Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    USA Vs Ruiz Doctrine of Immunity From Suit

    Uploaded by

    JM Campos
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the United States naval base in Subic Bay was immune from a lawsuit filed by a Philippine company over a contract dispute. The Court held that awarding repair contracts at the naval base, which was established under a military agreement for the defense of both countries, constituted an exercise of sovereign functions by the US government. As such, the doctrine of state immunity from suit applied to protect the US from being sued in Philippine courts without its consent. The Court distinguished sovereign acts from commercial acts, finding that immunity only does not extend to commercial transactions, but the contracts at issue were for the defense functions of the naval base, not for commercial purposes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    USA Vs Ruiz Doctrine of Immunity From Suit

    Uploaded by

    JM Campos
    36 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the United States naval base in Subic Bay was immune from a lawsuit filed by a Philippine company over a contract dispute. The Court held that awarding repair contracts at the naval base, which was established under a military agreement for the defense of both countries, constituted an exercise of sovereign functions by the US government. As such, the doctrine of state immunity from suit applied to protect the US from being sued in Philippine courts without its consent. The Court distinguished sovereign acts from commercial acts, finding that immunity only does not extend to commercial transactions, but the contracts at issue were for the defense functions of the naval base, not for commercial purposes.

    Original Title

    USA vs Ruiz

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the United States naval base in Subic Bay was immune from a lawsuit filed by a Philippine company over a contract dispute. The Court held that awarding repair contracts at the naval base, which was established under a military agreement for the defense of both countries, constituted an exercise of sovereign functions by the US government. As such, the doctrine of state immunity from suit applied to protect the US from being sued in Philippine courts without its consent. The Court distinguished sovereign acts from commercial acts, finding that immunity only does not extend to commercial transactions, but the contracts at issue were for the defense functions of the naval base, not for commercial purposes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    36 views2 pages

    USA Vs Ruiz Doctrine of Immunity From Suit

    Uploaded by

    JM Campos
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the United States naval base in Subic Bay was immune from a lawsuit filed by a Philippine company over a contract dispute. The Court held that awarding repair contracts at the naval base, which was established under a military agreement for the defense of both countries, constituted an exercise of sovereign functions by the US government. As such, the doctrine of state immunity from suit applied to protect the US from being sued in Philippine courts without its consent. The Court distinguished sovereign acts from commercial acts, finding that immunity only does not extend to commercial transactions, but the contracts at issue were for the defense functions of the naval base, not for commercial purposes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    USA vs Ruiz

    Doctrine of Immunity from Suit

    G.R. No. L-35645 136 scra 487 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.

    Facts:
    This is a petition to review, set aside certain orders and restrain perpetually the proceedings done by
    Hon. Ruiz for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court.

    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 a couple of repair projects. Eligio de Guzman land
    Co., Inc. responded to the invitation and submitted bids. Subsequent thereto, the company received
    from the US two telegrams requesting it to confirm its price proposals and for the name of its bonding
    company. The company construed this as an acceptance of its offer so they complied with the requests.
    The company received a letter which was signed by William I. Collins of Department of the Navy of the
    United States, also one of the petitioners herein informing that the company did not qualify to receive
    an award for the projects because of its previous unsatisfactory performance rating in repairs, and that
    the projects were awarded to third parties. For this reason, a suit for specific performance was filed by
    him against the US.

    Issues:
    Whether or not the US naval base in bidding for said contracts exercise governmental functions to be
    able to invoke state immunity.

    Discussions:
    The traditional role of the state immunity exempts a state from being sued in the courts of another state
    without its consent or waiver. This rule is necessary consequence of the principle of independence and
    equality of states. However, the rules of international law are not petrified; they are continually 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.

    Rulings:
    Yes. The Supreme Court held that 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.

    The restrictive application of state immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of
    commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign. Its commercial activities of economic affairs. A state
    may be 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.

    You might also like