1

ERNESTO CALLADO vs. INTERNATIONAL RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE (IRRI)G.R. No. 106483, May 22 1995, 244 SCRA 210

FACTS:Petitioner Ernesto Callado was employed as a driver at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). On February 11, 1990, while driving an IRRI vehicle on an official trip to the Ninoy Aquino International Airport and back to the IRRI, petitioner figured in an accident. After evaluating petitioner's answer, explanations and other evidence by IRRI's Human Resource Development Department Manager, the latter issued a Notice of Termination to petitioner on December 7, 1990.

Petitioner then filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension and indemnity pay with moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. Private respondent likewise informed the Labor Arbiter, through counsel, that the Institute enjoys immunity from legal process by virtue of Article 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1620, and that it invokes such

diplomatic immunity and privileges as an international organization in the instant case filed by petitioner, not having waived the same.

However, the Labor Arbiter finds private respondent IRRI to have waived its immunity considered the defense of immunity no longer a legal obstacle in resolving the case.

ISSUE:Whether or not IRRI waived its immunity from suit in this dispute which arose from an employer-employee relationship.

HELD:The Court ruled in the negative and vote to dismiss the petition. There’s no merit in petitioner's arguments, thus IRRI's immunity from suit is undisputed. Presidential Decree No. 1620, Article 3 provides: Immunity from Legal Process. The Institute shall enjoy immunity from any penal, civil and administrative proceedings, except insofar as that immunity has been expressly waived by the

2

Director-General of the Institute or his authorized representatives.The grant of immunity to IRRI is clear and unequivocal and an express waiver by its Director-General is the only way by which it may relinquish or abandon this immunity.

On the matter of waiving its immunity from suit, IRRI had, early on, made its position clear. Through counsel, the Institute wrote the Labor Arbiter categorically informing him that the Institute will not waive its diplomatic immunity.

ICMC VS CALLEJAG. R. No. 85750 Sept. 28, 1990.

INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC IMMIGRATION COMMISSION, petitioner vs. HON. PURA CALLEJA IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS AND TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED SERVICES (TUPAS) WFTU respondents.

FACTS:

ICMC an accredited refugee processing center in Morong Bataan, is a non-profit 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 II. It has the activities parallel to those of the International Committee for Migrtion (ICM) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

On July 14, 1986, Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) filed with the then

3

Ministry of Labor and Employment a Petition for Certification Election among the rank and file members employed by the ICMC. The latter opposed the petition on the ground that it enjoys diplomatic immunity.

On Februaury 5, 1987 Med – Arbiter Anastacio L. Bactin sustained ICMC and dismissed the petition of TUPAS for lack of jurisdiction.

On appeal, The Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations reversed the Med – Arbiter’s Decisionand ordered the immediate conduct of a certification election.This present Petition for Certiorari with Preliminary Injunction assailing the BLR Order.

ISSUE:Whether or not the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities to ICMC extends to immunity from the application of Philippine labor laws.

HELD:

The Petition is GRANTED, the order of the Bureau of Labor Relations for Certification election is SET ASIDE, and the Temporary Restraining Order earlier issued is made PERMANENT.

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

4

judicial department of (this) government follows the action of the political branch and will not embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction.

BASIS:

Article II of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Philippine Government and ICMC provides that ICMC shall have a status “similar to that of a specialized agency.”Article III, Section 4. The specialized agencies, their property and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process except in so far as in any particular case they have expressly waived their immunity. It is, however, understood that no waiver of immunity shall extend to any measure of execution.