G.R. No.

L-24294 May 3, 1974 business of logging in an area situated in Barrio Mabayo,

Municipality of Morong, Bataan and that the American Naval
DONALD BAER, Commander U.S. Naval Base, Subic Bay, Base authorities stopped his logging operations. He prayed for a
Olongapo, Zambales, petitioner, writ of preliminary injunction restraining petitioner from interfering
vs. with his logging operations. A restraining order was issued by
HON. TITO V. TIZON, as Presiding Judge of the Court of First respondent Judge on November 23, 1964.4 Counsel for petitioner,
Instance of Bataan, and EDGARDO GENER, respondents. upon instructions of the American Ambassador to the Philippines,
entered their appearance for the purpose of contesting the
Sycip, Salazar, Luna Manalo & Feliciano for petitioner. jurisdiction of respondent Judge on the ground that the suit was
one against a foreign sovereign without its consent.5 Then, on
December 12, 1964, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, wherein
A. E. Dacanay for private respondent.
such ground was reiterated. It was therein pointed out that he is
the chief or head of an agency or instrumentality of the United
Office of the Solicitor General Camilo D. Quiason as amicus States of America, with the subject matter of the action being
curiae. official acts done by him for and in behalf of the United States of
America. It was added that in directing the cessation of logging
operations by respondent Gener within the Naval Base, petitioner
was entirely within the scope of his authority and official duty, the
FERNANDO, J.:p maintenance of the security of the Naval Base and of the
installations therein being the first concern and most important
There is nothing novel about the question raised in this certiorari proceeding against the duty of the Commander of the Base.6 There was, on December
then Judge Tito V. Tizon, filed by petitioner Donald Baer, then Commander of the United
States Naval Base, Subic Bay, Olongapo, Zambales, seeking to nullify the orders of 14, 1964, an opposition and reply to petitioner's motion to dismiss
respondent Judge denying his motion to dismiss a complaint filed against him by the private by respondent Gener, relying on the principle that "a private
respondent, Edgardo Gener, on the ground of sovereign immunity of a foreign power, his
contention being that it was in effect a suit against the United States, which had not given its
citizen claiming title and right of possession of certain property
consent. The answer given is supplied by a number of cases coming from this Tribunal may, to recover possession of said property, sue as individuals,
starting from a 1945 decision, Raquiza v. Bradford1 to Johnson v. Turner,2 promulgated in officers and agents of the Government, who are said to be
1954. The doctrine of immunity from suit is of undoubted applicability in this jurisdiction. It
cannot be otherwise, for under the 1935 Constitution, as now, it is expressly made clear that illegally withholding the same from him, though in doing so, said
the Philippines "adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the officers and agents claim that they are acting for the
law of the Nation."3 As will subsequently be shown, there was a failure on the part of the
lower court to accord deference and respect to such a basic doctrine, a failure compounded
Government." That was his basis for sustaining the jurisdiction of
by its refusal to take note of the absence of any legal right on the part of petitioner. Hence, respondent Judge.7 Petitioner, thereafter, on January 12, 1965,
certiorari is the proper remedy. made a written offer of documentary evidence, including certified
copies of telegrams of the Forestry Director to Forestry personnel
The facts are not in dispute. On November 17, 1964, respondent in Balanga, Bataan dated January 8, and January 11, 1965,
Edgardo Gener, as plaintiff, filed a complaint for injunction with directing immediate investigation of illegal timber cutting in
the Court of First Instance of Bataan against petitioner, Donald Bataan and calling attention to the fact that the records of the
Baer, Commander of the United States Naval Base in Olongapo. office show no new renewal of timber license or temporary
It was docketed as Civil Case No. 2984 of the Court of First extension permits.8 The above notwithstanding, respondent
Instance of Bataan. He alleged that he was engaged in the Judge, on January 12, 1965, issued an order granting respondent
Gener's application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary authorities, Justice Hilado, speaking for the Court, cited
injunction and denying petitioner's motion to dismiss the from Coleman v. Tennessee,15 where it was explicitly declared: "It
opposition to the application for a writ of preliminary injunction.9 is well settled that a foreign army, permitted to march through a
friendly country or to be stationed in it, by permission of its
A motion for reconsideration having proved futile, this petition for government or sovereign, is exempt from the civil and criminal
certiorari was filed with this Court. The prayer was for the jurisdiction of the place."16 Two years later, in Tubb and Tedrow v.
nullification and setting aside of the writ of preliminary injunction Griess,17 this Court relied on the ruling in Raquiza v. Bradford and
issued by respondent Judge in the aforesaid Civil Case No. 2984 cited in support thereof excerpts from the works of the following
of the Court of First Instance of Bataan. A resolution of March 17, authoritative writers: Vattel, Wheaton, Hall, Lawrence,
1965 was issued by this Court requiring respondents to file an Oppenhein, Westlake, Hyde, and McNair and
answer and upon petitioner's posting a bond of P5,000.00 Lauterpacht.18 Accuracy demands the clarification that after the
enjoining them from enforcing such writ of preliminary injunction. conclusion of the Philippine-American Military Bases Agreement,
The answer was duly forthcoming. It sought to meet the judicial the treaty provisions should control on such matter, the
question raised by the legal proposition that a private citizen assumption being that there was a manifestation of the
claiming title and right of possession of a certain property may, to submission to jurisdiction on the part of the foreign power
recover the same, sue as individuals officers and agents of the whenever appropriate.19 More to the point is Syquia v. Almeda
government alleged to be illegally withholding such property even Lopez,20 where plaintiffs as lessors sued the Commanding
if there is an assertion on their part that they are acting for the General of the United States Army in the Philippines, seeking the
government. Support for such a view is found in the American restoration to them of the apartment buildings they owned leased
Supreme Court decisions of United States v. Lee10 and Land v. to United States armed forces stationed in the Manila area. A
Dollar.11 Thus the issue is squarely joined whether or not the motion to dismiss on the ground of non-suability was filed and
doctrine of immunity from suit without consent is applicable. upheld by respondent Judge. The matter was taken to this Court
Thereafter, extensive memoranda were filed both by petitioner in a mandamus proceeding. It failed. It was the ruling that
and respondents. In addition, there was a manifestation and respondent Judge acted correctly considering that the "action
memorandum of the Republic of the Philippines as amicus must be considered as one against the U.S. Government."21 The
curiae where, after a citation of American Supreme Court opinion of Justice Montemayor continued: "It is clear that the
decisions going back to Schooner Exchange v. M'faddon,12 an courts of the Philippines including the Municipal Court of Manila
1812 decision, to United States v. Belmont,13 decided in 1937, the have no jurisdiction over the present case for unlawful detainer.
plea was made that the petition for certiorari be granted.. The question of lack of jurisdiction was raised and interposed at
the very beginning of the action. The U.S. Government has not
A careful study of the crucial issue posed in this dispute yields the given its consent to the filing of this suit which is essentially
conclusion, as already announced, that petitioner should prevail. against her, though not in name. Moreover, this is not only a case
of a citizen filing a suit against his own Government without the
latter's consent but it is of a citizen filing an action against a
1. The invocation of the doctrine of immunity from suit of a foreign
foreign government without said government's consent, which
state without its consent is appropriate. More specifically, insofar
renders more obvious the lack of jurisdiction of the courts of his
as alien armed forces is concerned, the starting point is Raquiza
country. The principles of law behind this rule are so elementary
v. Bradford, a 1945 decision.14 In dismissing a habeas corpus
and of such general acceptance that we deem it unnecessary to
petition for the release of petitioners confined by American army
cite authorities in support thereof."22 Then came Marvel Building Philippine-American Military Bases Agreement. This point was
Corporation v. Philippine War Damage Commission,23 where made clear in these words: "Assuming, for purposes of argument,
respondent, a United States agency established to compensate that the Philippine Government, through the Bureau of Forestry,
damages suffered by the Philippines during World War II was possesses the "authority to issue a Timber License to cut logs"
held as falling within the above doctrine as the suit against it inside a military base, the Bases Agreement subjects the exercise
"would eventually be a charge against or financial liability of the of rights under a timber license issued by the Philippine
United States Government because ..., the Commission has no Government to the exercise by the United States of its rights,
funds of its own for the purpose of paying money power and authority of control within the bases; and the findings
judgments."24 The Syquia ruling was again explicitly relied upon of the Mutual Defense Board, an agency of both the Philippine
in Marquez Lim v. Nelson,25 involving a complaint for the recovery and United States Governments, that "continued logging
of a motor launch, plus damages, the special defense interposed operation by Mr. Gener within the boundaries of the U.S. Naval
being "that the vessel belonged to the United States Government, Base would not be consistent with the security and operation of
that the defendants merely acted as agents of said Government, the Base," is conclusive upon the respondent Judge. .. The
and that the United States Government is therefore the real party doctrine of state immunity is not limited to cases which would
in interest."26 So it was in Philippine Alien Property Administration result in a pecuniary charge against the sovereign or would
v. Castelo,27 where it was held that a suit against the Alien require the doing of an affirmative act by it. Prevention of a
Property Custodian and the Attorney General of the United States sovereign from doing an affirmative act pertaining directly and
involving vested property under the Trading with the Enemy Act is immediately to the most important public function of any
in substance a suit against the United States. To the same effect government - the defense of the state — is equally as untenable
is Parreno v. McGranery,28 as the following excerpt from the as requiring it to do an affirmative act."32 That such an appraisal is
opinion of Justice Tuason clearly shows: "It is a widely accepted not opposed to the interpretation of the relevant treaty provision
principle of international law, which is made a part of the law of by our government is made clear in the aforesaid manifestation
the land (Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution), that a foreign and memorandum as amicus curiae, wherein it joined petitioner
state may not be brought to suit before the courts of another state for the grant of the remedy prayed for.
or its own courts without its consent."29 Finally, there is Johnson v.
Turner,30 an appeal by the defendant, then Commanding General, 2. There should be no misinterpretation of the scope of the
Philippine Command (Air Force, with office at Clark Field) from a decision reached by this Court. Petitioner, as the Commander of
decision ordering the return to plaintiff of the confiscated military the United States Naval Base in Olongapo, does not possess
payment certificates known as scrip money. In reversing the diplomatic immunity. He may therefore be proceeded against in
lower court decision, this Tribunal, through Justice Montemayor, his personal capacity, or when the action taken by him cannot be
relied on Syquia v. Almeda Lopez,31 explaining why it could not be imputed to the government which he represents. Thus, after the
sustained. Military Bases Agreement, in Miquiabas v. Commanding
General33 and Dizon v. The Commanding General of the
The solidity of the stand of petitioner is therefore evident. What Philippine-Ryukus Command,34 both of them being habeas corpus
was sought by private respondent and what was granted by petitions, there was no question as to the submission to
respondent Judge amounted to an interference with the jurisdiction of the respondents. As a matter of fact, in Miquiabas
performance of the duties of petitioner in the base area in v. Commanding General,35 the immediate release of the petitioner
accordance with the powers possessed by him under the was ordered, it being apparent that the general court martial
appointed by respondent Commanding General was without issued by respondent Judge in Civil Case No. 2984 of the Court
jurisdiction to try petitioner. Thereafter, in the cited cases of First Instance of Bataan. The injunction issued by this Court on
of Syquia, Marquez Lim, and Johnson, the parties proceeded March 18, 1965 enjoining the enforcement of the aforesaid writ of
against were American army commanding officers stationed in preliminary injunction of respondent Judge is hereby made
the Philippines. The insuperable obstacle to the jurisdiction of permanent. Costs against private respondent Edgardo Gener.
respondent Judge is that a foreign sovereign without its consent
is haled into court in connection with acts performed by it Zaldivar, Antonio, Fernandez and Aquino, JJ., concur.
pursuant to treaty provisions and thus impressed with a
governmental character. Barredo, J., took no part.

3. The infirmity of the actuation of respondent Judge becomes

even more glaring when it is considered that private respondent
had ceased to have any right of entering within the base area.
This is made clear in the petition in these words: "In 1962,
respondent Gener was issued by the Bureau of Forestry an
ordinary timber license to cut logs in Barrio Mabayo, Morong,
Bataan. The license was renewed on July 10, 1963. In 1963, he
commenced logging operation inside the United States Naval
Base, Subic Bay, but in November 1963 he was apprehended
and stopped by the Base authorities from logging inside the Base.
The renewal of his license expired on July 30, 1964, and to date
his license has not been renewed by the Bureau of Forestry. .. In
July 1964, the Mutual Defense Board, a joint Philippines-United
States agency established pursuant to an exchange of diplomatic
notes between the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the United
States Ambassador to provide "direct liaison and consultation
between appropriate Philippine and United States authorities on
military matters of mutual concern,' advised the Secretary of
Foreign Affairs in writing that: "The enclosed map shows that the
area in which Mr. Gener was logging definitely falls within the
boundaries of the base. This map also depicts certain contiguous
and overlapping areas whose functional usage would be
interfered with by the logging operations.'" 36 Nowhere in the
answer of respondents, nor in their memorandum, was this point
met. It remained unrefuted.

WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari prayed for is granted,

nullifying and setting aside the writ of preliminary injunction