G.R. Nos. 109095-109107 February 23, 1995
ELDEPIO LASCO, RODOLFO ELISAN, URBANO BERADOR, FLORENTINO ESTOBIO, MARCELINO MATURAN, FRAEN BALIBAG, CARMELITO GAJOL, DEMOSTHENES MANTO, SATURNINO BACOL, SATURNINO LASCO, RAMON LOYOLA, JOSENIANO B. ESPINA, all represented by MARIANO R. ESPINA, petitioners, vs. UNITED NATIONS REVOLVING FUND FOR NATURAL RESOURCES EXPLORATION (UNRFNRE) represented by its operations manager, DR. KYRIACOS LOUCA, OSCAR N. ABELLA, LEON G. GONZAGA, JR., MUSIB M. BUAT, Commissioners of National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Fifth Division, Cagayan de Oro City and IRVING PETILLA, Labor Arbiter of Butuan City, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were dismissed from their employment with private respondent UNRFNRE, a special fund and subsidiary organ of the United Nations involved in a joint mineral exploration project with the Philippine Government in Dinagat Island. They filed complaints for illegal dismissal and damages before the Labor Arbiter. Private respondent moved to dismiss the complaints, alleging diplomatic immunity under the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, supported by a letter from the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) confirming such immunity. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaints based on the DFA letter. The NLRC affirmed the dismissal. Petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari without first filing a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC resolution.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the dismissal of the complaints on the ground that private respondent UNRFNRE is entitled to diplomatic immunity from suit.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. The Court held that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The diplomatic immunity of UNRFNRE was sufficiently established by the DFA letter, which recognized its immunity in accordance with the 1946 Convention, to which the Philippines is a party. The issue of immunity is a political question, and the executive branch’s determination is conclusive on courts and quasi-judicial agencies. As a specialized agency of the UN, UNRFNRE is covered by the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, which grants immunity from every form of legal process unless expressly waived. No waiver existed in this case. The Court further ruled that the constitutional mandate to protect labor does not conflict with the grant of immunity to international organizations, which is intended to ensure the unhampered performance of their functions. The Court noted that petitioners’ failure to file a motion for reconsideration before the NLRC was fatal, but it gave due course to the petition due to the implications on international relations. The Court clarified that UNRFNRE’s presence was for a joint government project, not a commercial venture, and that petitioners may seek recourse through the dispute settlement mechanisms provided for in the Convention.