G.R. No. L-24294 - JULY 1974 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-24294July 15, 1974 Donald Baer vs. Tito V. Tizon, et al. G.R. No. L-37606July 15, 1974 Leonardo Avila vs. Auditor General A.M. No. 395-MJJuly 11, 1974 Doroteo Butial, et al. vs. Eustaquio C. Palma A.M. No. 144-CFIJuly 18, 1974 Rufina Bendesula vs. Judge Alfredo C. Laya A.M. No. 13-MJJuly 18, 1974 Maria Aida Jakosalem vs. Precioso B. Cordovez G.R. No. L-30038July 18, 1974 People of the Philippines vs. Joaquin Velez, et al. G.R. No. L-30918July 18, 1974 Annie Sand, et al. vs. Abad Santos Educational Institution, et al. G.R. No. L-37068July 18, 1974 Eulalia Alfonso, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. A.M. No. 91-MJ and No. 319-MJJuly 23, 1974 Antonio Abibuag vs. Severino B. Estonina A.M. No. 1034July 23, 1974 Luis Arboleda vs. Eduardo Gatchalian A.M. No. 120-MJJuly 23, 1974 Fabian Gardones vs. Andres Ma. Delgado G.R. No. L-24112July 23, 1974 Ong Shiao Kong, et al. vs. Director of Patents, et al. G.R. No. L-38129July 23, 1974 Board of Administrators, Philippine Veterans Administration vs. Mariano V. Agcaoili, et al G.R. No. L-38768July 23, 1974 Orbit Transportation Co. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. A.M. No. 944July 25, 1974 Flora Narido vs. Jaime S. Linsangan G.R. No. L-24426July 25, 1974 Rosalina Z. Tiongco vs. Guillermo De La Merced, et al. G.R. No. L-25843July 25, 1974 Melchora Cabanas vs. Francisco Pilapil G.R. No. L-32265July 25, 1974 People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto A. Ramos, et al. G.R. No. L-33817July 25, 1974 In Re: Rosauro Jose Tiong. Rosauro Jose Tiong vs. Republic G.R. No. L-34974July 25, 1974 P. A. Almira, et al. vs. B. F. Goodrich Philippines , Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-37885July 26, 1974 Lorenzo Sumagui, et al. vs. Jacinta Flores Vda. De Yatco, et al. G.R. No. L-38332July 26, 1974 Leticia B. Belmonte, et al. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. A.M. No. 1288July 29, 1974 Floraida Banares vs. Rosalino C. Barican G.R. No. L-34095July 29, 1974 Anecito Dumalagan, et al. vs. Gaudioso Palangpangan, et al. A.M. No. (11-MJ) 498-MJJuly 31, 1974 Luisa Gamelong, et al. vs. Silvestre Tayson, et al. A.M. No. 508-MJJuly 31, 1974 Pedro Almazan vs. Delfin Rosario G.R. No. 44976-RJuly 31, 1974 Cornelio Antiquera vs. Vicente M. Tupasi G.R. No. L-24248July 31, 1974 Antonio Tuason, Jr. vs. Jose B. Lingad G.R. No. L-26374July 31, 1974 J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Felix V. Makasiar, et al. G.R. No. L-27895July 31, 1974 Jose Y. Arevalo, et al. vs. Mariano V. Benedicto, et al. G.R. No. L-28174July 31, 1974 Eduviges Beltran Espiritu, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-28812July 31, 1974 People of the Philippines vs. Silverio Luna G.R. Nos. L-29207 and L-29222July 31, 1974 Vigan Electric Light Co., Inc., et al. vs. Lodivico D. Arciaga, et al. G.R. No. L-30051July 31, 1974 National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority vs. Nwsa Supervisors Association, et al G.R. No. L-33304July 31, 1974 People of the Philippines vs. Victor Abletes, et al. G.R. Nos. L-33643 and L-33644July 31, 1974 People of the Philippines vs. Bernardo Manzano, et al. G.R. No. L-33926July 31, 1974 People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Gonzales G.R. No. L-34433July 31, 1974 Vicenta Oliveros-Torre vs. Flores Bayot G.R. No. L-35607July 31, 1974 John U. Osmond vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-36703July 31, 1974 Gotardo Flordelis, et al. vs. Heracleo Castillo, et al. G.R. No. L-37599July 31, 1974 People of the Philippines vs. Florentino Copro G.R. No. L-38256July 31, 1974 Octavio A. Kalalo vs. Emilio V Salas G.R. No. L-38568July 31, 1974 Melecia M. Macabuhay vs. Juan L. Manuel, et al. G.R. No. L-38871July 31, 1974 Juanito Madarang vs. Reynaldo B. Honrado The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Donald Baer vs. Tito V. Tizon, et al. Leonardo Avila vs. Auditor General Doroteo Butial, et al. vs. Eustaquio C. Palma Rufina Bendesula vs. Judge Alfredo C. Laya Maria Aida Jakosalem vs. Precioso B. Cordovez People of the Philippines vs. Joaquin Velez, et al. Annie Sand, et al. vs. Abad Santos Educational Institution, et al. Eulalia Alfonso, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Antonio Abibuag vs. Severino B. Estonina Luis Arboleda vs. Eduardo Gatchalian Fabian Gardones vs. Andres Ma. Delgado Ong Shiao Kong, et al. vs. Director of Patents, et al. Board of Administrators, Philippine Veterans Administration vs. Mariano V. Agcaoili, et al Orbit Transportation Co. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Flora Narido vs. Jaime S. Linsangan Rosalina Z. Tiongco vs. Guillermo De La Merced, et al. Melchora Cabanas vs. Francisco Pilapil People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto A. Ramos, et al. In Re: Rosauro Jose Tiong. Rosauro Jose Tiong vs. Republic P. A. Almira, et al. vs. B. F. Goodrich Philippines , Inc., et al. Lorenzo Sumagui, et al. vs. Jacinta Flores Vda. De Yatco, et al. Leticia B. Belmonte, et al. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Floraida Banares vs. Rosalino C. Barican Anecito Dumalagan, et al. vs. Gaudioso Palangpangan, et al. Luisa Gamelong, et al. vs. Silvestre Tayson, et al. Pedro Almazan vs. Delfin Rosario Cornelio Antiquera vs. Vicente M. Tupasi Antonio Tuason, Jr. vs. Jose B. Lingad J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Felix V. Makasiar, et al. Jose Y. Arevalo, et al. vs. Mariano V. Benedicto, et al. Eduviges Beltran Espiritu, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Silverio Luna Vigan Electric Light Co., Inc., et al. vs. Lodivico D. Arciaga, et al. National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority vs. Nwsa Supervisors Association, et al People of the Philippines vs. Victor Abletes, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Bernardo Manzano, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Pedro Gonzales Vicenta Oliveros-Torre vs. Flores Bayot John U. Osmond vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Gotardo Flordelis, et al. vs. Heracleo Castillo, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Florentino Copro Octavio A. Kalalo vs. Emilio V Salas Melecia M. Macabuhay vs. Juan L. Manuel, et al. Juanito Madarang vs. Reynaldo B. Honrado The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-24294 July 15, 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.
FERNANDO,J.:
A clarification of the decision of this Court of May 3, 1974 is sought in a motion filed by petitioner. Its avowed objective is to remove what for him could be a doubt as to the effect of our decision on Civil Case No. 2984 of the Court of First Instance of Bataan. Since a fair reading thereof — as a matter of fact even one cursory in character could yield no other conclusion except that such pending suit in the lower court should be dismissed, it would appear that any misgiving entertained as to any lurking ambiguity therein is more fanciful than real. The Motion for clarification is thus denied.
1. The judgment of the Court cannot be any clearer as to the action against petitioner Donald Baer being against the United States government, and therefore, covered by the principle of state immunity from suit. So it would appear from the following paragraph in the opinion: "The solidity of the stand of petitioner is therefore 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 the petition] 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 — defense of the state is — equally as untenable as requiring it to do an affirmative act.' That such an appraisal is not opposed to he interpretation of the relevant treaty provision by our government is [evident] in [its] aforesaid manifestation and memorandum asamicus curiae,wherein it joined petitioner for the grant of the remedy prayed for."1
2. Neither should there be any doubt entertained as to that portion of the opinion, which merely reiterates the well-settled concept that what removed the case from any judicial scrutiny is not the lack of jurisdiction over the person of petitioner, who is not vested with diplomatic immunity, but his being held accountable for action taken in pursuance of his official duty under the Military Bases Agreement and as such, as pointed out above, beyond the power of judicial scrutiny. Thus: "There should be no misinterpretation of the scope of the decision reached by this Court. Petitioner, as the Commander of the United States Naval Base in Olongapo, does not possess diplomatic immunity. He may therefore be proceeded against in his personal capacity, or when the action taken by him cannot be imputed to the government which he represents. Thus, after theMilitary Bases Agreement, in Miquiabas v. Commanding GeneralandDizon v. The Commander General of the Philippine Ryukus Command,both of them being habeas corpus petitions, there was no question as to the submission to jurisdiction of the respondents. As a matter of fact, inMiquiabas v. Commanding General,the immediate release of the petitioner was ordered, it being apparent that the general court martial appointed by respondent Commanding General was without jurisdiction to try petitioner. Thereafter, in the cited cases of Syquia, Marquez Lim, and Johnson, the parties proceeded against were American army commanding officers stationed in the Philippines. The insuperable obstacle to the jurisdiction of respondent Judge is that a foreign sovereign without its consent is haled into court in connection with acts performed by it pursuant to treaty provisions and thus impressed with a governmental character."2
3. Whoever, therefore, is assigned to take the place of former respondent Judge Tito V. Tizon cannot possibly be misled.ℒαwρhi৷No apprehension need be entertained then as to the effect of our decision. Civil Case No. 2984 pending in such sala is bereft of support in law. Its dismissal is called for. Distinguished counsel for petitioner certainly is the last person to need counsel from this Tribunal, even if such were proper. It is to be assumed that what needs to be done will be done and that the Bataan Court of First Instance will act according to law and, more specifically, to the terms of the decision rendered by us.
WHEREFORE,the motion for clarification is denied.
Zaldivar, (Chairman), Antonio, Fernandez and Aquino, JJ., concur.
Barredo, J., took no part.
Footnotes