FACTS:

This case involves multiple complaints that all revolve around the doctrine of state immunity. In G.R. No. 76607, private respondents filed a complaint against several officers of the U.S. Air Force stationed in Clark Air Base, alleging irregularities in the bidding process for barbering services contracts. The private respondents claimed that the winning bidder had included a facility that was not part of the invitation to bid. In G.R. No. 79470, Fabian Genove filed a complaint for damages against petitioners who were officers of the U.S. Air Force stationed at John Hay Air Station. Genove was dismissed as a cook in the U.S. Air Force Recreation Center after it was discovered that he had poured urine into the soup stock used in cooking. In G.R. No. 80018, Luis Bautista, a barracks boy in Camp O'Donnell, was arrested following a buy-bust operation conducted by the individual petitioners, who were officers of the U.S. Air Force and special agents of the Air Force Office of Special Investigators (AFOSI). Bautista was charged with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act and was subsequently dismissed from his employment. In G.R. No. 80258, a complaint for damages was filed by the private respondents against the petitioners (except the United States of America) for injuries allegedly sustained as a result of the acts of the defendants.

This portion of the text discusses the doctrine of state immunity and its application in the Philippines. It explains that the doctrine is based on the principle that there can be no legal right against the authority that makes the law. The text further explains that the state may move to dismiss a complaint filed against its officials if the judgment against them will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the damages awarded. The doctrine is not absolute and the state may be sued if it consents. However, not all government contracts will operate as a waiver of its non-suability, and suability will only result when the government is claiming affirmative relief from the defendant. The text also mentions that the United States of America has a specific provision on state immunity in the RP-US Bases Treaty.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Philippine government's consent to be sued under Act No. 3083 extends to claims arising from tort.

2. Whether the filing of a complaint by the government waives its sovereign immunity from suit.

3. Whether the United States is immune from suit under the RP-US Bases Treaty.

4. Whether the Alien Property Custodian and the Attorney General of the United States can be sued without the consent of the United States.

5. Whether the other petitioners, who acted as agents of the United States, can also claim immunity from suit.

6. Whether the United States government can be held liable for the torts committed by its officers.

7. Whether the doctrine of state immunity applies to the United States government.

8. Whether the individual petitioners were acting in the discharge of their official functions when the incident occurred.

9. Whether the restaurant services offered at the John Hay Air Station are considered a commercial activity.

10. Whether the termination of the employee's employment based on the employee's act of polluting the soup stock with urine was justified.

RULING:

1. The court held that Act No. 3083 only waives the Philippine government's immunity from suit for moneyed claims arising from contract, express or implied. Claims arising from tort are not covered by the waiver.

2. The court ruled that filing a complaint by the government does not automatically waive its sovereign immunity from suit. Waiver of immunity occurs when the government is claiming affirmative relief from the defendant.

3. The court held that the United States can claim immunity from suit under the RP-US Bases Treaty, which provides that the United States shall have the rights, power, and authority within the bases necessary for their establishment, use, operation, and defense.

4. The Alien Property Custodian and the Attorney General of the United States cannot be sued without the consent of the United States. The principle of international law states that a foreign state cannot be brought to suit before the courts of another state or its own without its consent.

5. The other petitioners, who acted as agents of the United States, cannot claim immunity from suit solely because they acted in the discharge of their official functions. The United States may be deemed to have waived its non-suability only if it has entered into a contract in its proprietary or private capacity, not in its sovereign or governmental capacity.

6. The United States government cannot be held liable for the torts committed by its officers, as the government is responsible for their acts and not the officers personally.

7. The doctrine of state immunity applies, and the government can only be held liable if it consents to be sued.

8. The Court cannot directly decide the case in G.R. No. 80258 because there are contradictory factual allegations and it is unclear whether the individual petitioners were acting within their official duties or had exceeded their authority.

9. The restaurant services offered at the John Hay Air Station are considered commercial activities undertaken by the United States government in its proprietary capacity. Therefore, the petitioners cannot invoke state immunity, and the United States government itself cannot claim immunity because it entered into an employment contract in the discharge of its proprietary functions.

10. Yes, the termination of the employee's employment was justified.

PRINCIPLES:

• The Philippine government's consent to be sued under Act No. 3083 does not extend to claims arising from tort.

• Filing a complaint by the government does not automatically waive its sovereign immunity from suit; waiver occurs when the government is claiming affirmative relief from the defendant.

• Under the RP-US Bases Treaty, the United States can claim immunity from suit within the bases and the territorial waters and airspace adjacent to them.

• A foreign state cannot be brought to suit before the courts of another state or its own without its consent.

• State immunity extends only to acts jure imperii (sovereign acts) and not to acts jure gestionis (commercial acts).

• The restrictive application of state immunity applies when the proceedings arise out of the foreign sovereign's commercial transactions or economic affairs.

• State immunity does not apply when the contract relates to the exercise of sovereign functions.

• Officers or agents of the United States may be held answerable for personal torts in which the United States is not involved.

• The doctrine of state immunity is not applicable when a public officer is being sued in his private capacity for a personal tort.

• Suability and liability are distinct. Suability depends on the consent of the state to be sued, while liability depends on the applicable law and established facts.

• Liability is not conceded by the mere fact that the state allows itself to be sued. The state must first consent to be sued, and the plaintiff must prove the defendant's liability.

• Article 2180 of the Civil Code establishes a rule of liability, not suability.

• The doctrine of state immunity applies to the Philippine government and not to foreign governments impleaded in Philippine courts.

• Express waiver of immunity cannot be made by a mere counsel of the government; it must be done through a duly-enacted statute.

• The capacity in which the petitioners were acting at the time of the incident must be determined before applying the doctrine of state immunity.

• When a government engages in commercial activities, it impliedly divests itself of sovereign immunity from suit.

• Liability cannot be imposed based on insufficient evidence.

• An employee may be terminated for just cause after a thorough investigation, where it is established beyond doubt that the employee committed an offense.

• The board of arbitrators, as provided for in the collective bargaining agreement, may affirm the findings of the investigators and recommend the dismissal of the employee.