Globe MacKay v NLRC Imelda L. Salazar was allegedly close to Delfin Saldivar.

GMCR ca sed an inverstigation regarding missing e! i"ments and s"are "arts nder t#e c stody of Saldivar. $""arently% Saldivar entered into a "artners#i" wit# &ambao% a manager of GMCR's s ""lier.

It a""ears t#at Salazar violated com"any reglations by involving #erself in transactions conflicting wit# t#e com"any(s interests. )vidence s#owed t#at s#e signed as a witness to t#e articles of "artners#i" between &ambao and Saldivar. It also a""eared t#at s#e #ad f ll *nowledge of t#e loss and w#ereabo ts of t#e +edders airconditioner b t failed to inform #er em"loyer. Salazar was "laced nder "reventive s s"ension for , mont# and gave #er -. days wit#in w#ic# to e/"lain #er side. S#e instead filed a com"laint for illegal s s"ension w#ic# s#e later amended to incl de illegal dismissal% vacation and sic* leave benefits% ,0 mont# "ay and damages after s#e was notified t#e s#e was considered dismissed in view of #er inability to ref te t#e findings.

INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC IMMIGRATION COMMISSION vs Calleja

+$C1S2 134$S filed a "etition for Certification )lection among t#e ran* and file members em"loyed by ICMC. 1#e latter o""osed t#e "etition on t#e gro nd t#at it is an international organization registered wit# t#e 3nited Nations and% #ence% en5oys di"lomatic imm nity. S bse! ently% t#e Ka"isanan filed a "etition for Direct Certification )lection% IRRI also o""osed t#e "etition invo*ing 4res. Decree No. ,607 conferring "on it t#e stat s of an international organization and granting it imm nity from all civil% criminal and administrative "roceedings nder 4#ili""ine laws.

8#et#er or not t#e grant of di"lomatic "rivileges and imm nities to ICMC e/tends to imm nity from t#e a""lication of 4#ili""ine labor laws.

R ling2 &)S. $rticle II of t#e Memorand m of $greement between t#e 4#ili""ine Government and ICMC "rovides t#at ICMC s#all #ave a stat s 9similar to t#at of a s"ecialized agency.: $rticle III% Section ;. 1#e s"ecialized agencies% t#eir "ro"erty and assets% w#erever located and by w#omsoever #eld% s#all en5oy imm nity from every form of legal "rocess e/ce"t in so far as

in any "artic lar case t#ey #ave e/"ressly waived t#eir imm nity. It is% #owever% nderstood t#at no waiver of imm nity s#all e/tend to any meas re of e/ec tion.

It is a recognized "rinci"le of international law and nder o r system of se"aration of "owers t#at di"lomatic imm nity is essentially a "olitical ! estion and co rts s#o ld ref se to loo* beyond a determination by t#e e/ec tive branc# of t#e government% and w#ere t#e "lea of di"lomatic imm nity is recognized and affirmed by t#e e/ec tive branc# of t#e government as in t#e case at bar% it is t#en t#e d ty of t#e co rts to acce"t t#e claim of imm nity "on a""ro"riate s ggestion by t#e "rinci"al law officer of t#e government . . . or ot#er officer acting nder #is direction. <ence% in ad#erence to t#e settled "rinci"le t#at co rts may not so e/ercise t#eir 5 risdiction . . . as to embarrass t#e e/ec tive arm of t#e government in cond cting foreign relations% it is acce"ted doctrine t#at in s c# cases t#e 5 dicial de"artment of =t#is> government follows t#e action of t#e "olitical branc# and will not embarrass t#e latter by ass ming an antagonistic 5 risdiction.