US VS. RODRIGO, G.R. NO.

79470, FEBRUARY 26,1990

(Suability and Liability)
Facts:

Fabian Genove filed a complaint for damages against petitioners Anthony Lamachia, Wilfredo Belsa,
Rose Cartalla and Peter Orascion for his dismissal as cook in the U.S. Air Force Recreation Center at the
John Hay Air Station in Baguio City.

It had been ascertained after investigation, from the testimony of Belsa Cartalla and Orascion, that
Genove had poured urine into the soup stock used in cooking the vegetables served to the club
customers.

Lamachia, as club manager, suspended him and thereafter referred the case to a board of arbitrators
who found Genove guilty and recommended his dismissal.

Genove then filed a complaint in the RTC of Baguio against the individual petitioners, who moved to
dismiss the case in the basis that Lamachia was immune from suit as per acts done in his official capacity
as an officer of the US Air Force. Moreover, they argued that the suit was in effect against the United
States which had not given its consent to be sued.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioners claim for non-suability by virtue of State’s immunity is applicable.

Whether or not the petitioners are liable for damages

RULING:

The restaurant services offered at the John Hay Air Station is of the nature of a business enterprise
undertaken by the United States government in its proprietary capacity. Such services are not even free
for American servicemen, and are available to the public in general, including tourists, all of which pay
for the privileges therein as one would with and ordinary restaurant. Thus, operated for profit. The
petitioners cannot invoke the doctrine of state immunity to justify the dismissal of the damage suit
against them by Genove even if it is established that they were acting as agents of the United States
when they investigated and later dismissed Genove. Not even the United States government itself can
claim such immunity because by entering into an employment contract with Genove, it impliedly
divested itself of its sovereign immunity from suit. But still, the Court dismissed the complaint against
the petitioners since, while suable, the petitioners were found to be not liable. It is obvious that the
claim for damage cannot be allowed given the strength of evidence against Genove regarding the
offense of pouring urine into the soup stock. (Eww Hahaha!)

WHEREFORE, after considering the premises, the petition is GRANTED and Civil Case No. 115-C-87 is
DISMISSED.