USA v. Ruiz
G.R. No. L-35645
May 22, 1985
Facts:
The United States of America used to have a naval base in Subic, Zambale as provided in the Military Bases Agreement between the Philippines and USA. In May 1972, the United States invited the submission of bids for the following projects:
· Repair fender system, Alava Wharf at the US Naval Station
· Repair typhoon damage to NAS Cubi shoreline; repair typhoon damage to shoreline revetment, NAVBASE Subic; and repair to Leyte Wharf approach, NAVBASE Subic Bay
One of those who responded to the invitation to bid was Eligio de Guzman & Co., Inc. In its complaint, it alleged that USA had accepted its bid because the latter requested to confirm a price proposal. The company took this as a confirmation of the proposal. However, in a letter by William Collins, the director of Contracts Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest Pacific, Department of the Navy of the United States, the company was informed that it did not qualify to receive the award for the projects because of a previous unsatisfactory performance on a repair contract for the sea wall at the boat landings of the US Naval Station at Subic.
Eligio de Guzman & Co. sued the United States as well as some of its officers. The complaint is to order the defendants to allow the company to work on the projects an in the event that performance was no longer possible, to order the defendants to pay damages. The company also sought for a preliminary injunction to restrain UA from entering into contracts with third parties for work on the projects.
What the United States wants is to restrain the respondent Judge Ruiz from trying the civil case.
Issue:
May the United States be sued in this case?
Ruling:
No. The rule on State immunity exempts a State from being sued in the courts of another State without its consent or waiver. This is a necessary consequence of the principles of independence and equality of States. However, the rules on international law are constantly developing and evolving, which made it necessary to distinguish the activities of States. The activities of the States are categorized into sovereign and governmental acts (jure imperii) and private,, commercial, and proprietary acts (jure gestionis). State immunity now extends only to act jure imperii. 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. In this case, the contract was clearly for acts jure impreii, not jure gestionis. Thus, the courts have no jurisdiction to try the case.
It's a Ping Thing 