Digested by: Don Christian Ycay

1-B

Republic v. Villasor, 54 SCRA 83

Facts:
In the petition filed by the Republic of the Philippines on July 7, 1969, a summary of facts
was set forth thus: "7. On July 3, 1961, a decision was rendered in Special Proceedings No.
2156-R in favor of respondents P. J. Kiener Co., Ltd., Gavino Unchuan, and International
Construction Corporation, and against the petitioner herein, confirming the arbitration award in
the amount of P1,712,396.40, subject of Special Proceedings.
On June 24, 1969, respondent Honorable Guillermo P. Villasor, issued an Order
declaring the aforestated decision of July 3, 1961 final and executory. Pursuant to the said
Order dated June 24, 1969, the corresponding Alias Writ of Execution [was issued] dated June
26, 1969.
The Republic of the Philippines filed a certiorari and prohibition proceeding challenging
the validity of an order issued by respondent Judge Guillermo P. Villasor.
Issue:
Is the Writ of Execution issued by Judge Villasor valid?
Held:
The writs of certiorari and prohibition are granted, nullifying and setting aside both the
order of June 24, 1969 declaring executory the decision of July 3, 1961 as well as the alias writ
of execution issued thereunder. The preliminary injunction issued by this Court on July 12, 1969
is hereby made permanent.
It is a fundamental postulate of constitutionalism flowing from the juristic concept of
sovereignty that the state as well as its government is immune from suit unless it gives its
consent. A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete
theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the
authority that makes the law on which the right depends.
A corollary, both dictated by logic and sound sense from a basic concept is that public
funds cannot be the object of a garnishment proceeding even if the consent to be sued had
been previously granted and the state liability adjudged. The universal rule that where the State
gives its consent to be sued by private parties either by general or special law, it may limit
claimant's action 'only up to the completion of proceedings anterior to the stage of execution'
and that the power of the Courts ends when the judgment is rendered, since government funds
and properties may not be seized under writs of execution or garnishment to satisfy such
judgments, is based on obvious considerations of public policy. Disbursements of public funds
must be covered by the corresponding appropriation as required by law. The functions and
public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to be paralyzed or disrupted by the
diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law.

Lasco v. URENRE, 241 SCRA 681

Facts:
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.
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 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 confirmed
that private respondent, being a special fund administered by the United Nations, was
covered by the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations
of which the Philippine Government was an original signatory
Petitioners argued that the acts of mining exploration and exploitation are outside
the official 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.
Issue:
Whether or not specialized agencies enjoy diplomatic immunity.
Held:
The petition is DISMISSED. 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 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).

SEAFDEC v. NLRC, 241 SCRA 580

Facts:
This is an original petition for certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for the
issuance of a restraining order, to set aside the order of respondent labor arbiter, dated
20 September 1990, denying herein petitioner's motion to dismiss the cases subject
matter of the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Two labor cases were filed by the herein private respondents against the
petitioner, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC), before the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Regional Arbitration Branch, Iloilo City.
In these cases, the private respondents claim having been wrongfully terminated from
their employment by the petitioner.
The petitioner, contending to be an international inter-government organization,
composed of various Southeast Asian countries, filed a Motion to Dismiss, challenging
the jurisdiction of the public respondent in taking cognizance of the above cases.
The private respondents, as well as respondent labor arbiter, allege that the
petitioner is not immune from suit and assuming that if, indeed, it is an international
organization, it has, however, impliedly, if not expressly, waived its immunity by
belatedly raising the issue of jurisdiction.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner is immune from suit.
Ruling:
The Court ruled for the petitioner. It is beyond question that petitioner SEAFDEC
is an international agency enjoying diplomatic immunity. It has already been held in
Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center-Aquaculture Department vs. National
Labor Relations Commission (G.R. No. 86773, 206 SCRA 283/1992). Petitioner
Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center-Aquaculture Department (SEAFDECAQD) is an international agency beyond the jurisdiction of public respondent NLRC.
Being an intergovernmental organization, SEAFDEC including its Departments
(AQD), enjoys functional independence and freedom from control of the state in whose
territory its office is located. One of the basic immunities of an international organization
is immunity from local jurisdiction, i.e., that it is immune from the legal writs and
processes issued by the tribunals of the country where it is found. The obvious reason
for this is that the subjection of such an organization to the authority of the local courts
would afford a convenient medium thru which the host government may interfere in their

operations or even influence or control its policies and decisions of the organization;
besides, such objection to local jurisdiction would impair the capacity of such body to
discharge its responsibilities impartially on behalf of its member-states.