USA v Guinto
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