international catholic immigration commission vs calleja

130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATEDInternational Catholic Migration Commission vs. Calleja

G.R. No. 85750. September 28, 1990.*

INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATIONCOMMISSION, petitioner, vs. HON. PURA CALLEJA INHER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OFLABOR RELATIONS AND TRADE UNIONS OF THEPHILIPPINES AND ALLIED SERVICES (TUPAS) WFTU,respondents.

G.R. NO. 89331. September 28, 1990.*

KAPISANAN NG MANGGAGAWA AT TAC SA IRRIORGANIZED LABOR ASSOCIATION IN LINEINDUSTRIES AND AGRICULTURE, petitioner, vs.SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT ANDINTERNATIONAL RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC.,respondents.

Political Law Public International Law Nature ofSpecialized Agencies Specialized agencies are internationalorganizations."Specialized agencies" are internationalorganizations having functions in particular fields. The termappears in Articles 57 and 63 of the Charter of the UnitedNations: "The Charter, while it invests the United Nations withthe general task of promoting progress and internationalcooperation in economic, social, health, cultural, educational andrelated matters, contemplates that these tasks will be mainlyfulfilled not by organs of the United Nations itself but byautonomous international organizations established by intergovernmental agreements outside the United Nations. There arenow many such international agencies having functions in manydifferent fields, e.g. in posts, telecommunications, railways,canals, rivers, sea transport, civil aviation, meteorology, atomicenergy, finance, trade, education and culture, health and

refugees. Some are virtually worldwide in their membership,some are regional or otherwise limited in their membership. TheCharter provides that those agencies which have 'wideinternational responsibilities' are to be brought into relationshipwith the United Nations by agreements entered into betweenthem and the Economic and Social Council, are then to be knownas 'specialized agencies.'"

Same Same Grant of lmmunity. Immunity to ICMC andIRRI is granted to avoid interference by the host country in theirinternal

________________

* SECOND DIVISION.

131

VOL. 190, SEPTEMBER 28, 1990 131

International Catholic Migration Commission vs. Calleja

workings.The grant of immunity from local jurisdiction to ICMCand IRRI is clearly necessitated by their international characterand respective purposes. The objective is to avoid the danger ofpartiality and interference by the host country in their internalworkings. The exercise of jurisdiction by the Department of Laborin these instances would defeat the very purpose of immunity,which is to shield the affairs of international organizations, inaccordance with international practice, from political pressure orcontrol by the host country to the prejudice of member States ofthe organization, and to ensure the unhampered performance oftheir functions.

Same Same Convention on the Privileges and Immunities ofthe Specialized Agencies of the United Nations. ICMC employeesare not without recourse whenever there are disputes to be settled.Section 31 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunitiesof the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations provides that"each specialized agency shall make provision for appropriatemodes of settlement of: (a) disputes arising out of contracts orother disputes of private character to which the specializedagency is a party." Moreover, pursuant to Article IV of theMemorandum of Agreement between ICMC and the Philippine

Government, whenever there is any abuse of privilege by ICMC,the Government is free to withdraw the privileges and immunitiesaccorded. Thus: "Article IV. Cooperation with GovernmentAuthorities.1. The Commission shall cooperate at all times withthe appropriate authorities of the Government to ensure theobservance of Philippine laws, rules and regulations, facilitate theproper administration of justice and prevent the occurrences ofany abuse of the privileges and immunities granted its officialsand alien employees in Article III of this Agreement to theCommission. "2. In the event that the Government determinesthat there has been an abuse of the privileges and immunitiesgranted under this Agreement, consultations shall be heldbetween the Government and the Commission to determinewhether any such abuse has occurred and, if so, the Governmentshall withdraw the privileges and immunities granted theCommission and its officials."

Same Same IRRI employees have recourse to the Council oflRRI Employees and Management (CIEM) in cases affectingemployeremployee relations.Neither are the employees of IRRIwithout remedy in case of dispute with management as, in fact,there had been organized a forum for better managementemployee relationship as evidenced by the formation of theCouncil of IRRI Employees and Management (CIEM) wherein"both management and employees were and still are representedfor purposes of maintaining mutual and

132

132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


beneficial cooperation between IRRI and its employees." Theexistence of this Union factually and tellingly belies the argumentthat Pres. Decree No. 1620, which grants to IRRI the status,privileges and immunities of an international organization,deprives its employees of the right to selforganization.

PETITIONS to review the decisions of the Bureau of LaborRelations and the Secretary of Labor and Employment.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Araullo, Zambrano, Gruba, Chua Law Firm for

petitioner in 85750. Dominguez, Armamento, Cabana & Associates for

petitioner in G.R. No. 89331.Jimenez & Associates for IRRI.Alfredo L. Bentulan for private respondent in 85750.

MELENCIOHERRERA, J.:

Consolidated on 11 December 1989, these two cases involvethe validity of the claim of immunity by the InternationalCatholic Migration Commission (ICMC) and theInternational Rice Research Institute, Inc. (IRRI) from theapplication of Philippine labor laws.

I

Facts and IssuesA. G.R. No. 85750the International Catholic MigrationCommission (ICMC) Case.

As an aftermath of the Vietnam War, the plight ofVietnamese refugees fleeing from South Vietnam'scommunist rule confronted the international community.

In response to this crisis, on 23 February 1981, anAgreement was forged between the Philippine Governmentand the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugeeswhereby an operating center for processing IndoChineserefugees for eventual resettlement to other countries was tobe established in Bataan (Annex "A," Rollo, pp. 2232).

ICMC was one of those accredited by the PhilippineGovern

133

VOL. 190, SEPTEMBER 28, 1990 133International Catholic Migration Commission vs. Calleja

ment to operate the refugee processing center in Morong,Bataan. It was incorporated in New York, USA, at therequest of the Holy See, as a nonprofit agency involved ininternational humanitarian and voluntary work. It is dulyregistered with the United Nations Economic and SocialCouncil (ECOSOC) and enjoys Consultative Status,Category II. As an international organization renderingvoluntary and humanitarian services in the Philippines, itsactivities are parallel to those of the InternationalCommittee for Migration (ICM) and the International

Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) [DOLE Records of BLRCase No. A26287, ICMC v. Calleja, Vol. I]. On 14 July1986, Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services(TUPAS) filed with the then Ministry of Labor andEmployment a Petition for Certification Election among therank and file members employed by ICMC. The latteropposed the petition on the ground that it is aninternational organization registered with the UnitedNations and, hence, enjoys diplomatic immunity.

On 5 February 1987, MedArbiter Anastacio L. Bactinsustained ICMC and dismissed the petition for lack ofjurisdiction.

On appeal by TUPAS, Director Pura Calleja of theBureau of Labor Relations (BLR), reversed the MedArbiter's Decision and ordered the immediate conduct of acertification election. At that time, ICMC's request forrecognition as a specialized agency was still pending withthe Department of Foreign Affairs (DEFORAF).

Subsequently, however, on 15 July 1988, the PhilippineGovernment, through the DEFORAF, granted ICMC thestatus of a specialized agency with correspondingdiplomatic privileges and immunities, as evidenced by aMemorandum of Agreement between the Government andICMC (Annex "E", Petition, Rollo, pp. 4143), infra.

ICMC then sought the immediate dismissal of theTUPAS Petition for Certification Election invoking theimmunity expressly granted but the same was denied byrespondent BLR Director who, again, ordered theimmediate conduct of a preelection conference. ICMC's twoMotions for Reconsideration were denied despite an opinionrendered by DEFORAF on 17 October 1988 that said BLROrder violated ICMC's diplomatic immunity.

134


Thus, on 24 November 1988, ICMC filed the presentPetition for Certiorari with Preliminary Injunctionassailing the BLR Order.

On 28 November 1988, the Court issued a TemporaryRestraining Order enjoining the holding of the certificationelection.

On 10 January 1989, the DEFORAF, through its Legal

Adviser, retired Justice Jorge C. Coquia of the Court ofAppeals, filed a Motion for Intervention alleging that, asthe highest executive department with the competence andauthority to act on matters involving diplomatic immunityand privileges, and tasked with the conduct of Philippinediplomatic and consular relations with foreigngovernments and UN organizations, it has a legal interestin the outcome of this case.

Over the opposition of the Solicitor General, the Courtallowed DEFORAF intervention.

On 12 July 1989, the Second Division gave due course tothe ICMC Petition and required the submittal ofmemoranda by the parties, which has been complied with.

As initially stated, the issue is whether or not the grantof diplomatic privileges and immunites to ICMC extends toimmunity from the application of Philippine labor laws.

ICMC sustains the affirmative of the proposition citing(1) its Memorandum of Agreement with the PhilippineGovernment giving it the status of a specialized agency,(infra) (2) the Convention on the Privileges andImmunities of Specialized Agencies, adopted by the UNGeneral Assembly on 21 November 1947 and concurred inby the Philippine Senate through Resolution No. 91 on 17May 1949 (the Philippine Instrument of Ratification wassigned by the President on 30 August 1949 and depositedwith the UN on 20 March 1950) infra and (3) Article II,Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which declares that thePhilippines adopts the generally accepted principles ofinternational law as part of the law of the land.

Intervenor DEFORAF upholds ICMC's claim ofdiplomatic immunity and seeks an affirmance of theDEFORAF determination that the BLR Order for acertification election among the ICMC employees isviolative of the diplomatic immunity of said organization.

Respondent BLR Director, on the other hand, withwhom the

135


Solicitor General agrees, cites State policy and Philippinelabor laws to justify its assailed Order, particularly, ArticleII, Section 18 and Article III, Section 8 of the 1987

Constitution, infra and Articles 243 and 246 of the LaborCode, as amended, ibid. In addition, she contends that acertification election is not a litigation but a mereinvestigation of a nonadversary, factfinding character. It isnot a suit against ICMC, its property, funds or assets, butis the sole concern of the workers themselves.

B. G.R. No. 89331(The International Rice ResearchInstitute [IRRI] Case).

Before a Decision could be rendered in the ICMC Case,the Third Division, on 11 December 1989, resolved toconsolidate G.R. No. 89331 pending before it with G.R. No.85750, the lowernumbered case pending with the SecondDivision, upon manifestation by the Solicitor General thatboth cases involve similar issues.

The facts disclose that on 9 December 1959, thePhilippine Government and the Ford and RockefellerFoundations signed a Memorandum of Understandingestablishing the International Rice Research Institute(IRRI) at Los Baos, Laguna. It was intended to be anautonomous, philanthropic, taxfree, nonprofit, nonstockorganization designed to carry out the principal objective ofconducting "basic research on the rice plant, on all phasesof rice production, management, distribution andutilization with a view to attaining nutritive and economicadvantage or benefit for the people of Asia and other majorricegrowing areas through improvement in quality andquantity of rice."

Initially, IRRI was organized and registered with theSecurities and Exchange Commission as a privatecorporation subject to all laws and regulations. However,by virtue of Pres. Decree No. 1620, promulgated on 19 April1979, IRRI was granted the status, prerogatives, privilegesand immunities of an international organization.

The Organized Labor Association in Line Industries andAgriculture (OLALIA), is a legitimate labor organizationwith an existing local union, the Kapisanan ngManggagawa at TAC sa

136


IRRI (Kapisanan, for short) in respondent IRRI.On 20 April 1987, the Kapisanan filed a Petition for

Direct Certification Election with Region IV, RegionalOffice of the Department of Labor and Employment(DOLE).

IRRI opposed the petition invoking Pres. Decree No.1620 conferring upon it the status of an internationalorganization and granting it immunity from all civil,criminal and administrative proceedings under Philippinelaws.

On 7 July 1987, MedArbiter Leonardo M. Garcia,upheld the opposition on the basis of Pres. Decree No. 1620and dismissed the Petition for Direct Certification.

On appeal, the BLR Director, who is the publicrespondent in the ICMC Case, set aside the MedArbiter'sOrder and authorized the calling of a certification electionamong the rankandfile employees of IRRI. Said Directorrelied on Article 243 of the Labor Code, as amended, infra,and Article XIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution,

1 and

held that "the immunities and privileges granted to IRRIdo not include exemption from coverage of our LaborLaws." Reconsideration sought by IRRI was denied.

On appeal, the Secretary of Labor, in a Resolution of 5July 1989, set aside the BLR Director's Order, dismissedthe Petition for Certification Election, and held that thegrant of specialized agency status by the PhilippineGovernment to the IRRI bars DOLE from assuming andexercising jurisdiction over IRRI. Said Resolution reads inpart as follows:

"Presidential Decree No. 1620 which grants to the IRRI thestatus, prerogatives, privileges and immunities of aninternational organization is clear and explicit. It provides incategorical terms that:

_______________

1 Article XIII, Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor,local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote fullemployment opportunities for all. It shall guarantee the rights of allworkers to selforganization, collective bargaining and negotiations andpeaceful concerted activities including the right to strike in accordancewith law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditionsof work and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy anddecisionmaking processes affecting their rights and benefits as may beprovided by law.

137


"Art. 3The Institute shall enjoy immunity from any penal, civiland administrative proceedings, except insofar as immunity hasbeen expressly waived by the DirectorGeneral of the Institutionor his authorized representative.

"Verily, unless and until the Institute expressly waives itsimmunity, no summons, subpoena, orders, decisions orproceedings ordered by any court or administrative or quasijudicial agency are enforceable as against the Institute. In thecase at bar there was no such waiver made by the DirectorGeneral of the Institute. Indeed, the Institute, at the very firstopportunity already vehemently questioned the jurisdiction of thisDepartment by filing an exparte motion to dismiss the case."

Hence, the present Petition for Certiorari filed byKapisanan alleging grave abuse of discretion by respondentSecretary of Labor in upholding IRRI's diplomaticimmunity.

The Third Division, to which the case was originallyassigned, required the respondents to comment on thepetition. In a Manifestation filed on 4 August 1990, theSecretary of Labor declared that it was "not adopting as hisown" the decision of the BLR Director in the ICMC Case aswell as the Comment of the Solicitor General sustainingsaid Director. The last pleading was filed by IRRI on 14August 1990.

Instead of a Comment, the Solicitor General filed aManifestation and Motion praying that he be excused fromfiling a comment "it appearing that in the earlier case oflnternational Catholic Migration Commission v. Hon. PuraCalleja, G.R. No. 85750, the Office of the Solicitor Generalhad sustained the stand of Director Calleja on the verysame issue now before it, which position has beensuperseded by respondent Secretary of Labor in G.R. No.89331," the present case. The Court acceded to the SolicitorGeneral's prayer.

The Court is now asked to rule upon whether or not theSecretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion indismissing the Petition for Certification Election filed byKapisanan.

Kapisanan contends that Article 3 of Pres. Decree No.1620 granting IRRI the status, privileges, prerogatives andimmunities of an international organization, invoked by

the Secretary of Labor, is unconstitutional in so far as itdeprives the Filipino workers of their fundamental andconstitutional right to form trade unions for the purpose ofcollective bargaining as en

138


shrined in the 1987 Constitution.A procedural issue is also raised. Kapisanan faults

respondent Secretary of Labor for entertaining IRRI'sappeal from the Order of the Director of the Bureau ofLabor Relations directing the holding of a certificationelection. Kapisanan contends that pursuant to Sections 7,8, 9 and 10 of Rule V

2 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing

the Labor Code, the Order of the BLR Director had becomefinal and unappeable and that, therefore, the Secretary ofLabor had no more jurisdiction over the said appeal.

On the other hand, in entertaining the appeal, theSecretary of Labor relied on Section 25 of Rep. Act. No.6715, which took effect on 21 March 1989, providing for thedirect filing of appeal from the MedArbiter to the Office ofthe Secretary of Labor and Employment instead of to theDirector of the Bureau of Labor Relations in casesinvolving certification election orders.

III

Findings in Both Cases.There can be no question that diplomatic immunity has, infact, been granted ICMC and IRRI.

________________

2 RULE V. Section 7. AppealAny aggrieved party may appeal theorder of the MedArbiter to the Bureau only on the following grounds: a)grave abuse of discretion and b) gross incompetence. The appeal shallspecifically state the grounds relied upon by the appellant with supportingmemorandum.

Section 8. Where to file appealThe appellant shall file his appealwhich shall be under oath, in the Regional Office where the case

originated, copy furnished the appellee.Section 9. Period to Appeal.The appeal shall be filed within ten (10)

working days from receipt of the Order by the appellant. Likewise, theappellee shall file his answer thereto within ten (10) working days fromreceipt of the appeal. The Regional Director shall immediately forwardthe entire records of the case to the Bureau.

Section 10. Decision of the Bureau is final and unappealable.TheBureau shall have twenty (20) working days within which to decide theappeal from receipt of the records of the case. The decision of the Bureauin all cases shall be final and unappealable.

139


Article II of the Memorandum of Agreement between thePhilippine Government and ICMC provides that ICMCshall have a status "similar to that of a specialized agency."Article III, Sections 4 and 5 of the Convention on thePrivileges and Immunities of Specialized Agencies, adoptedby the UN General Assembly on 21 November 1947 andconcurred in by the Philippine Senate through ResolutionNo. 19 on 17 May 1949, explicitly provides:

"Article III, Section 4. The specialized agencies, their propertyand assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoyimmunity from every form of legal process except insofar as in anyparticular case they have expressly waived their immunity. It is,however, understood that no waiver of immunity shall extend toany measure of execution."

Sec. 5.The premises of the specialized agencies shall beinviolable. The property and assets of the specialized agencies,wherever located and by whomsoever held shall be immune fromsearch, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other formof interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial orlegislative action." (Emphasis ours).

IRRI is similarly situated. Pres. Decree No. 1620, Article 3,is explicit in its grant of immunity, thus:

"Article 3. Immunity from Legal Process.The Institute shallenjoy immunity from any penal, civil and administrativeproceedings, except insofar as that immunity has been expresslywaived by the DirectorGeneral of the Institute or his authorized

representatives.'"

Thus it is that the DEFORAF, through its Legal' Adviser,sustained ICMC's invocation of immunity when in aMemorandum, dated 17 October 1988, it expressed theview that "the Order of the Director of the Bureau of LaborRelations dated 21 September 1988 for the conduct ofCertification Election within ICMC violates the diplomaticimmunity of the organization." Similarly, in respect ofIRRI, the DEFORAF speaking through The ActingSecretary of Foreign Affairs, Jose D. Ingles, in a letter,dated 17 June 1987, to the Secretary of Labor, maintainedthat "IRRI enjoys immunity from the jurisdiction of DOLEin this particular instance."

140


The foregoing opinions constitute a categorical recognitionby the Executive Branch of the Government that ICMC andIRRI enjoy immunities accorded to internationalorganizations, which determination has been held to be apolitical question conclusive upon the Courts in order not toembarrass a political department of Government.

"It is a recognized principle of international law and under oursystem of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity isessentially a political question and courts should refuse to lookbeyond a determination by the executive branch of thegovernment, and where the plea of diplomatic immunity isrecognized and affirmed by the executive branch of thegovernment as in the case at bar, it is then the duty of the courtsto accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion bythe principal law officer of the government. . . or other officeracting under his direction. Hence, in adherence to the settledprinciple that courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction . . . asto embarrass the executive arm of the government in conductingforeign relations, it is accepted doctrine that in such cases thejudicial department of (this) government follows the action of thepolitical branch and will not embarrass the latter by assuming anantagonistic jurisdiction."

3

A brief look into the nature of international organizations

and specialized agencies is in order. The term"international organization" is generally used to describean organization set up by agreement between two or morestates.

4 Under contemporary international law, such

organizations are endowed with some degree ofinternational legal personality

5 such that they are capable

of exercising specific rights, duties and powers.6 They

_______________

3 World Health Organization and Dr. Leonce Verstuyft v. Hon.Benjamin Aquino, et al., L35131, 29 November 1972, 48 SCRA 242.

4 MICHAEL AKEHURST, A MODERN INTRODUCTION TOINTERNATIONAL LAW (1984) at 69.

5 The leading judicial authority on the personality of internationalorganizations is the advisory opinion given by the ICJ in the Reparationfor Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations Case ([1949]I.C.J. Rep 174) where the Court recognized the UN's internationalpersonality.

6 M. AKEHURST, supra, at 70.

141


are organized mainly as a means for conducting generalinternational business in which the member states have aninterest.

7 The United Nations, for instance, is an

international organization dedicated to the propagation ofworld peace. "Specialized agencies" are internationalorganizations having functions in particular fields. Theterm appears in Articles 57

8 and 63

9 of the Charter of the

United Nations: .

'The Charter, while it invests the United Nations with the generaltask of promoting progress and international cooperation ineconomic, social, health, cultural, educational and relatedmatters, contemplates that these tasks will be mainly fulfilled notby organs of the United Nations itself but by autonomousinternational organizations established by intergovernmentalagreements outside the United Nations. There are now manysuch international agencies having functions in many differentfields, e.g. in posts, telecommunications, railways, canals, rivers,sea transport, civil aviation, meteorology, atomic energy, finance,

trade, education and culture, health and refugees. Some arevirtually worldwide in their membership, some are regional orotherwise limited in their membership. The Charter provides thatthose agencies which have 'wide international responsibilities' areto be brought into relationship with the United Nations byagreements entered into between them and the Economic andSocial

______________

7 J.L. BRIERLY, THE LAW OF NATIONS (1963) at 95.8 Article 57.1. The various specializedagencies, established by

intergovernmental agreement and having wide international responsibilities, asdefined in their basic instruments, in economic, social, cultural, educational,health, and related fields, shall be brought into relationship with the UnitedNations in accordance with the provisions of Article 63.

2. Such agencies thus brought into relationship with the United Nations arehereinafter referred to as specialized agencies.

9 Article 63.1. The Economic and Social Council may enter into agreementswith any of the agencies referred to in Article 57, defining the terms on which theagency concerned shall be brought into relationship with the United Nations. Suchagreements shall be subject to approval by the General Assembly.

2. It may coordinate the activities of the specialized agencies throughconsultation with and recommendations to such agencies and throughrecommendations to the General Assembly and to the Members of the UnitedNations.

142


Council, are then to be known as 'specialized agencies.' "10

The rapid growth of international organizations undercontemporary international law has paved the way for thedevelopment of the concept of international immunities.

"It is now usual for the constitutions of internationalorganizations to contain provisions conferring certain immunitieson the organizations themselves, representatives of their memberstates and persons acting on behalf of the organizations. A seriesof conventions, agreements and protocols defining the immunitiesof various international organizations in relation to theirmembers generally are now widely in force x x x"

11

There are basically three propositions underlying the grantof international immunities to international organizations.These principles, contained in the ILO Memorandum arestated thus: 1) international institutions should have astatus which protects them against control or interferenceby any one government in the performance of functions forthe effective discharge of which they are responsible todemocratically constituted international bodies in which allthe nations concerned are represented 2) no countryshould derive any national financial advantage by levyingfiscal charges on common international funds and 3) theinternational organization should, as a collectivity of Statesmembers, be accorded the facilities for the conduct of itsofficial business customarily extended to each other by itsindividual member States.

12 The theory behind all three

propositions is said to be essentially institutional incharacter. "It is not concerned with the status, dignity orprivileges of individuals, but with the elements offunctional independence necessary to free internationalinstitutions from national control and to enable them todischarge their responsibilities impartially on behalf of alltheir members."

13 The raison d'etre

_______________

10 BRIERLY, supra, at 121122.11 C. WILFRED JENKS, INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES (1961) at 2

3.12 lbid., at 17.13 Ibid.

143


for these immunities is the assurance of unimpededperformance of their functions by the agencies concerned.

The grant of immunity from local jurisdiction to ICMCand IRRI is clearly necessitated by their internationalcharacter and respective purposes. The objective is to avoidthe danger of partiality and interference by the hostcountry in their internal workings. The exercise ofjurisdiction by the Department of Labor in these instanceswould defeat the very purpose of immunity, which is to

shield the affairs of international organizations, inaccordance with international practice, from politicalpressure or control by the host country to the prejudice ofmember States of the organization, and to ensure theunhampered performance of their functions.

ICMC's and IRRI's immunity from local jurisdiction byno means deprives labor of its basic rights, which areguaranteed by Article II, Section 18,

14 Article III, Section

8,15 and Article XIII, Section 3 (supra), of the 1987

Constitution and implemented by Articles 243 and 246 ofthe Labor Code,

16 relied on by

________________

14 Article II, Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary socialeconomic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote theirwelfare.

15 Article III, Section 8. The right of the people, including thoseemployed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, orsocieties for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

16 Article 243. Coverage and Employees' Right to SelfOrganization.All persons employed in commercial, industrial and agriculturalenterprises and in religious, charitable, medical or educationalinstitutions whether operating for profit or not, shall have the right toselforganization and to form, join or assist labor organizations of theirown choosing for purposes of collective bargaining. Ambulant,intermittent and itinerant workers, selfemployed people, rural workersand those without any definite employees may form labor organizationsfor their mutual aid and protection.

Article Article 246. Nonabridgement of Right to Selforganization.Itshall be unlawful for any person to restrain, coerce, discriminate againstor unduly interfere with employees and workers in their exercise of theright to selforganization. Such right shall include the right to form, join,or assist labor organizations for the purpose of collective bargainingthrough representatives of their own choosing

144


the BLR Director and by Kapisanan.For, ICMC employees are not without recourse

whenever there are disputes to be settled. Section 31 of theConvention on the Privileges and Immunities of the

Specialized Agencies of the United Nations17 provides that

"each specialized agency shall make provision forappropriate modes of settlement of: (a) disputes arising outof contracts or other disputes of private character to whichthe specialized agency is a party." Moreover, pursuant toArticle IV of the Memorandum of Agreement betweenICMC and the Philippine Government, whenever there isany abuse of privilege by ICMC, the Government is free towithdraw the privileges and immunities accorded. Thus:

"Article IV. Cooperation with Government Authorities.1. TheCommission shall cooperate at all times with the appropriateauthorities of the Government to ensure the observance ofPhilippine laws, rules and regulations, facilitate the properadministration of justice and prevent the occurrences of anyabuse of the privileges and immunities granted its officials andalien employees in Article III of this Agreement to theCommission.

"2. In the event that the Government determines that therehas been an abuse of the privileges and immunities granted underthis Agreement, consultations shall be held between theGovernment and the Commission to determine whether any suchabuse has occurred and, if so, the Government shall withdraw theprivileges and immunities granted the Commission and itsofficials."

Neither are the employees of IRRI without remedy in caseof dispute with management as, in fact, there had beenorganized a forum for better managementemployeerelationship as evidenced by the formation of the Council ofIRRI Employees and

________________

and to engage in lawful concerted activities for the same purpose or fortheir mutual aid and protection, subject to the provisions of Article 264 ofthis Code.

17 This Convention, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly onNovember 21, 1947, was concurred in by the Philippine Senate underSenate Resolution No. 21, dated 17 May 1949. The Philippine Instrumentof Ratification was signed by the Philippine President on 21 February1959. (Vol. 1, Phil. Treaty Series, p. 621).

145

VOL. 190, SEPTEMBER 28, 1990 145


Management (CIEM) wherein "both management andemployees were and still are represented for purposes ofmaintaining mutual and beneficial cooperation betweenIRRI and its employees." The existence of this Unionfactually and tellingly belies the argument that Pres.Decree No. 1620, which grants to IRRI the status,privileges and immunities of an international organization,deprives its employees of the right to selforganization.

The immunity granted being "from every form of legalprocess except in so far as in any particular case they haveexpressly waived their immunity," it is inaccurate to statethat a certification election is beyond the scope of thatimmunity for the reason that it is not a suit against ICMC.A certification election cannot be viewed as an independentor isolated process. It could trigger off a series of events inthe collective bargaining process together with relatedincidents and/or concerted activities, which could inevitablyinvolve ICMC in the "legal process," which includes "anypenal, civil and administrative proceedings." Theeventuality of Court litigation is neither remote and fromwhich international organizations are precisely shielded tosafeguard them from the disruption of their functions.Clauses on jurisdictional immunity are said to be standardprovisions in the constitutions of internationalorganizations. "The immunity covers the organizationconcerned, its property and its assets. It is equallyapplicable to proceedings in personam and proceedings inrem."

18

We take note of a Manifestation, dated 28 September1989, in the ICMC Case (p. 161, Rollo), wherein TUPAScalls attention to the case entitled "International CatholicMigration Commission v. NLRC, et als., (G.R. No. 72222,30 January 1989, 169 SCRA 606), and claims that, havingtaken cognizance of that dispute (on the issue of paymentof salary for the unexpired portion of a sixmonthprobationary employment), the Court is now estopped frompassing upon the question of DOLE jurisdiction over ICMC.

We find no merit to said submission. Not only did thefacts of said controversy occur between 19831985, orbefore the grant

_____________

18 JENKS, supra at 38.

146


to ICMC on 15 July 1988 of the status of a specializedagency with corresponding immunities, but also becauseICMC in that case did not invoke its immunity and,therefore, may be deemed to have waived it, assuming thatduring that period (19831985) it was tacitly recognized asenjoying such immunity.

Anent the procedural issue raised in the IRRI Case,suffice it to state that the Decision of the BLR Director,dated 15 February 1989 had not become final because of aMotion for Reconsideration filed by IRRI. Said Motion wasacted upon only on 30 March 1989 when Rep. Act No. 6715,which provides for direct appeals from the Orders of theMedArbiter to the Secretary of Labor in certificationelection cases either from the order or the results of theelection itself, was already in effect, specifically since 21March 1989. Hence, no grave abuse of discretion may beimputed to respondent Secretary of Labor in hisassumption of appellate jurisdiction, contrary toKapisanan's allegations. The pertinent portion of that lawprovides:

"Article 259.Any party to an election may appeal the order orresults of the election as determined by the MedArbiter directlyto the Secretary of Labor and Employment on the ground that therules and regulations or parts thereof established by theSecretary of Labor and Employment for the conduct of theelection have been violated. Such appeal shall be decided within15 calendar days" (Emphasis ours).

En passant, the Court is gratified to note that theheretofore antagonistic positions assumed by twodepartments of the executive branch of government havebeen rectified and the resultant embarrassment to thePhilippine Government in the eyes of the internationalcommunity now, hopefully, effaced.

WHEREFORE, in G.R. No. 85750 (the ICMC Case), thePetition is GRANTED, the Order of the Bureau of LaborRelations for certification election is SET ASIDE, and the

Temporary Restraining Order earlier issued is madePERMANENT.

In G.R. No. 89331 (the IRRI Case), the Petition isDismissed, no grave abuse of discretion having beencommitted by the Secretary of Labor and Employment indismissing the Petition for Certification Election.

No pronouncement as to costs.

147

VOL. 190, SEPTEMBER 28, 1990 147Anscor Transport & Terminals, Inc. vs. NLRC

SO ORDERED.

Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ., concur.Paras, J., On leave.

In G.R. No. 85750, petition granted petition in G.R. No.89331, dismissed.

Note.The doctrine of state immunity is applicable notonly to our government but also to foreign states sought tobe subjected to the jurisdiction of our courts. (Sanders vs.Veridiano II, 162 SCRA 88.)

o0o

Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

international catholic immigration commission vs calleja

Documents