Underhill v.

Hernandez
[168 US 250, 1987, pg. 619]
TOPIC: Public International Law in the context of the
Philippine Constitution
PONENTE: Chief Justice Fuller
Facts: BACKGROUND

AUTHOR: Magsino, Patricia Marie C.

NOTES:

In 1892 a revolution against the administration was initiated in Venezuela

Revolutionists under control of a certain Crespo claimed that the administration had ceased to be the legitimate
government
Gen. Hernandez belonged to the anti-administration party (basically the revolutionists), and commanded its forces
in the vicinity of Ciudad Bolivar
On the 8th of Aug. 1892; an engagement took place between the armies of the two parties at Buena Vista, some
seven miles from Bolivar, in which the troops under Hernandez prevailed
On the 13th of Aug., Hernandez entered Bolivar, and assumed command of the city
All of the local officials had in the meantime left, and the vacant positions were filled by Gen. Hernandez
In October the Crespo party had achieved success generally and was formally recognized as the legitimate
government of Venezuela by the United States

PETITIONER:

George F. Underhill was a citizen of the United States, who had constructed a waterworks system for the city of
Bolivar, under a contract with the government
He was engaged in supplying the place with water, and carrying on a machinery repair business
Some time after the entry of Gen. Hernandez, Underhill applied to him (as the officer in command) for a passport
to leave the city
Hernandez refused this request (did not say what the reason for refusal was)
On Oct. 18, a passport was finally given to him and Underhill left the country
Underhill brought an action to recover damages in the United States Court for the detention caused by the
refusal togranthimapassport,andfortheassaulthesufferedfromHernandezsarmy

RESPONDENT:
ThecasewastriedattheCircuitcourtoftheUnitedStatesfortheEasterndistrictofNewYorkwhereverdictwas
renderedinfavorofthedefendantHernandez,onthegroundthat'becausetheactsofdefendantwerethoseofa

militarycommander,representingadefactogovernmentintheprosecutionofawar,hewasnotcivillyresponsible
therefor.
Underhillappealedthejudgmenttothecircuitcourtofappealswherethejudgmentwasaffirmed
ThecircuitcourtofappealsheldthattheactsofthedefendantweretheactsofthegovernmentofVenezuela,
and as such are not properly the subject of adjudication in the courts of another government.'
(BASICALLYTHEDOCTRINE)

Unsatisfied, Underhill brought the case to the Supreme Court on certiorari

ISSUE(S):
Did the lower courts err in ruling in favor of defendant Hernandez?
(Restated for clarity Did the lower courts err in ruling that Underhill has no cause of action against Hernandez, seeing as
his acts are acts of another government, and are not subject to the adjudication of another government?)
HELD:
NO. Lower courts were correct in ruling for Hernandez.

JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED.

RATIO:
Hernandezs acts are acts of the Venezuelan government and cannot be subject to the adjudication of the United
States government and courts

As quoted from the case; Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign
state, and the courts of one country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within
its own territory. Redress of grievances by reason of such acts must be obtained through the means open to be
availed of by sovereign powers as between themselves.

The government and the courts of United States cannot pass judgment or subject Hernandez under their
adjudication because his acts are acts of the government of Venezuela

As a rule, each and every state must observe respect for the sovereignty of the other states especially in this case
where United States expressly recognized the new government

CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:

Every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and the courts of one
country will not sit in judgment on the acts of the government of another, done within its own territory. Redress of
grievances by reason of such acts must be obtained through the means open to be availed of by sovereign powers
as between themselves.
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):