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 LABO…

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 filed 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, filed 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, filed a Manifestation and
Motion, which the Court granted, praying that he be excused from filing 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:

“x x x – 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 sufficiently
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 x x x.

“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; x x x).

“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 x x x 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, x x x), 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. 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 their 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, 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 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:

“XXX 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, suffice 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, (Chairman), Bidin, Romero, and Melo, JJ., concur.

^[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;

WHEREAS, the SEAFDEC Aquaculture
Department is designed to promote research in aquaculture, especially in the
production of prawns and shrimps, undertake the corresponding training programs
for fisheries experts and technicians and disseminate information on fisheries
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 fisheries industry in the country, as well as in neighboring
nations in Southeast Asia.

^[2]
Isagani Cruz, International Law, 1977 Edition, p. 31.