NO. It is beyond question that petitioner SEAFDEC is an international agency enjoying diplomatic immunity.
(See first SEAFDEC case). AJ Isagani Cruz stated:
Certain administrative bodies created by agreement among states may be vested with international personality when two conditions concur, to wit:, that their purposes are mainly non-political and that they are autonomous,i.e., not subject to the control of any state.
Anent the issue of waiver of immunity, suffice it to say at the moment that the petitioner has timely raised the issue of jurisdiction. While the petitioner did not question the public respondent's lack of jurisdiction at the early stages of the proceedings, it, nevertheless, did so before it rested its case and certainly well before the proceedings thereat had terminated.
July 1948- Spouses Tijam filed a civil case to recover P1,908 from spouses Sibonghanoy
SEAFDEC V.ACOSTA,NLRC
2SEPTEMBER 1993 TIJAM V SIBONGHANOY
15APRIL 1968
After being duly served with summons the defendants filed their answer in which, after making some admissions and denials of the material averments of the complaint, they interposed a counterclaim. This counterclaim was answered by the plaintiffs.
RTC- found in favor of Tijam and a writ of execution was issued against the Surety‘s bond. The Surety filed to deny the motion for execution and motion to quash the writ all denied by the cour
CA affirmed the CFI. On MR, Surety filed its Motion to Dismiss alleging that a month before the filing of the case before the RTC, RA 296 or the Judiciary Act of 1948 became effective. Under such law, the original exclusive jurisdiction of inferior courts all civil actions where the value of the subject-matter or the amount of the demand does not exceed P2,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs; that the Court of First Instance therefore had no jurisdiction to try and decide the case. CA forwarded the case to the SC.
ISSUE: W/N Surety may question the jurisdiction of the CFI.
HELD/RATIO:
NO. A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in different ways and for different reasons.
Laches, in a general sense is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. Furthermore, it has also been held that after voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too
late for the loser to question the jurisdiction or power of the court -"undesirable practice" of a party submitting his case for decision and then accepting the judgment, only if favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction, when adverse.
The action was commenced in the CFI of Cebu on July 19, 1948, that is, almost fifteen years before the Surety filed its motion to dismiss on January 12, 1963 raising the question of lack of jurisdiction for the first time. Upon the filing of the first motion for execution against the counter-bond the Surety not only filed a written opposition thereto praying for its denial but also asked for an additional affirmative relief — that it be relieved of its liability under the counter-bond upon the grounds relied upon in support of its opposition — lack of jurisdiction of the court a quo not being one of them.
Then, at the hearing on the second motion for execution against the counter-bond, the Surety appeared, through counsel, to ask for time within which to file an answer or opposition thereto. This motion was granted, but instead of such answer or opposition, the Surety filed the motion to dismiss mentioned heretofore. It could have raised the question of the lack of jurisdiction but failed to do so.
Instead, at several stages of the proceedings in the court a quo as well as in the CA, it invoked the jurisdiction of said courts to obtain affirmative relief and submitted its case for a final adjudication on the merits.
It was only after an adverse decision was rendered by the CA that it finally woke up to raise the question of jurisdiction.
FACTS:
On February 23, 1981, an Agreement was forged between the Philippines and then High Commissioner for Refugees, providing for a refugee operating center in Bataan. ICMC was accredited by the Philippine Government to operate the refugee operating center. On July 14, 1986, Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) filed with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment a Petition for Certification Election among the rank and file members employed by ICMC. The latter opposed the petition on the ground that it is an international
organization registered with
the United Nations and, hence, enjoys diplomatic immunity.
On February 7, 1987, the Med-Arbiter sustained ICMC and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) reversed the Med-Arbiter‘s decision and ordered for the immediate conduct of the certification election. On July 15, 1988, ICMC‘s request for recognition as a specialized agency was granted by the Dept. of Foreign Affairs including the grant of corresponding diplomatic privileges and immunities, as evidenced by a MOA between the Philippine Government and ICMC. The latter then sought for the dismissal of the TUPAS petition for Certification Election invoking the immunity expressly granted by the Philippine Government, through the DFA.
ISSUE: W/N the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities granted to ICMC extends to immunity from the application of Philippine labor laws.
HELD/RATIO:
YES. There is no doubt that ICMC was granted immunity. Article II of the MOA between the Philippine Government and ICMC provides that ICMC shall have the status of a specialized agency. Article III, Sections 4 and 5 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of Specialized Agencies, adopted by the UN General Assembly on Nov. 21, 1947 and concurred by the Senate on May 17. 1949, explicitly provides that specialized agencies, including their properties and assets, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process. Moreover, DFA‘s opinion expressing its view that the conduct of the Certification Election is volatile of ICMC‘s diplomatic immunity constitutes a categorical recognition by the Executive Branch that ICMC indeed enjoys immunities accorded to international organizations, which determination has been
held to be political question
conclusive upon the courts in order not to embarrass a political department of the government. The term
―international organization‖ generally describes an organization set up by agreement between two or more states. They are organized mainly as a means for conducting general international business in which the member states have an interest. ―Specialized agencies‖ are international organizations having functions in particular fields, as mentioned in Articles 57 and 63 of the UN Charter. There are basically three propositions underlying the grant of international INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION V.
CALLEJA
immunities to international organizations: 1.international institutions should have a status which protects them against control or interference by any one government in the performance of functions or the effective discharge of which they
are responsible to democratically constituted
international bodies in which all the nations concerned are represented; 2. No country should derive any national financial advantage by levying fiscal charges on common international funds; and, 3. The international organization should, as a collectivity of States members, be accorded the facilities for the conduct of its official business customarily extended to each other by its individual member States. The theory behind all three propositions is said to be essentially institutional in character. "It is not concerned with the status, dignity or privileges of individuals, but with the elements of functional independence necessary to free international institutions from national control and to enable them to discharge their responsibilities impartially on behalf of all their members."The raison d‘être for these immunities is the assurance of unimpeded performance of their functions by the agencies concerned. The exercise of jurisdiction by the Department of Labor over ICMC would defeat the very purpose of immunity accorded to the agency, which is to shield the affairs of international organizations, in accordance with international practice, from political pressure or control by the host country to the prejudice a member States of the organization, and to ensure the unhampered performance of their functions.
ICMC‘s immunity does not deprive labor of its basic rights. ICMC employees are not without recourse whenever there are disputes to be settled. Section 31 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations 17 provides that "each specialized agency shall make provision for appropriate modes of settlement of: (a) disputes arising out of contracts or other disputes of private character to which the specialized agency is a party."Moreover, pursuant to Article IV of the Memorandum of Agreement between ICMC and the Philippine Government, whenever there is any abuse of privilege by ICMC, the Government is free to withdraw the privileges and immunities accorded. The immunity granted being "from every form of legal process except in so far as in any particular case they have expressly waived their immunity," it is inaccurate to state that a certification election is beyond the scope of that immunity for the reason that it is not a suit against ICMC.
A certification election cannot be viewed as an independent or isolated process. It could trigger off a series of events in the collective bargaining process together with related incidents and/or concerted
activities, which could inevitably
involve ICMC in the "legal process," which includes "any penal, civil and administrative proceedings.
KAPISANAN NG MANGGAGAWA AT TAC SA IRRI V.