Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 361 views

    DFA V NLRC Digest

    Uploaded by

    Alyk Calion
    1) The Asian Development Bank (ADB) claimed diplomatic immunity from a legal case filed by a private respondent regarding his alleged illegal dismissal from ADB. 2) Both the ADB Charter and Headquarters Agreement state that ADB enjoys immunity from legal process, except for specific cases related to borrowing, guarantees, or securities. 3) The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that ADB is entitled to diplomatic immunity as an international organization recognized by the Philippine government, and the legal case against ADB should be dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    DFA V NLRC Digest

    Uploaded by

    Alyk Calion
    361 views2 pages
    1) The Asian Development Bank (ADB) claimed diplomatic immunity from a legal case filed by a private respondent regarding his alleged illegal dismissal from ADB. 2) Both the ADB Charter and Headquarters Agreement state that ADB enjoys immunity from legal process, except for specific cases related to borrowing, guarantees, or securities. 3) The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that ADB is entitled to diplomatic immunity as an international organization recognized by the Philippine government, and the legal case against ADB should be dismissed.

    Original Description:

    jhjhjhjhj

    Original Title

    DFA v NLRC Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The Asian Development Bank (ADB) claimed diplomatic immunity from a legal case filed by a private respondent regarding his alleged illegal dismissal from ADB. 2) Both the ADB Charter and Headquarters Agreement state that ADB enjoys immunity from legal process, except for specific cases related to borrowing, guarantees, or securities. 3) The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that ADB is entitled to diplomatic immunity as an international organization recognized by the Philippine government, and the legal case against ADB should be dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    361 views2 pages

    DFA V NLRC Digest

    Uploaded by

    Alyk Calion
    1) The Asian Development Bank (ADB) claimed diplomatic immunity from a legal case filed by a private respondent regarding his alleged illegal dismissal from ADB. 2) Both the ADB Charter and Headquarters Agreement state that ADB enjoys immunity from legal process, except for specific cases related to borrowing, guarantees, or securities. 3) The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that ADB is entitled to diplomatic immunity as an international organization recognized by the Philippine government, and the legal case against ADB should be dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    DFA v.

    NLRC, 262 SCRA 39


    FACTS:
    The questions raised in this petition for certiorari are a few coincidental matters relative
    to the diplomatic immunity extended to the Asian Development Bank ("ADB").
    On 27 January 1993, private respondent initiated NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-01-0690-93
    for his alleged illegal dismissal by ADB
    Forthwith, the ADB and the DFA notified respondent Labor Arbiter that the ADB, as well
    as its President and Officers, were covered by an immunity from legal process except for
    borrowings, guaranties or the sale of securities pursuant to Article 50(1) and Article 55 of
    the Agreement Establishing the Asian Development Bank (the "Charter") in relation to
    Section 5 and Section 44 of the Agreement Between The Bank And The Government Of
    The Philippines Regarding The Bank's Headquarters (the "Headquarters Agreement").
    The Labor Arbiter took cognizance of the complaint and ruled in favor of the private
    complainant.

    The ADB did not appeal the decision. Instead, on 03 November 1993, the DFA referred
    the matter to the National Labor Relations Commission ("NLRC"). However, the NLRC
    instead suggested that an appropriate complaint be lodged with the Office of the
    Ombudsman.

    Dissatisfied, the DFA lodged the instant petition for certiorari.


    ISSUE:
    Whether or not ADB is entitled to diplomatic immunity.
    RULING:
    Yes. The above stipulations of both the Charter and Headquarters Agreement should be
    able, nay well enough, to establish that, except in the specified cases of borrowing and
    guarantee operations, as well as the purchase, sale and underwriting of securities, the
    ADB enjoys immunity from legal process of every form. The Banks officers, on their part,
    enjoy immunity in respect of all acts performed by them in their official capacity. The
    Charter and the Headquarters Agreement granting these immunities and privileges are
    treaty covenants and commitments voluntarily assumed by the Philippine government
    which must be respected.
    In the instant case, the filing of the petition by the DFA, in behalf of ADB, is itself an
    affirmance of the government's own recognition of ADB's immunity. The Department of
    Foreign Affairs, through the Office of Legal Affairs moved with this Court to be allowed to
    intervene on the side of petitioner. The Court allowed the said Department to file its
    memorandum in support of petitioner's claim of sovereign immunity. Being an
    international organization that has been extended a diplomatic status, the ADB is
    independent of the municipal law.
    Private respondent argues that, by entering into service contracts with different private
    companies, ADB has descended to the level of an ordinary party to a commercial
    transaction giving rise to a waiver of its immunity from suit.
    If the act is in pursuit of a sovereign activity, or an incident thereof, then it is an act jure
    imperii, especially when it is not undertaken for gain or profit.
    The service contracts referred to by private respondent have not been intended by the
    ADB for profit or gain but are official acts over which a waiver of immunity would not
    attach. Therefore, ADB is entitled to such immunity and the courts should respect
    diplomatic immunities of international organizations recognized by the Philippine
    government.

    You might also like