Case Summary (G.R. No. 125865)
Key Dates
• January 28 & 31, 1994 – Alleged defamatory utterances by petitioner
• April 13, 1994 – MTC dismissed criminal informations on DFA advice of immunity
• RTC Pasig set aside MTC dismissal on certiorari and mandamus
• January 28, 2000 – Supreme Court Decision denying petitioner’s petition for review
• October 18, 2000 – Oral arguments on motions for reconsideration
• March 26, 2001 – Resolution denying motions for reconsideration
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (foreign relations; separation of powers)
• Agreement Between the ADB and the Republic of the Philippines Regarding the ADB Headquarters
– Section 45(a): “Officers and staff…shall enjoy immunity from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity, except when the Bank waives the immunity.”
• ADB Charter
– Article 55(i): Staff immunity for official acts, subject to waiver by the Bank
• Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (distinct regime of diplomatic immunities)
• Conventions on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations and Specialized Agencies
Factual Background
Petitioner was charged before the MTC–Mandaluyong with two counts of grave oral defamation for allegedly slandering his ADB secretary on separate dates in January 1994. Acting on a DFA protocol certifying his immunity as ADB staff, the MTC dismissed the informations. The People secured RTC Pasig relief, which annulled the dismissal. Petitioner’s petition for review to the Supreme Court was denied on January 28, 2000. Petitioner and the DFA then filed motions for reconsideration, arguing, inter alia, that immunity for international organizations and their staff is absolute and that the DFA’s determination is conclusive on the courts.
Issues
- Does an ADB officer enjoy absolute immunity from Philippine judicial process?
- Are allegedly defamatory statements protected as acts in the performance of official functions?
- Is the DFA’s certification of immunity binding and beyond judicial inquiry?
- Does the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations apply to ADB staff?
Analysis
Nature of ADB Staff Immunity
• International organizations (including the ADB) enjoy broad immunity from legal process in their institutional capacity.
• Their personnel, however, enjoy only functional or “official‐capacity” immunities conferred by treaty (ADB Charter, HQ Agreement) – not the absolute diplomatic immunities of foreign State envoys under the Vienna Convention.Scope of Official‐Capacity Immunity
• Section 45(a) of the Headquarters Agreement and Article 55(i) of the Charter limit staff immunity to acts “performed…in their official capacity.”
• Slander or oral defamation is a personal wrongful act and does not fall within the scope of official duties of an ADB economist.Judicial Competence and the DFA Protocol
• The DFA’s determination of immunity is a political‐branch assessment but is not conclusive on Philippine courts.
• Under the separation of powers, courts decide in the first instance whether an act qualifies as official or private for purposes of immunity.
• If a court misinterprets treaty immunities, the organization may invoke dispute‐settlement procedures under the relevant convention
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 125865)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioner Jeffrey Liang, a Chinese national, was employed as an economist by the Asian Development Bank (ADB).
- On January 28 and 31, 1994, he allegedly uttered defamatory words against Joyce V. Cabal, a member of the ADB clerical staff.
- Two criminal informations for grave oral defamation (Criminal Cases Nos. 53170 & 53171, MTC–Mandaluyong, Branch 60) were filed against him.
- On April 13, 1994, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, acting on advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), dismissed the cases on the ground of immunity.
- The People of the Philippines filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus; the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 160, annulled and set aside the MTC’s dismissal order.
- Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a petition for review, which was denied by Decision of January 28, 2000.
Procedural History
- Filing of two criminal informations before MTC–Mandaluyong (1994).
- MTC dismissal based on DFA advice granting immunity (April 13, 1994).
- RTC–Pasig annuls MTC order on petition of the People (SCA No. 743).
- Petition for review filed with the Supreme Court.
- Supreme Court Decision—January 28, 2000—denying the petition for review.
- Oral arguments held October 18, 2000; DFA granted leave to intervene.
- Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration filed, anchored on six principal arguments.
Issues
- Whether petitioner, as an ADB official, is entitled to absolute diplomatic immunity from criminal process in the Philippines.
- Whether the immunity granted to international organizations extends to all acts of their staff and officials.
- Whether immunity extends to acts of grave oral defamation allegedly committed by petitioner.
- Whether determination of immunity by the DFA is a political question binding upon the judiciary.
- Whether the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations applies to A