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
Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
SEAFDEC vs. NLRC
GR Nos. 97468-70, September 2 1993, 241 SCRA 580
FACTS:
Two labor cases were filed by the herein private respondents against the petitioner, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC), before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Regional Arbitration Branch, Iloilo City.
In these cases, the private respondents claim having been wrongfully terminated from their employment by the petitioner.
The petitioner, who claims to be an international inter-government organization composed of various Southeast Asian countries, filed a Motion to Dismiss, challenged the jurisdiction of the public respondent in taking cognizance of the above cases.
Read: City of Angeles vs. Court of Appeals
The private respondents, as well as respondent labor arbiter, allege that the petitioner is not immune from suit and assuming that if, indeed, it is an international organization, it has, however, impliedly, if not expressly, waived its immunity by belatedly raising the issue of jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is immune from suit.
HELD:
The Court ruled for the petitioner.
It is beyond question that petitioner SEAFDEC is an international agency enjoying diplomatic immunity.
It has already been held in Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center-Aquaculture Department vs. National Labor Relations Commission (G.R. No. 86773, 206 SCRA 283/1992).
Petitioner Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center-Aquaculture Department (SEAFDEC-AQD) is an international agency beyond the jurisdiction of public respondent NLRC.
Being an intergovernmental organization, SEAFDEC including its Departments (AQD), enjoys functional independence and freedom from control of the state in whose territory its office is located.
Read: Callado vs. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)
One of the basic immunities of an international organization is immunity from local jurisdiction, i.e., that it is immune from the legal writs and processes issued by the tribunals of the country where it is found.
The obvious reason for this is that the subjection of such an organization to the authority of the local courts would afford a convenient medium thru which the host government may interfere in their operations or even influence or control its policies and decisions of the organization; besides, such objection to local jurisdiction would impair the capacity of such body to discharge its responsibilities impartially on behalf of its member-states.
GR Nos. 97468-70, September 2 1993, 241 SCRA 580
FACTS:
Two labor cases were filed by the herein private respondents against the petitioner, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC), before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Regional Arbitration Branch, Iloilo City.
In these cases, the private respondents claim having been wrongfully terminated from their employment by the petitioner.
The petitioner, who claims to be an international inter-government organization composed of various Southeast Asian countries, filed a Motion to Dismiss, challenged the jurisdiction of the public respondent in taking cognizance of the above cases.
Read: City of Angeles vs. Court of Appeals
The private respondents, as well as respondent labor arbiter, allege that the petitioner is not immune from suit and assuming that if, indeed, it is an international organization, it has, however, impliedly, if not expressly, waived its immunity by belatedly raising the issue of jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is immune from suit.
HELD:
The Court ruled for the petitioner.
It is beyond question that petitioner SEAFDEC is an international agency enjoying diplomatic immunity.
It has already been held in Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center-Aquaculture Department vs. National Labor Relations Commission (G.R. No. 86773, 206 SCRA 283/1992).
Petitioner Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center-Aquaculture Department (SEAFDEC-AQD) is an international agency beyond the jurisdiction of public respondent NLRC.
Being an intergovernmental organization, SEAFDEC including its Departments (AQD), enjoys functional independence and freedom from control of the state in whose territory its office is located.
Read: Callado vs. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)
One of the basic immunities of an international organization is immunity from local jurisdiction, i.e., that it is immune from the legal writs and processes issued by the tribunals of the country where it is found.
The obvious reason for this is that the subjection of such an organization to the authority of the local courts would afford a convenient medium thru which the host government may interfere in their operations or even influence or control its policies and decisions of the organization; besides, such objection to local jurisdiction would impair the capacity of such body to discharge its responsibilities impartially on behalf of its member-states.