View full case

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS v. NLRC

FACTS:

In this case, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) invoked its diplomatic immunity in response to a complaint filed against it by a former employee who alleged illegal dismissal and violation of labor laws. The ADB and the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) argued that the ADB, its President, and Officers were covered by diplomatic immunity except in cases involving borrowings, guaranties, or the sale of securities. The Labor Arbiter initially took cognizance of the complaint based on the impression that the ADB had waived its immunity. The Labor Arbiter then rendered a decision in favor of the employee, ordering the ADB to reinstate the employee, pay backwages, and other benefits. The ADB did not appeal the decision, but instead, the DFA referred the matter to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) seeking a vacation of the judgment. The NLRC Chairman, in response, stated that he did not have the authority to investigate or review any decision of a Labor Arbiter. Dissatisfied, the DFA filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. The Office of the Solicitor General initially questioned the ADB's claim of immunity but later agreed that the ADB was indeed entitled to immunity under its Charter and the Headquarters Agreement.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and its officers are immune from legal process in matters related to their official capacities, as claimed under the respective charters and agreements with the host government.

  2. Whether the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has the legal standing to file the instant petition for certiorari on behalf of ADB.

  3. Whether the extraordinary remedy of certiorari can be invoked in this case despite the general rule requiring the exhaustion of administrative remedies.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court ruled that ADB enjoys immunity from legal process except in cases of borrowing, guarantees, or the sale of securities, as detailed in the Agreement Establishing the Asian Development Bank (the Charter) and the Headquarters Agreement with the Philippines. The officials of ADB are also immune from legal actions regarding acts performed in their official capacity, unless ADB waives this immunity. The Court rejected the Labor Arbiter's impression that ADB waived its diplomatic immunity from suit.

  2. The Court affirmed the legal standing of the DFA to file the petition for certiorari. It recognized the role of the DFA in determining persons and institutions covered by diplomatic immunities and its authority to seek judicial relief to prevent the impairment of the Philippines' foreign relations.

  3. The Supreme Court entertained the petition for certiorari, deviating from the standard requirement of exhausting other legal remedies, due to the special circumstances of the case: the questioned decisions were issued in excess or without jurisdiction, making them a patent nullity. The Court underscored the importance of upholding international agreements and maintaining the credibility of the government in international relations.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Diplomatic Immunity: International organizations and their officers enjoy diplomatic immunity from legal processes concerning acts performed in their official capacities, as recognized under international treaties and agreements.

  2. Role of DFA in International Legal Issues: The DFA has the mandate to determine and affirm diplomatic immunity, which when challenged, entitles it to seek judicial relief to manage the country's foreign relations effectively.

  3. Certiorari under Special Circumstances: The Supreme Court may entertain a petition for certiorari even without the exhaustion of all administrative remedies if the actions questioned are issued in excess or without jurisdiction, leading to null and void decisions.