Case Summary (G.R. No. 250763)
Petitioner
Matthew Westfall filed a complaint for damages and a criminal libel complaint, alleging that Screening Committee members issued highly disparaging, factually incorrect, and malicious statements that damaged his professional reputation.
Respondents
The respondents are ADB officers and employees—Maria Carmela D. Locsin, Amy Leung, Noriko Ogawa, Gil-Hong Kim, Diwesh Sharan, Ramesh Subramaniam, Ken L. Chee, Bibiana Victoria G. Francisco, Takehiko Nakao, Toshio Oya, Makoto Kubota, Christopher Stephens, Ramit K. Nagpal, and Deborah Stokes—who served on the Screening Committee or held various ADB positions.
Key Dates
• Complaint filed in RTC Makati: August 2017
• RTC dismissal: August 17, 2017
• CA Decision: April 22, 2019; Resolution denying reconsideration: November 26, 2019
• Supreme Court Resolution (remanding for factual inquiry): April 27, 2022
• Final Supreme Court Decision: April 16, 2024
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (judicial power, international agreements)
• ADB Charter, Articles 48–50, 55
• Headquarters Agreement between ADB and the Republic of the Philippines, Articles III, XII, XIII
• New Civil Code Articles on abuse of rights and damages; Rules on defamation
Facts of the Case
Westfall was not selected for the Technical Advisor role. The Screening Committee prepared VP Panel Notes and an Interview Report stating he “has been away” from urban sector work and “has not kept his knowledge current,” among other critiques. Westfall contended these statements were false and defamatory.
Trial Court Proceedings
Branch 138, RTC Makati City granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss, holding that as ADB officials they enjoyed functional immunity for acts performed in their official capacity. It also ruled the complaint failed to state a cause of action against certain respondents.
Court of Appeals Proceedings
The CA denied Westfall’s Rule 65 petition. It agreed the immunity issue involved factual questions on official capacity and concluded there was sufficient evidence the respondents acted within their official functions when evaluating applications.
Supreme Court Resolution
This Court’s April 27, 2022 Resolution partially granted Westfall’s petition by reinstating his complaint (except as to certain respondents) and remanding the case to the RTC to determine whether the acts were official and thus covered by immunity.
Issues for Resolution
- Whether the case should be referred En Banc and set for oral arguments.
- Whether remand to the RTC for factual inquiry was proper.
- Whether the respondents’ acts fall within official capacity and were non-defamatory, thus covered by functional immunity.
Organizational vs. Functional Immunity
International organizations like the ADB enjoy organizational immunity to protect their institutional functions. Personnel derive functional immunity only for acts strictly necessary to exercise those functions, as distinct from diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention.
ADB’s Immunity under Charter and Headquarters Agreement
• Article 50, ADB Charter: immunity from all legal processes, except specified banking transactions.
• Article 55, ADB Charter: personnel immune from legal process for official acts, unless the Bank waives immunity.
• Headquarters Agreement mirrors these provisions and distinguishes waiver procedures for different officer categories.
Judicial Inquiry into Official Capacity
Determining the applicability of functional immunity requires a court to inquire into the factual basis of whether the challenged acts were performed in an official capacity. Mere certification of immunity by the Department of Foreign Affairs is preliminary and not binding.
Exceptions to Immunity: Ultra Vires Acts
Immunity does not cover ultra vires acts—those beyond an official’s mandate or contrary to law, including defamatory or criminal acts. In Liang v. People and Wylie v. Rarang, the Court held that official immunity does not shield malicious, defamatory imputations of crimes.
Screening Committee’s Acts as Official
The Screening Committee was formally tasked to review applications, shortlist candidates, and comment on qualifications. The complained-of statements were made in documents generated pursuant to this official mandate and thus fall within the scope of the respondents’ fu
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 250763)
Antecedents
- Matthew Westfall, a former staff member of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), applied for Technical Advisor (Urban and Water) but was not selected.
- He filed a Complaint for damages against members of the ADB Screening Committee (Locsin et al.) for alleged abuse of right and defamatory statements in two internal documents: the VP Panel Notes (Feb. 16, 2015) and the Interview Report.
- Westfall claimed the notes disparaged his professional reputation, contained malicious and factually inaccurate language, and imputed defects in his credentials.
- He also pursued an internal grievance process at ADB and filed a criminal libel complaint against the Screening Committee.
Procedural History
- RTC, Makati Branch 138 (Aug. 17, 2017): Dismissed the Complaint, holding Screening Committee members immune for official acts and that the Complaint failed to state a cause of action against Nakao et al.
- RTC denied Westfall’s motion for reconsideration.
- CA, Eleventh Division (Apr. 22, 2019 Decision; Nov. 26, 2019 Resolution): Denied Westfall’s Rule 65 petition. Held that whether respondents acted in official capacity is a question of fact, but found sufficient evidence they did. Affirmed dismissal vs. Nakao et al.
- SC Resolution (Apr. 27, 2022): Partly granted Westfall’s Petition for Review on Certiorari—reinstated Complaint vs. Locsin et al., remanded to RTC for factual inquiry on immunity; affirmed dismissal vs. Nakao et al.
- Respondents filed Motion for Partial Reconsideration ad cautelam with Motion to Refer to Court En Banc and Set for Oral Arguments.
Issues Presented
- Should the case be referred to the Court En Banc and set for oral arguments?
- Did the Court err in remanding the case to the RTC for furthe