Petitioners were dismissed from their employment with the United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration (UNRFNRE), a UN subsidiary involved in a joint mining exploration project with the Philippine government. Petitioners filed cases for illegal dismissal. UNRFNRE claimed immunity from the cases based on its status as a UN agency. Petitioners argued UNRFNRE waived immunity by engaging in commercial activities and entering employment contracts. The court found UNRFNRE did not expressly waive its immunity and was involved in the project to help the Philippine people, not for commercial gain. However, petitioners may still have recourse through the dispute resolution processes required of UN specialized agencies.
Petitioners were dismissed from their employment with the United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration (UNRFNRE), a UN subsidiary involved in a joint mining exploration project with the Philippine government. Petitioners filed cases for illegal dismissal. UNRFNRE claimed immunity from the cases based on its status as a UN agency. Petitioners argued UNRFNRE waived immunity by engaging in commercial activities and entering employment contracts. The court found UNRFNRE did not expressly waive its immunity and was involved in the project to help the Philippine people, not for commercial gain. However, petitioners may still have recourse through the dispute resolution processes required of UN specialized agencies.
Petitioners were dismissed from their employment with the United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration (UNRFNRE), a UN subsidiary involved in a joint mining exploration project with the Philippine government. Petitioners filed cases for illegal dismissal. UNRFNRE claimed immunity from the cases based on its status as a UN agency. Petitioners argued UNRFNRE waived immunity by engaging in commercial activities and entering employment contracts. The court found UNRFNRE did not expressly waive its immunity and was involved in the project to help the Philippine people, not for commercial gain. However, petitioners may still have recourse through the dispute resolution processes required of UN specialized agencies.
Petitioners were dismissed from their employment with the United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration (UNRFNRE), a UN subsidiary involved in a joint mining exploration project with the Philippine government. Petitioners filed cases for illegal dismissal. UNRFNRE claimed immunity from the cases based on its status as a UN agency. Petitioners argued UNRFNRE waived immunity by engaging in commercial activities and entering employment contracts. The court found UNRFNRE did not expressly waive its immunity and was involved in the project to help the Philippine people, not for commercial gain. However, petitioners may still have recourse through the dispute resolution processes required of UN specialized agencies.
FACTS: Petitioners were dismissed from their employment with private respondent, the United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration (UNRFNRE), which is a special fund and subsidiary organ of the United Nations. The UNRFNRE is involved in a joint project of the Philippine Government and the United Nations for exploration work in Dinagat Island. Petitioners are the complainants in NLRC Cases Nos. SRAB 10-03-00067-91 to 10-03-00078-91 and SRAB 10-07-00159-91 for illegal dismissal and damages. In its Motion to Dismiss, private respondent alleged that respondent Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over its personality since it enjoyed diplomatic immunity pursuant to the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. In support thereof, private respondent attached a letter from the Department of Foreign Affairs dated August 26, 1991, which acknowledged its immunity from suit. Petitioners argued that the acts of mining exploration and exploitation are outside the official functions of an international agency protected by diplomatic immunity. Even assuming that private respondent was entitled to diplomatic immunity, petitioners insisted that private respondent waived it when it engaged in exploration work and entered into a contract of employment with petitioners. ISSUE: Whether or not the private respondent waived its diplomatic immunity. HELD: Our courts can only assume jurisdiction over private respondent if it expressly waived its immunity, which is not so in the case at bench (Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, Art. III, Sec. 4). Private respondent is not engaged in a commercial venture in the Philippines. Its presence here is by virtue of a joint project entered into by the Philippine Government and the United Nations for mineral exploration in Dinagat Island. Its mission is not to exploit our natural resources and gain pecuniarily thereby but to help improve the quality of life of the people, including that of petitioners. This is not to say that petitioner have no recourse. Section 31 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations states that "each specialized agency shall make a 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.
