GR 76607; (February, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 76607 , 79470, 80018, 80258 February 26, 1990
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. ELIODORO B. GUINTO, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
These consolidated cases involve the doctrine of state immunity. In G.R. No. 76607 , private respondents, long-time barbershop concessionaires at Clark Air Base, sued U.S. Air Force officers to nullify a bidding award for concessions, alleging irregularities. They sought to compel a rebidding and to continue operations via injunction. In G.R. No. 79470 , Fabian Genove sued U.S. Air Force officers and civilian employees for damages after his dismissal as a cook at John Hay Air Station for pouring urine into soup stock, following an administrative investigation. In G.R. No. 80018, Luis Bautista sued U.S. Air Force officers for damages arising from a vehicular accident on a public road near Camp O’Donnell. In G.R. No. 80258, various individuals sued U.S. Air Force officers for damages due to alleged barbershop concession irregularities at Clark Air Base. The United States, though not initially impleaded, intervened and moved to dismiss all suits, claiming immunity. The respondent trial judges denied the motions, prompting these petitions.
ISSUE
Whether the suits are barred by the doctrine of state immunity from suit.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled differently per case, applying the distinction between sovereign (jure imperii) and proprietary (jure gestionis) acts. For G.R. No. 79470 (Genove dismissal), the petition was GRANTED and the case dismissed. The act of dismissing an employee falls within the sovereign power to manage its military bases and personnel, a governmental function. For G.R. No. 80018 (vehicular accident), the petition was GRANTED and the case dismissed. The accident occurred during the officers’ performance of official duties, as they were on a mission to fetch supplies, making the act jure imperii. For G.R. Nos. 76607 and 80258 (barbershop concessions), the petitions were DISMISSED and the cases remanded for trial. The operation of barbershops via commercial concession contracts is a proprietary, commercial activity (jure gestionis) to which immunity does not attach, following United States of America v. Ruiz. The Court held that entering into such contracts for the operation of a military base is not a governmental function but a private commercial act. The factual allegations of irregularity in bidding must be heard on the merits. The temporary restraining orders in these two cases were lifted.