USA v Guinto

By -
Facts: The private respondents are suing several officers of the U.S. Air Force station in Clark Air Base in connection with the bidding conducted by them for contracts for barbering services in the said base. On February 24, 1986, The U.S. Air Force through its Western Pacific Contracting Office in Okinawa Area Exchange solicited bids through the contracting officer, James F. Shaw. The Private respondents submitted their bids because they are concessionaire inside the Clark air base for several years, but the bidding was won by the defendant Ramon Dizon with objection of the private respondents because the defendant submitted bidding not mention in the solicitation. Petitioners Yvonne Reeves and Frederic M. Smouse explained that bidding is not awarded to Dizon but an extension of his present contract until August 31, 1986. June 30, 1986 the private respondents file a complaint to RTC to compel PHAX and the petitioners to cancel the award to defendant Dizon and to conduct re-bidding of the barbershop concession and to allow respondent to continue operating pending on ligation by writ of preliminary injunction. The respondent court issued an ex parte order directing individual petitioner to maintain status quo. July 22, 1986 petitioner file motion to dismiss and opposition to the preliminary injunction, on the ground that the action was in effect a suit against the United States of America, which had not waived its non-suability. The individual defendants, as officials/employees of the U.S. Air Force, were also immune from suit. October 10, 1988 RTC denied the petitioners motion to dismiss on the ground that the contract is commercial in nature between the plaintiffs as well as the defendants.December 11, 1986, the defendants file a petition for certiorari and prohibition and preliminary injunction to the Supreme Court on the decision of the RTC denying the motion to dismiss the case.

Issue: Whether or not the officials/employees of the U.S. Air Force were immune from suit?


Held: The court ruled that that the petitioner cannot plead any immunity from the complaint filed by the private respondents. The contracts in question being decidedly Commercial, and the conclusion reached in United Sates of America v Ruiz case cannot be applied. The petition is dismissed and the respondent judge is directed to proceed with the hearing and decision of Civil Case No. 4772. The temporary restraining order dated December 11, 1986 is lifted.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Co vs Court of Appeals

By -
ALBINO S. CO,  petitioner,  vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,  respondents. G.R. No. 100776 October 28, 1993 Facts:                 In connection with an agreement to salvage and refloat asunken vessel — and in payment of his share of the expenses of the salvage operations therein stipulated — petitioner Albino Co delivered to the salvaging firm on September 1, 1983 a check drawn against the Associated Citizens' Bank, postdated November 30, 1983 in the sum of P361,528.00. The check was deposited on January 3, 1984. It was dishonored two days later, the tersely-stated reason given by the bank being: "CLOSED ACCOUNT."                 A criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 2 was filed by the salvage company against Albino Co with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. The case eventuated in Co's conviction of the crime charged, and his being sentenced to suffer a term of imprisonment of sixty (60) days and to inde
Read more

GONZALES vs COMELEC [G.R. No. L-28196, November 9, 1967]

By -
FACTS: On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed resolutions No. 1, 2 and 3 – i.e. to increase the seats of the Lower House from 120 to 180; to convoke a Constitutional Convention of 1971; and to amend the Constitution (Section 16, Article VI) so they can become delegates themselves to the Convention.  Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon approval by the President, on June 17, 1967, became Republic Act No. 4913, providing that the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the aforementioned Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be submitted, for approval by the people, at the general elections which shall be held on November 14, 1967. Two cases were filed against this act of Congress:  One an is original action for prohibition, with preliminary injunction by Ramon A. Gonzales, in L-28196, a Filipino citizen, a taxpayer, and a voter. He claims to have instituted case L-28196 as a class unit, for and in behalf of all citizens, taxpayers, and voters simil
Read more

PNB vs CA & Gueco et al

By -
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK VS. COURT OF APPEALS,RITA GUECO TAPNIO,CECILIO GUECO and THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY FACTS: Mrs. Rita Gueco Tapnio was indebted to the Philippine National Bank at San Fernando,Pampanga for the total sum of P2,379.91.  Her indebtedness was a crop loan and was secured by the mortgage on her standing crap including her sugar quota allocation for the agricultural year corresponding to the said standing crop. During agricultural year 1956-1957 Mrs. Tapnio had an excess in her export sugar quota, 1000 piculs which she does not need. Mr. Jacobo Tuazon, a planter harvest less than his sugar quota. Mrs. Tapnio agreed to allow Mr. Tuazon to use her excess sugar quota for the consideration of P2,500.00.  Since the quota of Mrs. Tapnio was mortgaged to the PNB, the contract of lease that Mrs. Tapnio and Mr. Tuazon agreed into had to be approved by the bank. The branch manager required the parties to raise the consideration to P2,800.00 informing
Read more