ORTIZ, Jet Mark O.

LL B II-B
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.
FACTS
Respondent Edgardo Gener filed a complaint for injunction against Donald Baer,
Commander of the United States Naval Base in Olongapo. He alleged that he was engaged in the
business of and that the American Naval Base authorities stopped his logging operations. He
prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction restraining petitioner from interfering with his
logging operations. A restraining order was issued by respondent Judge. Counsel for petitioner,
upon instructions of the American Ambassador to the Philippines, entered their appearance for
the purpose of contesting the jurisdiction of respondent Judge on the ground that the suit was one
against a foreign sovereign without its consent. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss. It was
therein pointed out that he is the chief or head of an agency or instrumentality of the United
States of America, with the subject matter of the action being 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 maintenance of the security of the Naval Base and of the
installations therein being the first concern and most important duty of the Commander of the
Base.
An opposition and reply to petitioner's motion to dismiss by respondent Gener was filed,
relying on the principle that "a private citizen claiming title and right of possession of certain
property may, to recover possession of said property, sue as individuals, officers and agents of
the Government, who are said to be illegally withholding the same from him, though in doing so,
said officers and agents claim that they are acting for the Government." Petitioner made a written
offer of documentary evidence, directing immediate investigation of illegal timber cutting in
Bataan and calling attention to the fact that the records of the office show no new renewal of
timber license or temporary extension permits. Respondent Judge issued an order granting
respondent Gener's application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and denying
petitioner's motion to dismiss the opposition to the application for a writ of preliminary
injunction.

ISSUE
Whether or not the doctrine of immunity from suit without consent is applicable

HELD
The action against petitioner Donald Baer being against the United States government,
and therefore, covered by the principle of state immunity from suit.
The solidity of the stand of petitioner is evident. What was sought by private respondent
and what was granted by respondent Judge amounted to an interference with the performance of
the duties of petitioner in the base area in accordance with the powers possessed by him under
the Philippine-American Military Bases Agreement. This point was made clear in these 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 a timber license issued by the
Philippine Government to the exercise by the United States of its rights, power and authority of
control within the bases; and the findings of the Mutual Defense Board, an agency of both the
Philippine and United States Governments, that "continued logging operation by Mr. Gener
within the boundaries of the U.S. Naval Base would not be consistent with the security and
operation of the Base," is conclusive upon the respondent Judge. The doctrine of state immunity
is not limited to cases which would result in a pecuniary charge against the sovereign or would
require the doing of an affirmative act by it. Prevention of a sovereign from doing an affirmative
act pertaining directly and immediately to the most important public function of any government
- the defense of the state — is equally as untenable as requiring it to do an affirmative act."
"It is a widely accepted principle of international law, which is made a part of the law of
the land (Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution), that a foreign state may not be brought to suit
before the courts of another state or its own courts without its consent."