Lasco vs. United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration

The diplomatic immunity of international organizations, such as the UNRFNRE, is a political question, and the determination by the executive branch of the government is conclusive on the courts and quasi-judicial agencies. The courts can only assume jurisdiction over an international organization if it expressly waived its immunity, which was not the case here.

The petitioners were employees of the United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration (UNRFNRE), a special fund and subsidiary organ of the United Nations, involved in a joint project of the Philippine Government and the United Nations for exploration work in Dinagat Island. The UNRFNRE is a specialized agency of the United Nations, and the Philippines is a member of the United Nations and a party to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, both of which have the force and effect of law in the Philippines.

Petitioners were dismissed from their employment with private respondent, the United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration (UNRFNRE), a special fund and subsidiary organ of the United Nations involved in a joint project of the Philippine Government and the United Nations for exploration work in Dinagat Island. Petitioners filed complaints for illegal dismissal and damages before the Labor Arbiter.

In its Motion to Dismiss, private respondent alleged that the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over its personality since it enjoyed diplomatic immunity pursuant to the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. In support thereof, private respondent attached a letter from the Department of Foreign Affairs dated August 26, 1991, which acknowledged its immunity from suit, confirming that private respondent, being a special fund administered by the United Nations, was covered by the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations of which the Philippine Government was an original signatory.

On November 25, 1991, the Labor Arbiter issued an order dismissing the complaints on the ground that private respondent was protected by diplomatic immunity, based on the letter of the Foreign Office dated September 10, 1991. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied, and an appeal was filed with the NLRC, which affirmed the dismissal of the complaints in its Resolution dated January 25, 1993. Petitioners then filed the instant petition for certiorari without first seeking a reconsideration of the NLRC resolution.

Petitioners argued that the acts of mining exploration and exploitation are outside the official functions of an international agency protected by diplomatic immunity. Even assuming that private respondent was entitled to diplomatic immunity, petitioners insisted that private respondent waived it when it engaged in exploration work and entered into a contract of employment with petitioners. Petitioners likewise invoked the constitutional mandate that the State shall afford full protection to labor and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.

• Acts Outside Official Functions: Petitioners argued that the acts of mining exploration and exploitation are outside the official functions of an international agency protected by diplomatic immunity.
• Waiver of Immunity: Petitioners insisted that even assuming private respondent was entitled to diplomatic immunity, it waived it when it engaged in exploration work and entered into a contract of employment with petitioners.
• Constitutional Labor Protection: Petitioners invoked the constitutional mandate that the State shall afford full protection to labor and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all (1987 Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 3).

• Diplomatic Immunity: The Office of the Solicitor General was of the view that private respondent is covered by the mantle of diplomatic immunity, being a specialized agency of the United Nations.

• Procedural Requirement: Whether the petitioners' failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the NLRC is fatal to their petition for certiorari.
• Diplomatic Immunity: Whether the UNRFNRE, as a subsidiary organ of the United Nations, is entitled to diplomatic immunity from suit.
• Waiver of Immunity: Whether the UNRFNRE waived its diplomatic immunity by engaging in exploration work and entering into contracts of employment with petitioners.

• Procedural Requirement: Yes. Petitioners' failure to file a motion for reconsideration is fatal to the instant petition, and the petition lacks any explanation for such omission, which may merit its being considered as falling under the recognized exceptions to the necessity of filing such motion.
• Diplomatic Immunity: Yes. The diplomatic immunity of private respondent was sufficiently established by the letter of the Department of Foreign Affairs, recognizing and confirming the immunity of UNRFNRE in accordance with the 1946 Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations where the Philippine Government was a party.
• Waiver of Immunity: No. The courts can only assume jurisdiction over private respondent if it expressly waived its immunity, which is not so in the case at bench.

• Procedural Requirement: Article 223 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, provides that decisions of the NLRC are final and executory, and may only be questioned through certiorari as a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. Ordinarily, certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed before the respondent tribunal, to allow it an opportunity to correct its assigned errors. In the case at bench, petitioners' failure to file a motion for reconsideration is fatal to the instant petition. Notwithstanding, the Court deemed it wise to give due course to the petition because of the implications of the issue in our international relations.

• Diplomatic Immunity: Under Article 105 of the Charter of the United Nations, the Organization shall enjoy in the territory of its Members such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes. Corollary to the cited article is the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, to which the Philippines was a signatory. As a matter of state policy as expressed in the Constitution, the Philippine Government adopts the generally accepted principles of international law (1987 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 2). Being a member of the United Nations and a party to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, the Philippine Government adheres to the doctrine of immunity granted to the United Nations and its specialized agencies. Both treaties have the force and effect of law. The diplomatic immunity of private respondent was sufficiently established by the letter of the Department of Foreign Affairs, recognizing and confirming the immunity of UNRFNRE in accordance with the 1946 Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations where the Philippine Government was a party. The issue whether an international organization is entitled to diplomatic immunity is a "political question" and such determination by the executive branch is conclusive on the courts and quasi-judicial agencies.

• Waiver of Immunity: The courts can only assume jurisdiction over private respondent if it expressly waived its immunity, which is not so in the case at bench (Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, Art. III, Sec. 4). Private respondent is not engaged in a commercial venture in the Philippines. Its presence here is by virtue of a joint project entered into by the Philippine Government and the United Nations for mineral exploration in Dinagat Island. Its mission is not to exploit our natural resources and gain pecuniarily thereby but to help improve the quality of life of the people, including that of petitioners.

• Doctrine of Diplomatic Immunity as a Political Question — Diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question, and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by the executive branch of the government. Where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the government, 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, the Solicitor General or other officer acting under his direction. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the diplomatic immunity of private respondent was sufficiently established by the letter of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and that such determination by the executive branch is conclusive on the courts and quasi-judicial agencies.

• Doctrine of International Immunities — The reason behind the grant of privileges and immunities to international organizations, its officials and functionaries is to secure them legal and practical independence in fulfilling their duties. Immunity is necessary to assure unimpeded performance of their functions. The purpose is "to shield the affairs of international organizations, in accordance with international practice, from political pressure or control by the host country to the prejudice of member States of the organization, and to ensure the unhampered performance of their functions." The Court applied this doctrine in recognizing the growth of international organizations dedicated to specific universal endeavors, such as health, agriculture, science and technology and environment, and the evolution of the concept of international immunities.

• Doctrine of Express Waiver of Immunity — The specialized agencies, their property and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process except insofar as in any particular case they have expressly waived their immunity. It is understood that no waiver of immunity shall extend to any measure of execution. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the courts can only assume jurisdiction over private respondent if it expressly waived its immunity, which was not the case.

• "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, the Solicitor General or other officer acting under his direction." — This passage from World Health Organization vs. Aquino states the canonical formulation of the political question doctrine in the context of diplomatic immunity, which the Court applied in this case.

• "The purpose is 'to shield the affairs of international organizations, in accordance with international practice, from political pressure or control by the host country to the prejudice of member States of the organization, and to ensure the unhampered performance of their functions.'" — This passage from International Catholic Migration Commission vs. Calleja defines the purpose of granting privileges and immunities to international organizations, which the Court relied upon in holding that there is no conflict between the constitutional duty of the State to protect the rights of workers and the grant of immunity to international organizations.

• "The specialized agencies, their property and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process except insofar as in any particular case they have expressly waived their immunity." — This passage from Section 4 of Article III of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations establishes the rule that immunity can only be waived expressly, which the Court applied in holding that the courts can only assume jurisdiction over private respondent if it expressly waived its immunity.

• World Health Organization vs. Aquino, 48 SCRA 242 (1972) — Controlling precedent establishing the doctrine that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by the executive branch of the government. The Court quoted this case extensively in its reasoning.

• International Catholic Migration Commission vs. Calleja, 190 SCRA 130 (1990) — Followed precedent holding that there is no conflict between the constitutional duty of the State to protect the rights of workers and to promote their welfare, and the grant of immunity to international organizations. The Court cited this case for the purpose of granting privileges and immunities to international organizations.

• The Holy See vs. Hon. Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr., G.R. No. 101949, Dec. 1, 1994 — Cited as authority for the proposition that the issue whether an international organization is entitled to diplomatic immunity is a "political question" and such determination by the executive branch is conclusive on the courts and quasi-judicial agencies.

• Liberty Insurance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 37 (1993) — Cited for the rule that certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed before the respondent tribunal, to allow it an opportunity to correct its assigned errors.

• Article 223, Labor Code of the Philippines — Provides that decisions of the NLRC are final and executory, and may only be questioned through certiorari as a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. The Court applied this provision in determining the procedural requirement for questioning NLRC decisions.

• Article 105, Charter of the United Nations — Provides that the Organization shall enjoy in the territory of its Members such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes, and that representatives of the Members of the United Nations and officials of the Organization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connection with the Organization. The Court cited this provision as the basis for the diplomatic immunity of the UNRFNRE.

• Sections 4 and 5, Article III, Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations — Section 4 provides that the specialized agencies shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process except insofar as in any particular case they have expressly waived their immunity. Section 5 provides that the premises of the specialized agencies shall be inviolable and their property and assets shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference. The Court applied these provisions in holding that the UNRFNRE enjoys diplomatic immunity and that the courts can only assume jurisdiction if it expressly waived its immunity.

• Section 31, Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations — Provides that each specialized agency shall make a provision for appropriate modes of settlement of disputes arising out of contracts or other disputes of private character to which the specialized agency is a party. The Court cited this provision in noting that petitioners still have recourse despite the dismissal of their petition.

• Article II, Section 2, 1987 Constitution — Provides that the Philippine Government adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as a matter of state policy. The Court applied this provision in holding that the Philippine Government adheres to the doctrine of immunity granted to the United Nations and its specialized agencies.

• Article XIII, Section 3, 1987 Constitution — Provides that the State shall afford full protection to labor and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. The Court addressed this provision in the context of petitioners' argument, but held that there is no conflict between the constitutional duty of the State to protect the rights of workers and the grant of immunity to international organizations.

Padilla (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, and Kapunan, JJ., concurred.