FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 109095-109107. February 23, 1995.]

ELPEPIO LASCO, RODOLFO ELISAN, URBANO BERADOR,

FLORENTINO ESTOBIO, MARCELINO MATURAN, FRAEN BALIBAG,
CARMELITO GAJOL, DEMOSTHENES MANTO, SATURNINO BACOL,
SATURNINO LASCO, RAMON LOYOLA, JOSENIANO B. ESPINA, all
represented by MARIANO R. ESPINA, and MARIANO R. ESPINA ,
petitioners, vs. UNITED NATIONS REVOLVING FUND FOR NATURAL
RESOURCES EXPLORATION (UNRFNRE) represented by its
operations manager, DR. KYRIACOS LOUCA, OSCAR N. ABELLA,
LEON G. GONZAGA, JR., MUSIB M. BUAT, Commissioners of
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Fifth Division,
Cagayan de Oro City and IRVING PETILLA, Labor Arbiter of Butuan
City , respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; CERTIORARI; DOES NOT LIE UNLESS A
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS FIRST FILED. — Certiorari as a special civil action will
not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed before the respondent tribunal, to
allow it an opportunity to correct its assigned errors.
2. POLITICAL LAW; DOCTRINE OF DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY; EXTENDS TO
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION, ITS OFFICIALS AND FUNCTIONARIES; PURPOSE
THEREOF. — As a matter of state policy as expressed in the Constitution, the Philippine
Government adopts the generally accepted principles of international law. Being a member
of the United Nations and a party to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the
Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, the Philippine Government adheres to the
doctrine of immunity granted to the United Nations and its specialized agencies. Both
treaties have the force and effect of law. In World Health Organization v. Aquino, 48 SCRA
242 (1972), we had occasion to rule that: "It is a recognized principle of international law
and under our system of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a
political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by the
executive branch of the government, and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is
recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the government as in the case at bar, it
is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion
by the principal law officer of the government, the Solicitor General or other officer acting
under his direction. Hence, in adherence to the settled principle that courts may not so
exercise their jurisdiction by seizure and detention of property, as to embarrass the
executive arm of the government in conducting foreign relations, it is accepted doctrine
that "in such cases the judicial department of (this) government follows the action of the
political branch and will not embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction."
We recognize the growth of international organizations dedicated to specific universal
endeavors, such as health, agriculture, science and technology and environment. It is not
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 surprising that their existence has evolved into the concept of international immunities.
The reason behind the grant of privileges and immunities to international organizations, its
officials and functionaries is to secure them legal and practical independence in fulfilling
their duties. Immunity is necessary to assure unimpeded performance of their functions.
The purpose is "to shield to affairs of international organizations, in accordance with
international practice, from political pressure or control by the host country to the
prejudice of member States of the organization, and to ensure the unhampered
performance of their functions."
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; DETERMINATION THEREOF, A POLITICAL QUESTION. — In the
International Catholic Migration Commission case, we held that there is no conflict
between the constitutional duty of the State to protect the rights of workers and to
promote their welfare, and the grant of immunity to international organizations. Clauses on
jurisdictional immunity are now standard in the charters of international organizations to
guarantee the smooth discharge of their functions. The diplomatic immunity of private
respondent was sufficiently established by the letter of the Department of Foreign Affairs,
recognizing and confirming the immunity of UNRFNRE in accordance with the 1946
Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations where the Philippine
Government was a party. The issue whether an international organization is entitled to
diplomatic immunity is a "political question" and such determination by the executive
branch is conclusive on the court and quasi-judicial agencies. Our courts can only assume
jurisdiction over private respondent if it expressly waived its immunity, which is not so in
the case at bench.

DECISION

QUIASON , J : p

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to set
aside the Resolution dated January 25, 1993 of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), Fifth Division, Cagayan de Oro City. cdasia

We dismiss the petition.

I
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.
The letter con rmed that private respondent, being a special fund administered by the
United Nations, was covered by the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 of the United Nations of which the Philippine Government was an original signatory
(Rollo, p. 21).
On November 25, 1991, respondent Labor Arbiter issued an order dismissing the
complaints on the ground that private respondent was protected by diplomatic
immunity. The dismissal was based on the letter of the Foreign Of ce dated September
10, 1991.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Thus, an appeal was led
with the NLRC, which af rmed the dismissal of the complaints in its Resolution dated
January 25, 1993. cdasia

Petitioners led the instant petition for certiorari without rst seeking a
reconsideration of the NLRC resolution.
II
Article 223 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, provides that
decisions of the NLRC are nal and executory. Thus, they may only be questioned
through certiorari as a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Ordinarily, certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for
reconsideration is rst led before the respondent tribunal, to allow it an opportunity to
correct its assigned errors (Liberty Insurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals , 222
SCRA 37 [1993]). cdll

In the case at bench, petitioner’s failure to le a motion for reconsideration is

fatal to the instant petition. Moreover, the petition lacks any explanation for such
omission, which may merit its being considered as falling under the recognized
exceptions to the necessity of filing such motion.
Notwithstanding, we deem it wise to give due course to the petition because of
the implications of the issue in our international relations.
Petitioners argued that the acts of mining exploration and exploitation are
outside the of cial 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.
Petitioners, likewise, invoked the constitutional mandate that the State shall
afford full protection to labor and promote full employment and equality of
employment opportunities for all (1987 Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 3).
The Of ce of the Solicitor General is of the view that private respondent is
covered by the mantle of diplomatic immunity. Private respondent is a specified agency
of the United Nations. Under Article 105 of the Charter of the United Nations: cdasia

"1. The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of its Members such privileges
and immunities as are necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes.
"2. Representatives of the Members of the United Nations and officials of the
Organization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are
necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connection with the
Organization."

Corollary to the cited article is the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities
of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, to which the Philippines was a
signatory (Vol. 1, Philippine Treaty Series, p. 621.) We quote Sections 4 and 5 of Article
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 III thereof:
"Sec. 4. The specialized agencies, their property and assets, wherever located
and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process
except insofar as in any particular case they have expressly waived their
immunity. It is, however, understood that no waiver of immunity shall extend to
any measure of execution (Emphasis supplied).

"Sec. 5. The premises of the specialized agencies shall be inviolable. The

property and assets of the specialized agencies, wherever located and by
whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation,
expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive,
administrative, judicial or legislative action" (Emphasis supplied).

As a matter of state policy as expressed in the Constitution, the Philippine

Government adopts the generally accepted principles of international law (1987
Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 2). Being a member of the United Nations and a party to the
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United
Nations, the Philippine Government adheres to the doctrine of immunity granted to the
United Nations and its specialized agencies. Both treaties have the force and effect of
law. cdasia

In World Health Organization v. Aquino , 48 SCRA 242 (1972), we had occasion to

rule that:
"It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of
separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question
and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by the executive branch
of the government, and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized and
affirmed by the executive branch of the government as in the case at bar, it is
then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate
suggestion by the principal law officer of the government, the Solicitor General or
other officer acting under his direction. Hence, in adherence to the settled principle
that courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction by seizure and detention of
property, as to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting
foreign relations, it is accepted doctrine that “in such cases the judicial
department of (this) government follows the action of the political branch and will
not embarrass the latter by assuming as antagonistic jurisdiction" (Emphasis
supplied).

We recognize the growth of international organizations dedicated to specific universal

endeavors, such as health, agriculture, science and technology and environment. It is not
surprising that their existence has evolved into the concept of international immunities.
The reason behind the grant of privileges and immunities to international organizations, its
officials and functionaries is to secure them legal and practical independence in fulfilling
their duties (Jenks, International Immunities 17 [1961]).
Immunity is necessary to assure unimpeded performance of their functions. The purpose
is "to shield the affairs of international organizations, in accordance with international
practice, from political pressure or control by the host country to the prejudice of member
States of the organization, and to ensure the unhampered performance of their functions"
(International Catholic Commission v. Calleja, 190 SCRA 130 [1990]).
In the International Catholic Migration Commission case, we held that there is no conflict
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 between the constitutional duty of the State to protect the rights of workers and to
promote their welfare, and the grant of immunity to international organizations. Clauses on
jurisdictional immunity are now standard on the charters of international organizations to
guarantee the smooth discharge of their functions.
The diplomatic immunity of private respondent was suf ciently established by
the letter of the Department of Foreign Affairs, recognizing and con rming the
immunity of UNRFNRE in accordance with the 1946 Convention on Privileges and
Immunities of the United Nations where the Philippine Government was a party. The
issue whether an international organization is entitled to diplomatic immunity is a
"political question" and such determination by the executive branch is conclusive on the
courts and quasi-judicial agencies (The Holy See v. Hon. Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr. , G.R. No.
101949, Dec. 1, 1994; International Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja, supra). cdasia

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.
prcd

This is not to say that petitioners 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."
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Padilla, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com