Access over 20 million homework & study documents

Cases-for-Recit-10072014

Content type
User Generated
Type
Study Guide
Rating
Showing Page:
1/23
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.
ABAD SANTOS, J.:
This is a petition to review, set aside certain orders and restrain the respondent judge from trying Civil Case No. 779M of
the defunct Court of First Instance of Rizal.
The factual background is as follows:
At times material to this case, the United States of America had a naval base in Subic, Zambales. The base was one of
those provided in the Military Bases Agreement between the Philippines and the United States.
Sometime in May, 1972, the United States invited the submission of bids for the following projects
1. Repair offender system, Alava Wharf at the U.S. Naval Station Subic Bay, Philippines.
2. Repair typhoon damage to NAS Cubi shoreline; repair typhoon damage to shoreline revetment, NAVBASE Subic; and
repair to Leyte Wharf approach, NAVBASE Subic Bay, Philippines.
Eligio de Guzman & Co., Inc. responded to the invitation and submitted bids. Subsequent thereto, the company received
from the United States two telegrams requesting it to confirm its price proposals and for the name of its bonding company.
The company complied with the requests. [In its complaint, the company alleges that the United States had accepted its
bids because "A request to confirm a price proposal confirms the acceptance of a bid pursuant to defendant United States'
bidding practices." (Rollo, p. 30.) The truth of this allegation 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.
1

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/23
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 International Law are not petrified; they are constantly developing and evolving. And because the activities of states
have multiplied, it has been necessary to distinguish them-between sovereign and governmental acts ( jure imperii) and
private, commercial and proprietary acts (jure gestionis). The result is that State immunity now extends only to acts jure
imperil The restrictive application of State immunity is now the rule in the United States, the United Kingdom and other
states in western Europe. (See Coquia and Defensor Santiago, Public International Law, pp. 207-209 [1984].)
The respondent judge recognized the restrictive doctrine of State immunity when he said in his Order denying the
defendants' (now petitioners) motion: " A distinction should be made between a strictly governmental function of the
sovereign state from its private, proprietary or non- governmental acts (Rollo, p. 20.) However, the respondent judge also
said: "It is the Court's considered opinion that entering into a contract for the repair of wharves or shoreline is certainly not
a governmental function altho it may partake of a public nature or character. As aptly pointed out by plaintiff's counsel in
his reply citing the ruling in the case of Lyons, Inc., [104 Phil. 594 (1958)], and which this Court quotes with approval, viz.:
It is however contended that when a sovereign state enters into a contract with a private person, the state
can be sued upon the theory that it has descended to the level of an individual from which it can be
implied that it has given its consent to be sued under the contract. ...
xxx xxx xxx
We agree to the above contention, and considering that 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. Naval 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. The trial court,
therefore, has jurisdiction to entertain this case ... (Rollo, pp. 20-21.)
The reliance placed on Lyons by the respondent judge is misplaced for the following reasons:
In Harry Lyons, Inc. vs. The United States of America, supra, plaintiff brought suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila
to collect several sums of money on account of a contract between plaintiff and defendant. The defendant filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over defendant and over the subject matter of the action. The
court granted the motion on the grounds that: (a) it had no jurisdiction over the defendant who did not give its consent to
the suit; and (b) plaintiff failed to exhaust the administrative remedies provided in the contract. The order of dismissal was
elevated to this Court for review.
In sustaining the action of the lower court, this Court said:
It appearing in the complaint that appellant has not complied with the procedure laid down in Article XXI of
the contract regarding the prosecution of its claim against the United States Government, or, stated
differently, it has failed to first exhaust its administrative remedies against said Government, the lower
court acted properly in dismissing this case.(At p. 598.)
It can thus be seen that the statement in respect of the waiver of State immunity from suit was purely gratuitous and,
therefore, obiter so that it has no value as an imperative authority.
The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of
the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs. Stated differently, a State may be said to have
descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it
enters into business contracts. It does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions. In
this case the projects are an integral part of the naval base which is devoted to the defense of both the United States and
the Philippines, indisputably a function of the government of the highest order; they are not utilized for nor dedicated to
commercial or business purposes.
That the correct test for the application of State immunity is not the conclusion of a contract by a State but the legal nature
of the act is shown in Syquia vs. Lopez, 84 Phil. 312 (1949). In that case the plaintiffs leased three apartment buildings to
the United States of America for the use of its military officials. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of the premises
2

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/23

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 23 pages?
Access Now
Unformatted Attachment Preview
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. ABAD SANTOS,?J.: This is a petition to review, set aside certain orders and restrain the respondent judge from trying Civil Case No. 779M of the defunct Court of First Instance of Rizal. The factual background is as follows: At times material to this case, the United States of America had a naval base in Subic, Zambales. The base was one of those provided in the Military Bases Agreement between the Philippines and the United States. Sometime in May, 1972, the United States invited the submission of bids for the following projects 1. Repair offender system, Alava Wharf at the U.S. Naval Station Subic Bay, Philippines. 2. Repair typhoon damage to NAS Cubi shoreline; repair typhoon damage to shoreline revetment, NAVBASE Subic; and repair to Leyte Wharf approach, NAVBASE Subic Bay, Philippines. Eligio de Guzman & Co., Inc. responded to the invitation and submitted bids. Subsequent thereto, the company received from the United States two telegrams requesting it to confirm its price proposals and for the name of its bonding company. The company complied with the requests. [In its complaint, the company alleges that the United States had accepted its bids because "A request to confirm a price proposal confirms the acceptance ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
Great! Studypool always delivers quality work.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4