UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and MAXINE BRDAFORD vs. HON.

LUIS REYES
G.R. No. 79253
March 1, 1993
Penned by: DAVIDE, JR., J.

FACTS:
Private respondent Montoya, is an American citizen employed as an ID checker at the U.S. Navy
Exchange (NEX) at the United States Military Assistance Group (JUSMAG) headquarters in
Quezon City. Petitioner on the other hand, is an American citizen who was the activity exchange
manager at the said JUSMAG Headquarters.
On January 22, 1987, private respondent’s body and belongings were searched after she had
bought some items from the retail store of NEX JUSMAG.
Mrs. Yong Kennedy also an ID checker upon the instruction of the store manager, Bradford,
approached the plaintiff who is already outside the store and informed her that she needed to
search her bags and that it was to be made on all JUSMAG employees.
Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff checked the records and discovered that she was the only one
whose person and belonging was searched that day contrary to the defendant’s allegation.
In fact, it is the policy of the store to leave the employees from searching unless there is a very
strong evidence of a wrongdoing.
The plaintiff knows of no circumstance to sufficiently trigger the suspicion. In view of this, the
plaintiff prayed for the grant of moral damages which was caused by her undue embarrassment
and indignity when she was subject to the speculations of theft.
The petitioner together with the US government filed a motion to dismiss contending that the act
of the plaintiff was in effect a suit against the state which is a foreign sovereign and immune
from suit and that Bradford’s act was done by her in the performance of her official functions.
On the other hand, the plaintiff submits that Bradford is not immune from suit because she is
being sued in her private personal capacity and that she does not possess diplomatic immunity
for being a mere civilian employee.
On July 6, 1987, Montoya filed a motion for preliminary attachment on the ground that Bradford
was about to depart from the country.
Consequently, the court denied the petitioner’s motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiff’s
motion for preliminary attachment.
The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
WON the doctrine of immunity from suit is applicable in this case.
HELD:
No. The petitioner does not possess diplomatic immunity. Hence, she can be held liable for
actions done beyond his official functions.