Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-24294 May 3, 1974

DONALD BAER, Commander U.S. Naval Base, Subic Bay, Olongapo,

Zambales, petitioner,
vs.
HON. TITO V. TIZON, as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bataan, and
EDGARDO GENER, respondents.

Sycip, Salazar, Luna Manalo & Feliciano for petitioner.

A. E. Dacanay for private respondent.

Office of the Solicitor General Camilo D. Quiason as amicus curiae.

FERNANDO, J.:

Facts

This is a petition seeking to nullify the orders of the respondent Judge denying the motion
to dismiss a complaint against respondent, Edgardo Gener, on the ground of sovereign immunity
of a foreign power, his contention being that in effect a suit against the United States, which had
not given its consent.

In 1962, private respondent Gener was issued by the Bureau of Forestry a timber license
to cut logs in Morong, Bataan. He commenced logging operations inside the United States Naval
Base, Subic Bay, but he was apprehended and stopped by the Base authorities from logging
inside. Thus, the renewal of his license expired and has not been renewed by the Bureau of
Forestry.

Gener filed a complaint in RTC Bataan praying a writ of preliminary injunction with a
restraining order against Baer for interfering with his logging operations.

However, Baer contested the jurisdiction of the public respondent, CFI Judge Tizon, on
the ground that the suit was one against a foreign sovereign without its consent. He claimed the
cessation of the logging operations within the Naval Case is within the scope of his authority and
official duty. Further, a suit against him is one against a foreign sovereign.

Issue

Whether or not Baer may invoke the doctrine of state immunity?

Ruling

Yes. Baer may validly invoke the doctrine of state immunity, thus, the suit against him
will not prosper.

The invocation of the doctrine of immunity from suit of a foreign state without its
consent is appropriate. What was sought by the private respondent and what was sought by the
respondent judge amounted to an interference with the performance of the duties of the petitioner
in the base area in accordance with the power possessed by him under the Philippine -American
Military Bases Agreement.

Thus, it is well-settled that a foreign army, permitted to march through a friendly country
or to be stationed in it, by permission of its government or sovereign, is exempt from the civil
and criminal jurisdiction of the place.

Further, This point made clear the words, “ Assuming, for purposes of argument, that the
Philippine Government, through the Bureau of Forestry, possesses the authority to issue a
Timber license to cut logs inside a military base, the Bases Agreement subjects the exercise of
rights under timber license issued by the Philippine Government exercise by the United States of
its rights, powers, and authority of control within the bases; and the findings of the Mutua
Defense Board, and agency both the Philippine and the United States Governments, continued
logging operation by Gener within the boundaries of the U.S. Naval Base would not be
consistent with the security and operations of the Bases.

Moreover, the petition is granted.