US v. Hon.

Ruiz Facts:

At times material to this case, the United States of America had a naval base in Subic, Zambales. The base was one of those rovided in the !ilitar" #ases A$reement between the %hili ines and the United States. US invited the submission of bids for Re air offender s"stem and Re air t" hoon dama$es. &li$io de 'uzman ( )o., *nc. res onded to the invitation, submitted bids and com lied with the re+uests based on the letters received from the US. *n ,une -./0, a letter was received b" the &li$io 1e 'uzman ( )o indicatin$ that the com an" did not +ualif" to receive an award for the ro2ects because of its revious unsatisfactor" erformance ratin$ on a re air contract for the sea wall at the boat landin$s of the U.S. 3aval Station in Subic #a". The com an" sued the United States of America and !essrs. ,ames &. 'allowa", 4illiam *. )ollins and Robert 'ohier all members of the &n$ineerin$ )ommand of the U.S. 3av". The com laint is to order the defendants to allow the laintiff to erform the wor5 on the ro2ects and, in the event that s ecific erformance was no lon$er ossible, to order the defendants to a" dama$es. The com an" also as5ed for the issuance of a writ of reliminar" in2unction to restrain the defendants from enterin$ into contracts with third arties for wor5 on the ro2ects. The defendants entered their s ecial a earance for the ur ose onl" of +uestionin$ the 2urisdiction of this court over the sub2ect matter of the com laint and the ersons of defendants, the sub2ect matter of the com laint bein$ acts and omissions of the individual defendants as a$ents of defendant United States of America, a forei$n soverei$n which has not $iven her consent to this suit or an" other suit for the causes of action asserted in the com laint.6 7Rollo, . 89.: Subse+uentl" the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the com laint which included an o osition to the issuance of the writ of reliminar" in2unction. The com an" o osed the motion. The trial court denied the motion and issued the writ. The defendants moved twice to reconsider but to no avail. Hence the instant etition which see5s to restrain er etuall" the roceedin$s in )ivil )ase 3o. //.;! for lac5 of 2urisdiction on the art of the trial court. *ssue<s:

4=3 the US naval base in biddin$ for said contracts e>ercise $overnmental functions to be able to invo5e state immunit"

Held: 4H&R&F=R&, the etition is $ranted? the +uestioned orders of the res ondent 2ud$e are set aside and )ivil )ase 3o. is dismissed. )osts a$ainst the rivate res ondent.

Ratio: The traditional rule of State immunit" e>em ts a State from bein$ sued in the courts of another State without its consent or waiver. This rule is a necessar" conse+uence of the rinci les of inde endence and e+ualit" of States. However, the rules of *nternational @aw are not etrified? the" are constantl" develo in$ and evolvin$. And because the activities of states have multi lied, it has been necessar" to distin$uish them;between soverei$n and $overnmental acts 72ure im erii: and rivate, commercial and ro rietar" acts 72ure $estionis:. The result is that State immunit" now e>tends onl" to acts 2ure im eril 7soverei$n ( $overnmental acts: The restrictive a lication of State immunit" is ro er onl" when the roceedin$s arise out of commercial transactions of the forei$n soverei$n, its commercial activities or economic affairs. Stated differentl", a State ma" be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitl" $iven its consent to be sued onl" when it enters into business contracts. *t does not a l" where the contract relates to the e>ercise of its soverei$n functions. *n this case the ro2ects are an inte$ral art of the naval base which is devoted to the defense of both the United States and the %hili ines, indis utabl" a function of the $overnment of the hi$hest order? the" are not utilized for nor dedicated to commercial or business ur oses. correct test for the a lication of State immunit" is not the conclusion of a contract b" a State but the le$al nature of the act

Re ublic of *ndonesia vs. ,ames Aizon '.R. 3o. 8B/98, ,une 0C, 099D

FA)TS:

%etitioner, Re ublic of *ndonesia entered into a !aintenance A$reement in Au$ust -..8 with res ondent ,ames Ainzon, sole ro rietor of Ainzon Trade and Services. The !aintenance A$reement stated that res ondent shall, for a consideration, maintain s ecified e+ui ment at the

&mbass" !ain #uildin$, &mbass" Anne> #uildin$ and the 4isma 1uta, the official residence of etitioner Ambassador Soeratmin. The e+ui ments covered b" the !aintenance A$reement are air conditionin$ units, $enerator sets, electrical facilities, water heaters, and water motor um s. *t is li5ewise stated therein that the a$reement shall be effective for a eriod of four "ears and will renew itself automaticall" unless cancelled b" either art" b" $ivin$ thirt" da"s rior written notice from the date of e> ir". %etitioners claim that sometime rior to the date of e> iration of the said a$reement, or before Au$ust -..., the" informed res ondent that the renewal of the a$reement shall be at the discretion of the incomin$ )hief of Administration, !inister )ounsellor Azhari Easim, who was e> ected to arrive in Februar" 0999. 4hen !inister )ounsellor Easim assumed the osition of )hief of Administration in !arch 0999, he alle$edl" found res ondents wor5 and services unsatisfactor" and not in com liance with the standards set in the !aintenance A$reement. Hence, the *ndonesian &mbass" terminated the a$reement in a letter dated Au$ust D-, 0999. %etitioners claim, moreover, that the" had earlier verball" informed res ondent of their decision to terminate the a$reement. =n the other hand, res ondent claims that the aforesaid termination was arbitrar" and unlawful. Res ondent filed a com laint a$ainst etitioners 7RT): of !a5ati, etitioners filed a !otion to 1ismiss, alle$in$ that the Re ublic of *ndonesia, as a forei$n soverei$n State, has soverei$n immunit" from suit and cannot be sued as a art";defendant in the %hili ines. The said motion further alle$ed that Ambassador Soeratmin and !inister )ounsellor Easim are di lomatic a$ents as defined under the Aienna )onvention on 1i lomatic Relations and therefore en2o" di lomatic immunit". *n turn, res ondent filed on !arch 09, 099-, an = osition to the said motion alle$in$ that the Re ublic of *ndonesia has e> ressl" waived its immunit" from suit. He based this claim u on the followin$ rovision in the !aintenance A$reement. *SSU&: 4hether or not the Re ublic of *ndonesia can be sued. RU@*3': The Su reme )ourt on the matter ruled that the re ublic of *ndonesia cannot be deemed to have waived its immunit" to suit. The e>istence alone of a ara$ra h in a contract statin$ that an" le$al action arisin$ out of the a$reement shall be settled accordin$ to the laws of the %hili ines and b" a s ecified court of the %hili ines is not necessaril" a waiver of soverei$n immunit" from suit. The aforesaid rovision contains lan$ua$e not necessaril" inconsistent with soverei$n immunit". =n the other hand, such rovision ma" also be meant to a l" where the soverei$n art" elects to sue in the local courts, or otherwise waives its immunit" b" an" subse+uent act. The a licabilit" of %hili ine laws must be deemed to include %hili ine laws in its totalit", includin$ the rinci le reco$nizin$ soverei$n immunit". Hence, the ro er court ma" have no ro er action, b" wa" of settlin$ the case, e>ce t to dismiss it.

The )ourt stated that the u 5ee of its furnishin$s and e+ui ment is still art soverei$n function of the State. A soverei$n State does not merel" establish a di lomatic mission and leave it at that? the establishment of a di lomatic mission encom asses its maintenance and u 5ee . Hence, the State ma" enter into contracts with rivate entities to maintain the remises, furnishin$s and e+ui ment of the embass" and the livin$ +uarters of its a$ents and officials. *t is therefore clear that etitioner Re ublic of *ndonesia was actin$ in ursuit of a soverei$n activit" when it entered into a contract with res ondent for the u 5ee or maintenance of the air conditionin$ units, $enerator sets, electrical facilities, water heaters, and water motor um s of the *ndonesian &mbass" and the official residence of the *ndonesian ambassador. The Su reme )ourt $rants the etition and reversed the decision of the )ourt of A eals. ublic official char$ed with some administrative or technical office who can be held to the ro er res onsibilit" in the manner laid down b" the law of civil res onsibilit". )onse+uentl", the trial court in not so decidin$ and in sentencin$ the said entit" to the a"ment of dama$es, caused b" an official of the second class referred to, has b" erroneous inter retation infrin$ed the rovisions of Articles -.90 and -.9D of the )ivil )ode.

*t is, therefore, evidence that the State 7'%*: is onl" liable, accordin$ to the above +uoted decisions of the Su reme )ourt of S ain, for the acts of its a$ents, officers and em lo"ees when the" act as s ecial a$ents within the meanin$ of ara$ra h 8 of Article -.9D, su ra, and that the chauffeur of the ambulance of the 'eneral Hos ital was not such an a$ent.

For the fore$oin$ reasons, the 2ud$ment a ealed from must be reversed, without costs in this instance. 4hether the 'overnment intends to ma5e itself le$all" liable for the amount of dama$es above set forth, which the laintiff has sustained b" reason of the ne$li$ent acts of one of its em lo"ees, be le$islative enactment and b" a ro riatin$ sufficient funds therefore, we are not called u on to determine. This matter rests solel" with the @e$islature and not with the courts.

@*A3' AS %&=%@& =F TH& %H*@*%%*3&S 'R no. -08FC8 ,anuar" 0F, 0999

%etitioner: ,effre" @ian$ Res ondent: %eo le of the %hili ines

FA)TS:

%etitioner is an economist wor5in$ with the Asian 1evelo ment #an5 7A1#:. Sometime in -..B, for alle$edl" utterin$ defamator" words a$ainst fellow A1# wor5er ,o"ce )abal, he was char$ed before the !eT) of !andalu"on$ )it" with two counts of oral defamation. %etitioner was arrested b" virtue of a warrant issued b" the !eT). After fi>in$ etitionerGs bail, the !eT) released him to the custod" of the Securit" =fficer of A1#. The ne>t da", the !eT) 2ud$e received an Hoffice of rotocolI from the 1FA statin$ that etitioner is covered b" immunit" from le$al rocess under section B8 of the A$reement between the A1# and the %hili ine 'overnment re$ardin$ the Head+uarters of the A1# in the countr". #ased on the said rotocol communication that etitioner is immune from suit, the !eT) 2ud$e without notice to the rosecution dismissed the criminal cases. The latter filed a motion for reconsideration which was o osed b" the 1FA. 4hen its motion was denied, the rosecution filed a etition for certiorari and mandamus with the RT) of %asi$ )it" which set aside the !eT) rulin$s and ordered the latter court to enforce the warrant of arrest it earlier issued. After the motion for reconsideration was denied, the etitioner elevated the case to the S) via a etition for review ar$uin$ that he is covered b" immunit" under the A$reement and that no reliminar" investi$ation was held before the criminal case.

*SSU&S: 7-: 4hether or not the etitionerGs case is covered with immunit" from le$al rocess with re$ard to Section B8 of the A$reement between the A1# and the %hili ine 'ovGt. 70: 4hether or not the conduct of reliminar" investi$ation was im erative.

H&@1: 7-: 3=. The etitionerGs case is not covered b" the immunit". )ourts cannot blindl" adhere to the communication from the 1FA that the etitioner is covered b" an" immunit". *t has no bindin$ effect in courts. The court needs to rotect the ri$ht to due rocess not onl" of the accused but also of the rosecution. Secondl", the immunit" under Section B8 of the A$reement is not absolute, but sub2ect to the e>ce tion that the acts must be done in Hofficial ca acit"I. Hence, slanderin$ a erson could not ossibl" be covered b" the immunit" a$reement because our laws do not allow the commission of a crime, such as defamation, in the name of official dut". 70: 3=. %reliminar" *nvesti$ation is not a matter of ri$ht in cases co$nizable b" the !eT) such as this case. #ein$ urel" a statutor" ri$ht, reliminar" investi$ation ma" be invo5ed onl" when s ecificall" $ranted b" law. The rule on criminal rocedure is clear that no reliminar" investi$ation is re+uired in cases fallin$ within the 2urisdiction of the !eT). Hence, S) denied the etition.

ICMC vs. Calleja 'R F8/89, Se t.0F -..9 FA)TS: As an aftermath of the Aietnam 4ar, the li$ht of Aietnamese refu$ees fleein$ from South AietnamJs communist rule confronted the international communit". *n res onse to this crisis, on 0D Februar" -.F-, an A$reement was for$ed between the %hili ine 'overnment and the United 3ations Hi$h )ommissioner for Refu$ees whereb" an o eratin$ center for rocessin$ *ndo;)hinese refu$ees for eventual resettlement to other countries was to be established in #ataan . *)!) was one of those accredited b" the %hili ine 'overnment to o erate the refu$ee rocessin$ center in !oron$, #ataan. *t was incor orated in 3ew Kor5, USA, at the re+uest of the Hol" See, as a non; rofit a$enc" involved in international humanitarian and voluntar" wor5. *t is dul" re$istered with the United 3ations &conomic and Social )ouncil 7&)=S=): and en2o"s )onsultative Status, )ate$or" **. As an international or$anization renderin$ voluntar" and humanitarian services in the %hili ines, its activities are arallel to those of the *nternational )ommittee for !i$ration 7*)!: and the *nternational )ommittee of the Red )ross =n -B ,ul" -.FC, Trade Unions of the %hili ines and Allied Services 7TU%AS: filed with the then !inistr" of @abor and &m lo"ment a %etition for )ertification &lection amon$ the ran5 and file members em lo"ed b" *)!) The latter o osed the etition on the $round that it is an international or$anization re$istered with the United 3ations and, hence, en2o"s di lomatic immunit". *SSU&: 4hether or not the $rant of di lomatic rivile$es and immunites to *)!) e>tends to immunit" from the a lication of %hili ine labor lawsL H&@1: The $rant of immunit" from local 2urisdiction to *)!) is clearl" necessitated b" their international character and res ective ur oses. The ob2ective is to avoid the dan$er of artialit" and interference b" the host countr" in their internal wor5in$s. The e>ercise of 2urisdiction b" the 1e artment of @abor in these instances would defeat the ver" ur ose of immunit", which is to shield the affairs of international or$anizations, in accordance with international ractice, from olitical ressure or control b" the host countr" to the re2udice of member States of the or$anization, and to ensure the unham ered erformance of their functions *)!) em lo"ees are not without recourse whenever there are dis utes to be settled. Section D- of the )onvention on the %rivile$es and *mmunities of the S ecialized A$encies of the United 3ations -/ rovides that 6each s ecialized a$enc" shall ma5e rovision for a ro riate modes

of settlement of: 7a: dis utes arisin$ out of contracts or other dis utes of rivate character to which the s ecialized a$enc" is a art".6 !oreover, ursuant to Article *A of the !emorandum of A$reement between *)!) the the %hili ine 'overnment, whenever there is an" abuse of rivile$e b" *)!), the 'overnment is free to withdraw the rivile$es and immunities accorded. )lauses on 2urisdictional immunit" are said to be standard rovisions in the constitutions of international =r$anizations. 6The immunit" covers the or$anization concerned, its ro ert" and its assets. *t is e+uall" a licable to roceedin$s in ersonam and roceedin$s in rem. *)!) did not invo5e its immunit" and, therefore, ma" be deemed to have waived it, assumin$ that durin$ that eriod 7-.FD;-.F8: it was tacitl" reco$nized as en2o"in$ such immunit". %etition is 'RA3T&1, the =rder of the #ureau of @abor Relations for certification election is S&T AS*1&, and the Tem orar" Restrainin$ =rder earlier issued is made

1FA AS. 3@R) '.R. 3o. --D-.-, Se tember -F -..C FA)TS: %rivate res ondent 3@R) initiated a case a$ainst for an alle$ed ille$al dismissal b" A1# and the latterJs violation of the 6labor;onl"6contractin$ law. Two summonses were served, one sent directl" to the A1# and the other throu$h the 1e artment of Forei$n Affairs 71FA:, both with a co " of the com laint. Forthwith, the A1# and the 1FA notified res ondent @abor Arbiter that the A1#, as well as its %resident and =fficers, were covered b" an immunit" from le$al rocess e>ce t for borrowin$s, $uaranties or the sale of securities ursuant to Article 897-: and Article 88 of the A$reement&stablishin$ the Asian 1evelo ment #an5 7the 6)harter6: in relation to Section 8 and Section BB of the A$reement #etween The #an5 AndThe 'overnment =f The %hili ines Re$ardin$ The #an5Js Head+uarters 7the 6Head+uarters A$reement6:.

The @abor Arbiter too5 co$nizance of the com laint on the im ression that the A1# had waived its di lomatic immunit" from suit and rendered his decision declarin$ the com lainant as a re$ular em lo"ee of res ondent A1# and his termination was ille$al.

The A1# did not a eal the decision but instead, the 1FA referred the matter to the 3ational @abor Relations )ommission see5in$ a formal vacation of the void 2ud$ment.

1issatisfied b" the 3@R)Gs res onse, the 1FA lod$ed the instant etition for certiorari.

*SSU&: 4hether or not A1# en2o"s a di lomatic immunit" from suit.

H&@1: The etition for certiorari is $ranted, and the decision of the @abor Arbiter is vacated for bein$ null and void. The rovisions sti ulated b" both the )harter and Head+uarters A$reement should be able, na" well enou$h, to establish that, e>ce t in the s ecified cases of borrowin$ and $uarantee o erations, as well as the urchase, sale and underwritin$ of securities, the A1# en2o"s immunit" from le$al rocess of ever" form. The #an5Gs officers, on their art, en2o" immunit" in res ect of all acts erformed b" them in their official ca acit". The )harter and the Head+uarters A$reement $rantin$ these immunities and rivile$es are treat" covenants and commitments voluntaril" assumed b" the %hili ine $overnment which must be res ected. #ein$ an international or$anization that has been e>tended a di lomatic status, the A1# is inde endent of the munici al law.