ay Air Station. It had been ascertained after investigation that Genove had poured urine into the soup stoc) used in coo)ing 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 (4*A55S !G" No. 6%%16& *autista+ a barrac)s boy in (amp 7 ,onnell+ was arrested following a buy8bust operation operation conducted by petitioners+ who were USA' officers and special agents of the Air 'orce ffice. An information was filed against *autista and at the trial+ petitioners testified against him. As a result of the charge+ *autista was dismissed from his employment. 2e then filed for damages against petitioners claiming that it was because of the latter7s acts that he lost his 9ob.

0.

USA vs :4"GA"A !G" No. 6%;6&  A complaint complaint for damages damages was filed filed by private responden respondents ts against petitioners petitioners !US military military officers& for  for  in9uri in9 uries es all alleg egedl edly y sus sustai taine ned d by the for forme merr wh when en de defen fenda dants nts be beat at the them m up up++ ha hand ndcuf cuffed fed the them m an and d unleashed dogs on them. The petitioners deny this and claim that respondents were arrested for theft but resisted arrest+ thus incurring the in9uries.



I s sue


Rul i ng/ s 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. 4ven 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 ma9ority of the states+ such principles are deemed incorporated in the law of every civili-ed state as a condition and conse>uence of its membership in the society of nations. All states are sovereign e>uals and cannot assert 9urisdiction over  one another. uire 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. uestion that the USA+ li)e any other state+ will be deemed to have impliedly waived its non8suability if it has entered into a contract in its proprietary or private capacity !commercial acts?9ure gestionis&. It is only when the contract involves its sovereign or governmental capacity !governmental acts?9ure imperii& that no such waiver may be implied. In US vs GUINT+ the court finds the barbershops sub9ect to the concessions granted by the US government to be commercial enterprises operated by private persons. The (ourt would have directly resolved the claims against the defendants as in USA vs ","IG+ e@cept 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 ","IG+ the restaurant services offered at the ohn 2ay Air Station parta)e of the nature of a business enterprise underta)en 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. *ut+ 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 >uite properly in terminating Genove7s employment for his unbelievably nauseating act. In US vs (4*A55S+ it was clear that the petitioners were acting in the e@ercise of their official functions when they conducted the buy8bust operation and thereafter testified against the complainant. 'or 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 :4"GA"A+ 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 e@ceeded their authority when the incident occurred. The needed in>uiry must first be made by the lower court so it may assess and resolve the conflicting claims of the parties.



  

Pr i nc i pl e / sus ed Doc t r i neofSt at eI mmuni t y ure Gestionis  by right of economic or business relations+ may be sued. !US vs Guinto& ure Imperii  by right of sovereign power+ in the e@ercise of sovereign functions. No implied consent. !US v. "ui-+ 13$ S("A 06#&