Deutsche vs CA.doc

8/12/2019 Deutsche vs CA.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/deutsche-vs-cadoc 1/5



ACC of these issues be addressed immediately and

appropriately(- Dnder the foregoing premises and circumstances,

it is now i!perati"e that # a! to accept your resignation$

which # e%pect to recei"e as soon as possile&

• a3en abac3, private respondents replied &ith a common letter, clarifying that their

earlier letter &as not intended as a resignation letter, but one that merely intended to

raise attention to &hat they perceived as vital issues(

• 4ach of the private respondents received a letter from 2icolay dated 11 @uly BBB,

informing them of the pre"termination of their contracts of employment on the

grounds of *serious and gross insubordination, among others, resulting to loss of

confidence and trust(-

• On 1 August BBB, the private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal

&ith the 2CR!(

• G, through counsel, filed a ;otion to ismiss, on the ground that the Laor

Ariter had no jurisdiction o"er the case$ as its acts were underta'en in thedischarge of the go"ern!ental functions and so"ereign acts of the Go"ern!ent

of the Federal epulic of Ger!any&

• his &as opposed by private respondents &ith the arguments that GTZ had failed to

secure a certification that it was i!!une fro! suit fro! the epart!ent of

Foreign Affairs$ and that it was GTZ and not the Ger!an go"ern!ent which

had i!ple!ented the S*#+, -roject and entered into the contracts of

e!ploy!ent&

• On 7 2ovember BBB, the Cabor Arbiter issued an Order denying the ;otion to

ismiss( The .rder cited$ a!ong others$ that GTZ was a pri"ate corporation

which entered into an e!ploy!ent contract/ and that GTZ had failed to secure

fro! the FA a certification as to its diplo!atic status&

• he Cabor Arbiter rendered a ecision granting the complaint for illegal dismissal(

he ecision concluded that respondents &ere dismissed &ithout la&ful cause, there

being *a total lac3 of due process both substantive and procedural(G &as faulted

for failing to observe the notice re6uirements in the labor la&(

• he ecision proceeded to discuss the .urisdictional aspect, in this &ise<

#t i!perati"e to e i!!une fro! suit$ respondents should ha"e secured

fro! the epart!ent of Foreign Affairs a certification of respondents0

diplo!atic status and entitle!ent to diplo!atic pri"ileges including

i!!unity fro! suits& /aving failed in this regard, respondents cannot

escape liability from the shelter of sovereign immunity(• G opted to assail the decision by &ay of a special civil action for certiorari filed

&ith the !ourt of Appeals(

#ssue< 'E2 G en.oys immunity from suit

*eld1 +o&



• he !ourt re6uired the Office of the +olicitor General #O+G$ to file a !omment on

the petition( 0n its !omment, the O+G too3 the side of G, &ith the prayer that the petition be granted on the ground that G &as immune from suit, citing in

particular its assigned functions in implementing the +/024 programa .oint

underta3ing of the Philippine and German governments &hich &as neither proprietary nor commercial in nature(

• On the other hand, !ounsel for G characteries G as *the implementing

agency of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany,- a depiction

similarly adopted by the O+G( Assu!ing that characteri2ation is correct$ it does

not auto!atically in"est GTZ with the aility to in"o'e State i!!unity fro!

suit& he distinction lies in &hether the agency is incorporated or unincorporated(

he follo&ing lucid discussion from @ustice 0sagani !ru is pertinent<

'here suit is filed not against the government itself or its

officials but against one of its entities, it must be ascertained &hetheror not the +tate, as the principal that may ultimately be held liable, has

given its consent to be sued( This ascertain!ent will depend in the

first instance on whether the go"ern!ent agency i!pleaded is

incorporated or unincorporated&

An incorporated agency has a charter of its own that

in"ests it with a separate juridical personality, li3e the +ocial

+ecurity +ystem, the Dniversity of the Philippines, and the !ity of

;anila( %y contrast, the unincorporated agency is so called because it

has no separate .uridical personality but is merged in the general

machinery of the government, li3e the epartment of @ustice, the%ureau of ;ines and the Government Printing Office(

#f the agency is incorporated$ the test of its suaility is

found in its charter& The si!ple rule is that it is suale if its

charter says so$ and this is true regardless of the functions it is

perfor!ing( 3unicipal corporations$ for e%a!ple$ li'e pro"inces

and cities$ are agencies of the State when they are engaged in

go"ern!ental functions and therefore should enjoy the so"ereign

i!!unity fro! suit& +e"ertheless$ they are suject to suit e"en in

the perfor!ance of such functions ecause their charter pro"ides

that they can sue and e sued(

• +tate immunity from suit may be &aived by general or special la&( he special la&

can ta3e the form of the original charter of the incorporated government agency(

@urisprudence is replete &ith eamples of incorporated government agencies &hich&ere ruled not entitled to invo3e immunity from suit, o&ing to provisions in

their charters manifesting their consent to be sued(

• 0s G an incorporated agency of the German government here is some mystery





courts( he principles enunciated in that case &ere derived from public international

la&( 'e stated then<

#n -ulic #nternational Law$ when a state or international agency

wishes to plead so"ereign or diplo!atic i!!unity in a foreign court$ it

re<uests the Foreign .ffice of the state where it is sued to con"ey to the

court that said defendant is entitled to i!!unity& #n the -hilippines$ the practice is for the foreign go"ern!ent or the

international organi2ation to first secure an e%ecuti"e endorse!ent of

its clai! of so"ereign or diplo!atic i!!unity&

• 0t is to be recalled that the Cabor Arbiter, in both of his rulings, noted that it was

i!perati"e for petitioners to secure fro! the epart!ent of Foreign Affairs

4a certification of respondents0 diplo!atic status and entitle!ent to

diplo!atic pri"ileges including i!!unity fro! suits&5 he re6uirement might

not necessarily be imperative( *owe"er$ had GTZ otained such certification

fro! the FA$ it would ha"e pro"ided factual asis for its clai! of i!!unity

that would$ at the "ery least$ estalish a disputale e"identiary presu!ptionthat the foreign party is indeed i!!une which the opposing party will ha"e to

o"erco!e with its own factual e"idence&

• 'e do not see &hy G could not have secured such certification or endorsement

from the FA for purposes of this case(

• 'ould the fact that the +olicitor General has endorsed G)s claim of +tate)s

immunity from suit before this !ourt sufficiently substitute for the FAcertification +ote that the rule in pulic international law <uoted in Holy See

referred to endorse!ent y the Foreign .ffice of the State where the suit is

filed$ such foreign office in the -hilippines eing the epart!ent of Foreign

Affairs& +owhere in the Co!!ent of the .SG is it !anifested that the FA

has endorsed GTZ0s clai!$ the Co!!ent filed y the .SG does not inspirethe sa!e degree of confidence as a certification fro! the FA would ha"e

elicited&

• he !ourt thus holds and so rules that GTZ consistently has een unale to

estalish with satisfaction that it enjoys the i!!unity fro! suit generally

enjoyed y its parent country$ the Federal epulic of Ger!any&

Documents

Deutsche vs CA.doc