Case Digest (G.R. No. 109095-109107)
Facts:
Eldepio Lasco, et al., G.R. Nos. 109095-109107, February 23, 1995, First Division, Quiason, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are a group of workers (represented by Mariano R. Espina) who were dismissed from employment with private respondent United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration (UNRFNRE), a special fund and subsidiary organ of the United Nations involved in a joint Philippine–UN mineral exploration project on Dinagat Island. Respondents include the UNRFNRE (through its operations manager Dr. Kyriacos Louca), the Commissioners of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Fifth Division, Cagayan de Oro City, and Labor Arbiter Irving Petilla.
After their dismissal, petitioners filed illegal dismissal complaints in the NLRC (Cases Nos. SRAB 10-03-00067-91 to 10-03-00078-91 and SRAB 10-07-00159-91). Private respondent moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on grounds of diplomatic immunity under the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, attaching a Department of Foreign Affairs letter (dated August 26, 1991) acknowledging such immunity. The Labor Arbiter issued an order on November 25, 1991 dismissing the complaints, relying on a Foreign Office letter dated September 10, 1991. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before the Labor Arbiter was denied.
The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal in its Resolution dated January 25, 1993. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court directly with the Supreme Court, without first seeking reconsideration of the NLRC resolution. The Office of the Solicitor General maintained that UNRFNRE is covered by the immunities granted to the United Nations and its specialized agencies under Article 105 of the UN Charter and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agen...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Is the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 barred for failure to first file a motion for reconsideration before the NLRC?
- Substantive: Did the UNRFNRE enjoy diplomatic immunity from suit such that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC lacked jurisdiction, and if so, was that immunity waived by the UNRFNRE’s allegedly commercial/extractive activities or by entering into employment contracts with petitioners?
- Substantive: Do the State’s constitutional obligations to protect labor (1987 Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 3) override any treaty-based imm...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)