Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor foun...
Callado vs. IRRI
GR No. 106483, May 22 1995, 244 SCRA 210
FACTS:
Petitioner Ernesto Callado was employed as a driver at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).
On February 11, 1990, while driving an IRRI vehicle on an official trip to the Ninoy Aquino International Airport and back to the IRRI, petitioner figured in an accident.
After evaluating petitioner's answer, explanations and other evidence by IRRI's Human Resource Development Department Manager, the latter issued a Notice of Termination to petitioner on December 7, 1990.
Petitioner then filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension and indemnity pay with moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
Private respondent likewise informed the Labor Arbiter, through counsel, that the Institute enjoys immunity from legal process by virtue of Article 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1620, and that it invokes such diplomatic immunity and privileges as an international organization in the instant case filed by petitioner, not having waived the same.
Read: Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
However, the Labor Arbiter finds private respondent IRRI to have waived its immunity considered the defense of immunity no longer a legal obstacle in resolving the case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not IRRI waived its immunity from suit in this dispute which arose from an employer-employee relationship.
HELD:
The Court ruled in the negative and vote to dismiss the petition.
There’s no merit in petitioner's arguments, thus IRRI's immunity from suit is undisputed.
Read: United States of America vs. Ruiz
On the matter of waiving its immunity from suit, IRRI had, early on, made its position clear.
Through counsel, the Institute wrote the Labor Arbiter categorically informing him that the Institute will not waive its diplomatic immunity.
GR No. 106483, May 22 1995, 244 SCRA 210
FACTS:
Petitioner Ernesto Callado was employed as a driver at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).
On February 11, 1990, while driving an IRRI vehicle on an official trip to the Ninoy Aquino International Airport and back to the IRRI, petitioner figured in an accident.
After evaluating petitioner's answer, explanations and other evidence by IRRI's Human Resource Development Department Manager, the latter issued a Notice of Termination to petitioner on December 7, 1990.
Petitioner then filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension and indemnity pay with moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
Private respondent likewise informed the Labor Arbiter, through counsel, that the Institute enjoys immunity from legal process by virtue of Article 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1620, and that it invokes such diplomatic immunity and privileges as an international organization in the instant case filed by petitioner, not having waived the same.
Read: Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
However, the Labor Arbiter finds private respondent IRRI to have waived its immunity considered the defense of immunity no longer a legal obstacle in resolving the case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not IRRI waived its immunity from suit in this dispute which arose from an employer-employee relationship.
HELD:
The Court ruled in the negative and vote to dismiss the petition.
There’s no merit in petitioner's arguments, thus IRRI's immunity from suit is undisputed.
Presidential Decree No. 1620, Article 3 provides: Immunity from Legal Process. The Institute shall enjoy immunity from any penal, civil and administrative proceedings, except insofar as that immunity has been expressly waived by the Director-General of the Institute or his authorized representatives.The grant of immunity to IRRI is clear and unequivocal and an express waiver by its Director-General is the only way by which it may relinquish or abandon this immunity.
Read: United States of America vs. Ruiz
On the matter of waiving its immunity from suit, IRRI had, early on, made its position clear.
Through counsel, the Institute wrote the Labor Arbiter categorically informing him that the Institute will not waive its diplomatic immunity.