ICMC v. Calleja
ICMC v. Calleja
SECOND DIVISION
INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC
MIGRATION COMMISSION,
Petitioner,
x---------------------------------------------------x
KAPISANAN NG MANGGAGAWA AT
TAC SA IRRI - ORGANIZED LABOR
ASSOCIATION IN LINE INDUSTRIES
AND AGRICULTURE,
Petitioner,
DECISION
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
ICMC then sought the immediate dismissal of the TUPAS Petition for
Certification Election invoking the immunity expressly granted but
the same was denied by respondent BLR Director who, again, ordered
the immediate conduct of a pre-election conference. ICMC’s two
Motions for Reconsideration were denied despite an opinion
rendered by DEFORAF on 17 October 1988 that said BLR Order
violated ICMC’s diplomatic immunity. chanroblespublishingcompany
On 12 July 1989, the Second Division gave due course to the ICMC
Petition and required the submittal of memoranda by the parties,
which has been complied with.
Initially, IRRI was organized and registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission as a private corporation subject to all laws and
regulations. However, by virtue of Pres. Decree No. 1620,
promulgated on 19 April 1979, IRRI was granted the status,
prerogatives, privileges and immunities of an international
organization. chanroblespublishingcompany
IRRI opposed the petition invoking Pres. Decree No. 1620 conferring
upon it the status of an international organization and granting it
immunity from all civil, criminal and administrative proceedings
under Philippine laws.
The Third Division, to which the case was originally assigned required
the respondents to comment on the petition. In a Manifestation filed
on 4 August 1990, the Secretary of Labor declared that it was “not
adopting as his own” the decision of the BLR Director in the ICMC
Case as well as the Comment of the Solicitor General sustaining said
Director. The last pleading was filed by IRRI on 14 August 1990. chanroblespublishingcompany
The Court is now asked to rule upon whether or not the Secretary of
Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Petition
for Certification Election filed by Kapisanan. chanroblespublishingcompany
III
For, 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. Thus: chanroblespublishingcompany
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.” The eventuality of Court litigation is
neither remote and from which international organizations are
precisely shielded to safeguard them from the disruption of their
functions. Clauses on jurisdictional immunity are said to be standard
provisions in the constitutions of international organizations. “The
immunity covers the organization concerned, its property and its
assets. It is equally applicable to proceedings in personam and
proceedings in rem.”[18] chanroblespublishingcompany
We take note of a Manifestation, dated 28 September 1989, in the
ICMC Case (p. 161, Rollo), wherein TUPAS calls attention to the case
entitled “International Catholic Migration Commission vs. NLRC, et
als., (G.R. No. 72222, 30 January 1989, 169 SCRA 606), and claims
that, having taken cognizance of that dispute (on the issue of payment
of salary for the unexpired portion of a six-month probationary
employment), the Court is now estopped from passing upon the
question of DOLE jurisdiction over ICMC. chanroblespublishingcompany
We find no merit to said submission. Not only did the facts of said
controversy occur between 1983-1985, or before the grant to ICMC on
15 July 1988 of the status of a specialized agency with corresponding
immunities, but also because ICMC in that case did not invoke its
immunity and, therefore, may be deemed to have waived it, assuming
that during that period (1983-1985) it was tacitly recognized as
enjoying such immunity. chanroblespublishingcompany
Anent the procedural issue raised in the IRRI Case, suffice it to state
that the Decision of the BLR Director, dated 15 February 1989, had
not become final because of a Motion for Reconsideration filed by
IRRI. Said Motion was acted upon only on 30 March 1989 when Rep.
Act No. 6715, which provides for direct appeals from the Orders of the
Med-Arbiter to the Secretary of Labor in certification election cases
either from the order or the results of the election itself, was already
in effect, specifically since 21 March 1989. Hence, no grave abuse of
discretion may be imputed to respondent Secretary of Labor in his
assumption of appellate jurisdiction, contrary to Kapisanan’s
allegations. The pertinent portion of that law provides: chanroblespublishingcompany
In G.R. No. 89331 (the IRRI Case), the Petition is Dismissed, no grave
abuse of discretion having been committed by the Secretary of Labor
and Employment in dismissing the Petition for Certification Election.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
chanroblespublishingcompany
[1] Article XIII, Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local
and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment
opportunities for all. It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations and peaceful concerted
activities including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be
entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work and a living wage.
They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting
their rights and benefits as may be provided by law. chanroblespublishingcompany
[2] RULE V. Section 7. Appeal — Any aggrieved party may appeal the order of
the Med-Arbiter to the Bureau only on the following grounds: a) grave abuse
of discretion and b) gross incompetence. The appeal shall specifically state
the grounds relied upon by the appellant with supporting memorandum.
Section 8. Where to file appeal — The appellant shall file his appeal
which shall be under oath, in the Regional Office where the case originated,
copy furnished the appellee. chanroblespublishingcompany
Section 9. Period to Appeal. — The appeal shall be filed within ten (10)
working days from receipt of the Order by the appellant. Likewise, the
appellee shall file his answer thereto within ten (10) working days from
receipt of the appeal. The Regional Director shall immediately forward the
entire records of the case to the Bureau. chanroblespublishingcompany
[3] World Health Organization and Dr. Leonce Verstuyft vs. Hon. Benjamin
Aquino, et al., L-35131, 29 November 1972, 48 SCRA 242.
[4] MICHAEL AKEHURST, A MODERN INTRODUCTION TO
INTERNATIONAL LAW (1984) at 69. chanroblespublishingcompany
[17] This Convention, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on November 21,
1947, was concurred in by the Philippine Senate under Senate Resolution
No. 21, dated 17 May 1949. The Philippine Instrument of Ratification was
signed by the Philippine President on 21 February 1959. (Vol. 1, Phil. Treaty
Series, p. 621).
chanroblespublishingcompany