US#Diplomatic#and#Consular#Staff#in#Tehran#(US#v.#Iran)#(QN)#ICJ#Reports#1980,#p.#3##(This#case#actually#involves#a#twoHpart#story.#The#digest#will#follow#the#way#it#was#discussed#in#the#case.)##Part#1##Facts:#•" The"case"talks"about"the"events"in"the"movie,"Argo."Watch"it."Astig"yun."•" (Not"in"McRae)"In"1979,"the"Iranian"Revolution"took"place."It"overthrew"the"Shah"(Emperor)"Mohammad"Reza"Pahlavi,"and"installed"Ayatollah"Khomeini"as"the"new"leader"of"Iran."The"Shah"went"on"exile"to"the"US."•" In" November" 4," 1979," armed"militant" students" attacked" and" seized" the" US"Embassy"in"Tehran."They"took"those"inside"as"their"hostages,"including"2"American"private"individuals."They"also"ransacked"the"property"and"the"archives."•" During" the" 3Rhour" attack," no" police" or" military" unit" from" the" Iranian"government"came"to"stop"the"attack."•" There"was"no"indication"that"the"actions"of"the"militants"were"under"orders"from"the"Iranian"government."Thus,"the"acts"by"the"militants"cannot"be"imputable"to"the"Iranian"State."•" (The" following" day," the" US" Consulates" at" Tabriz" and" Shiraz" were" also"ransacked"by"militants.)""Issue:" Despite" the" acts" not" being" imputable" to" the" Iranian" State," did" it" have" any"responsibility"with"regard"to"the"events"which"transpired?""Held:"YES"•" Iran"has"the"obligation"to"take"appropriate"steps"to"ensure"the"protection"of"the" US" Embassy" and" Consulates," their" staffs," their" archives," their" means" of"communication,"and"the"freedom"of"movement"of"their"staffs."•" The" 1961" Vienna" Convention" on" Diplomatic" Relations" imposes" upon" the"receiving" State" the" special" duty" to" protect" the"premises" of" the"diplomatic"mission"(Art."22)"and"to"protect"the"person"of"a"diplomatic"agent"(Art."29)."Art."24"protects"the"archives"and"documents"of"the"embassy."•" These" obligations" are" also" in" the" 1963" Vienna" Convention" on" Consular"Relations."•" The"inaction"by"the"Iranian"Government"thus"constituted"a"clear"and"serious"violation"of"Iran’s"obligation"under"the"1961"and"1963"Vienna"Conventions.""Part"2""Facts:"

•" At" a" press" conference" the" following" day," the" Iranian" Foreign" Minister," Mr."Yazdi," announced" that" the" actions" of" the" students" “enjoys" the" endorsement" and"support"of"the"government,"because"America"herself"is"responsible"for"this"incident.”"•" On"November" 17," 1979," Ayatollah"Khomeini" issued" a" decree" asserting" that"the"US"Embassy"was"a"“center"of"espionage"and"conspiracy”"and"that"people"there"did"not"enjoy"international"diplomatic"respect."•" The" same" decree" also" proclaimed" that" the" American" Embassy" and" the"hostages"would"remain"as"they"are"until"the"US"hands"over"the"deposed"Shah"back"to"Iran."•" The" actions" of" the" Ayatollah" and" the" rest" of" the" Iranian" Government" thus"turned"the"continued"occupation"of"the"Embassy"and"detention"of"the"hostages"into"acts"of"the"State."The"militants"became"agents"of"the"state.""Held:"•" These"acts"thus"resulted"in"additional"and"continuing"breaches"by"Iran"of"its"obligations"under"the"1961"and"1963"Vienna"Conventions."o" The"conventions"forbid"agents"of"the"receiving"State"to"enter"the"premises"of"a"mission"without" consent" or" to" undertake" any" search," requisition," attachment" or"like"measure"in"the"premises."o" Art." 29" of" the"1961"Vienna"Convention" forbids" the" arrest" or" detention" of" a"diplomatic"agent."o" Iran"also"violated"the"obligation"to"preserve"the"inviolability"of"the"archives"and"documents"of"diplomatic"missions."It"also"breached"its"obligation"to"provide"for"freedom"of"movement"and"communication"of"the"diplomatic"staff.""•" In"the"continuation"of"the"detention"of"the"diplomatic"staff," Iran"was"also" in"violation" of" the" fundamental" principles" in" the" UN" Charter" and" the" Universal"Declaration"of"Human"Rights."•" The"Court"further"reiterated"the"gravity"of"the"situation"because"it"was"a"state"itself,"and"not"just"certain"individuals,"which"violate"international"law."•" (The"Court"also"mentioned"that"the"American"military"incursion"into"Iranian"territory" in" April" 1980," while" this" case" was" pending," tended" to" undermine" the"respect" for" the" judicial" process." However," it" did" not" rule" on" the" legality" of" the"operation"since"it"was"not"at"issue"in"the"current"case.""The"Court’s"Final"Ruling:"•" 13"votes" to"2:" the" Islamic"Republic"of" Iran"has"violated"and" is"still"violating"obligations"it"owes"to"the"USA."•" 13"votes"to"2:"The"Islamic"Republic"of"Iran"thus"have"a"responsibility"towards"the"USA"•" Unanimously:" Iran"must" immediately" take"all" steps" to" redress" the" situation"by:"o" Immediately" terminating" the" unlawful" detention" of" the" US" diplomatic" and"consular"staff"o" Ensuring" that" the" said" persons" have" the" necessary" means" of" leaving" Iran,"including"means"of"transport"

o" Immediately" placing" in" the" hand" of" the" protecting" Power" the" premises,"property,"archives"and"documents"of"the"US"Embassy"and"Consulates"•" Unanimously:"no"member"of"the"US"diplomatic"or"consular"staff"may"be"kept"in" Iran" to" be" subjected" to" any" form" of" judicial" proceeding" or" to" participate" as" a"witness"•" 12"votes" to"3:" Iran" is"obliged" to"make"a" reparation" to" the"US" for" the" injury"caused"by"the"events"•" 14" votes" to" 1:" The" form" and" amount" of" reparation" shall" be" settled" by" the"Court"in"a"subsequent"procedure,"if"US"and"Iran"fail"to"agree."#HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH##Re#Regina#and#Palacios#(1984)#Topic:#Temporary#departure#is#not#tantamount#to#losing#one’s#immunity#Treaties/Laws:#Vienna#Convention#on#Diplomatic#Relations##FACTS:#•" A"Nicaraguan"diplomatic"staff"has"been"residing"in"Ottawa"with"his"wife"and"child."•" July"12,"1983,"he"was"advised"that"Nicaragua"had"terminated"his"duties"at"his"mission."•" July"16,"1983,"he"left"Canada"for"a"temporary"visit"to"the"US."•" When"he"returned,"he"was"detained"by"the"police"and"later"on"was"issued"a"search"warrant."•" He" was" then" arrested" for" possession" of" cocaine" as" well" as" prohibited"weapons"(2"revolvers)"and"careless"storage"of"ammunition."•" The"counsel"for"the"Republic"of"Nicaragua"contends"that"Palacios"has"lost"his"immunity"when"he"“left"the"country”"to"visit"the"US."•" The" lower" court" ruled" that" according" to" the" Convention," the"words" “leaves"the"country”"must"be"interpreted"to"be"permanently"leaving"the"country"in"order"for"him"to"lose"his"diplomatic"immunity.""ISSUE/HELD:"W/N" the" leaving" of" the" diplomatic" staff" temporarily" terminates" his"diplomatic"immunity—NO."It"ceases"when"he"leaves"the"country"permanently.""RATIO:"•" The" personal" inviolability" of" diplomats" has" been" recognized" by" all" legal"systems"since"the"earliest"times."o" Such"immunity"is"meant"to"ensure"the"efficient"performance"of"the"functions"of"diplomatic"missions"as"representing"States."•" The"immunities"recognized"by"CIL"were"considered"to"be"incorporated"in"the"domestic"law"of"Canada"by"the"SC"of"Canada."•" Under"customary"rules,"immunity"is"not"limited"in"time"to"the"dates"on"which"the"diplomat"takes"up"his"duties"and"relinquishes"them."

o" It"extends"to"protect" them"from"the"time"he"enters"the"host"country" for" the"purpose"of"taking"up"his"duties"and"for"a"reasonably"time"after"their"termination"in"order"to"enable"him"to"wind"up"his"affairs"and"leave"the"country."o" Reasonable"time"is"measured"by"the"time"required"to"permit"the"diplomat"to"move"permanently"from"the"host"country"either"to"his"home"country"or"to"another"foreign"posting."•" In"interpreting"the"treaty"which"states"that"“privileges"and"immunities"shall"normally"cease"at" the"moment"he" leaves" the"country,"or"on"expiry"of"a" reasonable"period"in"which"to"do"so…”:"o" Use"the"effectiveness"principle"which"requires"the"court"to"read"a"treaty"as"a"whole"to"ascertain"its"purpose"and"intent"and"to"give"effect"thereto"o" It" is"without"doubt" that" the"phrase"“leaves" the"country”"refer" to"permanent"departure"from"the"host"country."o" It"would"require"the"clearest"possible"language"in"the"convention"to"compel"the"conclusion"that"a"diplomat"would"have"any"lesser"protection"under"it"and"could"lose"his"immunity"by"a"temporary"visit"outside"the"country"before"he"was"ready"or"required"to"leave"the"country"permanently."##

#HOLY#SEE#VS.#ROSARIO#"FACTS:"""Petitioner"is"the"Holy"See"who"exercises"sovereignty"over"the"Vatican"City"in"Rome,"Italy,"and"is"represented"in"the"Philippines"by"the"Papal"Nuncio;"Private"respondent,"Starbright" Sales" Enterprises," Inc.," is" a" domestic" corporation" engaged" in" the" real"estate"business.""This" petition" arose" from" a" controversy" over" a" parcel" of" land" consisting" of" 6,000"square"meters" located" in" the"Municipality" of"Paranaque" registered" in" the"name"of"petitioner."Said"lot"was"contiguous"with"two"other"lots"registered"in"the"name"of"the"Philippine"Realty"Corporation"(PRC).""The" three" lots" were" sold" to" Ramon" Licup," through" Msgr." Domingo" A." Cirilos," Jr.,"acting"as"agent"to"the"sellers."Later,"Licup"assigned"his"rights"to"the"sale"to"private"respondent.""In"view"of"the"refusal"of"the"squatters"to"vacate"the"lots"sold"to"private"respondent,"a"dispute"arose"as"to"who"of"the"parties"has"the"responsibility"of"evicting"and"clearing"the" land" of" squatters." Complicating" the" relations" of" the" parties" was" the" sale" by"petitioner" of" Lot" 5RA" to" Tropicana" Properties" and" Development" Corporation"(Tropicana)."""

Private" respondent" filed" a" complaint" with" the" Regional" Trial" Court," Branch" 61,"Makati," Metro"Manila" for" annulment" of" the" sale" of" the" three" parcels" of" land," and"specific" performance" and" damages" against" petitioner," represented" by" the" Papal"Nuncio,"and"three"other"defendants:"namely,"Msgr."Domingo"A."Cirilos," Jr.," the"PRC"and" Tropicana" petitioner" and" Msgr." Cirilos" separately" moved" to" dismiss" the"complaint"—"petitioner" for" lack"of" jurisdiction"based"on"sovereign" immunity" from"suit,"and"Msgr."Cirilos"for"being"an"improper"party."An"opposition"to"the"motion"was"filed"by"private"respondent.""The" trial" court" issued" an" order" denying," among" others," petitioner’s" motion" to"dismiss"after"finding"that"petitioner"“shed"off"[its]"sovereign"immunity"by"entering"into" the"business"contract" in"question”"Petitioner" forthwith"elevated" the"matter" to"us."In"its"petition,"petitioner"invokes"the"privilege"of"sovereign"immunity"only"on"its"own"behalf"and"on"behalf"of"its"official"representative,"the"Papal"Nuncio.""ISSUE:"Whether" the" Holy" See" is" immune" from" suit" insofar" as" its" business" relations"regarding"selling"a"lot"to"a"private"entity""RULING:"The"Republic" of" the" Philippines" has" accorded" the"Holy" See" the" status" of" a" foreign"sovereign." The" Holy" See," through" its" Ambassador," the" Papal" Nuncio," has" had"diplomatic" representations" with" the" Philippine" government" since" 1957" (Rollo," p."87)."This"appears"to"be"the"universal"practice"in"international"relations."There" are" two" conflicting" concepts" of" sovereign" immunity," each" widely" held" and"firmly"established."According"to"the"classical"or"absolute"theory,"a"sovereign"cannot,"without" its" consent," be" made" a" respondent" in" the" courts" of" another" sovereign."According" to" the" newer" or" restrictive" theory," the" immunity" of" the" sovereign" is"recognized"only"with"regard"to"public"acts"or"acts"jure"imperii"of"a"state,"but"not"with"regard"to"private"acts"or"acts"jure"gestionis""If"the"act"is"in"pursuit"of"a"sovereign"activity,"or"an"incident"thereof,"then"it"is"an"act"jure"imperii,"especially"when"it"is"not"undertaken"for"gain"or"profit."In"the"case"at"bench,"if"petitioner"has"bought"and"sold"lands"in"the"ordinary"course"of"a"real"estate"business,"surely"the"said"transaction"can"be"categorized"as"an"act" jure"gestionis." However," petitioner" has" denied" that" the" acquisition" and" subsequent"disposal"of"Lot"5RA"were"made"for"profit"but"claimed"that"it"acquired"said"property"for" the" site" of" its" mission" or" the" Apostolic" Nunciature" in" the" Philippines." Private"respondent"failed"to"dispute"said"claim.""Lot"5RA"was"acquired"by"petitioner"as"a"donation" from" the"Archdiocese"of"Manila."The"donation"was"made"not"for"commercial"purpose,"but"for"the"use"of"petitioner"to"construct"thereon"the"official"place"of"residence"of"the"Papal"Nuncio."The"right"of"a"foreign" sovereign" to" acquire" property," real" or" personal," in" a" receiving" state,"necessary"for"the"creation"and"maintenance"of"its"diplomatic"mission,"is"recognized"in" the" 1961"Vienna" Convention" on"Diplomatic" Relations" (Arts." 20R22)." This" treaty"

was"concurred"in"by"the"Philippine"Senate"and"entered"into"force"in"the"Philippines"on"November"15,"1965.""The" decision" to" transfer" the" property" and" the" subsequent" disposal" thereof" are"likewise"clothed"with"a"governmental"character."Petitioner"did"not"sell"Lot"5RA" for"profit"or"gain."It"merely"wanted"to"dispose"off"the"same"because"the"squatters"living"thereon"made" it" almost" impossible" for" petitioner" to" use" it" for" the" purpose" of" the"donation."The"fact"that"squatters"have"occupied"and"are"still"occupying"the"lot,"and"that" they" stubbornly" refuse" to" leave" the" premises," has" been" admitted" by" private"respondent"in"its"complaint""Private" respondent" is" not" left" without" any" legal" remedy" for" the" redress" of" its"grievances."Under"both"Public" International"Law"and"Transnational"Law," a"person"who"feels"aggrieved"by"the"acts"of"a"foreign"sovereign"can"ask"his"own"government"to"espouse"his"cause"through"diplomatic"channels.""Private"respondent"can"ask"the"Philippine"government," through"the"Foreign"Office,"to"espouse"its"claims"against"the"Holy"See."Its"first"task"is"to"persuade"the"Philippine"government" to" take" up"with" the"Holy" See" the" validity" of" its" claims."Of" course," the"Foreign"Office"shall"first"make"a"determination"of"the"impact"of"its"espousal"on"the"relations"between"the"Philippine"government"and"the"Holy"See"(Young,"Remedies"of"Private"Claimants"Against"Foreign"States,"Selected"Readings"on"Protection"by"Law"of"Private" Foreign" Investments" 905," 919" [1964])." Once" the" Philippine" government"decides"to"espouse"the"claim,"the"latter"ceases"to"be"a"private"cause.""WHEREFORE,"the"petition"for"certiorari"is"GRANTED"and"the"complaint"in"Civil"Case"No."90R183"against"petitioner"is"DISMISSED.""Republic#of#Indonesia#vs.#James#Vizon"G.R."No."54705,"June"26,"2003""FACTS:""Petitioner,"Republic"of" Indonesia"entered"into"a"Maintenance"Agreement" in"August"1995"with"respondent"James"Vinzon,"sole"proprietor"of"Vinzon"Trade"and"Services."The" Maintenance" Agreement" stated" that" respondent" shall," for" a" consideration,"maintain" specified" equipment" at" the" Embassy" Main" Building," Embassy" Annex"Building" and" the" Wisma" Duta," the" official" residence" of" petitioner" Ambassador"Soeratmin." The" equipments" covered" by" the" Maintenance" Agreement" are" air"conditioning" units," generator" sets," electrical" facilities," water" heaters," and" water"motor"pumps."It"is"likewise"stated"therein"that"the"agreement"shall"be"effective"for"a"period"of" four"years"and"will" renew" itself" automatically"unless" cancelled"by"either"party"by"giving"thirty"days"prior"written"notice"from"the"date"of"expiry."Petitioners" claim" that" sometime" prior" to" the" date" of" expiration" of" the" said"agreement," or" before"August" 1999," they" informed" respondent" that" the" renewal" of"the" agreement" shall" be" at" the" discretion" of" the" incoming" Chief" of" Administration,"

Minister" Counsellor" Azhari" Kasim,"who"was" expected" to" arrive" in" February" 2000."When"Minister"Counsellor"Kasim"assumed"the"position"of"Chief"of"Administration"in"March"2000,"he"allegedly"found"respondents"work"and"services"unsatisfactory"and""not"in"compliance"with"the"standards"set"in"the"Maintenance"Agreement."Hence,"the"Indonesian"Embassy" terminated" the" agreement" in" a" letter" dated"August" 31," 2000."Petitioners"claim,"moreover," that"they"had"earlier"verbally" informed"respondent"of"their" decision" to" terminate" the" agreement." On" the" other" hand," respondent" claims"that" the" aforesaid" termination" was" arbitrary" and" unlawful." Respondent" filed" a"complaint"against"petitioners"(RTC)"of"Makati,"petitioners"filed"a"Motion"to"Dismiss,"alleging" that" the"Republic"of" Indonesia,"as"a" foreign"sovereign"State,"has"sovereign"immunity"from"suit"and"cannot"be"sued"as"a"partyRdefendant"in"the"Philippines."The"said" motion" further" alleged" that" Ambassador" Soeratmin" and" Minister" Counsellor"Kasim"are"diplomatic"agents"as"defined"under"the"Vienna"Convention"on"Diplomatic"Relations" and" therefore" enjoy" diplomatic" immunity." In" turn," respondent" filed" on"March" 20," 2001," an" Opposition" to" the" said" motion" alleging" that" the" Republic" of"Indonesia"has"expressly"waived"its"immunity"from"suit."He"based"this"claim"upon"the"following"provision"in"the"Maintenance"Agreement.""ISSUE:"Whether"or"not"the"Republic"of"Indonesia"can"be"sued.""RULING:"The" Supreme" Court" on" the"matter" ruled" that" the" republic" of" Indonesia" cannot" be"deemed"to"have"waived"its"immunity"to"suit."The"existence"alone"of"a"paragraph"in"a"contract" stating" that" any" legal" action"arising"out"of" the" agreement" shall" be" settled"according"to"the"laws"of"the"Philippines"and"by"a"specified"court"of"the"Philippines"is"not"necessarily"a"waiver"of"sovereign" immunity" from"suit."The"aforesaid"provision"contains" language" not" necessarily" inconsistent" with" sovereign" immunity." On" the"other"hand,"such"provision"may"also"be"meant" to"apply"where"the"sovereign"party"elects"to"sue"in"the"local"courts,"or"otherwise"waives"its"immunity"by"any"subsequent"act."The"applicability"of"Philippine"laws"must"be"deemed"to"include"Philippine"laws"in" its" totality," including" the" principle" recognizing" sovereign" immunity." Hence," the"proper" court" may" have" no" proper" action," by" way" of" settling" the" case," except" to"dismiss"it.""The" Court" stated" that" the" upkeep" of" its" furnishings" and" equipment" is" still" part"sovereign" function" of" the" State." A" sovereign" State" does" not" merely" establish" a"diplomatic"mission" and" leave" it" at" that;" the" establishment"of" a" diplomatic"mission"encompasses"its"maintenance"and"upkeep."Hence,"the"State"may"enter"into"contracts"with" private" entities" to"maintain" the" premises," furnishings" and" equipment" of" the"embassy"and"the"living"quarters"of"its"agents"and"officials."It" is"therefore"clear"that"petitioner"Republic"of"Indonesia"was"acting"in"pursuit"of"a"sovereign"activity"when"it"entered" into"a" contract"with" respondent" for" the"upkeep"or"maintenance"of" the"air"conditioning" units," generator" sets," electrical" facilities," water" heaters," and" water"motor"pumps"of"the"Indonesian"Embassy"and"the"official"residence"of"the"Indonesian"

ambassador."The"Supreme"Court"grants"the"petition"and"reversed"the"decision"of"the"Court"of"Appeals."�" `" u" a"��"��" public" official" charged"with" some" administrative" or" technical" office"who"can"be"held"to"the"proper"responsibility"in"the"manner"laid"down"by"the"law"of"civil"responsibility."Consequently,"the"trial"court"in"not"so"deciding"and"in"sentencing"the"said"entity"to"the"payment"of"damages,"caused"by"an"official"of"the"second"class"referred" to," has" by" erroneous" interpretation" infringed" the" provisions" of" Articles"1902"and"1903"of"the"Civil"Code.""It" is," therefore," evidence" that" the"State" (GPI)" is"only" liable," according" to" the"above"quoted"decisions"of" the"Supreme"Court"of" Spain," for" the"acts"of" its" agents," officers"and"employees"when"they"act"as"special"agents"within"the"meaning"of"paragraph"5"of"Article"1903,"supra,"and"that"the"chauffeur"of"the"ambulance"of"the"General"Hospital"was"not"such"an"agent.""For" the" foregoing"reasons," the" judgment"appealed" from"must"be"reversed,"without"costs"in"this"instance."Whether"the"Government"intends"to"make"itself"legally"liable"for" the" amount" of" damages" above" set" forth," which" the" plaintiff" has" sustained" by"reason"of"the"negligent"acts"of"one"of"its"employees,"be"legislative"enactment"and"by"appropriating"sufficient"funds"therefore,"we"are"not"called"upon"to"determine."This"matter"rests"solely"with"the"Legislature"and"not"with"the"courts.""G.R." No." 152318" April" 16,2009DEUTSCHE# GESELLSCHAFT# FÜRTECHNISCHE#ZUSAMMENARBEIT,ET.#AL.#vs.HON.#COURT#OF#APPEALS,"ET."AL.""FACTS:"The" governments" of" the" Federal" Republic" of" Germany" and" the" Republic" of" the"Philippines"ratified"an"Agreement"called"Social"Health"Insurance—Networking"and"Empowerment"(SHINE"which"was"designed"to""enable"Philippine"families–especially"poor"ones–to"maintain"their"health"and"secure"health"care"of"sustainable"quality.""""Private"respondents"were"engaged"as"contract"employees"hired"by"GTZ"to"work"for"SHINE." Nicolay," a" Belgian" national," assumed" the" post" of" SHINE" Project" Manager."Disagreements" eventually" arose" between" Nicolay" and" private" respondents" in"matters"such"as"proposed"salary"adjustments,"and"the"course"Nicolay"was"taking"in"the" implementation" of" SHINE" different" from" her" predecessors." The" dispute"culminated"in"a"signed"by"the"private"respondents,"addressed"to"Nicolay,"and"copies"furnished"officials"of"the"DOH,"Philheath,"and"the"director"of"the"Manila"office"of"GTZ."The"letter"raised"several"issues"which"private"respondents"claim"had"been"brought"up" several" times" in" the" past," but" have" not" been" given" appropriate" response." In"response," Nicolay" wrote" each" of" the" private" respondents" a" letter," all" similarly"worded" except" for" their" respective" addressees." She" informed" private" respondents"that" they" could" no" longer" find" any" reason" to" stay" with" the" project" unless" ALL" of"these" issues" be" addressed" immediately" and" appropriately." Under" the" foregoing"premises" and" circumstances," it" is" now" imperative" that" I" am" to" accept" your"

resignation," which" I" expect" to" receive" as" soon" as" possible." Negotiations" ensued"between" private" respondents" and" Nicolay," but" for" naught." Each" of" the" private"respondents"received"a" letter" from"Nicolay," informing"them"of"the"preRtermination"of" their" contracts" of" employment" on" the" grounds" of" "serious" and" gross"insubordination,"among"others,"resulting"to"loss"of"confidence"and"trust."""HELD:" NO." This" selfRdescription" of" GTZ" in" its" own" official" website" gives" further"cause"for"pause"in"adopting"petitioners’"argument"that"GTZ"is"entitled"to"immunity"from"suit"because"it"is""an"implementing"agency.""The"aboveRquoted"statement"does"not"dispute"the"characterization"of"GTZ"as"an""implementing"agency"of"the"Federal"Republic"of"Germany,""yet"it"bolsters"the"notion"that"as"a"company"organized"under"private"law,"it"has"a"legal"personality"independent"of"that"of"the"Federal"Republic"of"Germany."The"Court"is"thus"holds"and"so"rules"that"GTZ"consistently"has"been"unable"to"establish"with"satisfaction"that"it"enjoys"the"immunity"from"suit"generally"enjoyed"by"its"parent"country,"the"Federal"Republic"of"Germany"#DFA#vs.#NLRC#G.R."No."113191,"18"September"1996""Facts:""On" 27" January" 1993," private" respondent" Magnayi" filed" an" illegal" dismissal" case"against"ADB." "Two"summonses"were" served,"one" sent"directly" to" the"ADB"and" the"other"through"the"Department"of"Foreign"Affairs"("DFA").""ADB"and"the"DFA"notified"respondent"Labor"Arbiter" that" the"ADB,"as"well"as" its"President"and"Officers,"were"covered"by"an"immunity"from"legal"process"except"for"borrowings,"guaranties"or"the"sale" of" securities" pursuant" to" Article" 50(1)" and" Article" 55" of" the" Agreement"Establishing" the" Asian" Development" Bank" (the" "Charter")" in" relation" to" Section" 5"and"Section"44"of" the"Agreement"Between"The"Bank"And"The"Government"Of"The"Philippines"Regarding"The"Bank's"Headquarters"(the""Headquarters"Agreement").""The"Labor"Arbiter"took"cognizance"of"the"complaint"on"the"impression"that"the"ADB"had"waived" its"diplomatic" immunity" from"suit"and," in" time,"rendered"a"decision" in"favour"Magnayi.""""The" ADB" did" not" appeal" the" decision." " Instead," on" 03" November" 1993," the" DFA"referred"the"matter"to"the"NLRC;"in"its"referral,"the"DFA"sought"a""formal"vacation"of"the"void"judgment.""When"DFA"failed"to"obtain"a"favorable"decision"from"the"NLRC,"it"filed"a"petition"for"certiorari."""Issues:""1."Whether"or"not"ADB"is"immune"from"suit""

2." Whether" or" not" by" entering" into" service" contracts" with" different" private"companies," ADB"has" descended" to" the" level" of" an" ordinary" party" to" a" commercial"transaction"giving"rise"to"a"waiver"of"its"immunity"from"suit""3."Whether"or"not"the"DFA"has"the"legal"standing"to"file"the"present"petition""4."Whether"or"not"the"extraordinary"remedy"of"certiorari"is"proper"in"this"case"""Held:""1."Under"the"Charter"and"Headquarters"Agreement,"the"ADB"enjoys"immunity"from"legal" process" of" every" form," except" in" the" specified" cases" of" borrowing" and"guarantee"operations,"as"well"as" the"purchase,"sale"and"underwriting"of"securities.""The"Bank’s"officers,"on"their"part,"enjoy"immunity"in"respect"of"all"acts"performed"by"them" in" their" official" capacity." " The" Charter" and" the" Headquarters" Agreement"granting" these" immunities" and" privileges" are" treaty" covenants" and" commitments"voluntarily"assumed"by"the"Philippine"government"which"must"be"respected.""""Being"an"international"organization"that"has"been"extended"a"diplomatic"status,"the"ADB"is"independent"of"the"municipal"law."""One"of"the"basic"immunities"of"an"international"organization"is"immunity"from"local"jurisdiction,"i.e.,"that"it" is"immune"from"the"legal"writs"and"processes"issued"by"the"tribunals"of" the"country"where" it" is" found." "The"obvious"reason" for" this" is" that" the"subjection"of"such"an"organization"to"the"authority"of"the"local"courts"would"afford"a"convenient" medium" thru" which" the" host" government" may" interfere" in" their"operations"or"even"influence"or"control"its"policies"and"decisions"of"the"organization;"besides,"such"subjection"to"local"jurisdiction"would"impair"the"capacity"of"such"body"to"discharge"its"responsibilities"impartially"on"behalf"of"its"memberRstates.""""2." No." The" ADB" didn't" descend" to" the" level" of" an" ordinary" party" to" a" commercial"transaction,"which" should"have" constituted"a"waiver"of" its" immunity" from"suit," by"entering" into" service" contracts" with" different" private" companies." “There" are" two"conflicting"concepts"of"sovereign"immunity,"each"widely"held"and"firmly"established.""According" to" the" classical" or" absolute" theory," a" sovereign" cannot," without" its"consent,"be"made"a"respondent"in"the"Courts"of"another"sovereign.""According"to"the"newer"or"restrictive"theory,"the"immunity"of"the"sovereign"is"recognized"only"with"regard"to"public"acts"or"acts"jure"imperii"of"a"state,"but"not"with"regard"to"private"act"or"acts"jure"gestionis."""“Certainly,"the"mere"entering"into"a"contract"by"a"foreign"state"with"a"private"party"cannot"be" the"ultimate" test." " Such"an"act" can"only"be" the"start"of" the" inquiry." "The"logical"question"is"whether"the"foreign"state"is"engaged"in"the"activity"in"the"regular"course" of" business." " If" the" foreign" state" is" not" engaged" regularly" in" a" business" or"

trade,"the"particular"act"or"transaction"must"then"be"tested"by"its"nature.""If"the"act"is"in"pursuit"of"a"sovereign"activity,"or"an"incident"thereof,"then"it"is"an"act"jure"imperii,"especially"when"it"is"not"undertaken"for"gain"or"profit.”""The"service"contracts"referred"to"by"private"respondent"have"not"been"intended"by"the" ADB" for" profit" or" gain" but" are" official" acts" over" which" a" waiver" of" immunity"would"not"attach."""3."Yes."The"DFA's"function"includes,"among"its"other"mandates,"the"determination"of"persons"and"institutions"covered"by"diplomatic"immunities,"a"determination"which,"when"challenged,"entitles"it"to"seek"relief"from"the"court"so"as"not"to"seriously"impair"the"conduct"of"the"country's"foreign"relations.""The"DFA"must"be"allowed"to"plead"its"case"whenever"necessary"or"advisable"to"enable"it"to"help"keep"the"credibility"of"the"Philippine" government" before" the" international" community." " When" international"agreements"are"concluded,"the"parties"thereto"are"deemed"to"have"likewise"accepted"the" responsibility" of" seeing" to" it" that" their" agreements" are" duly" regarded." " In" our"country," this" task" falls" principally" on" the" DFA" as" being" the" highest" executive"department" with" the" competence" and" authority" to" so" act" in" this" aspect" of" the"international" arena." In"Holy" See" vs."Hon." Rosario," Jr.," this" Court" has" explained" the"matter"in"good"detail;"viz:"""In"Public" International"Law,"when"a"state"or" international"agency"wishes"to"plead"sovereign"or"diplomatic"immunity"in"a"foreign"court,"it"requests"the"Foreign"Office"of"the"state"where" it" is" sued" to"convey" to" the"court" that" said"defendant" is"entitled" to"immunity."""In" the"United"States," the"procedure" followed" is" the"process"of" 'suggestion,'"where"the" foreign" state" or" the" international" organization" sued" in" an" American" court"requests"the"Secretary"of"State"to"make"a"determination"as"to"whether"it"is"entitled"to"immunity.""If"the"Secretary"of"State"finds"that"the"defendant"is"immune"from"suit,"he,"in"turn,"asks"the"Attorney"General"to"submit"to"the"court"a"'suggestion'"that"the"defendant"is"entitled"to"immunity."""""In" the"Philippines," the"practice" is" for" the" foreign"government"or" the" international"organization" to" first" secure" an" executive" endorsement" of" its" claim"of" sovereign"or"diplomatic" immunity." " But" how" the" Philippine" Foreign" Office" conveys" its"endorsement"to"the"courts"varies." " In"International"Catholic"Migration"Commission"vs."Calleja,"190"SCRA"130"(1990),"the"Secretary"of"Foreign"Affairs" just"sent"a" letter"directly" to" the" Secretary" of" Labor" and" Employment," informing" the" latter" that" the"respondentRemployer"could"not"be"sued"because"it"enjoyed"diplomatic"immunity.""In"World"Health"Organization"vs."Aquino,"48"SCRA"242"(1972),"the"Secretary"of"Foreign"Affairs" sent" the" trial" court" a" telegram" to" that" effect." " In"Baer"vs."Tizon,"57"SCRA"1"(1974)," the" U.S." Embassy" asked" the" Secretary" of" Foreign" Affairs" to" request" the"Solicitor"General" to"make," in" "behalf"of" the"Commander"of" the"United"States"Naval"Base"at"Olongapo"City,"Zambales,"a" 'suggestion'"to"respondent"Judge." "The"Solicitor"

General"embodied"the" 'suggestion'" in"a"manifestation"and"memorandum"as"amicus"curiae."""In"the"case"at"bench,"the"Department"of"Foreign"Affairs,"through"the"Office"of"Legal"Affairs"moved"with" this"Court" to"be"allowed"to" intervene"on"the"side"of"petitioner."The" Court" allowed" the" said" Department" to" file" its" memorandum" in" support" of"petitioner's"claim"of"sovereign"immunity."""In" some" cases," the" defense" of" sovereign" immunity"was" submitted" directly" to" the"local"courts"by"the"respondents"through"their"private"counsels.""In"cases"where"the"foreign" states" bypass" the" Foreign"Office," the" courts" can" inquire" into" the" facts" and"make" their" own" determination" as" to" the" nature" of" the" acts" and" transactions"involved.""""4."Yes."Relative"to"the"propriety"of"the"extraordinary"remedy"of"certiorari,"the"Court"has,"under"special"circumstances,"so"allowed"and"entertained"such"a"petition"when"(a)"the"questioned"order"or"decision"is"issued"in"excess"of"or"without"jurisdiction,"or"(b)" where" the" order" or" decision" is" a" patent" nullity," which," verily," are" the"circumstances"that"can"be"said"to"obtain"in"the"present"case.""When"an"adjudicator"is"devoid" of" jurisdiction" on" a"matter" before" him," his" action" that" assumes" otherwise"would"be"a"clear"nullity."""Petition"for"certiorari"is"GRANTED,"and"the"decision"of"the"Labor"Arbiter,"dated"31"August"1993"is"VACATED"for"being"NULL"AND"VOID."""LASCO# VS.# UN# REVOLVING# FUND# FOR# NATURAL# RESOURCES# EXPLORATION"(241"SCRA"681)"""FACTS:"Petitioners" were" dismissed" from" their" employment" with" private" respondent," the"United" Nations" Revolving" Fund" for" Natural" Resources" Exploration" (UNRFNRE),"which"is"a"special"fund"and"subsidiary"organ"of"the"United"Nations."The"UNRFNRE"is"involved"in"a"joint"project"of"the"Philippine"Government"and"the"United"Nations"for"exploration"work"in"Dinagat"Island."Petitioners"filed"a"complaint"for"illegal"dismissal"and"damages"before"the"NLRC,"respondent"Labor"Arbiter"issued"an"order"dismissing"the"complaints"on"the"ground"that"private"respondent"was"protected"by"diplomatic"immunity." The" dismissal" was" based" on" the" letter" of" the" Foreign" Office" which"confirmed"that"private"respondent,"being"a"special"fund"administered"by"the"United"Nations,"was"covered"by"the"1946"Convention"on"the"Privileges"and"Immunities"of"the"United"Nations"of"which" the"Philippine"Government"was"an"original" signatory."Petitioners" filed" the" instant" petition" for" certiorari" without" first" seeking" a"reconsideration"of" the"NLRC"resolution."Petitioners"argued" that" the"acts"of"mining"

exploration" and" exploitation" are" outside" the" official" functions" of" an" international"agency"protected"by"diplomatic" immunity."Even"assuming" that"private" respondent"was" entitled" to" diplomatic" immunity," petitioners" insisted" that" private" respondent"waived" it" when" it" engaged" in" exploration" work" and" entered" into" a" contract" of"employment"with"petitioners.""ISSUE"whether" an" international" organization" is" entitled" to" diplomatic" immunity" is" a""political"question""and"such"determination"by"the"executive"branch"is"conclusive"on"the"courts"and"quasiRjudicial"agencies""HELD":" As" a" matter" of" state" policy" as" expressed" in" the" Constitution," the" Philippine"Government" adopts" the" generally" accepted" principles" of" international" law" (1987"Constitution,"Art."II,"Sec."2)."Being"a"member"of"the"United"Nations"and"a"party"to"the"Convention" on" the" Privileges" and" Immunities" of" the" Specialized" Agencies" of" the"United" Nations," the" Philippine" Government" adheres" to" the" doctrine" of" immunity"granted" to" the"United"Nations" and" its" specialized" agencies." Both" treaties" have" the"force" and" effect" of" law." Our" courts" can" only" assume" jurisdiction" over" private"respondent"if"it"expressly"waived"its"immunity,"which"is"not"so"in"the"case"at"bench"(Convention" on" the" Privileges" and" Immunities" of" the" Specialized" Agencies" of" the"United"Nations,"Art." III,"Sec."4)."Private"respondent" is"not"engaged"in"a"commercial"venture" in" the"Philippines." Its"presence"here" is"by"virtue"of"a" joint"project"entered"into"by"the"Philippine"Government"and"the"United"Nations"for"mineral"exploration"in"Dinagat" Island." Its" mission" is" not" to" exploit" our" natural" resources" and" gain"pecuniarily" thereby"but" to"help" improve" the"quality"of" life"of" the"people," including"that"of"petitioners."This"is"not"to"say"that"petitioner"have"no"recourse."Section"31"of"the"Convention"on"the"Privileges"and"Immunities"of"the"Specialized"Agencies"of"the"United" Nations" states" that" "each" specialized" agency" shall" make" a" provision" for"appropriate"modes" of" settlement" of:" (a)" disputes" arising" out" of" contracts" or" other"disputes"of"private"character"to"which"the"specialized"agency"is"a"party.""""WORLD#HEALTH#ORGANIZATION#and#VERSTUYFT#vs#AQUINO"G.R."No."LR35131""FACTS:"An" Original" Action" for" Certiorari" and" Prohibition" to" set" aside" respondent" judge’s"refusal"to"quash" a" search" warrant" issued" by" him" at" the" instance" of" respondents" COSAC"(Constabulary" Offshore" Action" Center)" officers" for" the" search" and" seizure" of" the"personal"effects"of"petitioner"official"of"the"WHO"(World"Health"Organization)""""24"Notwithstanding"his"being"entitled" to"diplomatic" immunity," as"duly" recognized"by" the"executive"branch"of" the"Philippine"Government"and" to"prohibit" respondent"judge"from"further"proceedings"in"the"matter."Upon"filing"of"the"petition,"the"Court"

issued"on"June"6,"1972"a"restraining"order"enjoining"respondents"from"executing"the"search"warrant" in"question."Respondents"COSAC"officers" filed" their"answer" joining"issue"against"petitioners"and"seeking"to""justify"their"act"of"applying"for"and"securing"from" respondent" judge" the" warrant" for" the" search" and" seizure" of" ten" crates"consigned"to"petitioner"Verstuyft"and"stored"at"the"Eternit"Corporation"warehouse"on"the"ground"that"they"“contain"large"quantities"of"highly"dutiable"goods”"beyond"the"official"needs"of"said"petitioner"“and"the"only"lawful"way"to"reach"these"articles"and"effects"for"purposes"of"taxation"is"through"a"search"warrant.”""It" is" undisputed" in" the" record" that" petitioner" Dr." Leonce" Verstuyft," who" was"assigned" on"December" 6," 1971" by" the"WHO" from" his" last" station" in" Taipei" to" the"Regional"Office"in"Manila"as"Acting"Assistant"Director"of"Health"Services,"is"entitled"to"diplomatic"immunity,"pursuant"to"the"Host"Agreement"executed"on"July"22,"1951"between"the"Philippine"Government"and"the"World"Health"Organization."When"petitioner"Verstuyft’s"personal"effects"contained"in"twelve"(12)"crates"entered"the" Philippines" as" unaccompanied" baggage" on" January" 10," 1972," they" were"accordingly" allowed" free" entry" from" duties" and" taxes." The" crates" were" directly"stored"at" the"Eternit"Corporation’s"warehouse"at"Mandaluyong,"Rizal," “pending"his"relocation" into" permanent" quarters" upon" the" offer" of" Mr." Berg," Vice" President" of"Eternit"who"was"once"a"patient"of"Dr."Verstuyft"in"the"Congo.”"""ISSUE:"Whether"or"not"respondent"judge"committed"a"grave"abuse"in"discretion"in"issuing"the"temporary"restraining"order"against"the"execution"or"enforcement"of"the"search"warrant.""HELD:"Such" diplomatic" immunity" carries" with" it," among" other" diplomatic" privileges" and"immunities,"personal"inviolability," inviolability"of"the"official’s"properties,"exemption"from"local"jurisdiction,"and" exemption" from" taxation" and" customs" duties." It" is" a" recognized" principle" of"international" law" and" under" our" system" of" separation" of" powers" that" diplomatic"immunity"is"essentially"a"political"question"and"courts"should"refuse"to"look"beyond"a"determination"by"the"executive"branch"of"the"government,[8]"and"where"the"plea"of"diplomatic" immunity" is" recognized"and"affirmed"by" the"executive"branch"of" the"government"as"""25"in"the"case"at"bar,"it"is"then"the"duty"of"the"courts"to"accept"the"claim"of"immunity"upon" appropriate" suggestion" by" the" principal" law" officer" of" the" government." The"Philippine" Government" is" bound" by" the" procedure" laid" down" in" Article" VII" of" the"Convention" on" the" Privileges" and" Immunities" of" the" Specialized" Agencies" of" the"United" Nations," for" consultations" between" the" Host" State" and" the" United" Nations"agency" concerned" to" determine," in" the" first" instance" the" fact" of" occurrence" of" the"abuse"alleged,"and"if"so,"to"ensure"that"no"repetition"occurs"and"for"other"recourses."This"is"a"treaty"commitment"voluntarily"assumed"by"the"Philippine"Government"and"as"such,"has"the"force"and"effect"of"law."The"Court,"therefore,"holds"that"respondent"

judge"acted"without"jurisdiction"and"with"grave"abuse"of"discretion"in"not"ordering"the" quashal" of" the" search" warrant" issued" by" him" in" disregard" of" the" diplomatic"immunity"of"petitioner"Verstuyft.""ACCORDINGLY," the" writs" of" certiorari" and" prohibition" prayed" for" are" hereby"granted,"and"the"temporary"restraining"order"heretofore"issued"against"execution"or"enforcement"of" the"questioned" search"warrant,"which" is" hereby"declared"null" and"void," is" hereby"made" permanent." The" respondent" court" is" hereby" commanded" to"desist" from" further"proceedings" in" the"matter."No" costs,"none"having"been"prayed"for." The" clerk" of" court" is" hereby"directed" to" furnish" a" copy" of" this" decision" to" the"Secretary"of" Justice" for" such"action"as"he"may" find"appropriate"with" regard" to" the"matters"mentioned"in"paragraph"3"hereof."So"ordered.""ICMC#vs.#Calleja#GR"85750,"Sept."28,"1990""FACTS:""As"an"aftermath"of"the"Vietnam"War,"the"plight"of"Vietnamese"refugees"fleeing"from"South"Vietnam's"communist"rule"confronted"the"international"community.""In" response" to" this" crisis," an" Agreement" was" forged" between" the" Philippine"Government"and" the"United"Nations"High"Commissioner" for"Refugees"whereby"an"operating"center"for"processing"IndoRChinese"refugees"for"eventual"resettlement"to"other"countries"was"to"be"established"in"Bataan.""ICMC" was" one" of" those" accredited" by" the" Philippine" Government" to" operate" the"refugee"processing"center"in"Morong,"Bataan."It"was"incorporated"in"New"York,"USA,"at" the" request" of" the" Holy" See," as" a" nonRprofit" agency" involved" in" international"humanitarian" and" voluntary" work." It" is" duly" registered" with" the" United" Nations"Economic"and"Social"Council"(ECOSOC)"and"enjoys"Consultative"Status,"Category"II."As"an"international"organization"rendering"voluntary"and"humanitarian"services"in"the"Philippines.""Trade" Unions" of" the" Philippines" and" Allied" Services" (TUPAS)" filed" with" the" then"Ministry"of"Labor"and"Employment"a"Petition" for"Certification"Election"among" the"rank"and" file"members" employed"by" ICMC."The" latter"opposed" the"petition"on" the"ground" that" it" is" an" international" organization" registered"with" the"United"Nations"and,"hence,"enjoys"diplomatic"immunity.""Director" Pura" Calleja" of" the" Bureau" of" Labor" Relations" (BLR)," reversed" the" MedRArbiter's"Decision"and"ordered"the"immediate"conduct"of"a"certification"election."At"that" time," ICMC's"request" for"recognition"as"a"specialized"agency"was"still"pending"with"the"Department"of"Foreign"Affairs"(DEFORAF).""

Subsequently," DEFORAF," granted" ICMC" the" status" of" a" specialized" agency" with"corresponding" diplomatic" privileges" and" immunities," as" evidenced" by" a"Memorandum"of"Agreement"between"the"Government"and"ICMC."""ICMC" then" sought" the" immediate" dismissal" of" the"TUPAS"Petition" for" Certification"Election"sustaining"the"affirmative"of"the"proposition"citing:""(1)" its" Memorandum" of" Agreement" with" the" Philippine" Government" giving" it" the"status"of"a"specialized"agency,"(infra);""(2)" the" Convention" on" the" Privileges" and" Immunities" of" Specialized" Agencies,"adopted"by"the"UN"General"Assembly"on"21"November"1947"and"concurred"in"by"the"Philippine" Senate" through" Resolution" No." 91" on" 17" May" 1949" (the" Philippine"Instrument" of" Ratification" was" signed" by" the" President" on" 30" August" 1949" and"deposited"with"the"UN"on"20"March"1950)"infra;"and""(3)"Article"II,"Section"2"of"the"1987"Constitution,"which"declares"that"the"Philippines"adopts" the"generally" accepted"principles"of" international" law"as"part"of" the" law"of"the"land.""""ISSUE:"Whether"or"not"the"grant"of"diplomatic"privileges"and"immunites"to"ICMC"extends"to"immunity"from"the"application"of"Philippine"labor"laws."HELD:""The"foregoing"issue"constitute"a"categorical"recognition"by"the"Executive"Branch"of"the" Government" that" ICMC" enjoys" immunities" accorded" to" international"organizations," which" determination" has" been" held" to" be" a" political" question"conclusive"upon"the"Courts.""It"is"a"recognized"principle"of"international"law"and"under"our"system"of"separation"of" powers" that" diplomatic" immunity" is" essentially" a" political" question" and" courts"should" refuse" to" look" beyond" a" determination" by" the" executive" branch" of" the"government,"and"where"the"plea"of"diplomatic"immunity"is"recognized"and"affirmed"by"the"executive"branch"of"the"government"as"in"the"case"at"bar,"it"is"then"the"duty"of"the" courts" to" accept" the" claim" of" immunity" upon" appropriate" suggestion" by" the"principal"law"officer"of"the"government"."."."or"other"officer"acting"under"his"direction."Hence," in" adherence" to" the" settled"principle" that" courts"may"not" so" exercise" their"jurisdiction"."."."as"to"embarrass"the"executive"arm"of"the"government"in"conducting"foreign"relations,"it"is"accepted"doctrine"that"in"such"cases"the"judicial"department"of"(this)"government"follows"the"action"of"the"political"branch"and"will"not"embarrass"the"latter"by"assuming"an"antagonistic"jurisdiction.""

The"grant"of"immunity"from"local"jurisdiction"to"ICMC"is"clearly"necessitated"by"its"international" character" and" respective" purposes." The" objective" is" to" avoid" the"danger"of"partiality"and"interference"by"the"host"country"in"their"internal"workings."The" exercise" of" jurisdiction" by" the"Department" of" Labor" in" these" instances"would"defeat"the"very"purpose"of" immunity,"which"is"to"shield"the"affairs"of" international"organizations," in"accordance"with" international"practice," from"political"pressure"or"control"by"the"host"country"to" the"prejudice"of"member"States"of" the"organization,"and"to"ensure"the"unhampered"performance"of"their"functions.""ICMC's" immunity" from" local" jurisdiction" by" no" means" deprives" labor" of" its" basic"rights," which" are" guaranteed" by" Article" II," Section" 18," Article" III," Section" 8," and"Article"XIII,"Section"3"(supra),"of"the"1987"Constitution."""For," ICMC"employees"are"not"without" recourse"whenever" there"are"disputes" to"be"settled." Section" 31" of" the" Convention" on" the" Privileges" and" Immunities" of" the"Specialized" Agencies" of" the" United" Nations" 17" provides" that" "each" specialized"agency" shall"make" provision" for" appropriate"modes" of" settlement" of:" (a)" disputes"arising" out" of" contracts" or" other" disputes" of" private" character" to" which" the"specialized"agency"is"a"party.""Moreover,"pursuant"to"Article"IV"of"the"Memorandum"of"Agreement"between"ICMC"the"the"Philippine"Government,"whenever"there"is"any"abuse"of"privilege"by"ICMC,"the"Government"is" free"to"withdraw"the"privileges"and"immunities"accorded.""The"immunity"granted"being""from"every"form"of"legal"process"except"in"so"far"as"in"any"particular"case"they"have"expressly"waived"their" immunity,"" it" is" inaccurate"to"state"that"a"certification"election"is"beyond"the"scope"of"that"immunity"for"the"reason"that" it" is" not" a" suit" against" ICMC." A" certification" election" cannot" be" viewed" as" an"independent" or" isolated" process." It" could" tugger" off" a" series" of" events" in" the"collective" bargaining" process" together" with" related" incidents" and/or" concerted"activities,"which"could"inevitably"involve"ICMC"in"the""legal"process,""which"includes""any"penal,"civil"and"administrative"proceedings.""The"eventuality"of"Court"litigation"is"neither"remote"and"from"which"international"organizations"are"precisely"shielded"to" safeguard" them" from"the"disruption"of" their" functions."Clauses"on" jurisdictional"immunity" are" said" to" be" standard" provisions" in" the" constitutions" of" international"Organizations." "The" immunity"covers" the"organization"concerned," its"property"and"its" assets." It" is" equally" applicable" to" proceedings" in" personam" and" proceedings" in"rem.""""G.R."No."125865."January"28,"200#JEFFREY#LIANG#(HUEFENG)#vs.PEOPLE#OF#THE#PHILIPPINES#"FACTS:"

Petitioner" is" an" economist" working" withthe" Asian" Development" Bank" (ADB)."Sometimein" 1994," for" allegedly" uttering" defamatorywords" against" fellow" ADB"worker" Joyce" Cabal,he"was" charged" before" the"Metropolitan"TrialCourt" (MeTC)" of"Mandaluyong"City"with"twocounts"of"grave"oral"defamation.Petitioner"was"arrested"by" virtue" of" awarrant" issued" by" the"MeTC." After" fixingpetitioner’s" bail," the"MeTC"released"him" to" thecustody"of" the" Security"Officer"of"ADB."Thenext"day," the"MeTC"judge"received"an""office"of"protocol""from"the"DFA"stating"that"petitioneris"covered"by"immunity"from"legal"processunder"Section"45"of"the"Agreement"betweenthe"ADB"and"the"Philippine"Governmentregarding"the"Headquarters"of" the"ADB(hereinafter"Agreement)" in" the" country." Based" on" the" said" protocol" communication"thatpetitioner" is" immune" from" suit," the" MeTC" judgewithout" notice" to" the"prosecution"dismissed"thetwo"criminal"cases.""ISSUE:"WON"petitioner"Liang"is"immune"fromsuit.""HELD:" NO.Slandering" a" person" could" not" possiblybe" covered" by" the" immunity"agreementbecause" our" laws" do" not" allow" the" commissionof" a" crime," such" as"defamation," in" the" name" of" official" duty." It" is" wellRsettled" principle" of" lawthat" a"public"official"may"be"liable"in"hispersonal"private"capacity"for"whatever"damagehe"may"have"caused"by"his"act"done"withmalice"or"in"bad"faith"or"beyond"the"scope"of"his"authority"or"jurisdiction"".SEPARATE"CONCURRING"OPINION"OF"JUSTICEPUNO:"•"The"Charter"of"the"ADB"provides"under"Article55(i)"that"officers"and"employees"of"the"bank"shallbe"immune"from"legal"process"with"respect"to"actsperformed"by"them"in"their"official"capacity"exceptwhen" the" Bank" waives" immunity." Section" 45" (a)" of" the" ADB" Headquarters"Agreement"accords"thesame"immunity"to"the"officers"and"staff"of"thebank."There" can" be" no" dispute" that" internationalofficials" are" entitled" to" immunity" only"withrespect" to" acts" performed" in" their" officialcapacity," unlike" international"organizationswhich"enjoy"absolute"immunity"•"Clearly,"the"most"important"immunity"to"aninternational"official,"in"the"discharge"of"hisinternational"functions,"is"immunity"from"local"jurisdiction."There"is"no"argument"in"doctrine"or"practice"with"the"principle"that"an"internationalofficial"is"independent"of" the" jurisdiction"of" the" localauthorities" for"his"official"acts."Those"acts"are"nothis,"but"are"imputed"to"the"organization,"and"withoutwaiver"the"local"courts"cannot"hold"him"liable"for"them."In"strict" law," it"would"seem"that"even"theorganization" itself"could"have"no"right" to"waivean" official’s" immunity" for" his" official" acts." Thispermits" local" authorities" to"assume"jurisdictionover"and"individual"for"an"act"which"is"not,"inthe"wider"sense"of"the"term,"his"act"at"all."It"isthe"organization"itself,"as"a"juristic"person,which"should"waive"its"own"immunity"andappear"in"court,"not"the"individual,"exceptinsofar"as"he"appears"in"the"name"of"theorganization."

•"Historically," international" officials" were" granteddiplomatic" privileges" and"immunities" and"were" thusconsidered" immune" for" both" private" and" officialacts." In"practice," this" wide" grant" of" diplomaticprerogatives" was" curtailed" because" of"practicalnecessity" and" because" the" proper" functioning" of" theorganization" did" not"require"such"extensiveimmunity"for"its"officials."Thus,"the"current"statusof"the"law"does"not"maintain"that"states"grant"jurisdictional"immunity"to"international"officialsfor"acts"of"their"private"lives."•"Under"the"Vienna"Convention"on"DiplomaticRelations,"a"diplomatic"envoy"is"immune"fromcriminal" jurisdiction" of" the" receiving" State" for" allacts," whether" private" or"official,"and"hence"hecannot"be"arrested,"prosecuted"and"punished"for"any"offense"he"may"commit,"unless"his"diplomaticimmunity"is"waived."["On"the"other"hand,"officialsof" international" organizations" enjoy" “functional”immunities," that" is," only"those" necessary" for" theexercise" of" the" functions" of" the" organizationand" the"fulfillment"of"its"purposes"."This"is"thereason"why"the"ADB"Charter"and"HeadquartersAgreement"explicitly"grant"immunity"from"legalprocess"to"bank"officers"and"employees"only"withrespect" to" acts" performed" by" them" in" their" officialcapacity," except" when" the"Bank"waivesimmunity."In"other"words,"officials"andemployees"of"the"ADB"are"subject"to"the"jurisdiction"of"the" local" courts" for" their" privateacts," notwithstanding" the" absence" of" a" waiver" of"immunity."•"Considering" that" bank" officials" and" employees" arecovered" by" immunity" only" for"their"official"acts,"thenecessary"inference"is"that"the" authority" of" theDepartment" of" Affairs," or" even" of" the" ADB" for" that"matter," to"certify"that"they"are"entitled"toimmunity"is"limited"only"to"acts"done"in"their"official"capacity"."Stated"otherwise," it" is"not"withinthe"power"of"the"DFA,"as"the"agency"in"charge"of"the" executive" department’s" foreign" relations," nor" the" ADB," as" the" international"organization"vestedwith"the"right"to"waive"immunity,"to"invoke"immunityfor"private"acts"of"bank"official"and"employees,since"no"such"prerogative"exists"in"the"first"place."If"the"immunity"does"not"exist,"there"is"nothing"tocertify"""

SPS. RODRIGO LACIERDA, et al. v. DR. ROLANDO PLATON, et al.

468 SCRA 650 (2005), THIRD DIVISION

Petitioners Rodrigo Lacierda, Erlinda Cruz-Lacierda, Jessica and Renan

Saliente, Ruby Salde and Armniel Sim (Lacierda, et al.) were

allemployees/officers of Southeast Asian Fisheries Development

Center(SEAFDEC), an international agency which is immune from suits, it being

clothed with diplomatic immunity. Meanwhile, respondents Rolando Platon,

Agnes Lacuesta, Dan Baliao, Amelita Subosa, Merlita Junion, Teresita Hilado,

Demetrio Estenor, Salvador Rex Tillo, Teresita Natividad, Teresa Mallare,

Jocelyn Coniza and Nelda Ebron (Platon, et al.) are officers and with the

management of SEAFDEC, Aqua Culture Development (AQC), an international

organization composed of governments of Southeast Asia created by virtue of a

treaty of which the Philippines is a signatory.

Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and SEAFDEC entered into a

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) where the former has found theDepartment

of Agriculture (DA) through SEAFDEC to be qualified in providing the necessary

services and in implementing JICA‘s Third Country Training Programme on

Responsible Aquaculture Development (training program). Regarding the

liquidation, such shall be made by submitting a statement of expenditures

containing the itemized breakdown of all expenses incurred, attaching therewith

all copies of supporting documents and evidences and receipts certifying the said

expenditures (original copies will be kept by SEAFDEC). In case there will be an

excess in the amount consigned, the excess amount will be returned to JICA.

Lacierda, et al. were selected by SEAFDEC to take part in the training program.

After such was concluded, Lacierda, et al. submitted to SEAFDEC documents in

support of their liquidation of cash advances and claim for reimbursement of

expenses but an audit of the same showed that “hotel receipts submitted were

much higher that the actual amount that they paid on accommodation.” Thus,

Lacierda, et al. were terminated for cause ―on the ground of misrepresentation

or false statements with intent to gain or take advantage and fraudulent

machination for financial gain.

More than a year later, Lacierda, et al. filed a complaint against Platon, et al.

alleging that they are suing them in their individual and personal capacities for

their commission of malicious, oppressive and inequitable actionable acts. This

was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo for want of jurisdiction

over the subject matter thereof and the person of Platon, et al., it holding that

assailed acts could only be performed by them in their officialfunctions as

administrators of SEAFDEC. Also, Lacierda, et al. prayed to be restored and

returned to their respective work/positions in SEAFDEC; to be given the salaries,

benefits and other privileges; to be awarded actual damages by reason of the

deprivation of the salaries and benefits they should have received; and to be paid

moral damages. Such allegations and reliefs clearly indicate that their cause/s of

action arose out of employer-employee relationship which is under the original

and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and not the RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Lacierda, et

al.‘s complaint

HELD:

A court cannot be divested of jurisdiction by the ingenuous omission by a plaintiff

of any reference to a matter which clearly shows that said court has jurisdiction,

nor can a court be conferred with jurisdiction where it has none by a contrived

wording by a plaintiff‘s allegations in the complaint in order to impress that it is

within said court‘s jurisdiction.

Lacierda, et al.‘s primary prayer — for the Platon, et al. to be ordered “to restore

and return Lacierda, et al. to their respective work/positions in SEAFDEC and to

all the salaries, benefits and other privileges appurtenent thereto without loss of

seniority, diminution of ranks or pay to continue during the pendency of this

case,” betrays their cause of action, however. If Platon, et al. were sued in their

personal capacity as emphatically stressed by Lacierda, et al., for tort and

damages, they would under no circumstance, power or authority be able to carry

out such primary prayer.

"