0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
225 visualizzazioni6 pagine
This case concerns Jose G. Ebro III's petition to set aside the orders of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissing his complaint of illegal dismissal against the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICC). The NLRC dismissed the case based on ICC's claim of immunity from suit under a 1977 memorandum of agreement between the Philippine government and ICC. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding that the memorandum validly conferred immunity to ICC based on international conventions. While Ebro argued the memorandum could not apply retroactively, the Court ruled that ICC enjoyed immunity even prior to the memorandum based on the nature of international organizations. The key issue was whether ICC had immunity from suit.
This case concerns Jose G. Ebro III's petition to set aside the orders of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissing his complaint of illegal dismissal against the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICC). The NLRC dismissed the case based on ICC's claim of immunity from suit under a 1977 memorandum of agreement between the Philippine government and ICC. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding that the memorandum validly conferred immunity to ICC based on international conventions. While Ebro argued the memorandum could not apply retroactively, the Court ruled that ICC enjoyed immunity even prior to the memorandum based on the nature of international organizations. The key issue was whether ICC had immunity from suit.
This case concerns Jose G. Ebro III's petition to set aside the orders of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dismissing his complaint of illegal dismissal against the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICC). The NLRC dismissed the case based on ICC's claim of immunity from suit under a 1977 memorandum of agreement between the Philippine government and ICC. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding that the memorandum validly conferred immunity to ICC based on international conventions. While Ebro argued the memorandum could not apply retroactively, the Court ruled that ICC enjoyed immunity even prior to the memorandum based on the nature of international organizations. The key issue was whether ICC had immunity from suit.
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&