JOSE G. EBRO III, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS O!!ISSION, INTERNATIONAL AT"OLI !IGRATION O!!ISSION, JON #ARRA", ALE$ #%&RE%ES, ARRIE 'ILSON, ()* !ARI+I SOLI+EN, respondents. # E I S I O N !EN#O,A, J.- This is a petition for certiorari to set aside the order dated October 13, 1992 and the resolution dated arch 3, 1993 of the National !abor "elations Co##ission $N!"C%& '1( The antecedent facts are as follo)s* +ri,ate respondent International Catholic i-ration Co##ission $ICC% is a non.pro/t a-enc0 en-a-ed in international hu#anitarian and ,oluntar0 )or1& It is dul0 re-istered )ith the 2nited Nations Econo#ic and Social Council $ECOSOC% and en3o0s Consultati,e Status, Cate-or0 II& It )as one of the a-encies accredited b0 the +hilippine -o,ern#ent to operate the refu-ee processin- center at Saban-, oron-, 4ataan& On 5une 26, 1978, pri,ate respondent ICC e#plo0ed petitioner 5ose 9& Ebro III to teach :En-lish as a Second !an-ua-e and Cultural Orientation Trainin- +ro-ra#; at the refu-ee processin- center& The e#plo0#ent contract pro,ided in pertinent part* Salar0* <our #onthl0 salar0 for the /rst = #onths probationar0 period is +3,188&>> inclusi,e of cost of li,in- allo)ance& 2pon bein- #ade re-ular after successful co#pletion of the si? $=% #onths probationar0 period 0our #onthl0 salar0 )ill be ad3usted to +3,668&>> inclusi,e of cost of li,in- allo)ance& & & & & Ter#ination of E#plo0#ent* E#plo0#ent #a0 be ter#inated b0 ICC in an0 of the follo)in- situations* a& @ cessation or reduction in pro-ra# operation, b0 Depart#ent of State order, b& 2nsuccessful co#pletion of probationar0 period, at an0 ti#e durin- that period, c& Aor due cause, in cases of ,iolation of pro,isions detailed in ICC +ersonnel +olicies and ad#inistrati,e re-ulations, d& Aor 3ust and authoriBed causes e?pressl0 pro,ided for or authoriBed b0 la), e& Aor reasons of inadeCuate or de/cient professional perfor#ance based on rele,ant -uidelines and procedures relatin- to the position, f& In cases )here, as a #e#ber of the +"+C co##unit0, ICC is directed to ta1e action& If either part0 )ishes to ter#inate e#plo0#ent, a notice of t)o $2% )ee1s should be -i,en in )ritin- to the other part0& @fter si? #onths, ICC noti/ed petitioner that eDecti,e Dece#ber 21, 1978, the latterEs ser,ices )ere ter#inated for his failure to #eet the reCuire#ents of :1& classroo# perfor#ance & & & up to the standards set in the 9uide for InstructionF 2& re-ular attendance in the #andated teacher trainin-, and in the scheduled tea# #eetin-s, one.on.one conferences )ith the super,isor, etc&F 3& co#pliance )ith ICC and +"+C policies and procedures&; On Aebruar0 6, 197=, petitioner /led a co#plaint for ille-al dis#issal, unfair labor practice, underpa0#ent of )a-es, accrued lea,e pa0, 16th #onth pa0, da#a-es, attorne0Es fees, and e?penses of liti-ation& The co#plaint )as /led a-ainst pri,ate respondents ICC and its +ro3ect Director 5on Darrah, +ersonnel OGcer @le? D0."e0es, +ro-ra# OGcer of the Cultural Orientation +ro-ra# Carrie Hilson, and Super,isor of the Cultural Orientation +ro-ra# ari,ic Soli,en& +etitioner alle-ed that there )as no ob3ecti,e e,aluation of his perfor#ance to )arrant his dis#issal and that he should ha,e been considered a re-ular e#plo0ee fro# the start because ICC failed to acCuaint hi# )ith the standards under )hich he #ust Cualif0 as such& Ie pra0ed for reinstate#ent )ith bac1)a-esF +3,188&>> for probationar0 and +3,668&>> for re-ular salar0 ad3ust#entsF ,alue of lod-in- or dor#itor0 pri,ile-esF cost of insurance co,era-e for -roup life, #edical, death, dis#e#ber#ent and disabilit0 bene/tsF #oral, and e?e#plar0, and no#inal da#a-es plus interest on the abo,e clai#s )ith attorne0Es fees& @ns)erin- the co#plaint, ICC clai#ed that petitioner failed to Cualif0 for re-ular e#plo0#ent because he sho)ed no interest in i#pro,in- his professional perfor#ance both in and out of the classroo# after he had been periodicall0 e,aluated $obser,ation su##ar0 fro# @u-ust 2> to October 2, 1978 and e,aluation su##ar0 of Dece#ber 16, 1978%F that petitioner )as paid his salar0 up to Dece#ber 31, 1978, t)o )ee1s pa0 in lieu of notice, and 16th #onth pa0 pro.rataF and that his accrued lea,e balance had alread0 been con,erted to cash& @fter the parties had for#all0 oDered their e,idence, pri,ate respondents sub#itted their #e#orandu# on 5ul0 31, 1979 in )hich, a#on- other thin-s, the0 in,o1ed ICCEs diplo#atic i##unit0 on the basis of the e#orandu# of @-ree#ent si-ned on 5ul0 18, 1977 bet)een the +hilippine -o,ern#ent and ICC& The !abor @rbiter held that petitionerEs le-al i##unit0 under the e#orandu# could not be -i,en retroacti,e eDect since :'that )ould( depri,e co#plainantEs propert0 ri-ht )ithout due process and i#pair the obli-ation of contract of e#plo0#ent&; In addition, he e?pressed doubt about petitionerEs le-al i##unit0 on the -round that it )as pro,ided for b0 a-ree#ent and not throu-h an act of Con-ress& @ccordin-l0, the !abor @rbiter ordered ICC to reinstate petitioner as re-ular teacher )ithout loss of seniorit0 ri-hts and to pa0 hi# one 0ear bac1)a-es, other bene/ts, and ten percent attorne0Es fees for a total su# of +J>,966&78& 4oth parties appealed to the N!"C& On @u-ust 13, 199>, petitioner #o,ed to dis#iss pri,ate respondentEs appeal because of the latterEs failure to post a cashKsuret0 bond& In its order of October 13, 1992, ho)e,er, the N!"C ordered the case dis#issed on the -round that, under the e#orandu# of @-ree#ent bet)een the +hilippine -o,ern#ent and ICC, the latter )as i##une fro# suit& +etitioner #o,ed for reconsideration, ar-uin- a#on- other thin-s, that the e#orandu# of @-ree#ent could not be -i,en retroacti,e eDect and that in an0 case ICC had )ai,ed its i##unit0 b0 consentin- to be sued& Io)e,er, petitionerEs #otion )as denied b0 the N!"C in its resolution dated arch 6, 1993& '2( Ience this petition presentin- the follo)in- issues* a% Hhether pri,ate respondents ha,e perfected their appeal and )hether public respondent #a0, on appeal, entertain or re,ie) pri,ate respondentsE clai# of i##unit0F b% Hhether a #ere e#orandu# of @-ree#ent entered into b0 the Secretar0 of Aorei-n @Dairs )ith respondent International Catholic i-ration Co##ission, )hich is not a la), can di,est the !abor @rbiter and the National !abor "elations Co##ission of their 3urisdiction o,er the sub3ect #atter and o,er the persons of respondents in the pendin- caseF c% Hhether the e#orandu# of @-ree#ent #a0 be -i,en retroacti,e eDectF d% Hhether the dis#issal of the case based on the clai# of i##unit0 )ill depri,e petitioner of his propert0 )ithout due process of la)F e% Hhether the dis#issal of the case based on the clai# of i##unit0 )ill result in the i#pair#ent of the obli-ations assu#ed b0 respondent International Catholic i-ration Co##ission under its contract of e#plo0#ent )ith petitionerF f% @ssu#in- for the sa1e of ar-u#ent that the e#orandu# of @-ree#ent has ,alidl0 conferred i##unit0 on pri,ate respondents, )hether the0 #a0 be considered as ha,in- )ai,ed such i##unit0F -% 2pon the sa#e consideration, )hether pri,ate respondents #a0 be considered estopped fro# clai#in- i##unit0& The basic issue in this case is )hether the e#orandu# of @-ree#ent e?ecuted on5ul0 18, 1977 -a,e ICC i##unit0 fro# suit& The Court holds it did& ConseCuentl0, both the !abor @rbiter and the N!"C had no 3urisdiction o,er the case& First& +etitionerEs contention that the e#orandu# of @-ree#ent is not an act of Con-ress )hich is needed to :repeal or supersede; the pro,ision of the !abor Code on the 3urisdiction of the N!"C and of the !abor @rbiter is untenable& The -rant of i##unit0 to ICC is in ,irtue of the Con,ention on the +ri,ile-es and I##unities of SpecialiBed @-encies of the 2nited Nations, adopted b0 the 2N 9eneral @sse#bl0 on No,e#ber 21, 196J, and concurred in b0 the +hilippine Senate on a0 1J, 1969& This Con,ention has the force and eDect of la), considerin- that under the Constitution, the +hilippines adopts the -enerall0 accepted principles of international la) as part of the la) of the land& '3( The e#orandu# of @-ree#ent in Cuestion #erel0 carries out the +hilippine -o,ern#entEs obli-ation under the Con,ention& In International Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja, '6( this Court e?plained the -rant of i##unit0 to ICC in this )ise* The -rant of i##unit0 fro# local 3urisdiction to ICC & & & is clearl0 necessitated b0 their international character and respecti,e purposes& The ob3ecti,e is to a,oid the dan-er of partialit0 and interference b0 the host countr0 in their internal )or1in-s& The e?ercise of 3urisdiction b0 the Depart#ent of !abor in these instances )ould defeat the ,er0 purpose of i##unit0, )hich is to shield the aDairs of international or-aniBations, in accordance )ith international practice, fro# political pressure or control b0 the host countr0 to the pre3udice of #e#ber States of the or-aniBation, and to ensure the unha#pered perfor#ance of their functions& Second& +etitioner ar-ues that in an0 case ICCEs i##unit0 can not appl0 because this case )as /led belo) before the si-nin- of the e#orandu# on 5ul0 18, 1977& +etitioner cites in support the state#ent of this Court in the aforesaid case of International Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja, '8( distin-uishin- that case fro# an earlier case '=( also in,ol,in- ICC, )herein the N!"C, as )ell as the Court, too1 co-niBance of a co#plaint a-ainst ICC for pa0#ent of salar0 for the une?pired portion of a si?.#onth probationar0 e#plo0#ent& The Court held* 'J( 'N(ot onl0 did the facts of said contro,ers0 'ICC v. N!"C, 1=9 SC"@ =>= $1979%( occur bet)een 1973.1978, or before the -rant to ICC on 18 5ul0 1977 of the status of a specialiBed a-enc0 )ith correspondin- i##unities, but also because ICC in that case did not in,o1e its i##unit0 and, therefore, #a0 be dee#ed to ha,e )ai,ed it, assu#in- that durin- that period $1973.1978% it )as tacitl0 reco-niBed as en3o0in- such i##unit0& Iere, accordin- to petitioner, his e#plo0#ent and subseCuent dis#issal b0 ICC too1 place in 1978, prior to the e?ecution of the e#orandu# of @-ree#ent on 5ul0 18, 1977 and, therefore, li1e in the 1979 ICC case, the e#orandu# should not be #ade to appl0 to hi#& This Court did not reall0 re3ect ICCEs in,ocation of i##unit0 for causes of action accruin- prior to the e?ecution of the e#orandu#& It left open the possibilit0 that ICC #a0 ha,e been tacitl0 en3o0in- diplo#atic i##unit0 beforehand& It is i#portant to note that in the 1979 case ICC did not in,o1e its i##unit0 not)ithstandin- the fact that the e#orandu# too1 eDect )hile the case )as pendin- before the Court& '7( oreo,er, in the 199> ICC case, ICCEs i##unit0 )as in fact upheld despite the fact that at the ti#e the case arose, the e#orandu# reco-niBin- ICCEs status as a specialiBed a-enc0 had not 0et been si-ned& In that case, the petition for certi/cation election a#on- its ran1 and /le e#plo0ees )as /led on 5ul0 16, 197= and the order directin- a certi/cation election )as #ade )hen ICCEs reCuest for reco-nition as a specialiBed a-enc0 )as still pendin- in the Depart#ent of Aorei-n @Dairs& <et this Court held that the subseCuent e?ecution of the e#orandu# )as a bar to the -rantin- of the petition for certi/cation election& The scope of i##unit0 of the ICC contained in the Con,ention on the +ri,ile-es and I##unities of the SpecialiBed @-encies of the 2nited Nations is instructi,e& @rt& III, L 6 of the Con,ention pro,ides for i##unit0 fro# :e,er0 for# of le-al process&; Thus, e,en if pri,ate respondents had been ser,ed su##ons and subpoenas prior to the e?ecution of the e#orandu#, the0, as oGcers of ICC, can clai# i##unit0 under the sa#e in order to pre,ent enforce#ent of an ad,erse 3ud-#ent, since a )rit of e?ecution is :a le-al process; )ithin the #eanin- of @rticle III, L 6& '9( Third& @nother Cuestion is )hether ICC can in,o1e its i##unit0 because it onl0 did so in its #e#orandu# before the !abor @rbiter& It is contended that ICC )ai,ed its i##unit0 in an0 e,ent& @rt& III, L 6 of the Con,ention on the +ri,ile-es and I##unities of the SpecialiBed @-encies of the 2nited Nations reCuires, ho)e,er, that the )ai,er of the pri,ile-e #ust be e?press& There )as no such )ai,er of i##unit0 in this case& Nor can ICC be estopped fro# clai#in- diplo#atic i##unit0 since estoppel does not operate to confer 3urisdiction to a tribunal that has none o,er a cause of action& '1>( Fourth& Ainall0, neither can it be said that reco-nition of ICCEs i##unit0 fro# suit depri,es petitioner of due process& @s pointed out in International Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja, '11( petitioner is not e?actl0 )ithout re#ed0 for )hate,er ,iolation of ri-hts it #a0 ha,e suDered for the follo)in- reason* Section 31 of the Con,ention on the +ri,ile-es and I##unities of the SpecialiBed @-encies of the 2nited Nations pro,ides that :each specialiBed a-enc0 shall #a1e pro,ision for appropriate #odes of settle#ent of* $a% disputes arisin- out of contracts or other disputes of pri,ate character to )hich the specialiBed a-enc0 is a part0&; oreo,er, pursuant to @rticle IV of the e#orandu# of @-ree#ent bet)een ICC and the +hilippine 9o,ern#ent, )hene,er there is an0 abuse of pri,ile-e b0 ICC, the 9o,ern#ent is free to )ithdra) the pri,ile-es and i##unities accorded& Thus* @rticle IV& Cooperation with Government Authorities& M 1& The Co##ission shall cooperate at all ti#es )ith the appropriate authorities of the 9o,ern#ent to ensure the obser,ance of +hilippine la)s, rules and re-ulations, facilitate the proper ad#inistration of 3ustice and pre,ent the occurrences of an0 abuse of the pri,ile-es and i##unities -ranted its oGcials and alien e#plo0ees in @rticle III of this @-ree#ent to the Co##ission& 2& In the e,ent that the 9o,ern#ent deter#ines that there has been an abuse of the pri,ile-es and i##unities -ranted under this @-ree#ent, consultations shall be held bet)een the 9o,ern#ent and the Co##ission to deter#ine )hether an0 such abuse has occurred and, if so, the 9o,ern#ent shall )ithdra) the pri,ile-es and i##unities -ranted the Co##ission and its oGcials& '"ERE.ORE, the petition is DISISSED for lac1 of #erit& SO OR#ERE#. Regalado (Chairman! Romero! "uno and Torres! #r.! ##.! concur&