Case Summary (G.R. No. 206032)
G.R. No. 76607 – Barbershop Concession Dispute
Private concessionaires who had operated barber services at Clark Air Base for decades challenged the award of new contracts to a rival bidder. They sought injunctive relief and cancellation of the award. The contracting authority (PHAX and its officers) moved to dismiss, invoking sovereign immunity of the U.S. and official-capacity immunity of its personnel. The trial court denied dismissal, finding the concessions commercial in nature and outside Article XVIII of the Bases Agreement. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari and remanded for trial, lifting the temporary restraining order.
G.R. No. 79470 – Cook Dismissal and Immunity Claim
Fabian Genove, dismissed as cook at the U.S. Air Force Recreation Center (John Hay), sued his supervisors for damages. He alleged bad faith and malice in suspension and referral to arbitration under the collective bargaining agreement. Defendants invoked official-capacity immunity and non-suability of the U.S. Government. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, construing the alleged “illegal” and “bad-faith” acts as outside official duty. The Supreme Court granted the petition, held that the restaurant operation was proprietary (commercial), and affirmed that, although the U.S. was suable by virtue of contract, Genove’s own misconduct justified dismissal. Civil Case No. 829-R(298) was dismissed.
G.R. No. 80018 – Buy-Bust Operation and Arrest
Luis Bautista was arrested by Air Force Office of Special Investigators for alleged drug violations, prosecuted under Philippine law and dismissed from his employment. He filed for damages against the arresting officers. Defendants moved to dismiss on sovereign‐immunity grounds; the trial court denied relief, distinguishing criminal enforcement from civil immunity. The Supreme Court found the officers acted in their official functions under the Bases Agreement, recognized the U.S. Government’s non-suability, and granted the petition. Civil Case No. 115-C-87 was dismissed with permanent injunction.
G.R. No. 80258 – Alleged Assault and Factual Conflict
Private respondents alleged they were beaten, handcuffed, and mauled by military police dogs on a U.S. base. Defendants contended official‐capacity immunity and non-suability of the U.S. Government; the trial court denied dismissal. The Supreme Court found the record insufficient to determine whether the officers acted within their official functions or exceeded authority. It dismissed the petition and remanded the case for full factual inquiry, lifting the TRO.
Doctrine of State Immunity Under the 1987 Constitution
Article XVI, §3 of the 1987 Constitution incorporates the principle that a state may not be sued without its consent, as affirmed by Article II, §2 (incorporation of international law). Sovereign immunity extends to acts jure imperii (governmental functions) but does not bar suits based on jure gestionis (commercial or proprietary acts). The par in parem non habet imperium maxim reinforces that no state may exercise jurisdiction over another without consent.
Waiver and Exceptions to Sovereign Immunity
• Express waiver by statute (e.g., Act No. 3083 for moneyed contract claims)
• Implied waiver by entering into commercial contracts or by initiating suit (allowing counterclaims)
• Distinction between sovereign acts (no implied waiver) and proprietary acts (im
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 206032)
Procedural History
- Four petitions (G.R. Nos. 76607, 79470, 80018, 80258) were consolidated and argued en banc before this Court, all raising the doctrine of state immunity under the RP-US Bases Agreement and general international law.
- Petitioners (the United States of America and various U.S. Air Force officers or agents) sought dismissal of underlying civil actions on grounds of non-suability and official immunity; respondent trial judges denied the motions to dismiss.
- Each petition invoked certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for preliminary injunction; this Court issued temporary restraining orders in all cases pending resolution.
- Decision date: February 26, 1990.
Facts of G.R. No. 76607 (Civil Case No. 4772)
- Western Pacific Contracting Office, U.S. Air Force, solicited bids (February 24, 1986) for barber-service concessions at Clark Air Base.
- Private respondents Valencia, Tanglao, and del Pilar (decades-long concessionaires) protested award to Roman Dizon, alleging bid irregularity.
- PHAX representatives (Smouse and Reeves) explained the CE concession’s status and promised rebidding later in June.
- Private respondents filed suit (June 30, 1986) to cancel Dizon’s award, compel rebidding, and enjoin petitioners from disrupting their operations.
- Trial court issued an ex parte status-quo order, then denied petitioners’ motion to dismiss (October 10, 1988), characterizing the concessions as commercial transactions outside Article XVIII of the RP-US Bases Agreement.
Facts of G.R. No. 79470 (Civil Case No. 829-R(298))
- Fabían Genove, employed as cook at U.S. Air Force Recreation Center (John Hay Air Station, Baguio), was accused of pouring urine into vegetable soup.
- Manager Lamachia suspended him, then, under a collective bargaining agreement, referred the matter to an arbitration board, which unanimously found Genove guilty and recommended dismissal (March 5, 1986).
- Genove filed a damages complaint against Lamachia and his co-managers; defendants, joined by the U.S. Government, moved to dismiss (March 13, 1987) on immunity grounds.
- Respondent judge denied the motion (June 4, 1987), reasoning that alleged “extreme bad faith” and acts beyond official duty removed protected status.