Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 99 views

    BAER Vs Tizon

    Uploaded by

    CarmelaEspino
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1974 regarding whether a Philippine court had jurisdiction over a suit filed against the commander of a U.S. Naval base in the Philippines. The court held that the commander had immunity from the suit as a representative of a foreign sovereign, and that under international law and treaties, a foreign state cannot be subjected to legal action in another country without consent. Therefore, the court granted the commander's request to nullify the preliminary injunction issued by the lower court in the logging dispute.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    BAER Vs Tizon

    Uploaded by

    CarmelaEspino
    99 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1974 regarding whether a Philippine court had jurisdiction over a suit filed against the commander of a U.S. Naval base in the Philippines. The court held that the commander had immunity from the suit as a representative of a foreign sovereign, and that under international law and treaties, a foreign state cannot be subjected to legal action in another country without consent. Therefore, the court granted the commander's request to nullify the preliminary injunction issued by the lower court in the logging dispute.

    Original Title

    BAER vs Tizon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1974 regarding whether a Philippine court had jurisdiction over a suit filed against the commander of a U.S. Naval base in the Philippines. The court held that the commander had immunity from the suit as a representative of a foreign sovereign, and that under international law and treaties, a foreign state cannot be subjected to legal action in another country without consent. Therefore, the court granted the commander's request to nullify the preliminary injunction issued by the lower court in the logging dispute.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    99 views3 pages

    BAER Vs Tizon

    Uploaded by

    CarmelaEspino
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 1974 regarding whether a Philippine court had jurisdiction over a suit filed against the commander of a U.S. Naval base in the Philippines. The court held that the commander had immunity from the suit as a representative of a foreign sovereign, and that under international law and treaties, a foreign state cannot be subjected to legal action in another country without consent. Therefore, the court granted the commander's request to nullify the preliminary injunction issued by the lower court in the logging dispute.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    BAER vs. TIZON G.R. No.

    L-24294May 3, 1974

    FACTS: •Respondent Edgardo Gener, as plaintiff, filed a complaint for injunction with the
    Court of First Instance of Bataan against petitioner, Donald Baer, Commander of the
    United States Naval Base in Olongapo. •He alleged that he was engaged in the business
    of logging 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.

    ISSUE: Whether the contention of the petitioner that the respondent judge acquires no
    jurisdiction on the ground that the suit was one against a foreign sovereign without its
    consent.

    HELD: YES. The contention of the petitioner is tenable. The writ of certiorari prayed for is
    granted, nullifying and setting aside the writ of preliminary injunction. The invocation of
    the doctrine of immunity from suit of a foreign state without its consent is appropriate.
    In the case of Coleman v. Tennessee ,it was explicitly declared: "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." In the case of Raquiza v. Bradford , it was held that” Accuracy
    demands the clarification that after the conclusion of the Philippine-American Military
    Bases Agreement, the treaty provisions should control on such matter, the assumption
    being that there was a manifestation of the submission to jurisdiction on the part of the
    foreign power whenever appropriate. 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 foreign government without said government's consent, which renders
    more obvious the lack of jurisdiction of the courts of his country. In the case of Parreno
    v. McGranery , the court ruled that: "It is a widely accepted principle of international law,
    which is made a part of the law of the land (Article II, Section 3of 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." 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." That such an appraisal is not opposed to the interpretation of the
    relevant treaty provision by our government is made clear in the aforesaid manifestation
    and memorandum as amicus curiae, wherein it joined petitioner for the grant of the
    remedy prayed for.
    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. 

    You might also like