Ernesto L.

Callado vs International Rice Research Institute • Other than the reason of not to embarrass a political
GR No. 106483 | May 22, 1995 | Consti Law | Immunity of other
department of the Government. The Supreme Court
states and international organs
added the raison d’etre for the said immunities
Facts
accorded to these type of agencies is to “assure that
• Petitioner Callado was employed as a driver at the IRRI the performance of their functions are unimpeded”
from April 1983 to December 1990. On February 1990, (WHO vs. Benjamin Aquino)
while driving an IRRI vehicle on the way to NAIA and back
to IRRI, petitioner had an accident. ◦ The grant of immunity from local jurisdiction to and
• Petitioner was then investigated by the IRRI’s Human IRRI is clearly necessitated by their international
Resource Development Department Manager who then character and respective purposes. This is to avoid
released Respondent’s findings in a Memorandum the dangers of partiality and interference by the host
released on March 1990 country in their internal workings. The exercise of
◦ The said memorandum charged Petitioner that he jurisdiction by DOLE would defeat the purpose of
was: immunity, which is to shield the affairs of
▪ Driving a vehicle of the institute on official duty International Organizations from political
pressure, or control by host country to the
whilst being under the influence of liquor
prejudice of member States of the organization.”
▪ Serious misconduct as petitioner failed to report
(WHO v Benjamin Aquino)
to his supervisors about the failure of the said
vehicle to start because of a battery problem • Meanwhile, on the waiver of rights. The Supreme Court
▪ Gross and habitual neglect of duties ruled that according to Article 3 of P.D 1620, the immunity
• Petitioner then submitted his reply to the charges brought of IRRI is clear and that only a waiver from the
against him. However, Petitioner was terminated by Director-General is the only way IRRI can relinquish
Respondent. its immunity. In this case, the counsel of IRRI
Labor Arbiter Complaint categorically informed the Labor Arbiter that
• Petitioner then filed a complaint on December 1990 to the Respondent will not waive its diplomatic immunity.
labor arbiter wherein he alleges that he was illegally ◦ Respondent further added that the reliance of
dismissed. Petitioner Callado on the Memorandum is misplaced,
• Respondent IRRI replied and informed the arbiter that the as the memorandum states under its last paragraph
that “If the plaintiff’s attorney or the arbiter asks
Institute enjoys immunity from legal processes which
if IRRI will waive its immunity we MAY reply that
was granted to them by Article 3 of Presidential
the Institute will be happy to do so…”
Decree 1620
◦ Under Article 3 of Presidential Decree 1620, it ◦ The said paragraph from the memorandum would
invokes diplomatic immunity and privilieges as mean that the institute may waive its immunity
an international organization. with its discretion.
• Moreover, in the said letter, petitioner states that they • Supreme Court agrees with Respondent that the
have not waved their immunity and privileges as an memorandum cannot be considered as an express
international organization waiver as it is an internal memo. Moreover, the said
• With the reply of IRRI, the Labor Arbiter cited an order memorandum used the permissive term may rather
than shall.
which is titled “Guidelines on the handling of
◦ While on the other hand, the memorandum was
dismissed employees in relation to P.D 1620” issued
issued by the Former Director-General to a
by the institute on August 13, 1991 which states that
defunct division of IRRI which was abrogated by
◦ In all cases of termination, respondent IRRI waives
the letter to the Labor Arbiter that the current
its immunity” Director-General issued, which declared that
• In pursuance to the Order issued by Respondent. The respondent has no intention to waive its
Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Petitioner Callado. immunity.
NLRC Appeal • Petition is dismissed.
• Respondent then appealed to the NLRC and found that
Respondent did not waive its immunity. NLRC reversed
the decision and dismissed the complaint.
Issue
• Whether or not the cited Order issue on August 13,
1991 waived the immunity of IRRI granted by Article 3
of Presidential Decree 1620
Ruling
• The Supreme Court did not find merit in the argument
of the petitioner
• The Court ruled that IRRI enjoys immunities accorded to
International Organizations, this determination is held to
be a political question conclusive upon the Courts in order
not to embarrass a political department of Government
(Executive)
◦ The Supreme Court also cited WHO vs Benjamin
Aquino which states that “it is a recognized principle
of International Law and under our system of
separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is
essentially affirmed by the executive branch.” They
then added