Southeast Asia Fisheries Development Center – Aquaculture Department vs NLRC,

206 SCRA 283, February 4, 1992

FACTS:
SEAFDEC-AQD is a department of an international organization, organized through an
agreement in 1967 by the governments of Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam,
Indonesia and the Philippines with Japan as the sponsoring country.Juvenal Lazaga was
employed as a Research Associate on a probationary basis by SEAFDEC-AQD. Lacanilao
in his capacity as Chief of SEAFDEC-AQD sent a notice of termination
to Lazaga informing him that due to the financial constraints being experienced by the
department, his services shall be terminated. SEAFDEC-AQD's failure to pay Lazaga his
separation pay forced him to file a case with the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter and NLRC
ruled in favor of Lazaga. Thus SEAFDEC-AQD appealed, claiming that the NLRC has no
jurisdiction over the case since it is immune from suit owing to its international
character and the complaint is in effect a suit against the State which cannot be
maintained without its consent.

Issue:
Whether the NLRC have jurisdiction over SEAFDEC-AQD?

Held:
No. SEAFDEC-AQD is an international agency beyond the jurisdiction of NLRC. Being an
intergovernmental organization, SEAFDEC including its Departments (AQD), enjoys
functional independence and freedom from control of the state in whose territory its
office is located.

One of the basic immunities of an international organization is immunity from local

jurisdiction; 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 the policies and decisions of the organization.

2. DFA vs NLRC, GR No. 113191, September 18, 1996

Facts:
NLRC initiated a case against ADB for an alleged illegal dismissal by the latter and its
violation of the “labor-only” contracting law. Two summons were served, one sent
directly to the ADB and the other through the DFA, both with a copy of the complaint.
Forthwith, the ADB and the DFA notified the Labor Arbiter that the ADB, as well as its
President and Officers, were covered by an immunity from legal process except for
borrowings, guarantees or the sale of securities pursuant to Article 50(1) and Article 55
of the agreement establishing the ADB charter in relation to Section 5 and Section 44 of
the agreement between the ADB and the Philippine government regarding the Bank’s
headquarters. The Labor Arbiter took cognizance of the complaint on the impression
that the ADB had waived its diplomatic immunity from suit and rendered his decision
declaring complainant as a regular employee of the ADB and his termination was illegal.
The ADB did not appeal. The DFA referred the matter to the NLRC seeking a formal
vacation of the judgment. Unsatisfied by the NLRC’s response, the DFA lodged the
instant petition for certiorari.
Issue:
Whether the ADB enjoys a diplomatic immunity from suit
Held:
Yes. The Petition is granted and the decision of the Labor Arbiter is declared null and
void. Being an International organization that has been extended a diplomatic status,
the ADB is independent of the municipal law. The provisions stipulated by both the ADB
charter and Headquarters Agreement should be able to establish that except in
specified cases of borrowing and guarantee operations, as well as the purchase, sale
and underwriting of securities, the ADB enjoys immunity from legal processes of every
form. The Bank’s officers and its President enjoy immunity in respect to all acts
performed by them in the official capacity. The Charter and the Headquarters
agreement granting theses immunities are treaty covenants voluntarily assumed by the
Philippine government which must be respected.