International Catholic Immigration Commission Vs Calleja
International Catholic Immigration Commission Vs Calleja
International Catholic Immigration Commission Vs Calleja
GMCR ca sed an inverstigation regarding missing e! i"ments and s"are "arts nder t#e c stody of Saldivar. $""arently% Saldivar entered into a "artners#i" wit# &ambao% a manager of GMCR's s ""lier.
It a""ears t#at Salazar violated com"any reglations by involving #erself in transactions conflicting wit# t#e com"any(s interests. )vidence s#owed t#at s#e signed as a witness to t#e articles of "artners#i" between &ambao and Saldivar. It also a""eared t#at s#e #ad f ll *nowledge of t#e loss and w#ereabo ts of t#e +edders airconditioner b t failed to inform #er em"loyer. Salazar was "laced nder "reventive s s"ension for , mont# and gave #er -. days wit#in w#ic# to e/"lain #er side. S#e instead filed a com"laint for illegal s s"ension w#ic# s#e later amended to incl de illegal dismissal% vacation and sic* leave benefits% ,0 mont# "ay and damages after s#e was notified t#e s#e was considered dismissed in view of #er inability to ref te t#e findings.
8#et#er or not t#e grant of di"lomatic "rivileges and imm nities to ICMC e/tends to imm nity from t#e a""lication of 4#ili""ine labor laws.
R ling2 &)S. $rticle II of t#e Memorand m of $greement between t#e 4#ili""ine Government and ICMC "rovides t#at ICMC s#all #ave a stat s 9similar to t#at of a s"ecialized agency.: $rticle III% Section ;. 1#e s"ecialized agencies% t#eir "ro"erty and assets% w#erever located and by w#omsoever #eld% s#all en5oy imm nity from every form of legal "rocess e/ce"t in so far as
in any "artic lar case t#ey #ave e/"ressly waived t#eir imm nity. It is% #owever% nderstood t#at no waiver of imm nity s#all e/tend to any meas re of e/ec tion.
It is a recognized "rinci"le of international law and nder o r system of se"aration of "owers t#at di"lomatic imm nity is essentially a "olitical ! estion and co rts s#o ld ref se to loo* beyond a determination by t#e e/ec tive branc# of t#e government% and w#ere t#e "lea of di"lomatic imm nity is recognized and affirmed by t#e e/ec tive branc# of t#e government as in t#e case at bar% it is t#en t#e d ty of t#e co rts to acce"t t#e claim of imm nity "on a""ro"riate s ggestion by t#e "rinci"al law officer of t#e government . . . or ot#er officer acting nder #is direction. <ence% in ad#erence to t#e settled "rinci"le t#at co rts may not so e/ercise t#eir 5 risdiction . . . as to embarrass t#e e/ec tive arm of t#e government in cond cting foreign relations% it is acce"ted doctrine t#at in s c# cases t#e 5 dicial de"artment of =t#is> government follows t#e action of t#e "olitical branc# and will not embarrass t#e latter by ass ming an antagonistic 5 risdiction.