International Catholic Immigration Commission v. Calleja
International Catholic Immigration Commission v. Hon. Pura Calleja, et al. and Kapisanan ng Manggagawa at TAC sa IRRI-Organized Labor Association in Line Industries and Agriculture v. Secretary of Labor and Employment and International Rice Research Institute, Inc., G.R. Nos. 85750 and 89331, September 28, 1990
- Labor Law
- Political Law
- Procedural (Remedial Law)
- diplomatic immunity
- international organizations
- certification election
- ICMC
- IRRI
- P.D. No. 1620
- specialized agencies
- political question
- DEFORAF
- labor jurisdiction
- right to self-organization
- collective bargaining
I. Facts of the Case
The International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) are international organizations operating in the Philippines. Unions sought certification elections among their rank-and-file employees, and both organizations invoked diplomatic immunity from Philippine labor laws. The consolidated cases ask whether that immunity bars the Department of Labor from conducting certification elections.
February 23, 1981
The Philippine Government and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees agreed to set up a refugee processing center for Indo-Chinese refugees in Bataan. ICMC, a non-profit international humanitarian agency incorporated in New York and registered with the UN ECOSOC, was accredited to operate it.
July 14, 1986
TUPAS filed a Petition for Certification Election among ICMC's rank-and-file employees with the Ministry of Labor and Employment. ICMC opposed, claiming diplomatic immunity as an international organization.
February 5, 1987
Med-Arbiter Bactin sustained ICMC and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
On TUPAS's appeal, BLR Director Pura Calleja reversed the Med-Arbiter and ordered a certification election. At that time ICMC's request for recognition as a specialized agency was still pending with the DEFORAF.
July 15, 1988
The DEFORAF granted ICMC the status of a specialized agency with diplomatic privileges and immunities through a Memorandum of Agreement. ICMC invoked the immunity, but the BLR Director denied it and ordered a pre-election conference. Two motions for reconsideration were denied, despite a DEFORAF opinion of October 17, 1988 that the BLR Order violated ICMC's immunity.
November 24, 1988
ICMC filed a Petition for Certiorari with Preliminary Injunction before the Supreme Court. On November 28, 1988 the Court issued a TRO enjoining the certification election.
January 10, 1989
The DEFORAF moved to intervene and was allowed over the Solicitor General's opposition. On July 12, 1989 the Second Division gave due course to the petition and required memoranda.
December 9, 1959
The Philippine Government and the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations signed a Memorandum of Understanding establishing IRRI at Los Baños, Laguna. IRRI was first registered with the SEC as a private corporation, but Pres. Decree No. 1620 (April 19, 1979) granted it the status, privileges and immunities of an international organization.
April 20, 1987
Kapisanan ng Manggagawa at TAC sa IRRI, a local of OLALIA, filed a Petition for Direct Certification Election with DOLE Region IV. IRRI opposed, invoking P.D. No. 1620.
July 7, 1987
Med-Arbiter Garcia upheld IRRI's opposition and dismissed the petition on the basis of P.D. No. 1620.
On appeal, the BLR Director set aside the Med-Arbiter's Order and authorized a certification election, relying on Article 243 of the Labor Code and Article XIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution. IRRI's motion for reconsideration was denied.
July 5, 1989
On IRRI's appeal, the Secretary of Labor set aside the BLR Director's Order and dismissed the petition for certification election. He held that IRRI's immunity under P.D. No. 1620 was not waived and barred DOLE from assuming jurisdiction.
Kapisanan filed a Petition for Certiorari (G.R. No. 89331) alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Secretary of Labor. It argued that Art. 3 of P.D. No. 1620 is unconstitutional for depriving workers of the right to organize, that the BLR Director's decision had become final, and that a certification election is not a suit against IRRI.
December 11, 1989
The Third Division consolidated G.R. No. 89331 with G.R. No. 85750 upon the Solicitor General's manifestation that both involve similar issues.
August 4, 1990
The Secretary of Labor manifested that he was not adopting the BLR Director's decision in the ICMC Case. The Solicitor General was excused from filing a comment in the IRRI Case.
II. Issues
Whether or not the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities to ICMC extends to immunity from the application of Philippine labor laws.
Whether or not the Court is estopped from ruling on DOLE jurisdiction over ICMC because it took cognizance of ICMC v. NLRC (G.R. No. 72222).
Whether or not the Secretary of Labor had jurisdiction to entertain IRRI's appeal from the BLR Director's order directing a certification election, the latter allegedly having become final and unappealable.
Whether or not a certification election is beyond the scope of the immunity from legal process because it is not a suit against the organization.
Whether or not Article 3 of Pres. Decree No. 1620 is unconstitutional for depriving Filipino workers of their right to form unions for collective bargaining.
Whether or not the Secretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Petition for Certification Election filed by Kapisanan on the basis of IRRI's immunity under Pres. Decree No. 1620.
III. Ruling
Whether or not the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunities to ICMC extends to immunity from the application of Philippine labor laws.
The diplomatic immunity granted to ICMC (and IRRI) covers immunity from the application of Philippine labor laws, so the DOLE cannot conduct a certification election among its employees.
How the Court reasoned
- Immunity has in fact been granted to ICMC through the 1988 Memorandum of Agreement and the Specialized Agencies Convention, and to IRRI through P.D. No. 1620, Art. 3.
- The DEFORAF's recognition of immunity is a determination by the Executive Branch, a political question conclusive on the courts so as not to embarrass a political department.
- The immunity of international organizations is institutional: it lets them perform their functions without interference from the host country, which is necessitated by their international character and purposes.
- Labor is not left without remedy: employees may use Section 31 of the Convention, the withdrawal-of-privileges clause in the ICMC Agreement, and the CIEM at IRRI.
- Since the immunity extends to every form of legal process, the BLR Director could not order a certification election in the ICMC case, and the petition is granted.
“The grant of immunity from local jurisdiction to ICMC and IRRI is clearly necessitated by their international character and respective purposes.”
Rule applied
Memorandum of Agreement between the Government and ICMC; Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of Specialized Agencies, Art. III, Secs. 4, 5 and 31; Pres. Decree No. 1620, Art. 3; Art. II, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution
Whether or not the Court is estopped from ruling on DOLE jurisdiction over ICMC because it took cognizance of ICMC v. NLRC (G.R. No. 72222).
The Court is not estopped by its earlier ICMC v. NLRC decision, because the facts there arose before the 1988 grant of immunity and ICMC did not invoke immunity in that case.
How the Court reasoned
- The earlier case involved events that occurred before the DEFORAF granted ICMC immunity in 1988.
- ICMC did not raise immunity in that earlier case, so the Court never ruled on it.
- Taking cognizance of a case without the immunity issue being raised does not bar the Court from ruling on that issue when properly raised later.
“We find no merit to said submission.”
Rule applied
Doctrine on estoppel and the effect of prior rulings; International Catholic Migration Commission v. NLRC, G.R. No. 72222, 169 SCRA 606
Whether or not the Secretary of Labor had jurisdiction to entertain IRRI's appeal from the BLR Director's order directing a certification election, the latter allegedly having become final and unappealable.
The Secretary of Labor validly took appellate jurisdiction because the BLR Director's decision had not become final.
How the Court reasoned
- IRRI filed a motion for reconsideration, which prevented the BLR Director's decision from becoming final.
- That motion was acted upon after R.A. No. 6715 took effect on March 21, 1989.
- Under the amended law, the Secretary of Labor could review the BLR Director's decision on appeal.
- Hence the Secretary properly assumed appellate jurisdiction.
“Hence, no grave abuse of discretion may be imputed to respondent Secretary of Labor in his assumption of appellate jurisdiction, contrary to Kapisanan's allegations.”
Rule applied
Rep. Act No. 6715, Sec. 25 and Art. 259 of the Labor Code; Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Rule V
Whether or not a certification election is beyond the scope of the immunity from legal process because it is not a suit against the organization.
A certification election is not beyond the scope of the immunity; it is part of a process that can lead to collective bargaining and litigation, so immunity from legal process applies.
How the Court reasoned
- Kapisanan argued that a certification election is merely a non-adversarial determination of the workers' choice and not a suit against IRRI.
- A certification election is not an isolated process; it is the first step toward collective bargaining and possible disputes and litigation with the organization.
- Allowing it would subject the organization to the DOLE's jurisdiction, which the immunity from every form of legal process forbids.
Rule applied
Pres. Decree No. 1620, Art. 3 (immunity from every form of legal process); Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of Specialized Agencies
Whether or not Article 3 of Pres. Decree No. 1620 is unconstitutional for depriving Filipino workers of their right to form unions for collective bargaining.
Article 3 of P.D. No. 1620 is not unconstitutional, because the immunity does not deprive labor of its rights and workers have alternative remedies.
How the Court reasoned
- Constitutional protection of the right to organize does not override the immunity granted to international organizations, which is grounded in the State's adherence to international law (Art. II, Sec. 2).
- The immunity serves the international purposes of IRRI and does not bar employees from remedies.
- Employees can resort to alternative modes of settlement, such as the CIEM at IRRI, so labor's rights are not defeated.
Rule applied
Art. XIII, Sec. 3 and Art. III, Sec. 8, 1987 Constitution; Pres. Decree No. 1620, Art. 3
Whether or not the Secretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Petition for Certification Election filed by Kapisanan on the basis of IRRI's immunity under Pres. Decree No. 1620.
The Secretary of Labor did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for certification election, since IRRI's immunity barred DOLE's jurisdiction.
How the Court reasoned
- IRRI enjoys immunity under P.D. No. 1620, recognized by the Executive Branch as a political question binding on the courts.
- The immunity was not waived by IRRI.
- Since the immunity bars DOLE from assuming jurisdiction, the Secretary's dismissal was correct and the petition in G.R. No. 89331 lacks merit.
“There can be no question that diplomatic immunity has, in fact, been granted ICMC and IRRI.”
Rule applied
Pres. Decree No. 1620, Art. 3; Rule on certiorari for grave abuse of discretion
Doctrines
The Executive Branch's determination (through the DFA) that an international organization enjoys diplomatic privileges and immunities is a political question conclusive upon the courts.
The immunity of international organizations from local jurisdiction is institutional and functional, intended to ensure unimpeded performance of their functions free from host-country interference, and extends to Philippine labor laws, including certification elections.
A certification election is not an isolated process but may lead to collective bargaining and litigation, so it falls within the immunity from every form of legal process; employees retain alternative remedies such as those provided in the Convention, the host agreement and internal mechanisms.
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari in G.R. No. 85750 is GRANTED and the Order of the Bureau of Labor Relations Director is SET ASIDE, with the TRO of November 28, 1988 made permanent. The Petition in G.R. No. 89331 is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Notes
The Court held that the labor rights of employees of immune international organizations are not defeated since alternative remedies exist. The Secretary of Labor and the Solicitor General's changed positions did not alter the outcome.