E. Excluded Employees/Workers (Employees of Intl Organizations)- 029 International Catholic Immigration Commission vs. Calleja (1990) Ponente: J.

Melencio-Herrera Petitioner: International Catholic immigration Commission (1 st petition); Kapisanan ng Manggagawa at TAC sa IRRI-Organized Labor Association in Line Industries and Agriculture (2nd petition) Respondents: Hon. Pura Calleja (Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations); Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) WFTU (1 st petition); Sec. of Labor and Employment and International Rice Research Institute (2nd petition) Counsels: Araullo, Zambrano, Gruba, Chua Law Firm (for petitioner in 1st petition); Dominguez, Armamento, Cabana & Associates (for petitioner in 2 nd petition); Jimenez & Associates for IRRI; Alfredo Bentulan for TUPAS WFTU. Facts: 1. This case actually involves 2 cases regarding the claim of immunity filed by the Intl Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) and the Intl Rice Research Institute (IRRI) from application of Phil. Labor laws. a. ICMC Case i. ICMC was one of the bodies accredited by the Phil. Govt to operate Vietnamese refugee processing centers in Morong, Bataan. Its creation was in accordance with an agreement between the Phil. Govt and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees for the operation of centers for processing of Indo-Chinese refugees and their resettlement to other countries in view of South Vietnams communist rule in Vietnam. ii. ICMC was incorporated in New York, duly registered with the UN Economic and Social Council, and is an international organization rendering voluntary and humanitarian services in the Philippines. iii. July 14, 1986 Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) filed with the Ministry of Labor and Employment a petition for certification election for the rank and file EEs employed by ICMC. ICMC opposed this petition since it is an intl org. with diplomatic immunity. Med-Arbiter Bactin sustained ICMC and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. iv. TUPAS appealed and BLR Director Calleja reversed the Med-Arbiters Decision, ordering the conduct of a certification election. (Note: ICMCs request for recognition as a specialized agency was still pending at the Dept. of Foreign Affairs, w/c the DFA subsequently granted w/ corresponding diplomatic privileges and immunities) v. Invoking immunity, ICMC sought the dismissal of TUPAS petition for certification election; BLR director denied this. ICMCs 2 MRs were denied despite DFAs opinion that the BLR order violated ICMC diplomatic immunity. vi. ICMC filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction to assail the BLR order, for which the court issued a TRO w/ respect to the holding of any certification election. The court also allowed DFAs motion for intervention. vii. ARGUMENTS of both sides: 1. ICMC and DFA: ICMC enjoys diplomatic immunity; BLR order for a certification election among ICMC employees violates the said immunity 2. BLR director: State policy and Phil. Labor Laws justify her order, especially Art. II, Sec. 18 and Art. III, Sec. 8 of the Constitution,

along with LC 243 and 246. a. BLR Director also argues that a certification election is not a litigation, nor a suit on its property, funds or assets. b. IRRI Case i. In this case, the Phil. Govt and the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations signed a Memorandum of Understanding to found the IRRI at Los Banos, Laguna, as a tax-free, philanthropic, non-profit, non-stock organization for research on rice plant, production, management, distribution and utilization for the benefit of Asians. ii. PD 1620 granted IRRI the status, prerogatives, privileges and immunities of an international organization. iii. In IRRI, there exists the Kapisanan ng Manggagawa at TAC sa IRRI (Kapisanan), the local union of the legitimate labor org. Organized Labor Assoc. in Line Industries and Agriculture. iv. Kapisanan filed a petition for certification election w/ Region 4, Regional Office of the DOLE; IRRI opposed this saying PD 1620 granted it immunity from all civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings under Philippine Laws, as an international organization. v. Med. Arbiter Leonardo Garcia upheld IRRIs opposition and dismissed Kapisanans petition.; the BLR director set aside Med. Arbiters order and authorized the calling of a certification election. 1. The BLR director relied on LC 243 and Art. 13, Sec. 3 of the Consti, saying the immunities and privileges granted to IRRI do not include exemption from the coverage of our labor laws. IRRIs reconsideration was denied. vi. The Sec. of Labor set aside the BLR Directors order and dismissed Kapisanans peti. For cert. election. Citing Art. 3 of PD 1620, the Sec. said that IRRI shall enjoy immunity from any penal, civil and administrative proceedings except if the Director-General of the institution expressly waives its immunity. vii. Kapisanan filed a petition for certiorari, alleging the Sec. of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion by upholding IRRIs diplomatic immunity. 1. Kapisanan alleges that Art. 3, PD 1620 is unconstitutional because it deprives Filipino workers of their fundamental and constitutional right to form trade unions for collective bargaining. 2. Kapisanan also claimed that the BLR Directors order had become final and unappealable, leaving the Sec. of Labor w/o jurisdiction over the appeal. Issue: W/N the diplomatic immunity of both ICMC and IRRI extended to the operation of Philippine Labor Laws. Held/Ratio: YES. Petition is GRANTED, the Order of the Bureau of Labor Relations for certification election is SET ASIDE, and the Temporary Restraining Order earlier issued is made PERMANENT. 1. Diplomatic immunity has been granted to both ICMC and IRRI. a. Art. 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Phil. Govt and ICMC provides that ICMC shall have a status similar to that of a specialized agency. Art. 3, Secs. 4 and 5 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of Specialized Agencies (adopted by the UN Gen. Assembly on 21 Nov. 1947, to w/c the Phil. Senate concurred) provides that the specialized agencies, wherever located, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process. Sec. 5 provided for the immunity of such agencies from any form of

executive, administrative, judicial or legislative interference.) b. IRRI was also granted immunity via Art. 3 of PD 1620. c. The DFA's opinions that the organizations enjoyed immunity from the jurisdiction of the DOLE indicates a recognition by the Executive branch of the govt that both ICMC and IRRI enjoy immunities of international organizations. Such determination is a political question conclusive upon the courts (i.e., w/c the courts must recognize and accept) in accordance w/ the principal of separation of powers and of not embarrassing a co-equal branch. 2. Reason for Immunity is the nature of International Organizations a. Term international organization = org. set up by an agreement bet. two or more states Specialized agencies = international orgs. Having functions in particular fields, such as the promotion of progress and economic and social cooperation (acc. to the UN Charter). b. Rapid growth of the international orgs under contemporary international law has paved the way for the development of international immunities; RATIO for the immunity: functional independence to free the institutions from national control and to ensure unimpeded performance of their functions. i. 3 propositions behind the grant of international immunities to intl orgs: 1. Protection from control or interference by a govt in the functions of the body 2. No country should derive financial advantage by levying fiscal charges on common intl funds 3. Intl org. should be accorded facilities for the conduct of its business customarily granted to each other by its individual member states (comity) c. Since ICMC and IRRI are intl organizations, the DOLEs exercise of jurisdiction would defeat the purpose of the immunity, laying them susceptible to political control by the host country (i.e., the Philippines in this case) to the detriment of member States involved in the said organizations. d. ICMC and IRRIs immunity from local jurisdiction does not deprive labor of its rights guaranted by Art. 2, Sec. 18, Art. 3, Sec. 8 and Art. 13, Sec. 3 since Sec. 31 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the UN states that each specialized agency shall make provision for appropriate modes of settlement of disputes arising out of contracts or other disputes of private character to w/c the specialized agency is a party. i. ALSO, Art. 4 of the MoA bet. ICMC and the Phil. Govt provides that when there is any abuse of privilege by the ICMC, the govt may w/draw the privileges and immunities it accorded. e. In IRRIs case, a Council of IRRI Employees and Management has been organized for better management-employee relationship where both mgt. and employees are represented 3. The Immunity Covers Certification Election a. Inaccurate to state that a certification election is beyond the scope of the diplomatic immunity possessed by both IRRI and ICMC because it is not a suit, since it can lead to a process which might involve ICMC or IRRI in a penal, civil or administrative proceeding. OBITER: -

Contention that the court is estopped from passing on the question of DOLE

jurisdiction over ICMC because it has already heard the case of ICMC vs. NLRC (regarding the issue of payment of salary for the unexpired portion of a 6-mo. Probationary employment) is untenable, since the facts of that controversy occurred before the grant of specialized agency status to ICMC, and there, ICMC did not invoke its immunity. Regarding the contention that the BLR Directors Decision has become final and thus beyond the Sec. of Labors jurisdiction, the contention is also untenable since IRRI filed an MR, tolling the period when the judgment becomes final. RA 6715 enabled direct appeals from the order of the Med-Arbiter to the Sec. of Labor in certification election cases.

Digested by: Robert Beltejar (A2015)