ERNESTO CALLADO vs. INTERNATIONAL RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE (IRRI)
G.R.
No. 106483 May 22, 1995/ ROMERO, J.:
Facts: Ernesto Callado, petitioner, was
employed as a driver at the IRRI. One day while driving an IRRI vehicle on an
official trip to the NAIA and back to the IRRI, petitioner figured in an
accident.
Petitioner was informed of the findings of a
preliminary investigation conducted by the IRRI's Human Resource Development
Department Manager. In view of the findings, he was charged with:
(1) Driving an institute vehicle
while on official duty under the influence of liquor;
(2) Serious misconduct consisting
of failure to report to supervisors the failure of the vehicle to start because
of a problem with the car battery, and
(3) Gross and habitual neglect of
duties.
Petitioner submitted his answer and defenses to the
charges against him. However, IRRI issued a Notice of Termination to
petitioner.
Thereafter, petitioner filed a complaint before the
Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension and indemnity pay with
moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
IRRI wrote the Labor Arbiter to inform him that the
Institute enjoys immunity from legal process by virtue of Article 3 of
Presidential Decree No. 1620, 5 and that it invokes such diplomatic immunity
and privileges as an international organization in the instant case filed by
petitioner, not having waived the same.
While admitting IRRI's defense of immunity, the Labor Arbiter, nonetheless, cited an
Order issued by the Institute to the effect that "in all cases of
termination, respondent IRRI waives its immunity," and, accordingly,
considered the defense of immunity no longer a legal obstacle in resolving the
case.
The NLRC found
merit in private respondent's appeal and, finding that IRRI did not waive its
immunity, ordered the aforesaid decision of the Labor Arbiter set aside and the
complaint dismissed.
In this petition petitioner contends that the
immunity of the IRRI as an international organization granted by Article 3 of
Presidential Decree No. 1620 may not be invoked in the case at bench inasmuch
as it waived the same by virtue of its Memorandum on "Guidelines on the
handling of dismissed employees in relation to P.D. 1620."
Issue: Did the (IRRI) waive its
immunity from suit in this dispute which arose from an employer-employee
relationship?
Held: No.
P.D. No. 1620, Article 3 provides:
Art. 3. Immunity from Legal Process. The Institute shall enjoy immunity
from any penal, civil and administrative proceedings, except insofar as that
immunity has been expressly waived by the Director-General of the Institute or
his authorized representatives.
The SC upholds the constitutionality of the
aforequoted law. There is in this case "a categorical recognition by the
Executive Branch of the Government that IRRI enjoys immunities accorded to
international organizations, which determination has been held to be a
political question conclusive upon the Courts in order not to embarass a political
department of Government.
It is a recognized principle of international law
and under our system of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is
essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a
determination by the executive branch of the government, and where the plea of
diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the
government as in the case at bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept
the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law officer of
the government or other officer acting under his direction.
The raison d'etre for these
immunities is the assurance of unimpeded performance of their functions by the
agencies concerned.
The grant of immunity to IRRI is clear and
unequivocal and an express waiver by its Director-General is the only way by
which it may relinquish or abandon this immunity.
In cases involving dismissed employees, the
Institute may waive its immunity, signifying that such waiver is discretionary
on its part.
No comments:
Post a Comment