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

Private respondent Edgardo Gener filed a complaint for injunction with the Court of First Instance of Bataan against petitioner Donald Baer, the Commander of the United States Naval Base in Subic Bay. Gener alleged he was engaged in logging operations in Barrio Mabayo, Morong, Bataan, and that the U.S. Naval Base authorities had stopped his activities. He prayed for a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain Baer from interfering. Respondent Judge Tizon issued the restraining order. Petitioner Baer, through counsel acting on instructions from the U.S. Ambassador, filed a motion to dismiss. He contended the suit was effectively against the United States, a foreign sovereign, which had not consented to be sued, invoking the doctrine of state immunity. He argued that as Base Commander, his act of stopping the logging was an official duty within his scope of authority to maintain the security of the naval installations.
Gener opposed the motion, relying on the principle that a private citizen claiming title to property may sue government officers individually if they are allegedly illegally withholding such property, even if the officers claim to act for the government. The respondent Judge denied Baer’s motion to dismiss and granted Gener’s application for a preliminary injunction. Baer’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition for certiorari to nullify the lower court’s orders.

ISSUE

Whether the suit against Commander Donald Baer is in effect a suit against the United States of America, which is immune from suit without its consent.

RULING

Yes. The petition is granted. The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of state immunity from suit without consent is applicable. The Court, citing the 1935 Constitution which adopts generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, emphasized the undoubted applicability of sovereign immunity in the Philippines. The suit, though nominally against Commander Baer, is in reality a suit against the United States. Baer was sued for acts performed in his official capacity as an officer of the U.S. government, specifically for actions taken to secure the naval base. The Court, through a line of precedents including Raquiza v. Bradford and Syquia v. Almeda Lopez, established that when a foreign military officer acts within his official duties, the suit is deemed one against the sovereign state itself.
The legal logic is clear: allowing the suit to proceed would control the actions of the sovereign through its instrumentality. The Court distinguished the cases cited by Gener, such as United States v. Lee, as involving officers acting beyond their authority or in a proprietary capacity, which is not the situation here. Baer’s actions were within his official functions concerning base security. The Court also noted that the logging area was within the base boundaries, as indicated by an official communication from the U.S. Embassy, a fact unrefuted by Gener. Consequently, the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion by refusing to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. The writ of certiorari was granted, the preliminary injunction issued by the lower court was nullified, and the Supreme Court’s temporary restraining order was made permanent.