Petitioner vs. VS.: Third Division

THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 97468-70. September 2, 1993.]
SOUTHEAST ASIAN FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CENTER

represented by its Chief, DR. FLOR J. LACANILAO , petitioner, vs.
DANILO ACOSTA in his capacity as Labor Arbiter of the National
Labor Relations Commission, Regional Arbitration, Branch VI,
CORAZON CANTO, DAN BALIAO, ELIZABETH SUPETRAN,
CARMELITA FERRER, CATHRYN CONTRADOR, and DORIC VELOSO ,
respondents.
Hector P. Teodosio for petitioner.

Cirilo Ganzon, Jr. for private respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. POLITICAL LAW; PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW; DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY;

CONFERRED UPON AN INTERNATIONAL AGENCY; CASE AT BAR. — It is beyond
question that petitioner SEAFDEC is an international agency enjoying diplomatic
immunity. This, we have already held in Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center-
Aquaculture Department vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 86773, 206
SCRA 283/1992/; see also Lacanilao v. de Leon, G.R. No. 76532, 147 SCRA, 286/1987/,
where we said — "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 . . . "The Republic of the Philippines became a signatory to the
Agreement establishing SEAFDEC on January 16, 1968. The purpose of the Center is to
contribute to the promotion of the sheries development in Southeast Asia by mutual
co-operation among the member governments of the Center.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; INTERNATIONAL PERSONALITY; TWO CONDITIONS MUST BE
PRESENT. — 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".
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; WAIVER THEREOF. — Anent the issue of waiver of immunity, su ce
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.
RESOLUTION
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

VITUG , J : p
This is an original petition for certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for the
issuance of a restraining order, to set aside the order of respondent labor arbiter, dated
20 September 1990, denying herein petitioner's motion to dismiss the cases subject
matter of the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Two labor cases, docketed as RAB Case No. VI - 0156-86 and RAB Case No. VI —
0214-86, were led by the herein private respondents against the petitioner, Southeast
Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC), before the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), Regional Arbitration Branch, Iloilo City. In these cases, the private
respondents claim having been wrongfully terminated from their employment by the
petitioner.
On 22 August 1990, the petitioner, contending to be an international inter-
government organization, composed of various Southeast Asian countries, led a
Motion to Dismiss, challenging the jurisdiction of the public respondent in taking
cognizance of the above cases.
On 20 September 1990, the public respondent issued the assailed order denying
the Motion to Dismiss. In due course, a Motion for Reconsideration was interposed but
the same, in an order, dated 07 January 1991, was likewise denied.
Hence, the instant petition. This Court, on 20 March 1991, issued the temporary
restraining order prayed for.
The private respondents, as well as respondent labor arbiter, allege that the
petitioner is not immune from suit and assuming that if, indeed, it is an international
organization, it has, however, impliedly, if not expressly, waived its immunity by
belatedly raising the issue of jurisdiction.
The Solicitor General, on his part, led a Manifestation and Motion, which the
Court granted, praying that he be excused from ling his comment for respondent
Labor Arbiter, he not being in agreement with the latter's position on this matter.
On 30 March 1992, this Court dismissed the instant petition in a resolution which
reads:
". . . — Considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the petition
for certiorari as well as the separate comments thereon of the public and private
respondents, and the consolidated reply thereto of the petitioner, the Court
RESOLVED to DISMISS the petition for failure to su ciently show that the
questioned judgment is tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The temporary
restraining order issued on March 20, 1991 is hereby LIFTED effective
immediately."
In time, the petitioner moved for a reconsideration, arguing that the ground for its
seeking the allowance of the petition is the labor arbiter's lack of jurisdiction over the
dispute.
The court is now asked to rule upon the motion for reconsideration.
We rule for the petitioner.
It is beyond question that petitioner SEAFDEC is an international agency enjoying
diplomatic immunity. This, we have already held in Southeast Asian Fisheries
Development Center-Aquaculture Department vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 86773, 206 SCRA 283/1992/; see also Lacanilao v. de Leon, G.R.
No. 76532, 147 SCRA, 286/1987/, where we said —
"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
...
"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

sheries 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; . . .).
"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 . . . 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 (t)hey 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, . . .), and that its national
laws and regulations shall apply only insofar as its contributions 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.
1 1 , 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 their
operations or even in uence 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 speci ed in the enabling
instruments of international organizations, (jurisdictional immunity, is
speci ed in the enabling instruments of international organizations)
jurisdictional immunity from the host country is invariably among the rst
accorded. (See Jenks, Id.; See Bowett. The Law of International Institutions.
pp. 284-285)."
At its Sixth Meeting held at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on 3 to 7 July 1973, the
SEAFDEC Council approved the formal establishment of its Aquaculture Department in
the province of Iloilo, Philippines, to promote research in Aquaculture as so expressed
in the "Whereas" Clauses of Presidential Decree No. 292 issued on 13 September 1973
1 Furthermore, Section 2 of the same decree had provided for the autonomous
character of SEAFDEC, thus:
". . . All funds received by the Department shall be receipted and disbursed in
accordance with the Agreement establishing the Southeast Asian Fisheries
Development Center and pertinent resolutions duly approved by the SEAFDEC
Council"
As aptly pointed out by Associate Justice Isagani Cruz of this Court —

"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". 2
Anent the issue of waiver of immunity, su ce 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.
WHEREFORE, our resolution, dated 30 March 1992, dismissing the petition for
certiorari, is hereby reconsidered, and another is entered (a) granting due course to the
petition; (b) setting aside the order, dated 20 September 1990, of the public
respondent; and (c) enjoining the public respondent from further proceeding with RAB
Case No. VI-0156-86 and RAB Case No. VI-0214-86. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Feliciano, Bidin, Romero and Melo, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. WHEREAS, the Republic of the Philippines, on January 16, 1968, became a signatory to the
Agreement establishing the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC);
WHEREAS, the SEAFDEC council, at its Sixth Meeting held at Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) on July
3-7, 1973, approved the formal establishment of its Aquaculture Department in the
province of Iloilo, Philippines;
to promote research in aquaculture, especially in the production of prawns and shrimps,
undertake the corresponding training programs for sheries experts and technicians and
disseminate information on sheries research and development for SEAFDEC member-
countries in Southeast Asia;
WHEREAS, the establishment of the SEAFDEC Aquaculture Department in the Philippines will
directly and immediately stimulate the development of the sheries industry in the
country, as well as in neighboring nations in Southeast Asia.
2. Isagani Cruz, International Law, 1977 Edition, p. 31.

Petitioner vs. VS.: Third Division

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioner vs. VS.: Third Division

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioner vs. VS.: Third Division

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 97468-70. September 2, 1993.]

SOUTHEAST ASIAN FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CENTER

Hector P. Teodosio for petitioner.

1. POLITICAL LAW; PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW; DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY;

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

"It was established by the Governments of Burma, Kingdom of Cambodia,

"The Republic of the Philippines became a signatory to the Agreement

'The purpose of the Center is to contribute to the promotion of the

"SEAFDEC-AQD was organized during the Sixth Council Meeting of SEAFDEC on

"Being an intergovernmental organization, SEAFDEC including its Departments

'Permanent international commissions and administrative bodies

"Pursuant to its being a signatory to the Agreement, the Republic of the

As aptly pointed out by Associate Justice Isagani Cruz of this Court —

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like