LASCO vs.

UNRFRE

Facts:

 Petitioners were dismissed from their employment with private respondent United
Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources (UNRFRE), which is a subsidiary
organ of the United Nations.
 The respondent UNFRE is involved in a joint project of the PH Government and
the UN from exploration work in DInagat Island.
 Petitioners are the complainants in two (2) NLRC cases for illegal dismissal and
damages.
 In its Motion to Dismiss, private respondent alleged that Labor Arbiter has no
jurisdiction over its personality since it enjoyed Diplomatic Immunity pursuant to
1946 Convention on Privileges and Immunities of UN. In support thereof,
respondent attached a letter from DFA, which acknowledged its immunity from
suit.
 Through such letter it was confirmed that private respondent, being a special
fund administered by UN, enjoys immunity from suit as per the 1946 Convention,
of which the PH is a signatory.
 On Nov. 25, 1991, the Labor Arbiter issued and order dismissing the complaint
on the ground that it enjoys diplomatic immunity as per the letter from Foreign
Office.
 Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration as denied. The NLRC affirmed the
dismissal of the complaints in its Resolution dated Jan. 25, 1993.

Issue:
Whether or not UNFRE waived its diplomatic immunity when it engaged in
exploration work and entered a contract of employment with the petitioners?

Ruling:

No. Still, UNFRE enjoys immunity from suit. Being a specialized agency of UN, it
enjoys diplomatic immunity. Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the
Specialized Agencies to which PH is a signatory, provides the basis. As a matter
of State Policy expressed in the Constitution, the Philippines, adopts the
generally accepted principles of International Law. Besides, the presence of
UNFRE here is by virtue of a joint project entered into by PH government and the
UN 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 the petitioners. More so, 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.