ICMC VS CALLEJA

G. R. No. 85750 Sept. 28, 1990.

INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC IMMIGRATION COMMISSION, petitioner vs. HON. PURA CALLEJA IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS AND TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED SERVICES (TUPAS) WFTU respondents.

FACTS:

ICMC an accredited refugee processing center in Morong Bataan, is a non-profit agency involved in international humanitarian and voluntary work. It is duly registered with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and enjoys Consultative status II. It has the activities parallel to those of the International Committee for Migrtion (ICM) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

On July 14, 1986, Trade Union 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 the ICMC. The latter opposed the petition on the ground that it enjoys diplomatic immunity.

On Februaury 5, 1987 Med – Arbiter Anastacio L. Bactin sustained ICMC and dismissed the petition of TUPAS for lack of jurisdiction.

On appeal, The Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations reversed the Med – Arbiter’s Decisionand ordered the immediate conduct of a certification election.

This present Petition for Certiorari with Preliminary Injunction assailing the BLR Order.


ISSUE:

Whether or not the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities to ICMC extends to immunity from the application of Philippine labor laws.

HELD:

The 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.

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. Hence, in adherence to the settled principle that courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction . . . as to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations, it is accepted doctrine that in such cases the judicial department of (this) government follows the action of the political branch and will not embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction.

BASIS:

Article II of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Philippine Government and ICMC provides that ICMC shall have a status “similar to that of a specialized agency.”
Article III, Section 4. The specialized agencies, their property and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process except in so far as in any particular case they have expressly waived their immunity. It is, however, understood that no waiver of immunity shall extend to any measure of execution.