G.R. No. 79253 March 1, 1993
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and MAXINE BRADFORD, petitioners, vs. HON. LUIS R. REYES, as Presiding Judge of Branch 22, Regional Trial Court of Cavite, and NELIA T. MONTOYA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Nelia T. Montoya, an American citizen employed as an ID checker at the U.S. Navy Exchange (NEX) at the Joint United States Military Assistance Group (JUSMAG) headquarters in Quezon City, filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Maxine Bradford, the activity exchange manager at JUSMAG. The complaint alleged that on January 22, 1987, after Montoya had finished shopping and was already in the parking area, Bradford ordered another employee to search Montoya’s person, car, and bags in the presence of onlookers. Montoya claimed this was an oppressive, discriminatory, and illegal act done with racial animus, causing her embarrassment and indignity. She sought moral and exemplary damages. Bradford, together with the United States of America, moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of state immunity from suit, arguing that the action was effectively against the U.S., a foreign sovereign immune from suit without its consent, and that Bradford, as manager of NEX-JUSMAG, was immune from suit for acts done in the performance of her official functions under the Philippines-United States Military Assistance Agreement and Military Bases Agreement. The Regional Trial Court denied the motion to dismiss and granted Montoya’s motion for a writ of preliminary attachment. The petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition to annul the RTC’s resolution and the writ of attachment.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss based on the doctrine of state immunity from suit.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition for lack of merit. The Court held that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss. The doctrine of state immunity, which bars a suit against a foreign state without its consent, is not applicable when the public official being sued acted beyond the scope of her authority. The complaint alleged that Bradford’s act of ordering a search outside the store, in a discriminatory manner and in the presence of onlookers, was unlawful, improper, and in excess of her authority. Whether Bradford was acting within her official functions or had exceeded her authority is a factual matter that must be determined during trial. A motion to dismiss based on state immunity is not proper when the complaint specifically alleges that the defendant acted in excess of her authority, as such allegations must be hypothetically admitted for purposes of the motion. The Court also noted that Bradford, as a civilian employee of the NEX, was not among the class of persons immune from suit under the Military Bases Agreement, which grants immunity only to members of the United States Armed Forces, the Military Advisory Group, and their dependents. The writ of preliminary attachment was also upheld as it was issued based on an allegation that Bradford was about to depart from the country and dispose of her properties. The Temporary Restraining Order was lifted.