*

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, and 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.

Remedial Law;  Certiorari;  Certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for
reconsideration is first filed before the respondent tribunal, to allow it an opportunity to correct its
assigned errors.—Article 223 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, provides that decisions of
the NLRC are final and executory. Thus, they may only be questioned through certiorari as a special civil
action under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. Ordinarily, certiorari as a special civil action will not
lie unless a motion for reconsideration is first filed before the respondent tribunal, to allow it an
opportunity to correct its assigned errors (Liberty Insurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA
37 [1993]). In the case at bench, petitioners' failure to file a motion for reconsideration is fatal to the
instant petition. Moreover, the petition lacks any explanation for such omission, which may merit its
being considered as falling under the recognized exceptions to the necessity of filing such motion.

Constitutional Law;  Doctrine of Immunity;  The Philippine Government adheres to the doctrine of
immunity granted to the United Nations and its specialized agencies.—As a matter of state policy as
expressed in the Constitution, the Philippine Government adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law (1987 Constitution, Art. II., Sec. 2). Being a member of the United Nations and a party
to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized

________________

* FIRST DIVISION.

682

682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Lasco vs. United Nations Revolving Fund for

Natural Resources Exploration

Agencies of the United Nations, the Philippine Government adheres to the doctrine of immunity
granted to the United Nations and its specialized agencies. Both treaties have the force and effect of law.

Same;  Same;  The reason behind the grant of privileges and immunities to international
organizations, its officials and functionaries is to secure them legal and practical independence in
fulfilling their duties.—We recognize the growth of international organizations dedicated to specific
universal endeavors, such as health, agriculture, science and technology and environment. It is not
surprising that their existence has evolved into the concept of international immunities. The reason
behind the grant of privileges and immunities to international organizations, its officials and
functionaries is to secure them legal and practical independence in fulfilling their duties (Jenks,
International Immunities 17 [1961]). Immunity is necessary to assure unimpeded performance of their
functions. The purpose is "to shield the affairs of international organizations, in accordance with
international practice, from political pressure or control by the host country to the prejudice of member
States of the organization, and to ensure the unhampered performance of their functions" (International
Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja, 190 SCRA 130 [1990]).

Same; Same; There is no conflict between the constitutional duty of the State to protect the rights of
workers and to promote their welfare, and the grant of immunity to international organizations.—In
the  International Catholic Migration Commission  case, we held that there is no conflict between the
constitutional duty of the State to protect the rights of workers and to promote their welfare, and the
grant of immunity to international organizations. Clauses on jurisdictional immunity are now standard
in the charters of international organizations to guarantee the smooth discharge of their functions.

Same; Same; The issue whether an international organization is entitled to diplomatic immunity is a

"political question" and such determination by the executive branch is conclusive on the courts and quasi-
judicial agencies.—The diplomatic immunity of private respondent was sufficiently established by the
letter of the Department of Foreign Affairs, recognizing and confirming the immunity of UNRFNRE in
accordance with the 1946 Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations where the
Philippine Government was a party. The issue whether an international organization is entitled to
diplomatic immunity is a "political question" and such determination by the executive branch is
conclusive on the courts and quasi-judicial agencies (The Holy See v. Hon. Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr., G.R.
No. 101949, Dec. 1,

683

VOL. 241, FEBRUARY 23, 1995 683

Lasco vs. United Nations Revolving Fund for

Natural Resources Exploration

1994; International Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja, supra).

Same; Same; Courts can only assume jurisdiction over private respondent if it expressly waived its
immunity.—Our courts can only assume jurisdiction over private respondent if it expressly waived its
immunity, which is not so in the case at bench (Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the
Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, Art. III, Sec. 4).

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Public Attorney's Office for petitioners.
     Castillo, Laman, Tan & Pantaleon for private respondents.

QUIASON, J.:

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to set aside the
Resolution dated January 25, 1993 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Fifth
Division, Cagayan de Oro City.
We dismiss the petition.

Petitioners were dismissed from their employment with private respondent, the United
Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration (UNRFNRE), which is a special
fund and subsidiary organ of the United Nations. The UNRFNRE is involved in a joint project
of the Philippine Government and the United Nations for exploration work in Dinagat Island.
Petitioners are the complainants in NLRC Cases Nos. SRAB 10-03-00067-91 to 10-03-
00078-91 and SRAB 10-07-00159-91 for illegal dismissal and damages.
In its Motion to Dismiss, private respondent alleged that respondent Labor Arbiter had no
jurisdiction over its personality since it enjoyed diplomatic immunity pursuant to the 1946
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. In support thereof,
private respondent attached a letter from the Department of Foreign Affairs dated August 26,
1991, which acknowledged its immunity from suit. The letter confirmed that
684

684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lasco vs. United Nations Revolving Fund for
Natural Resources Exploration

private respondent, being a special fund administered by the United Nations, was covered by
the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations of which the
Philippine Government was an original signatory (Rollo, p. 21).
On November 25, 1991, respondent Labor Arbiter issued an order dismissing the
complaints on the ground that private respondent was protected by diplomatic immunity. The
dismissal was based on the letter of the Foreign Office dated September 10, 1991.
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. Thus, an appeal was filed with the
NLRC, which affirmed the dismissal of the complaints in its Resolution dated January 25,
1993.
Petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari without first seeking a reconsideration of
the NLRC resolution.

II

Article 223 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as amended, provides that decisions of the
NLRC are final and executory. Thus, they may only be questioned through certiorari as a
special civil action under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Ordinarily, certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration
is first filed before the respondent tribunal, to allow it an opportunity to correct its assigned
errors (Liberty Insurance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 37 [1993]).
In the case at bench, petitioners' failure to file a motion for reconsideration is fatal to the
instant petition. Moreover, the petition lacks any explanation for such omission, which may
merit its being considered as falling under the recognized exceptions to the necessity of filing
such motion.
Notwithstanding, we deem it wise to give due course to the petition because of the
implications of the issue in our international relations.
Petitioners argued that the acts of mining exploration and exploitation are outside the
official functions of an international agency protected by diplomatic immunity. Even assuming
that private respondent was entitled to diplomatic immunity, petitioners insisted that private
respondent waived it when it en-
685

VOL. 241, FEBRUARY 23, 1995 685

Lasco vs. United Nations Revolving Fund for
Natural Resources Exploration
gaged in exploration work and entered into a contract of employment with petitioners.
Petitioners, likewise, invoked the constitutional mandate that the State shall afford full
protection to labor and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for
all (1987 Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 3).
The Office of the Solicitor General is of the view that private respondent is covered by the
mantle of diplomatic immunity. Private respondent is a specialized agency of the United
Nations. Under Article 105 of the Charter of the United Nations:

"1. The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of its Members such privileges and
immunities as are necessary for the fulfillment of its purposes.
"2. Representatives of the Members of the United Nations and officials of the Organization
shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the
independent exercise of their functions in connection with the Organization."

Corollary to the cited article is the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the
Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, to which the Philippines was a signatory (Vol. 1,
Philippine Treaty Series, p. 621). We quote Sections 4 and 5 of Article III thereof:
"Section 4. The specialized agencies, their property and assets, wherever located and by whomsoever held,
shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process except insofar as in any particular case they have
expressly waived their immunity. It is, however, understood that no waiver of immunity shall extend to
any measure of execution (Italics supplied).
"Section 5. The premises of the specialized agencies shall be inviolable. The property and assets of the
specialized agencies, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition,
confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference,  whether by executive, administrative,
judicial or legislative action" (Italics supplied).

As a matter of state policy as expressed in the Constitution, the Philippine Government adopts
the generally accepted principles of international law (1987 Constitution, Art. II., Sec. 2).
686

686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Lasco vs. United Nations Revolving Fund for
Natural Resources Exploration

Being a member of the United Nations and a party to the Convention on the Privileges and
Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, the Philippine Government
adheres to the doctrine of immunity granted to the United Nations and its specialized
agencies. Both treaties have the force and effect of law.
In World Health Organization v. Aquino, 48 SCRA 242(1972), we had occasion to rule that:
"It is a recognized principle of international law and under our system of separation of powers
that  diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look beyond a
determination by the executive branch of the government,and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is
recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the government as in the case at bar, it is then the
duty of the courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate suggestion by the principal law
officer of the government, the Solicitor General or other officer acting under his direction. Hence, in
adherence to the settled principle that courts may not so exercise their jurisdiction by seizure and
detention of property, as to embarrass the executive arm of the government in conducting foreign
relations, it is accepted doctrine that "in such cases the judicial department of (this) government follows
the action of the political branch and will not embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic
jurisdiction" (Italics supplied).
We recognize the growth of international organizations dedicated to specific universal
endeavors, such as health, agriculture, science and technology and environment. It is not
surprising that their existence has evolved into the concept of international immunities. The
reason behind the grant of privileges and immunities to international organizations, its
officials and functionaries is to secure them legal and practical independence in fulfilling their
duties (Jenks, International Immunities 17 [1961]).
Immunity is necessary to assure unimpeded performance of their functions. The purpose is
"to shield the affairs of international organizations, in accordance with international practice,
from political pressure or control by the host country to the prejudice of member States of the
organization, and to ensure the unhampered performance of their functions" (International
Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja, 190 SCRA 130 [1990]),
687

VOL. 241, FEBRUARY 23, 1995 687

Lasco vs. United Nations Revolving Fund for
Natural Resources Exploration

In the  International Catholic Migration Commission  case, we held that there is no conflict
between the constitutional duty of the State to protect the rights of workers and to promote
their welfare, and the grant of immunity to international organizations. Clauses on
jurisdictional immunity are now standard in the charters of international organizations to
guarantee the smooth discharge of their functions.
The diplomatic immunity of private respondent was sufficiently established by the letter of
the Department of Foreign Affairs, recognizing and confirming the immunity of UNRFNRE in
accordance with the 1946 Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations
where the Philippine Government was a party. The issue whether an international
organization is entitled to diplomatic immunity is a "political question" and such
determination by the executive branch is conclusive on the courts and quasi-judicial agencies
(The Holy See v. Hon. Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr., G.R. No. 101949, Dec. 1, 1994; International
Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja, supra).
Our courts can only assume jurisdiction over private respondent if it expressly waived its
immunity, which is not so in the case at bench (Convention on the Privileges and Immunities
of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, Art. III, Sec. 4).
Private respondent is not engaged in a commercial venture in the Philippines. Its presence
here is by virtue of a joint project entered into by the Philippine Government and the United
Nations for mineral exploration in Dinagat Island. Its mission is not to exploit our natural
resources and gain pecuniarily thereby but to help improve the quality of life of the people,
including that of petitioners.
This is not to say that petitioners have no recourse. Section 31 of the Convention on the
Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations states that "each
specialized agency shall make a provision for appropriate modes of settlement of: (a) disputes
arising out of contracts or other disputes of private character to which the specialized agency
is a party."
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
688

688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Secretary of Health vs. Court of Appeals

SO ORDERED.
      Padilla (Chairman), Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Petition dismissed.

Note.—It is not within the province of the courts to pass judgment upon the policy of
legislative or executive action. (Llamas vs. Orbos, 202 SCRA 844 [1991])