SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 86773 February 14, 1992

SOUTHEAST ASIAN FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CENTER-

AQUACULTURE DEPARTMENT (SEAFDEC-AQD), DR. FLOR
LACANILAO (CHIEF), RUFIL CUEVAS (HEAD,
ADMINISTRATIVE DIV.), BEN DELOS REYES (FINANCE
OFFICER), petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and JUVENAL
LAZAGA, respondents.

Ramon Encarnacion for petitioners.

Caesar T. Corpus for private respondent.

NOCON, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the

July 26, 1988 decision of the National Labor Relations
Commission sustaining the labor arbiter, in holding herein
petitioners Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center-
Aquaculture Department (SEAFDEC-AQD), Dr. Flor
Lacanilao, Rufil Cuevas and Ben de los Reyes liable to pay
private respondent Juvenal Lazaga the amount of
P126,458.89 plus interest thereon computed from May 16,
1986 until full payment thereof is made, as separation pay
and other post-employment benefits, and the resolution
denying the petitioners' motion for reconsideration of said
decision dated January 9, 1989.

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:

SEAFDEC-AQD is a department of an international

organization, the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development
Center, organized through an agreement entered into in
Bangkok, Thailand on December 28, 1967 by the
governments of Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam,
Indonesia and the Philippines with Japan as the sponsoring
country (Article 1, Agreement Establishing the SEAFDEC).

On April 20, 1975, private respondent Juvenal Lazaga was

employed as a Research Associate an a probationary basis
by the SEAFDEC-AQD and was appointed Senior External
Affairs Officer on January 5, 1983 with a monthly basic
salary of P8,000.00 and a monthly allowance of P4,000.00.
Thereafter, he was appointed to the position of
Professional III and designated as Head of External Affairs
Office with the same pay and benefits.

On May 8, 1986, petitioner Lacanilao in his capacity as

Chief of SEAFDEC-AQD sent a notice of termination to
private respondent informing him that due to the financial
constraints being experienced by the department, his
services shall be terminated at the close of office hours on
May 15, 1986 and that he is entitled to separation benefits
equivalent to one (1) month of his basic salary for every
year of service plus other benefits (Rollo, p. 153).
Upon petitioner SEAFDEC-AQD's failure to pay private
respondent his separation pay, the latter filed on March
18, 1987 a complaint against petitioners for non-payment
of separation benefits plus moral damages and attorney's
fees with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC (Annex "C" of
Petition for Certiorari).

Petitioners in their answer with counterclaim alleged that

the NLRC has no jurisdiction over the case inasmuch as the
SEAFDEC-AQD is an international organization and that
private respondent must first secure clearances from the
proper departments for property or money accountability
before any claim for separation pay will be paid, and which
clearances had not yet been obtained by the private
respondent.

A formal hearing was conducted whereby private

respondent alleged that the non-issuance of the
clearances by the petitioners was politically motivated and
in bad faith. On the other hand, petitioners alleged that
private respondent has property accountability and an
outstanding obligation to SEAFDEC-AQD in the amount of
P27,532.11. Furthermore, private respondent is not
entitled to accrued sick leave benefits amounting to
P44,000.00 due to his failure to avail of the same during his
employment with the SEAFDEC-AQD (Annex "D", Id.).

On January 12, 1988, the labor arbiter rendered a decision,

the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered ordering respondents:

1. To pay complainant P126,458.89, plus legal interest

thereon computed from May 16, 1986 until full payment
thereof is made, as separation pay and other post-
employment benefits;

2. To pay complainant actual damages in the amount of

P50,000, plus 10% attorney's fees.

All other claims are hereby dismissed.

SO ORDERED. (Rollo, p. 51, Annex "E")

On July 26, 1988, said decision was affirmed by the Fifth
Division of the NLRC except as to the award of P50,000.00
as actual damages and attorney's fees for being baseless.
(Annex "A", p. 28, id.)

On September 3, 1988, petitioners filed a Motion for

Reconsideration (Annex "G", id.) which was denied on
January 9, 1989. Thereafter, petitioners instituted this
petition for certiorari alleging that the NLRC has no
jurisdiction to hear and decide respondent Lazaga's
complaint since SEAFDEC-AQD is immune from suit owing
to its international character and the complaint is in effect
a suit against the State which cannot be maintained
without its consent.

The petition is impressed with merit.

Petitioner Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center-

Aquaculture Department (SEAFDEC-AQD) is an
international agency beyond the jurisdiction of public
respondent NLRC.
It was established by the Governments of Burma, Kingdom
of Cambodia, Republic of Indonesia, Japan, Kingdom of
Laos, Malaysia. Republic of the Philippines, Republic of
Singapore, Kingdom of Thailand and Republic of Vietnam
(Annex "H", Petition).

The Republic of the Philippines became a signatory to the

Agreement establishing SEAFDEC on January 16,1968. Its
purpose is as follows:

The purpose of the Center is to contribute to the

promotion of the fisheries development in Southeast Asia
by mutual co-operation among the member governments
of the Center, hereinafter called the "Members", and
through collaboration with international organizations and
governments external to the Center. (Agreement
Establishing the SEAFDEC, Art. 1; Annex "H" Petition)
(p.310, Rollo)

SEAFDEC-AQD was organized during the Sixth Council

Meeting of SEAFDEC on July 3-7, 1973 in Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia as one of the principal departments of SEAFDEC
(Annex "I", id.) to be established in Iloilo for the promotion
of research in aquaculture. Paragraph 1, Article 6 of the
Agreement establishing SEAFDEC mandates:

1. The Council shall be the supreme organ of the Center

and all powers of the Center shall be vested in the Council.

Being an intergovernmental organization, SEAFDEC

including its Departments (AQD), enjoys functional
independence and freedom from control of the state in
whose territory its office is located.

As Senator Jovito R. Salonga and Former Chief Justice

Pedro L. Yap stated in their book, Public International Law
(p. 83, 1956 ed.):

Permanent international commissions and administrative

bodies have been created by the agreement of a
considerable number of States for a variety of international
purposes, economic or social and mainly non-political.
Among the notable instances are the International Labor
Organization, the International Institute of Agriculture, the
International Danube Commission. In so far as they are
autonomous and beyond the control of any one State, they
have a distinct juridical personality independent of the
municipal law of the State where they are situated. As
such, according to one leading authority "they must be
deemed to possess a species of international personality of
their own." (Salonga and Yap, Public International Law, 83
[1956 ed.])

Pursuant to its being a signatory to the Agreement, the

Republic of the Philippines agreed to be represented by
one Director in the governing SEAFDEC Council
(Agreement Establishing SEAFDEC, Art. 5, Par. 1, Annex
"H", ibid.) and that its national laws and regulations shall
apply only insofar as its contribution to SEAFDEC of "an
agreed amount of money, movable and immovable
property and services necessary for the establishment and
operation of the Center" are concerned (Art. 11, ibid.). It
expressly waived the application of the Philippine laws on
the disbursement of funds of petitioner SEAFDEC-AQD
(Section 2, P.D. No. 292).
The then Minister of Justice likewise opined that Philippine
Courts have no jurisdiction over SEAFDEC-AQD in Opinion
No. 139, Series of 1984 —

4. One of the basic immunities of an international

organization is immunity from local jurisdiction, i.e., that it
is immune from the legal writs and processes issued by the
tribunals of the country where it is found. (See Jenks, Id.,
pp. 37-44) The obvious reason for this is that the subjection
of such an organization to the authority of the local courts
would afford a convenient medium thru which the host
government may interfere in there operations or even
influence or control its policies and decisions of the
organization; besides, such subjection to local jurisdiction
would impair the capacity of such body to discharge its
responsibilities impartially on behalf of its member-states.
In the case at bar, for instance, the entertainment by the
National Labor Relations Commission of Mr. Madamba's
reinstatement cases would amount to interference by the
Philippine Government in the management decisions of
the SEARCA governing board; even worse, it could
compromise the desired impartiality of the organization
since it will have to suit its actuations to the requirements
of Philippine law, which may not necessarily coincide with
the interests of the other member-states. It is precisely to
forestall these possibilities that in cases where the extent
of the immunity is specified in the enabling instruments of
international organizations, jurisdictional immunity from
the host country is invariably among the first accorded.
(See Jenks, Id.; See also Bowett, The Law of International
Institutions, pp. 284-1285).

Respondent Lazaga's invocation of estoppel with respect

to the issue of jurisdiction is unavailing because estoppel
does not apply to confer jurisdiction to a tribunal that has
none over a cause of action. Jurisdiction is conferred by
law. Where there is none, no agreement of the parties can
provide one. Settled is the rule that the decision of a
tribunal not vested with appropriate jurisdiction is null and
void. Thus, in Calimlim vs. Ramirez, this Court held:

A rule, that had been settled by unquestioned acceptance

and upheld in decisions so numerous to cite is that the
jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of the action
is a matter of law and may not be conferred by consent or
agreement of the parties. The lack of jurisdiction of a court
may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on
appeal. This doctrine has been qualified by recent
pronouncements which it stemmed principally from the
ruling in the cited case of Sibonghanoy. It is to be regretted,
however, that the holding in said case had been applied to
situations which were obviously not contemplated therein.
The exceptional circumstances involved in Sibonghanoy
which justified the departure from the accepted concept
of non-waivability of objection to jurisdiction has been
ignored and, instead a blanket doctrine had been
repeatedly upheld that rendered the supposed ruling in
Sibonghanoy not as the exception, but rather the general
rule, virtually overthrowing altogether the time-honored
principle that the issue of jurisdiction is not lost by waiver
or by estoppel. (Calimlim vs. Ramirez, G.R. No. L-34362,
118 SCRA 399; [1982])

Respondent NLRC'S citation of the ruling of this Court in

Lacanilao v. De Leon (147 SCRA 286 [1987]) to justify its
assumption of jurisdiction over SEAFDEC is misplaced. On
the contrary, the Court in said case explained why it took
cognizance of the case. Said the Court:
We would note, finally, that the present petition relates to
a controversy between two claimants to the same position;
this is not a controversy between the SEAFDEC on the one
hand, and an officer or employee, or a person claiming to
be an officer or employee, of the SEAFDEC, on the other
hand. There is before us no question involving immunity
from the jurisdiction of the Court, there being no plea for
such immunity whether by or on behalf of SEAFDEC, or by
an official of SEAFDEC with the consent of SEAFDEC (Id., at
300; emphasis supplied).

WHEREFORE, finding SEAFDEC-AQD to be an international

agency beyond the jurisdiction of the courts or local agency
of the Philippine government, the questioned decision and
resolution of the NLRC dated July 26, 1988 and January 9,
1989, respectively, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE
for having been rendered without jurisdiction. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Paras, Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.