Title
United States of America vs. Reyes
Case
G.R. No. 79253
Decision Date
Mar 1, 1993
A U.S. Navy Exchange manager, sued personally for alleged discriminatory search of a Filipino employee, was denied state immunity by the Supreme Court, upholding Philippine jurisdiction and liability.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 79253)

Trial Court Proceedings

Montoya filed Civil Case No. 224-87 in the RTC, Cavite, seeking P500,000 in moral and P100,000 in exemplary damages against Bradford. Bradford failed to answer within the extended periods and, together with the U.S. Government, moved to dismiss based on sovereign immunity and immunity for official acts under the 1947 agreements. Montoya cross-moved for preliminary attachment, alleging Bradford’s imminent departure and dissolution of assets.

RTC Rulings

On July 17, 1987, Branch 22 denied the motion to dismiss for lack of indubitable grounds and granted preliminary attachment upon bond. The writ issued July 28, 1987. Bradford did not file a motion for reconsideration; Montoya presented her evidence ex parte, and on September 10, 1987, the RTC awarded P300,000 moral, P100,000 exemplary damages, and P50,000 expenses and fees.

Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition

Bradford and the U.S. Government petitioned under Rule 65 to annul the July 17 resolution and the attachment writ, alleging grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity. They sought a restraining order against the RTC decision and execution.

Legal Issue

Whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss the action based on:

  1. State immunity of the United States from suit without consent;
  2. Bradford’s immunity as an official performing functions under the Military Assistance and Bases Agreements; and
  3. The action being in effect a suit against the U.S. Government.

Supreme Court Analysis

  1. Intervention and Procedural Lapse
    • The U.S. Government was not originally impleaded yet joined the motion to dismiss without leave to intervene. Its voluntary appearance constituted submission to RTC jurisdiction.
  2. Ground of Dismissal as Cause of Action
    • The motion to dismiss effectively pleaded failure to state a cause of action. The RTC should have deferred resolution rather than outright denial, but the decision to proceed did not prejudice review.
  3. Exception to State Immunity
    • Under Art. XVI, Sec. 13 of the 1987 Constitution and international law, sovereign immunity protects acts within lawful authority but not unauthorized, ultra vires, or tortious acts by officials.
    • Precedents (Baer v. Tizon; Shauf v. CA; Williams v. Rarang; Minucher v. CA) confirm that officials sued in their personal capacity for acts beyond their authority fall outside immunity.
  4. Application to Bradford
    • The complaint’s allegations, hypothetically admitted on motion to dis

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.