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 found a prima
DFA vs. NLRC
GR No. 113191, September 18 1996
FACTS:
Private respondent NLRC initiated a case against for an alleged illegal dismissal by ADB and the latter's violation of the "labor-only" contracting law.
Two summonses were served, one sent directly to the ADB and the other through the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), both with a copy of the complaint.
Forthwith, the ADB and the DFA notified respondent Labor Arbiter that the ADB, as well as its President and Officers, were covered by an immunity from legal process except for borrowings, guaranties or the sale of securities pursuant to Article 50(1) and Article 55 of the Agreement Establishing the Asian Development Bank (the "Charter") in relation to Section 5 and Section 44 of the Agreement Between The Bank And The Government Of The Philippines Regarding The Bank's Headquarters (the "Headquarters Agreement").
Read: Municipality of San Fernando vs. Judge Firme
The Labor Arbiter took cognizance of the complaint on the impression that the ADB had waived its diplomatic immunity from suit and rendered his decision declaring the complainant as a regular employee of respondent ADB and his termination was illegal.
The ADB did not appeal the decision but instead, the DFA referred the matter to the National Labor Relations Commission seeking a formal vacation of the void judgment.
Dissatisfied by the NLRC’s response, the DFA lodged the instant petition for certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not ADB enjoys a diplomatic immunity from suit.
HELD:
The petition for certiorari is granted, and the decision of the Labor Arbiter is vacated for being null and void.
The provisions stipulated by both the Charter and Headquarters Agreement should be able, nay well enough, to establish that, except in the specified cases of borrowing and guarantee operations, as well as the purchase, sale and underwriting of securities, the ADB enjoys immunity from legal process of every form.
The Bank’s officers, on their part, enjoy immunity in respect of all acts performed by them in their official capacity.
Read: Farolan vs. Court of Tax Appeals
The Charter and the Headquarters Agreement granting these immunities and privileges are treaty covenants and commitments voluntarily assumed by the Philippine government which must be respected.
Being an international organization that has been extended a diplomatic status, the ADB is independent of the municipal law.
GR No. 113191, September 18 1996
FACTS:
Private respondent NLRC initiated a case against for an alleged illegal dismissal by ADB and the latter's violation of the "labor-only" contracting law.
Two summonses were served, one sent directly to the ADB and the other through the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA), both with a copy of the complaint.
Forthwith, the ADB and the DFA notified respondent Labor Arbiter that the ADB, as well as its President and Officers, were covered by an immunity from legal process except for borrowings, guaranties or the sale of securities pursuant to Article 50(1) and Article 55 of the Agreement Establishing the Asian Development Bank (the "Charter") in relation to Section 5 and Section 44 of the Agreement Between The Bank And The Government Of The Philippines Regarding The Bank's Headquarters (the "Headquarters Agreement").
Read: Municipality of San Fernando vs. Judge Firme
The Labor Arbiter took cognizance of the complaint on the impression that the ADB had waived its diplomatic immunity from suit and rendered his decision declaring the complainant as a regular employee of respondent ADB and his termination was illegal.
The ADB did not appeal the decision but instead, the DFA referred the matter to the National Labor Relations Commission seeking a formal vacation of the void judgment.
Dissatisfied by the NLRC’s response, the DFA lodged the instant petition for certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether or not ADB enjoys a diplomatic immunity from suit.
HELD:
The petition for certiorari is granted, and the decision of the Labor Arbiter is vacated for being null and void.
The provisions stipulated by both the Charter and Headquarters Agreement should be able, nay well enough, to establish that, except in the specified cases of borrowing and guarantee operations, as well as the purchase, sale and underwriting of securities, the ADB enjoys immunity from legal process of every form.
The Bank’s officers, on their part, enjoy immunity in respect of all acts performed by them in their official capacity.
Read: Farolan vs. Court of Tax Appeals
The Charter and the Headquarters Agreement granting these immunities and privileges are treaty covenants and commitments voluntarily assumed by the Philippine government which must be respected.
Being an international organization that has been extended a diplomatic status, the ADB is independent of the municipal law.