International Catholic Immigration Commission v. Sec. of Labor / Kapisanan v. Sec of Labor

INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC IMMIGRATION COMMISSION vs HON. PURA CALLEJA IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS AND TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED SERVICES (TUPAS) WFTU

G.R. No. 85750 September 28, 1990

KAPISANAN NG MANGGAGAWA AT TAC SA IRRI-ORGANIZED LABOR ASSOCIATION IN LINE INDUSTRIES AND AGRICULTURE vs SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT AND INTERNATIONAL RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC.

G.R. No. 89331 September 28, 1990

Facts:

First Case: As an aftermath of the Vietnam War, the plight of Vietnamese refugees fleeing from South Vietnam's communist rule confronted the international community. An Agreement was forged between the Philippine Government and the UNHCR whereby an operating center for processing Indo-Chinese refugees for eventual resettlement to other countries was to be established in Bataan. ICMC was one of those accredited by the Philippine Government to operate the refugee processing center in Morong, Bataan. It was incorporated in New York, USA, at the request of the Holy See, as a non-profit agency involved in international humanitarian and voluntary work. It is duly registered with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and enjoys Consultative Status, Category II. As an international organization rendering voluntary and humanitarian services in the Philippines, its activities are parallel to those of the International Committee for Migration (ICM) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) filed with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment a Petition for Certification Election among the rank and file members employed by ICMC. The latter opposed the petition on the ground that it is an international organization registered with the United Nations and, hence, enjoys diplomatic immunity. The Med-Arbiter sustained ICMC and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal by TUPAS, the Director of BLR, reversed the Med-Arbiter's Decision and ordered the immediate conduct of a certification election. At that time, ICMC's request for recognition as a specialized agency was still pending with the Department of Foreign Affairs. ICMC filed the present Petition for Certiorari with Preliminary Injunction assailing the BLR Order. The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the holding of the certification election. The DEFORAF, through its Legal Adviser filed a Motion for Intervention. Over the opposition of the Solicitor General, the Court allowed DEFORAF intervention. ICMC sustains the affirmative of the proposition. Intervenor DEFORAF upholds ICMC'S claim of diplomatic immunity and seeks an affirmance of the DEFORAF determination that the BLR Order for a certification election among the ICMC employees is violative of the diplomatic immunity of said organization.

Second Case: The Philippine Government and the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations signed a Memorandum of Understanding establishing the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) at Los Baños, Laguna. It was intended to be an autonomous, philanthropic, tax-free, non-profit, non-stock organization designed to carry out the principal objective of conducting "basic research on the rice plant, on all phases of rice production, management, distribution and utilization with a view to attaining nutritive and economic advantage or benefit for the people of Asia and other major rice-growing areas through improvement in quality and quantity of rice." IRRI was organized and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a private corporation subject to all laws and regulations. However, by virtue of Pres. Decree No. 1620, IRRI was granted the status, prerogatives, privileges and immunities of an international organization.

The Organized Labor Association in Line Industries and Agriculture (OLALIA), is a legitimate labor organization with an existing local union, the Kapisanan ng Manggagawa at TAC sa IRRI (Kapisanan) in respondent IRRI.

The Kapisanan filed a Petition for Direct Certification Election with Region IV, Regional Office of DOLE. IRRI opposed the petition. The Med-Arbiter upheld the opposition on the basis of Pres. Decree No. 1620 and dismissed the Petition for Direct Certification. On appeal, the BLR Director, who is the public respondent in the ICMC Case, set aside the Med-Arbiter's Order and authorized the calling of a certification election among the rank-and-file employees of IRRI. Said Director relied on Article 243 of the Labor Code, as amended, infra and Article XIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution, 1 and held that "the immunities and privileges granted to IRRI do not include exemption from coverage of our Labor Laws." Reconsideration sought by IRRI was denied. On appeal, the Secretary of Labor, in a Resolution set aside the BLR Director's Order, dismissed the Petition for Certification Election, and held that the grant of specialized agency status by the Philippine Government to the IRRI bars DOLE from assuming and exercising jurisdiction over IRRI.

Issue:

Did the Hon. Secretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Petition for Certification Election filed by Kapisanan

Held:

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… or other officer acting under his direction. Hence, in adherence to the settled principle that courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction… 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.

The rapid growth of international organizations under contemporary international law has paved the way for the development of the concept of international immunities.

Anent the procedural issue raised in the IRRI Case, suffice it to state that the Decision of the BLR Director, dated 15 February 1989, had not become final because of a Motion for Reconsideration filed by IRRI Said Motion was acted upon only on 30 March 1989 when Rep. Act No. 6715, which provides for direct appeals from the Orders of the Med-Arbiter to the Secretary of Labor in certification election cases either from the order or the results of the election itself, was already ineffect, specifically since 21 March 1989. Hence, no grave abuse of discretion may be imputed to respondent Secretary of Labor in his assumption of appellate jurisdiction, contrary to Kapisanan'sallegations.