22

International Catholic Immigration Commission v. Hon. Pura Calleja

Gr. No. 85750 September 28, 1990

FACTS:
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 non-profit organization involved in humanitarian and voluntary works.

International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) on the other hand was intended to be an
autonomous, philanthropic, tax-free, non-profit, non-stock organization designed to carry put
the principal objective of conducting “basic research on rice plant on all phases of rice
production, management, distribution and utilization with a view of attaining nutritive and
economic advantage or benefit for people of ASIA and other major rice-growing areas through
improvement in quality and quantity of rice.”

The labor organization in each of the above-mentioned agencies filed a petition for
certification election which was opposed by both, invoking diplomatic immunity.

ISSUE:
Are the claim of immunity by the ICMC and IRRI from the application of Philippine
labor laws valid?

RULING:
YES. There are basically three propositions underlying the grant of international
immunities to international organizations. These principles, contained in the ILO
Memorandum are stated thus:

1) International institutions should have a status which protects them against control or
interference by any one government in the performance of functions for the effective
discharge of which they are responsible to democratically constituted international
bodies in which all the nations concerned are represented;

2) No country should derive any national financial advantage by levying fiscal charges on
common international funds; and

3) The international organization should, as a collectivity of States members, be

accorded the facilities for the conduct of its official business customarily extended to
each other by its individual member States.

The theory behind all three propositions is said to be essentially institutional in

character. “It is not concerned with the status, dignity or privileges of individuals, but with
the elements of functional independence necessary to free international institutions from
national control and to enable them to discharge their responsibilities impartially on behalf
of all their members. The raison d’etre for these immunities is the assurance of unimpeded
performance of their functions by the agencies concerned.”
23
Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center v. National Labor Relations Commission
G.R. No. 86773 February 14, 1992

FACTS:
SEAFDEC-AQD is a department of an international organization, the Southeast Asian
Fisheries Development Center, 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.

ISSUES:

1. Does the NLRC have jurisdiction over SEAFDEC-AQD?

2. Is SEAFDEC-AQD estopped for its failure to raise the issue of jurisdiction at the first
instance?

HELD:
1. No. SEAFDEC-AQD is an international agency beyond the jurisdiction of public
respondent 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.

Permanent international commissions and administrative bodies have been created

by the agreement of a considerable number of States for a variety of international
purposes, economic or social and mainly non-political. In so far as they are
autonomous and beyond the control of any one State, they have a distinct juridical
personality independent of the municipal law of the State where they are situated.
As such, according to one leading authority "they must be deemed to possess a
species of international personality of their own."

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 there
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 member-states.

2. No. Respondent Lazaga's invocation of estoppel with respect to the issue of

jurisdiction is unavailing because estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction to a
tribunal that has none over a cause of action. Jurisdiction is conferred by law. Where
there is none, no agreement of the parties can provide one. Settled is the rule that
the decision of a tribunal not vested with appropriate jurisdiction is null and void.
24
T&SGT Aldora Larkins v. National Labor Relations Commission
G.R.No. 92432 February 23, 1995

FACTS:
Petitioner was a member of United States Air Force assigned to oversee dormitories of
Third Aircraft Generation Squadron (3 ASG) at Clark Air Base Pampanga. 3 ASG terminated
the contract for maintenance of dormitories with De Guzman Custodial Services. It was left to
new contractor JAC Maintenance Service owned by Joselito Cunanan and decide whether it
would retain services. Cunanan decided to bring his own workers.

Complainant filed against Larkins and Lt. Col. Frankhauser for illegal dismissal and
underpayment of wages and added claims for emergency, cost of living allowance, etc.

Petitioner failed to answer the compliant and appear to hearings, thus, the Labor Arbiter
rendered a decision granting all claims of private respondent and found both the petitioner
and Lt. Col. Frankhauser “guilty of illegal dismissal”. Petitioner appealed, but NLRC affirmed
the decision of the Labor Arbiter. It declared, however, that the real party respondent is the
United States Government through its Armed Forces stationed at Clark Air Base and execution
be made subject to existing international agreement and diplomatic protocol

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the case on
the basis of lack of proper jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner and violation of The
Republic of the Philippines-United States of America Base Agreement and/or the submission
of the Government of USA to the Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.

RULING:
No. Under the “Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines
and the Government of the United States of America Relating to the employment of Philippine
Nationals in the United States Military Bases in the Philippines” otherwise known as the base
Labor Agreement of May 27, 1968, any dispute of disagreement between the US Armed Forces
and Flilipino employees should be settled under grievance or labor relations procedures
established therein (Article II) or the arbitration process provided in the Romualdez-Bosworth
Memorandum of Agreement dated September 5, 1985. If no Agreement was reached or if the
grievance procedure failed, the dispute was appealable by either party to a Joint Labor
Committee established in Article III of the Base Labor Agreement.