CMC vs. Callega, G.R. no. 85750, September 28, 1990

Facts : After the Vietnam War, the international community was confronted with a problem on the plight of Vietnamese refugees fleeing from South Vietnam. In response, an agreement was forged between Philippine Government and United Nations High Commissioner for refugees to create an operating center for the resettlement of refugees.

Under the said agreement, the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) was accredited by the Philippine Government to operate the refugee processing center in Morong, Bataan. The ICMC was considered a non-profit agency involved in international and humanitarian and voluntary work.

However, on July 14, 1986, the Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Service (TUPAS) filed to the then Ministry of Labor and Employment a Petition for Certification Election among the rank and file members employed by ICMC.

Afterwhich, while ICMC’s request for recognition as a “specialized agency” was still pending, Director Pura Calleja of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) ordered ICMC the immediate conduct of certification of election.

Subsequently, through the Department of Foreign Affairs (DEFORAF) the ICMC was granted a status of a specialized agency with corresponding diplomatic priveleges and immunities. ICMC then sought immediate dismissal of TUPAS petition invoking immunities expressly granted but were twice denied by respondent BLR director. Thus, the present Petition for Certiorari is now at bar.

Issue : Whether or not the grant of diplomatic priveleges and immunities to ICMC extends to immunity from the application of Philippine labor laws

Held : The immunity granted being from every form of legal process except in any particular case they have expressly waived the immunity.
Respondent’s claim in so far as stating that a certification of election is beyond the scope of immunity. That such is not a suit against ICMC but mere investigation of a non-adversary fact-finding character were all rejected.

The immunuties accorded to international organization constitute a categorical recognition by the executive branch of the Government. Its determination is held to be a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a determination by the Executive Branch. Where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized an affirmed by the executive branch as in the case at bar, it is then the duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion of the principal law officer of the government or other officer acting under his direction - as for this case the DEFORAF.

Moreover, the exercise of jurisdiction by the Department of Labor would defeat the very purpose of immunity, which is to shield the affairs of internatinal organizations, in accordance with international practice, from political pressure or control by the host country and to ensure unhampered perfromance of their functions.

Petition is GRANTED.