Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Eldepio Lasco et al v United Nations Revolving Fund For Natural Resources

Exploration (UNRFNRE)
G.R. Nos. 109095-109107 February 23, 1995

Facts:
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 for illegal dismissal and damages. Private
respondent alleged that respondent Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over its personality
since it enjoyed diplomatic immunity.

Issue:
WON specialized agencies enjoy diplomatic immunity

Held:
Petition is dismissed. This is not to say that petitioner have no recourse. Section 31 of the
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United
Nations states that ³each 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. Private respondent is not engaged in a
commercial venture in the Philippines. Its presence is by virtue of a joint project entered
into by the Philippine Government and the United Nations for mineral exploration in
Dinagat Island.

Southeast Asian Development Center – Aquaculture Department (SEAFDEC-AQD)


vs
NLRC
G.R. No. 86773
February 14, 1992

FACTS:
SEAFDEC-AQD is a department of an international organization, the Southeast Asian
Fisheries Development Center, organized through an agreement in 1967 by the
governments of Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines with
Japan as the sponsoring country.

Juvenal Lazaga was employed as a Research Associate on a probationary basis by


SEAFDEC-AQD. Lacanilao in his capacity as Chief of SEAFDEC-AQD sent a notice of
termination to Lazaga informing him that due to the financial constraints being
experienced by the department, his services shall be terminated. SEAFDEC-AQD's failure to
pay Lazaga his separation pay forced him to file a case with the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter
and NLRC ruled in favor of Lazaga. Thus SEAFDEC-AQD appealed, claiming that the NLRC
has no jurisdiction over the case since it is immune from suit owing to its international
character and the complaint is in effect a suit against the State which cannot be maintained
without its consent.

ISSUES:
1. Does the NLRC have jurisdiction over SEAFDEC-AQD?

2. Is SEAFDEC-AQD estopped for its failure to raise the issue of jurisdiction at the first
instance?

HELD:
1. 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.

Permanent international commissions and administrative bodies have been created by the
agreement of a considerable number of States for a variety of international purposes,
economic or social and mainly non-political. In so far as they are autonomous and beyond
the control of any one State, they have a distinct juridical personality independent of the
municipal law of the State where they are situated. As such, according to one leading
authority "they must be deemed to possess a species of international personality of their
own."

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 there operations or even influence or control
its policies and decisions of the organization; besides, such subjection to local jurisdiction
would impair the capacity of such body to discharge its responsibilities impartially on
behalf of its member-states.

2. Respondent Lazaga's invocation of estoppel with respect to the issue of jurisdiction is


unavailing because estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction to a tribunal that has
none over a cause of action. Jurisdiction is conferred by law. Where there is none, no
agreement of the parties can provide one. Settled is the rule that the decision of a tribunal
not vested with appropriate jurisdiction is null and void.
Nacpil vs. IBC Case Digest
Nacpil vs. International Broadcasting Corporation
[GR 144767, 21 March 2002]

Facts:
Dily Dany Nacpil states that he was Assistant General Manager for Finance/Administration
and Comptroller of Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation (IBC) from 1996 until April
1997. According to Nacpil, when Emiliano Templo was appointed to replace IBC President
Tomas Gomez III sometime in March 1997, the former told the Board of Directors that as
soon as he assumes the IBC presidency, he would terminate the services of Nacpil.
Apparently, Templo blamed Nacpil, along with a certain Mr. Basilio and Mr. Gomez, for the
prior mismanagement of IBC. Upon his assumption of the IBC presidency, Templo allegedly
harassed, insulted, humiliated and pressured Nacpil into resigning until the latter was
forced to retire. However, Templo refused to pay him his retirement benefits, allegedly
because he had not yet secured the clearances from the Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG) and the Commission on Audit (COA). Furthermore, Templo allegedly
refused to recognize Nacpil's employment, claiming that Nacpil was not the Assistant
General Manager/Comptroller of IBC but merely usurped the powers of the Comptroller.
Hence, in 1997, Nacpil filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal and
non-payment of benefits. Instead of filing its position paper, IBC filed a motion to dismiss
alleging that the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the case.

IBC contended that Nacpil was a corporate officer who was duly elected by the Board of
Directors of IBC; hence, the case qualities as an intra-corporate dispute falling within the
jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). However, the motion was
denied by the Labor Arbiter in an Order dated 22 April 1998. On 21 August 1998, the Labor
Arbiter rendered a Decision stating that Nacpil had been illegally dismissed. IBC was
ordered (1) to reinstate Nacpil to his former position without diminution of salary or loss
of seniority rights, and with full backwages computed from the time of his illegal dismissal
on May 16, 1997 up to the time of his actual reinstatement which is tentatively computed
as of the date of this decision on August 21, 1998 in the amount of P1,231,750.00; and that
should Nacpil be not reinstated within 10 days from receipt of this decision, he shall be
entitled to additional backwages until actually reinstated; and (2) to pay Nacpil P2 Million
as and for moral damages, P500,000.00 as and for exemplary damages, and 10% thereof as
and for attorney's fees. IBC appealed to the NLRC, but the same was dismissed in a
Resolution dated 2 March 1999, for its failure to file the required appeal bond in
accordance with Article 223 of the Labor Code. IBC then filed a motion for reconsideration
that was likewise denied in a Resolution dated 26 April 1999. IBC then filed with the Court
of Appeals a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, which petition was granted by the
appellate court in its Decision dated 23 November 1999. Nacpil then filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied by the appellate court in a Resolution dated 31 August
2000. Nacpil filed the petition for review on certiorari.
Issue:
Whether the SEC or the NLRC has jurisdiction over the Nacpil’s alleged illegal dismissal.
Whether the inclusion of money claims in Nacpil’s complaint for illegal dismissal removes
the case from the ambit of the Corporation Code.

Held:
1. As Nacpil's appointment as comptroller required the approval and formal action of the
IBC's Board of Directors to become valid, 17 it is clear therefore holds that Nacpil is a
corporate officer whose dismissal may be the subject of a controversy cognizable by the
SEC under Section 5(c) of PD 902-A which includes controversies involving both election
and appointment of corporate directors, trustees, officers, and managers Had Nacpil been
an ordinary employee, such board action would not have been required. Thus, since Nacpil
is considered a corporate officer and his claim of illegal dismissal is a controversy that falls
under the jurisdiction of the SEC as contemplated by Section 5 of PD 902-A. The rule is that
dismissal or non-appointment of a corporate officer is clearly an intra-corporate matter
and jurisdiction over the case properly belongs to the SEC, not to the NLRC. As to the
argument that the nature of his functions is recommendatory thereby making him a mere
managerial officer, the Court has previously held that the relationship of a person to a
corporation, whether as officer or agent or employee is not determined by the nature of the
services performed, but instead by the incidents of the relationship as they actually exist.

2. It is of no consequence that Nacpil's complaint for illegal dismissal includes money


claims, for such claims are actually part of the perquisites of his position in, and therefore
linked with his relations with, the corporation. The inclusion of such money claims does not
convert the issue into a simple labor problem. Clearly, the issues raised by Nacpil against
the IBC are matters that come within the area of corporate affairs and management, and
constitute a corporate controversy in contemplation of the Corporation Code.

Silva vs Mationg
GR No. 153837
July 21, 2010

Facts:
Petitioner was then appointed as General Manager of Aklan Electric Cooperative. However, he was later to
have been dismissed due to grave abuse of discretion and other allegations involving abuse of office
and corruption practices and for allegedly being involved in the nonpayment of the
cooperative’s loan to the NEA.

Petitioner’s dismissal has been made final by the Board of Administratorsof the NEA and
was also held up by the NLRC. Petitioner had now sought relief to the Court of Appeals for relief.

Issue:
Given that the case is administrative in nature, should the Court of Appeals render a decision?
Ruling:
No. The court contends that while the case is administrative in nature, it is then under
exclusive jurisdiction of institutions granted by the law. In the case given, the case
was already settled before the National Labor Regulatory Commission and also by
the Board of Directors of the NEA which meant that the case has been given relief by proper
delegated authorities and thus the Court of Appeals need not to further intervene and declare res judicata.

Samar II Electric Cooperative Inc. (SAMELCO II) et al. vs. Ananias Seludo Jr.
G.R. No. 173840, April 25, 2012

FACTS:
Respondent Seludo is a member of SAMELCO II’s BOD. A board resolution was
issued disallowing respondent from attending meetings of the BOD effective
February 2005 until the end of his term as directed and disqualified him for
one term to run as candidate for director in the upcoming district elections. Respondent
then filed an Urgent Petition for Prohibition against SAMELCO II with the RTC
in Calbiga, Samar. RTC granted a TRO in favour of Seludo effective for 72 hours and later
extended for another 17 days. Petitioners then raised an affirmative defense of lack of
lack of jurisdiction of RTC over subject matter, the same being with the National
Electrification Administration (NEA). RTC sustained its jurisdiction over the matter, motion
for reconsideration was denied. CA affirmed the RTC.

ISSUE:
Does the NEA have primary jurisdiction over the question of the validity of
the Board Resolution issued by SAMELCO II?

RULING:
Yes, pursuant to Subsection (a), Sec. 24, Chapter III of PD 269 as amended by Sec. 7, PD
1645 clearly shows that, pursuant to its power of supervision and control, NEA is granted
the authority to conduct investigations and other similar actions as well as to issue orders,
rules and regulations with respect to all matters affecting electric cooperatives. In
addition, while the RTC has jurisdiction over the petition for prohibition, the
NEA, in its exercise of its power of supervision and control, has primary
jurisdiction to determine the issue of the validity of the subject resolution. Petition granted.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen