Professional Documents
Culture Documents
10 USA V Ruiz
10 USA V Ruiz
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-35645 May 22, 1985
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CAPT. JAMES E.
GALLOWAY, WILLIAM I. COLLINS and ROBERT
GOHIER,petitioners,
vs.
HON. V. M. RUIZ, Presiding Judge of Branch XV, Court of
First Instance of Rizal and ELIGIO DE GUZMAN & CO.,
INC., respondents.
Sycip, Salazar, Luna & Manalo & Feliciano Law for petitioners.
Albert, Vergara, Benares, Perias & Dominguez Law Office for
respondents.
has not been tested because the case has not reached the trial
stage.]
In June, 1972, the company received a letter which was signed
by Wilham I. Collins, Director, Contracts Division, Naval
Facilities
Engineering
Command,
Southwest
Pacific,
Department of the Navy of the United States, who is one of the
petitioners herein. The letter said that the company did not
qualify to receive an award for the projects because of its
previous unsatisfactory performance rating on a repair
contract for the sea wall at the boat landings of the U.S. Naval
Station in Subic Bay. The letter further said that the projects
had been awarded to third parties. In the abovementioned Civil
Case No. 779-M, the company sued the United States of
America and Messrs. James E. Galloway, William I. Collins and
Robert Gohier all members of the Engineering Command of the
U.S. Navy. The complaint is to order the defendants to allow
the plaintiff to perform the work on the projects and, in the
event that specific performance was no longer possible, to
order the defendants to pay damages. The company also
asked for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to
restrain the defendants from entering into contracts with third
parties for work on the projects.
The defendants entered their special appearance for the
purpose only of questioning the jurisdiction of this court over
the subject matter of the complaint and the persons of
defendants, the subject matter of the complaint being acts and
omissions of the individual defendants as agents of defendant
United States of America, a foreign sovereign which has not
given her consent to this suit or any other suit for the causes
of action asserted in the complaint." (Rollo, p. 50.)
Subsequently the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint which included an opposition to the issuance of the
writ of preliminary injunction. The company opposed the
motion. The trial court denied the motion and issued the writ.
The defendants moved twice to reconsider but to no avail.
Hence the instant petition which seeks to restrain perpetually
the proceedings in Civil Case No. 779-M for lack of jurisdiction
on the part of the trial court.
The petition is highly impressed with merit.
The traditional rule of State immunity exempts a State from
being sued in the courts of another State without its consent or
waiver. This rule is a necessary consequence of the principles
of independence and equality of States. However, the rules of
ground that the term of the leases had expired. They also
asked for increased rentals until the apartments shall have
been vacated.
The defendants who were armed forces officers of the United
States moved to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction in the
part of the court. The Municipal Court of Manila granted the
motion to dismiss; sustained by the Court of First Instance, the
plaintiffs went to this Court for review on certiorari. In denying
the petition, this Court said:
On the basis of the foregoing considerations we
are of the belief and we hold that the real party
defendant in interest is the Government of the
United States of America; that any judgment for
back or Increased rentals or damages will have to
be paid not by defendants Moore and Tillman and
their 64 co-defendants but by the said U.S.
Government. On the basis of the ruling in the
case of Land vs. Dollar already cited, and on
what we have already stated, the present action
must be considered as one against the U.S.
Government. It is clear hat the courts of the
Philippines including the Municipal Court of
Manila have no jurisdiction over the present case
for unlawful detainer. The question of lack of
jurisdiction was raised and interposed at the very
beginning of the action. The U.S. Government
has not , given its consent to the filing of this suit
which is essentially against her, though not in
name. Moreover, this is not only a case of a
citizen filing a suit against his own Government
without the latter's consent but it is of a citizen
filing an action against a foreign government
without said government's consent, which
renders more obvious the lack of jurisdiction of
the courts of his country. The principles of law
behind this rule are so elementary and of such
general acceptance that we deem it unnecessary
to cite authorities in support thereof. (At p. 323.)
In Syquia,the United States concluded contracts with private
individuals but the contracts notwithstanding the States was
not deemed to have given or waived its consent to be sued for
the reason that the contracts were forjure imperii and not
for jure gestionis.
Separate Opinions
MAKASIAR, J., dissenting:
The petition should be dismissed and the proceedings in Civil
Case No. 779-M in the defunct CFI (now RTC) of Rizal be
allowed to continue therein.
In the case of Lyons vs. the United States of America (104 Phil.
593), where the contract entered into between the plaintiff
(Harry Lyons, Inc.) and the defendant (U.S. Government)
involved stevedoring and labor services within the Subic Bay
area, this Court further stated that inasmuch as ". . . the
United States Government. through its agency at Subic Bay,
entered into a contract with appellant for stevedoring and
miscellaneous labor services within the Subic Bay area, a U.S.
Navy Reservation, it is evident that it can bring an action
before our courts for any contractual liability that that political
entity may assume under the contract."
When the U.S. Government, through its agency at Subic Bay,
confirmed the acceptance of a bid of a private company for the
repair of wharves or shoreline in the Subic Bay area, it is
deemed to have entered into a contract and thus waived the
mantle of sovereign immunity from suit and descended to the
level of the ordinary citizen. Its consent to be sued, therefore,
is implied from its act of entering into a contract (Santos vs.
Santos, 92 Phil. 281, 284).
Justice and fairness dictate that a foreign government that
commits a breach of its contractual obligation in the case at
bar by the unilateral cancellation of the award for the project
by the United States government, through its agency at Subic
Bay should not be allowed to take undue advantage of a party
who may have legitimate claims against it by seeking refuge
behind the shield of non-suability. A contrary view would
render a Filipino citizen, as in the instant case, helpless and
without redress in his own country for violation of his rights
committed by the agents of the foreign government professing
to act in its name.
Appropriate are the words of Justice Perfecto in his dissenting
opinion in Syquia vs. Almeda Lopez, 84 Phil. 312, 325:
Although, generally, foreign governments are
beyond the jurisdiction of domestic courts of
justice, such rule is inapplicable to cases in which
the foreign government enters into private
contracts with the citizens of the court's