Scribd
Upload
42 views2 pages

USA Vs RUIZ

The document discusses a case between Eligio de Guzman & Co., Inc. and the United States regarding contracts for repair works at a US naval base in Subic Bay, Philippines. The US claimed state immunity as the naval base exercised governmental functions in its bidding process. The Supreme Court held that state immunity now only extends to sovereign and governmental acts, not commercial activities.

Uploaded by

Chickoy Ramirez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
42 views2 pages

USA Vs RUIZ

The document discusses a case between Eligio de Guzman & Co., Inc. and the United States regarding contracts for repair works at a US naval base in Subic Bay, Philippines. The US claimed state immunity as the naval base exercised governmental functions in its bidding process. The Supreme Court held that state immunity now only extends to sovereign and governmental acts, not commercial activities.

Uploaded by

Chickoy Ramirez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

USA VS.

RUIZ

FACTS:

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 [Link] invited the
submission of bids for Repair offender system and Repair typhoon damages.
Eligio de Guzman & Co., Inc. responded to the invitation, submitted bids and
complied with the requests based on the letters received from the US.

In June 1972, a letter was received by the Eligio De Guzman & Co indicating
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 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.

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.

ISSUE:

WON the US naval base in bidding for said contracts exercise


governmental functions to be able to invoke state immunity.

HELD:

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 (sovereign
& governmental acts).

You might also like