public international law case briefs
DESCRIPTION
Public International Law Case BriefsTRANSCRIPT
-
G.R
. N
o.
L-3
56
45
M
ay 2
2,
19
85
U
NIT
ED S
TATE
S O
F A
MER
ICA
, C
AP
T. J
AM
ES E
. G
ALL
OW
AY
, W
ILLI
AM
I.
CO
LLIN
S a
nd
RO
BER
T G
OH
IER
, p
etit
ion
ers,
vs
. H
ON
. V
. M
. R
UIZ
, P
resi
din
g
Jud
ge
of
Bra
nch
X
V,
Cou
rt
of
Firs
t In
stan
ce o
f R
izal
an
d E
LIG
IO D
E G
UZ
MA
N &
CO
., I
NC
., r
esp
ond
ents
. Po
nent
e: A
BA
D S
AN
TOS
, J.
Fa
cts x
Som
etim
e in
May
197
2, t
he U
nite
d Sta
tes
orga
nize
d an
auc
tion
by
invi
tatio
n fo
r th
e re
pair o
f its
equ
ipm
ent
and
faci
litie
s in
at
the
US
Nav
al S
tatio
n Sub
ic B
ay in
Zam
bale
s, w
hich
was
one
of
thos
e pr
ovid
ed
in t
he M
ilita
ry B
ases
Agr
eem
ent
betw
een
the
Phili
ppin
es a
nd t
he U
S.
x El
igio
de
G
uzm
an
&
Co.
, In
c.
resp
onde
d to
th
e in
vita
tion
and
subm
itted
bid
s. S
ubse
quen
t th
eret
o, t
he c
ompa
ny r
ecei
ved
from
the
U
nite
d Sta
tes
two
tele
gram
s re
ques
ting
it to
con
firm
its
pric
e pr
opos
als
and
for
the
nam
e of
its
bon
ding
com
pany
; th
e co
mpa
ny,
ther
eby,
co
mpl
ied.
x
In J
une,
197
2, t
he c
ompa
ny r
ecei
ved
a le
tter
whi
ch w
as s
igne
d by
W
ilham
I.
Col
lins,
D
irec
tor
for
Con
trac
ts
Div
isio
n of
th
e N
avy
Dep
artm
ent
of U
S,
sayi
ng t
hat
the
com
pany
did
not
qua
lify
to r
ecei
ve
an
awar
d fo
r th
e pr
ojec
ts
beca
use
of
its
prev
ious
un
satis
fact
ory
perf
orm
ance
on
a
repa
ir co
ntra
ct an
d th
at th
e pr
ojec
ts ha
d be
en
awar
ded
to t
hird
par
ties.
x
The
com
pany
sue
d th
e U
S a
nd i
ts o
ffic
ers
in t
he U
S N
avy
who
wer
e re
spon
sibl
e fo
r re
ject
ing
thei
r se
rvic
es
to
orde
r th
e de
fend
ants
in
al
low
ing
the
com
pany
to
perf
orm
the
wor
k fo
r th
e pr
ojec
ts,
and
in t
he
even
t th
at s
peci
fic p
erfo
rman
ce w
as n
o lo
nger
pos
sibl
e, t
o or
der
the
defe
ndan
ts to
pa
y th
e da
mag
es.
The
com
pany
al
so as
ked
for
the
issu
ance
of
a w
rit
of p
relim
inar
y in
junc
tion
to r
estr
ain
the
defe
ndan
ts
from
ent
erin
g in
to c
ontr
acts
with
thi
rd p
artie
s fo
r w
ork
on t
he p
roje
cts.
x
The
defe
ndan
ts e
nter
ed t
heir s
peci
al a
ppea
ranc
e fo
r th
e pu
rpos
e on
ly
of q
uest
ioni
ng t
he j
uris
dict
ion
of t
his
cour
t ov
er t
he c
ompl
aint
bei
ng
acts
and
om
issi
ons
of t
he in
divi
dual
def
enda
nts
as a
gent
s of
def
enda
nt
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
of A
mer
ica,
a f
orei
gn s
over
eign
whi
ch h
as n
ot g
iven
her
co
nsen
t to
thi
s su
it or
any
oth
er s
uit
for
the
caus
es o
f ac
tion
asse
rted
in
the
com
plai
nt.
x Sub
sequ
ently
a
mot
ion
to di
smis
s th
e co
mpl
aint
w
as fil
ed by
th
e de
fend
ants
, w
ho i
nclu
ded
an o
ppos
ition
to
the
issu
ance
of
the
writ
of
prel
imin
ary
inju
nctio
n.
x Th
e tr
ial c
ourt
den
ied
the
mot
ion
and
issu
ed t
he w
rit.
x Th
e de
fend
ants
mov
ed t
wic
e to
rec
onsi
der
but
to n
o av
ail.
Hen
ce t
he
inst
ant
petit
ion
whi
ch s
eeks
to
rest
rain
per
petu
ally
the
pro
ceed
ings
in
Civ
il Cas
e N
o. 7
79-M
for
lac
k of
jur
isdi
ctio
n on
the
par
t of
the
trial
co
urt.
Issu
e x W
/N U
S is
sua
ble?
NO
. o
The
trad
ition
al r
ule
of S
tate
im
mun
ity e
xem
pts
a Sta
te f
rom
be
ing
sued
in
the
cour
ts o
f an
othe
r Sta
te w
ithou
t its
con
sent
or
wai
ver.
It
is h
owev
er c
onte
nded
tha
t w
hen
a so
vere
ign
stat
e en
ters
int
o a
cont
ract
with
a p
riva
te p
erso
n, t
he s
tate
can
be
sued
upo
n th
e th
eory
tha
t it
has
desc
ende
d to
the
lev
el o
f an
in
divi
dual
fro
m w
hich
it
can
be i
mpl
ied
that
it
has
give
n its
co
nsen
t to
be
su
ed un
der
the
cont
ract
. Sta
ted
diff
eren
tly,
a Sta
te m
ay b
e sa
id t
o ha
ve d
esce
nded
to
the
leve
l of
an in
divi
dual
an
d ca
n th
us b
e de
emed
to
have
tac
itly
give
n its
con
sent
to
be
sued
onl
y w
hen
it en
ters
int
o bu
sine
ss c
ontr
acts
. It
doe
s no
t ap
ply
whe
re t
he c
ontr
act
rela
tes
to t
he e
xerc
ise
of its
sov
erei
gn
func
tions
. In
thi
s ca
se t
he p
roje
cts
are
an i
nteg
ral
part
of
the
nava
l ba
se w
hich
is
devo
ted
to t
he d
efen
se o
f bo
th t
he U
nite
d Sta
tes
and
the
Phili
ppin
es,
indi
sput
ably
a
func
tion
of
the
gove
rnm
ent
of t
he h
ighe
st o
rder
; th
ey a
re n
ot u
tiliz
ed f
or n
or
dedi
cate
d to
com
mer
cial
or
busi
ness
pur
pose
s.
x W
/N t
he t
rial
cou
rt h
as jur
isdi
ctio
n ov
er t
he c
ase?
NO
. o
The
corr
ect
test
for
the
app
licat
ion
of S
tate
im
mun
ity i
s no
t th
e co
nclu
sion
of
a co
ntra
ct b
y a
Sta
te b
ut t
he le
gal n
atur
e of
the
act
is
sho
wn
in S
yqui
a vs
. Lo
pez.
In
that
cas
e th
e pl
aint
iffs
leas
ed
thre
e ap
artm
ent
build
ings
to
the
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
of A
mer
ica
for
the
use
of
its
mili
tary
of
ficia
ls.
The
plai
ntiff
s su
ed
to
reco
ver
poss
essi
on o
f th
e pr
emis
es o
n th
e gr
ound
tha
t th
e te
rm o
f th
e le
ases
had
exp
ired
. Th
ey a
lso
aske
d fo
r in
crea
sed
rent
als
until
th
e ap
artm
ents
sha
ll ha
ve b
een
vaca
ted.
The
Cou
rt d
ecid
ed t
hat
the
US G
over
nmen
t ha
s no
t, g
iven
its
con
sent
to
the
filin
g of
th
is s
uit
whi
ch i
s es
sent
ially
aga
inst
her
, th
ough
not
in
nam
e.
Mor
eove
r, t
his
is n
ot o
nly
a ca
se o
f a
citiz
en f
iling
a s
uit
agai
nst
his
own
Gov
ernm
ent
with
out
the
latt
er's
con
sent
but
it
is o
f a
citiz
en f
iling
an
actio
n ag
ains
t a
fore
ign
gove
rnm
ent
with
out
said
go
vern
men
t's c
onse
nt,
whi
ch r
ende
rs m
ore
obvi
ous
the
lack
of
jurisd
ictio
n of
the
cou
rts
of h
is c
ount
ry.
o
In S
yqui
a, t
he U
nite
d Sta
tes
conc
lude
d co
ntra
cts
with
priva
te
indi
vidu
als
but
the
cont
ract
s no
twith
stan
ding
the
US w
as n
ot
deem
ed t
o ha
ve g
iven
or
wai
ved
its c
onse
nt t
o be
sue
d fo
r th
e re
ason
tha
t th
e co
ntra
cts
wer
e fo
r ju
re i
mpe
rii
and
not
for
jure
ge
stio
nis.
-
H
eld
The
petit
ion
is g
rant
ed;
the
ques
tione
d or
ders
of
the
resp
onde
nt jud
ge a
re
set
asid
e an
d Civ
il C
ase
No.
is d
ism
isse
d, c
osts
aga
inst
the
priva
te
resp
onde
nt.
Not
es
x M
akas
iar,
J.,
dis
sent
ing:
o
The
petit
ion
shou
ld b
e di
smis
sed
and
the
proc
eedi
ngs
in C
ivil
Cas
e N
o. 7
79-M
in t
he d
efun
ct C
FI (
now
RTC
) of
Riz
al b
e al
low
ed
to c
ontin
ue t
here
in.
o H
e ci
ted
case
s w
here
in t
he U
S G
over
nmen
t is
hel
d su
able
for
en
tering
int
o co
ntra
cts,
whi
ch b
y its
ver
y ac
t im
plie
s its
con
sent
to
be
sued
. o
He
expr
esse
d th
at
cons
tant
re
sort
by
a
fore
ign
stat
e or
its
ag
ents
to
th
e do
ctri
ne of
Sta
te im
mun
ity in
th
is
juri
sdic
tion
impi
nges
und
uly
upon
the
sov
erei
gnty
and
dig
nity
of
the
natio
n.
Its
appl
icat
ion
will
par
ticul
arly
dis
cour
age
Filip
ino
or d
omes
tic
cont
ract
ors
from
tra
nsac
ting
busi
ness
and
ent
erin
g in
to c
ontr
acts
w
ith
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
auth
oriti
es
or
faci
litie
s in
th
e Ph
ilipp
ines
be
caus
e of
the
non
-enf
orce
abili
ty o
f va
lidly
exe
cute
d co
ntra
cts
and
lack
of
ju
dici
al
rem
edy
for
brea
ches
of
co
ntra
ctua
l ob
ligat
ion.
It
is t
o be
rea
sona
bly
assu
med
and
exp
ecte
d th
at t
he
unde
rtak
ings
in
the
cont
ract
will
be
com
plie
d w
ith i
n go
od f
aith
, w
heth
er t
he p
artie
s ar
e na
tions
or
priv
ate
indi
vidu
als.
o
Rel
ianc
e by
pet
ition
ers
on t
he n
on-s
uabi
lity
of t
he U
nite
d Sta
tes
Gov
ernm
ent
befo
re t
he lo
cal c
ourt
s, a
ctua
lly c
lash
es w
ith N
o. I
II
on r
espe
ct f
or P
hilip
pine
law
of
the
Mem
oran
dum
of
Agr
eem
ent
sign
ed o
n Ja
nuar
y 7,
197
9, a
lso
amen
ding
RP-
US M
ilita
ry B
ases
Agr
eem
ent,
whi
ch s
tres
ses
that
"it
is t
he d
uty
of m
embe
rs o
f th
e U
nite
d Sta
tes
Forc
es,
the
civi
lian
com
pone
nt
and
thei
r de
pend
ents
, to
res
pect
the
law
s of
the
Rep
ublic
of
the
Phili
ppin
es
and
to a
bsta
in f
rom
any
act
ivity
inc
onsi
sten
t w
ith t
he s
pirit
of
the
Mili
tary
Bas
es
Agr
eem
ent
and,
in
pa
rtic
ular
, fr
om
any
polit
ical
act
ivity
in
the
Phili
ppin
es.
The
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
shag
tak
e al
l m
easu
res
with
in i
ts a
utho
rity
to
insu
re t
hat
they
adh
ere
to
them
.
HO
LY S
EE V
S.
RO
SA
RIO
FAC
TS:
Pe
titio
ner
is t
he H
oly
See
who
exe
rcis
es s
over
eign
ty o
ver
the
Vat
ican
City
in
Rom
e, It
aly,
an
d is
re
pres
ente
d in
th
e Ph
ilipp
ines
by
th
e Pa
pal
Nun
cio;
Priva
te r
espo
nden
t, S
tarb
righ
t Sal
es E
nter
pris
es,
Inc.
, is
a d
omes
tic
corp
orat
ion
enga
ged
in t
he r
eal e
stat
e bu
sine
ss.
This
pet
ition
aro
se f
rom
a c
ontr
over
sy o
ver
a pa
rcel
of
land
con
sist
ing
of
6,00
0 sq
uare
met
ers
loca
ted
in t
he M
unic
ipal
ity o
f Pa
rana
que
regi
ster
ed i
n th
e na
me
of
petit
ione
r.
Sai
d lo
t w
as
cont
iguo
us
with
two
othe
r lo
ts
regi
ster
ed in
the
nam
e of
the
Phi
lippi
ne R
ealty
Cor
pora
tion
(PRC).
Th
e th
ree
lots
wer
e so
ld t
o Ram
on L
icup
, th
roug
h M
sgr.
Dom
ingo
A.
Cirilo
s,
Jr.,
act
ing
as a
gent
to
the
selle
rs.
Late
r, L
icup
ass
igne
d hi
s righ
ts t
o th
e sa
le
to p
riva
te r
espo
nden
t.
In v
iew
of
the
refu
sal
of t
he s
quat
ters
to
vaca
te t
he l
ots
sold
to
priv
ate
resp
onde
nt,
a di
sput
e ar
ose
as t
o w
ho o
f th
e pa
rtie
s ha
s th
e re
spon
sibi
lity
of
evic
ting
and
clea
ring
the
lan
d of
squ
atte
rs.
Com
plic
atin
g th
e re
latio
ns o
f th
e pa
rtie
s w
as t
he s
ale
by p
etiti
oner
of
Lot
5-A t
o Tr
opic
ana
Prop
ertie
s an
d D
evel
opm
ent
Cor
pora
tion
(Tro
pica
na).
pr
ivat
e re
spon
dent
file
d a
com
plai
nt w
ith t
he R
egio
nal
Tria
l Cou
rt,
Bra
nch
61,
Mak
ati,
Met
ro M
anila
for
ann
ulm
ent
of t
he s
ale
of t
he t
hree
par
cels
of
land
, an
d sp
ecifi
c pe
rfor
man
ce a
nd d
amag
es a
gain
st p
etiti
oner
, re
pres
ente
d by
the
Pap
al N
unci
o, a
nd t
hree
oth
er d
efen
dant
s: n
amel
y, M
sgr.
Dom
ingo
A.
Cirilo
s, J
r.,
the
PRC a
nd T
ropi
cana
pe
titio
ner
and
Msg
r. C
irilo
s se
para
tely
mov
ed t
o di
smis
s th
e co
mpl
aint
petit
ione
r fo
r la
ck o
f ju
risd
ictio
n ba
sed
on s
over
eign
imm
unity
fro
m s
uit,
and
M
sgr.
Cirilo
s fo
r be
ing
an i
mpr
oper
par
ty.
An
oppo
sitio
n to
the
mot
ion
was
fil
ed b
y pr
ivat
e re
spon
dent
. th
e tr
ial c
ourt
issu
ed a
n or
der
deny
ing,
am
ong
othe
rs,
petitio
ners
mot
ion
to
dism
iss
afte
r fin
ding
tha
t pe
titio
ner
she
d of
f [i
ts]
sove
reig
n im
mun
ity b
y en
tering
into
the
bus
ines
s co
ntra
ct in
que
stio
n P
etiti
oner
for
thw
ith e
leva
ted
the
mat
ter
to u
s. I
n its
pet
ition
, pe
titio
ner
invo
kes
the
priv
ilege
of
sove
reig
n
-
imm
unity
onl
y on
its
ow
n be
half
and
on b
ehal
f of
its
off
icia
l re
pres
enta
tive,
th
e Pa
pal N
unci
o.
ISS
UE:
W
heth
er t
he H
oly
See
is
imm
une
from
sui
t in
sofa
r as
its
bus
ines
s re
latio
ns r
egar
ding
sel
ling
a lo
t to
a p
riva
te e
ntity
R
ULI
NG
:
The
Rep
ublic
of
the
Phili
ppin
es h
as a
ccor
ded
the
Hol
y See
the
sta
tus
of
a fo
reig
n so
vere
ign.
Th
e H
oly
See
, th
roug
h its
Am
bass
ador
, th
e Pa
pal
Nun
cio,
has
had
dip
lom
atic
rep
rese
ntat
ions
with
the
Phi
lippi
ne g
over
nmen
t si
nce
1957
(R
ollo
, p.
87
). Th
is ap
pear
s to
be
th
e un
iver
sal
prac
tice
in
inte
rnat
iona
l rel
atio
ns.
Ther
e ar
e tw
o co
nflic
ting
conc
epts
of
sove
reig
n im
mun
ity,
each
wid
ely
held
an
d fir
mly
es
tabl
ishe
d.
Acc
ordi
ng
to
the
clas
sica
l or
ab
solu
te
theo
ry,
a so
vere
ign
cann
ot,
with
out
its c
onse
nt,
be m
ade
a re
spon
dent
in t
he c
ourt
s of
an
othe
r so
vere
ign.
Acc
ordi
ng
to
the
new
er
or
rest
rict
ive
theo
ry,
the
imm
unity
of
the
sove
reig
n is
rec
ogni
zed
only
with
reg
ard
to p
ublic
act
s or
ac
ts j
ure
impe
rii
of a
sta
te,
but
not
with
reg
ard
to p
riva
te a
cts
or a
cts
jure
ge
stio
nis
If t
he a
ct is
in p
ursu
it of
a s
over
eign
act
ivity
, or
an
inci
dent
the
reof
, th
en it
is a
n ac
t ju
re im
peri
i, es
peci
ally
whe
n it
is n
ot u
nder
take
n fo
r ga
in o
r pr
ofit.
In
the
cas
e at
ben
ch,
if pe
titio
ner
has
boug
ht a
nd s
old
land
s in
the
ord
inar
y co
urse
of
a
real
es
tate
bu
sine
ss,
sure
ly
the
said
tr
ansa
ctio
n ca
n be
ca
tego
rize
d as
an
act
jure
ges
tioni
s. H
owev
er,
petit
ione
r ha
s de
nied
tha
t th
e ac
quis
ition
and
sub
sequ
ent
disp
osal
of
Lot
5-A w
ere
mad
e fo
r pr
ofit
but
clai
med
tha
t it
acqu
ired
sai
d pr
oper
ty f
or t
he s
ite o
f its
mis
sion
or
the
Apo
stol
ic N
unci
atur
e in
the
Phi
lippi
nes.
Priva
te r
espo
nden
t fa
iled
to d
ispu
te
said
cla
im.
Lot
5-A w
as a
cqui
red
by p
etiti
oner
as
a do
natio
n fr
om t
he A
rchd
ioce
se o
f M
anila
. Th
e do
natio
n w
as m
ade
not
for
com
mer
cial
pur
pose
, bu
t fo
r th
e us
e of
pet
ition
er t
o co
nstr
uct
ther
eon
the
offic
ial pl
ace
of r
esid
ence
of
the
Papa
l N
unci
o.
The
righ
t of
a
fore
ign
sove
reig
n to
ac
quire
prop
erty
, re
al
or
pers
onal
, in
a r
ecei
ving
sta
te,
nece
ssar
y fo
r th
e cr
eatio
n an
d m
aint
enan
ce o
f its
di
plom
atic
m
issi
on,
is re
cogn
ized
in
th
e 19
61 Vie
nna
Con
vent
ion
on
Dip
lom
atic
Rel
atio
ns (
Art
s. 2
0-22
). T
his
trea
ty w
as c
oncu
rred
in
by th
e Ph
ilipp
ine
Sen
ate
and
ente
red
into
for
ce in
the
Phili
ppin
es o
n N
ovem
ber
15,
1965
. Th
e de
cisi
on t
o tr
ansf
er t
he p
rope
rty
and
the
subs
eque
nt d
ispo
sal
ther
eof
are
likew
ise
clot
hed
with
a g
over
nmen
tal
char
acte
r. P
etiti
oner
did
not
sel
l Lo
t 5-
A f
or p
rofit
or
gain
. It
mer
ely
wan
ted
to d
ispo
se o
ff t
he s
ame
beca
use
the
squa
tter
s liv
ing
ther
eon
mad
e it
alm
ost
impo
ssib
le f
or p
etiti
oner
to
use
it fo
r th
e pu
rpos
e of
the
don
atio
n. T
he f
act
that
squ
atte
rs h
ave
occu
pied
and
are
still
occ
upyi
ng t
he l
ot,
and
that
the
y st
ubbo
rnly
ref
use
to l
eave
the
pr
emis
es,
has
been
adm
itted
by
priv
ate
resp
onde
nt in
its
com
plai
nt
Priv
ate
resp
onde
nt is
not
left
with
out
any
lega
l rem
edy
for
the
redr
ess
of it
s gr
ieva
nces
. U
nder
bot
h Pu
blic
Int
erna
tiona
l La
w a
nd T
rans
natio
nal
Law
, a
pers
on w
ho f
eels
agg
riev
ed b
y th
e ac
ts o
f a
fore
ign
sove
reig
n ca
n as
k hi
s ow
n go
vern
men
t to
esp
ouse
his
cau
se t
hrou
gh d
iplo
mat
ic c
hann
els.
Pr
ivat
e re
spon
dent
can
ask
the
Phi
lippi
ne g
over
nmen
t, t
hrou
gh t
he F
orei
gn
Offic
e,
to
espo
use
its
clai
ms
agai
nst
the
Hol
y See
. It
s fir
st
task
is
to
pe
rsua
de t
he P
hilip
pine
gov
ernm
ent
to t
ake
up w
ith t
he H
oly
See
the
val
idity
of
its
clai
ms.
Of
cour
se,
the
Fore
ign
Offic
e sh
all f
irst
mak
e a
dete
rmin
atio
n of
th
e im
pact
of
its
es
pous
al
on
the
rela
tions
be
twee
n th
e Ph
ilipp
ine
gove
rnm
ent
and
the
Hol
y See
(Y
oung
, Rem
edie
s of
Pr
ivat
e Cla
iman
ts
Aga
inst
For
eign
Sta
tes,
Sel
ecte
d Rea
ding
s on
Pro
tect
ion
by L
aw o
f Pr
ivat
e Fo
reig
n In
vest
men
ts 90
5, 91
9 [1
964]
). O
nce
the
Phili
ppin
e go
vern
men
t de
cide
s to
esp
ouse
the
cla
im,
the
latt
er c
ease
s to
be
a pr
ivat
e ca
use.
W
HER
EFO
RE,
the
pet
ition
for
cer
tiora
ri i
s G
RAN
TED
and
the
com
plai
nt i
n Civ
il Cas
e N
o. 9
0-18
3 ag
ains
t pe
titio
ner
is D
ISM
ISSED
. TH
E REP
UBLI
C
OF
IND
ON
ESIA
, H
IS
EXCEL
LEN
CY
AM
BASSAD
OR
SO
ERATM
IN,
and
MIN
ISTE
R C
OU
NSEL
LOR A
ZH
ARI
KASIM
, pe
titio
ners
, vs
. JA
MES
VIN
ZO
N
FACTS
: Pe
titio
ner,
Rep
ublic
of
In
done
sia,
re
pres
ente
d by
its
Cou
nsel
lor,
Siti
Pa
rtin
ah,
ente
red
into
a
Mai
nten
ance
Agr
eem
ent
in
Aug
ust
1995
w
ith
resp
onde
nt J
ames
Vin
zon,
sol
e pr
opriet
or o
f Vin
zon
Trad
e an
d Ser
vice
s. T
he
equi
pmen
t co
vere
d by
the
Mai
nten
ance
Agr
eem
ent
are
air
cond
ition
ing
units
an
d w
as t
o ta
ke e
ffec
t in
a p
erio
d of
fou
r ye
ars.
Whe
n In
done
sian
Min
iste
r Cou
nsel
lor
Kas
im a
ssum
ed t
he p
ositi
on o
f Chi
ef o
f Adm
inis
trat
ion
in M
arch
20
00,
he a
llege
dly
foun
d re
spon
dent
s w
ork
and
serv
ices
uns
atis
fact
ory
and
not
in c
ompl
ianc
e w
ith t
he s
tand
ards
set
in
the
Mai
nten
ance
Agr
eem
ent.
H
ence
, th
e In
done
sian
Em
bass
y te
rmin
ated
the
agr
eem
ent
in a
let
ter
date
d
-
Aug
ust
31,
2000
. Res
pond
ent
filed
a c
ompl
aint
cla
imin
g th
at t
he a
fore
said
te
rmin
atio
n w
as a
rbitr
ary
and
unla
wfu
l. Pe
titio
ners
file
d a
Mot
ion
to D
ism
iss
assa
iling
th
at
Rep
ublic
of
In
done
sia,
as
a
fore
ign
sove
reig
n Sta
te,
has
sove
reig
n im
mun
ity f
rom
sui
t an
d ca
nnot
be
sued
as
a pa
rty-
defe
ndan
t in
th
e Ph
ilipp
ines
. IS
SU
E:
whe
ther
or
not
the
Cou
rt o
f App
eals
err
ed i
n su
stai
ning
the
trial
cou
rts
de
cisi
on t
hat
petit
ione
rs h
ave
wai
ved
thei
r im
mun
ity f
rom
sui
t by
usi
ng a
s its
bas
is t
he a
bove
men
tione
d pr
ovis
ion
in t
he M
aint
enan
ce A
gree
men
t.
RU
LIN
G:
The
SC G
RAN
TED
the
pet
ition
. Th
e ru
le t
hat
a Sta
te m
ay n
ot b
e su
ed w
ithou
t its
con
sent
is
a ne
cess
ary
cons
eque
nce
of t
he p
rinc
iple
s of
ind
epen
denc
e an
d eq
ualit
y of
Sta
tes.
The
m
ere
ente
ring
int
o a
cont
ract
by
a fo
reig
n Sta
te w
ith a
pri
vate
par
ty c
anno
t be
con
stru
ed a
s th
e ul
timat
e te
st o
f w
heth
er o
r no
t it
is a
n ac
t ju
re im
perii o
r ju
re g
estio
nis.
Suc
h ac
t is
onl
y th
e st
art
of t
he i
nqui
ry.
A s
over
eign
Sta
te
does
not
mer
ely
esta
blis
h a
dipl
omat
ic m
issi
on a
nd l
eave
it
at t
hat;
the
es
tabl
ishm
ent
of a
dip
lom
atic
mis
sion
enc
ompa
sses
its
mai
nten
ance
and
up
keep
. H
ence
, th
e Sta
te m
ay e
nter
int
o co
ntra
cts
with
priva
te e
ntiti
es t
o m
aint
ain
the
prem
ises
, fu
rnis
hing
s an
d eq
uipm
ent
of t
he e
mba
ssy
and
the
livin
g qu
arte
rs o
f its
age
nts
and
offic
ials
. It
is
ther
efor
e cl
ear
that
pet
ition
er
Rep
ublic
of
Indo
nesi
a w
as a
ctin
g in
pur
suit
of a
sov
erei
gn a
ctiv
ity w
hen
it en
tere
d in
to a
con
trac
t w
ith r
espo
nden
t fo
r th
e up
keep
or
mai
nten
ance
of
the
air
cond
ition
ing
units
, ge
nera
tor
sets
, el
ectr
ical
fac
ilitie
s, w
ater
hea
ters
, an
d w
ater
m
otor
pu
mps
of
th
e In
done
sian
Em
bass
y an
d th
e of
ficia
l re
side
nce
of t
he I
ndon
esia
n am
bass
ador
.
USA a
nd B
radf
ord
v. H
on.
Luis
R.
Rey
es a
nd M
onto
ya
[219
SCRA 1
92,
Mar
ch 1
, 19
93]
G.R
. N
o. 7
9253
Fa
cts:
Pr
ivat
e re
spon
dent
[M
onto
ya]
is a
n Am
eric
an c
itize
n w
as e
mpl
oyed
as
an
iden
tific
atio
n (I
.D.)
che
cker
at
the
U.S
. N
avy
Exch
ange
(N
EX)
at t
he J
oint
U
nite
d Sta
tes
Mili
tary
Ass
ista
nce
Gro
up (
JUSM
AG
) he
adqu
arte
rs i
n Q
uezo
n City
. Pe
titio
ner
[Bra
dfor
d]
also
w
orke
d at
N
EX
JUSM
AG
as
an
a
ctiv
ity
man
ager
. T
here
was
an
inci
dent
on
22 J
anua
ry 1
987
whe
reby
Bra
dfor
d ha
d M
onto
yas
pe
rson
an
d be
long
ings
se
arch
ed
in
fron
t of
m
any
curiou
s on
look
ers.
Thi
s ca
used
Mon
toya
to
feel
agg
riev
ed a
nd t
o fil
e a
suit
for
dam
ages
. Con
tent
ions
: Bra
dfor
d cl
aim
ed t
hat
she
was
imm
une
from
sui
t be
caus
e:
1) (
This
) ac
tion
is i
n ef
fect
a s
uit
agai
nst
the
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
of A
mer
ica,
a
fore
ign
sove
reig
n im
mun
e fr
om s
uit
with
out
its c
onse
nt f
or t
he c
ause
of
actio
n pl
eade
d in
the
com
plai
nt;
and
2)
Def
enda
nt,
Max
ine
Bra
dfor
d,
as
man
ager
of
th
e U
S
Nav
y Ex
chan
ge
Bra
nch
at J
USM
AG
, Q
uezo
n City
, is
imm
une
from
sui
t fo
r ac
t(s)
don
e by
her
in
th
e pe
rfor
man
ce of
he
r of
ficia
l fu
nctio
ns un
der
the
Phili
ppin
es-U
nite
d Sta
tes
Mili
tary
Ass
ista
nce
Agr
eem
ent
of 1
947
and
Mili
tary
Bas
es A
gree
men
t of
194
7, a
s am
ende
d.
Mon
toya
arg
ued
that
: (a
) Bra
dfor
d, in
ord
erin
g th
e se
arch
upo
n he
r pe
rson
and
bel
ongi
ngs
outs
ide
the
NEX
JU
SM
AG
sto
re i
n th
e pr
esen
ce o
f on
look
ers,
had
com
mitt
ed a
n im
prop
er,
unla
wfu
l an
d hi
ghly
dis
crim
inat
ory
act
agai
nst
a Fi
lipin
o em
ploy
ee
and
had
exce
eded
the
sco
pe o
f he
r au
thor
ity;
(b)
havi
ng e
xcee
ded
her
auth
ority
, Bra
dfor
d ca
nnot
rel
y on
the
sov
erei
gn i
mm
unity
of
the
publ
ic
petit
ione
r be
caus
e he
r lia
bilit
y is
per
sona
l; (
c) P
hilip
pine
cou
rts
are
vest
ed
with
jur
isdi
ctio
n ov
er t
he c
ase
beca
use
Bra
dfor
d is
a c
ivili
an e
mpl
oyee
who
ha
d co
mm
itted
the
cha
lleng
ed a
ct o
utsi
de t
he U
.S.
Mili
tary
Bas
es;
such
act
is
not
one
of
thos
e ex
empt
ed f
rom
the
jur
isdi
ctio
n of
Phi
lippi
ne c
ourt
s; a
nd
(d)
Phili
ppin
e co
urts
can
inqu
ire
into
the
fac
tual
circu
mst
ance
s of
the
cas
e to
-
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er o
r no
t Bra
dfor
d ha
d ac
ted
with
in o
r ou
tsid
e th
e sc
ope
of
her
auth
ority
. Th
e do
ctrine
of st
ate
imm
unity
is a
t th
e co
re o
f th
is c
ontr
over
sy.
Doc
trin
e of
Sta
te I
mm
unity
: Th
e do
ctrine
of
stat
e im
mun
ity a
nd t
he e
xcep
tions
the
reto
are
sum
mar
ized
in
Sha
uf v
s. C
ourt
of App
eals
, th
us:
I. T
he r
ule
that
a s
tate
may
not
be
sued
with
out
its c
onse
nt,
now
exp
ress
ed
in A
rtic
le X
VI
Sec
tion
3, o
f th
e 19
87 C
onst
itutio
n, i
s on
e of
the
gen
eral
ly
acce
pted
pri
ncip
les
of int
erna
tiona
l la
w t
hat
we
have
ado
pted
as
part
of
the
law
of
our
land
und
er A
rtic
le I
I, S
ectio
n 2.
Thi
s la
tter
pro
visi
on m
erel
y re
itera
tes
a po
licy
earl
ier
embo
died
in
the
1935
and
197
3 Con
stitu
tions
and
al
so
inte
nded
to
m
anife
st
our
reso
lve
to
abid
e by
th
e ru
les
of
the
inte
rnat
iona
l com
mun
ity.
Whi
le t
he d
octr
ine
appe
ars
to p
rohi
bit
only
sui
ts a
gain
st t
he s
tate
with
out
its
cons
ent,
it
is a
lso
appl
icab
le t
o co
mpl
aint
s fil
ed a
gain
st o
ffic
ials
of
the
stat
e fo
r ac
ts a
llege
dly
perf
orm
ed b
y th
em i
n th
e di
scha
rge
of t
heir d
utie
s. T
he
rule
is
that
if
the
judg
men
t ag
ains
t su
ch o
ffic
ials
will
req
uire
the
sta
te i
tsel
f to
per
form
an
affir
mat
ive
act
to s
atis
fy t
he s
ame,
suc
h as
the
app
ropr
iatio
n of
the
am
ount
nee
ded
to p
ay t
he d
amag
es a
war
ded
agai
nst
them
, th
e su
it m
ust
be
rega
rded
as
ag
ains
t th
e st
ate
itsel
f al
thou
gh
it ha
s no
t be
en
form
ally
im
plea
ded.
It
mus
t be
not
ed,
how
ever
, th
at t
he r
ule
is n
ot s
o al
l-en
com
pass
ing
as t
o be
app
licab
le u
nder
all
circ
umst
ance
s.
It i
s a
differ
ent
mat
ter
whe
re t
he p
ublic
off
icia
l is
mad
e to
acc
ount
in
his
capa
city
as
such
for
act
s co
ntra
ry t
o la
w a
nd i
njur
ious
to
the
righ
ts o
f pl
aint
iff.
As
was
cle
arly
set
for
th b
y Ju
stic
e Zal
diva
r in
Direc
tor
of t
he B
urea
u of
Tel
ecom
mun
icat
ions
, et
al.
vs.
Alig
aen,
etc
., e
t al
. "I
nasm
uch
as t
he S
tate
au
thor
izes
onl
y le
gal
acts
by
its o
ffic
ers,
una
utho
rize
d ac
ts o
f go
vern
men
t of
ficia
ls o
r of
ficer
s ar
e no
t ac
ts o
f th
e Sta
te,
and
an a
ctio
n ag
ains
t th
e of
ficia
ls o
r of
ficer
s by
one
who
se r
ight
s ha
ve b
een
inva
ded
or v
iola
ted
by
such
act
s, f
or t
he p
rote
ctio
n of
his
rig
hts,
is
not
a su
it ag
ains
t th
e Sta
te
with
in t
he r
ule
of im
mun
ity o
f th
e Sta
te f
rom
sui
t. I
n th
e sa
me
teno
r, it
has
been
sai
d th
at a
n ac
tion
at la
w o
r su
it in
equ
ity a
gain
st a
Sta
te o
ffic
er o
r th
e di
rect
or o
f a
Sta
te d
epar
tmen
t on
the
gro
und
that
, w
hile
cla
imin
g to
act
or
the
Sta
te,
he v
iola
tes
or i
nvad
es t
he p
erso
nal
and
prop
erty
rig
hts
of t
he
plai
ntiff
, un
der
an u
ncon
stitu
tiona
l ac
t or
und
er a
n as
sum
ptio
n of
aut
hori
ty
whi
ch
he
does
no
t ha
ve,
is
not
a su
it ag
ains
t th
e Sta
te
with
in
the
cons
titut
iona
l pro
visi
on t
hat
the
Sta
te m
ay n
ot b
e su
ed w
ithou
t its
con
sent
."
The
ratio
nale
for
thi
s ru
ling
is t
hat
the
doct
rina
ire
of s
tate
im
mun
ity c
anno
t be
use
d as
an
inst
rum
ent
for
perp
etra
ting
an in
just
ice.
In
the
cas
e of
Bae
r, e
tc.
vs.
Tizo
n, e
tc.,
et
al.,
it w
as r
uled
tha
t:
Ther
e sh
ould
be
no m
isin
terp
reta
tion
of t
he s
cope
of
the
deci
sion
rea
ched
by
this
Cou
rt.
Petit
ione
r, a
s th
e Com
man
der
of t
he U
nite
d Sta
tes
Nav
al B
ase
in
Olo
ngap
o,
does
no
t po
sses
s di
plom
atic
im
mun
ity.
He
may
th
eref
ore
be
proc
eede
d ag
ains
t in
his
per
sona
l cap
acity
, or
whe
n th
e ac
tion
take
n by
him
ca
nnot
be
impu
ted
to t
he g
over
nmen
t w
hich
he
repr
esen
ts.
Als
o, i
n Ani
mos
, et
al.
vs.
Phili
ppin
e Vet
eran
s Affai
rs O
ffic
e, e
t al
., w
e he
ld
that
: .
. .
it is
equ
ally
wel
l-se
ttle
d th
at w
here
a l
itiga
tion
may
hav
e ad
vers
e co
nseq
uenc
es o
n th
e pu
blic
tre
asur
y, w
heth
er in
the
dis
burs
emen
ts o
f fu
nds
or l
oss
of p
rope
rty,
the
pub
lic o
ffic
ial
proc
eede
d ag
ains
t no
t be
ing
liabl
e in
hi
s pe
rson
al c
apac
ity,
then
the
doc
trin
e of
non
-sua
bilit
y m
ay a
ppro
pria
tely
be
inv
oked
. It
has
no
appl
icat
ion,
how
ever
, w
here
the
sui
t ag
ains
t su
ch a
fu
nctio
nary
had
to
be i
nstit
uted
bec
ause
of
his
failu
re t
o co
mpl
y w
ith t
he
duty
impo
sed
by s
tatu
te a
ppro
pria
ting
publ
ic f
unds
for
the
ben
efit
of p
lain
tiff
or p
etiti
oner
. .
. .
. Th
e af
orec
ited
auth
oriti
es ar
e cl
ear
on th
e m
atte
r. Th
ey st
ate
that
th
e do
ctrine
of
imm
unity
from
sui
t w
ill n
ot a
pply
and
may
not
be
invo
ked
whe
re
the
publ
ic o
ffic
ial
is b
eing
sue
d in
his
priva
te a
nd p
erso
nal
capa
city
as
an
ordi
nary
citi
zen.
The
clo
ak o
f pr
otec
tion
affo
rded
the
offic
ers
and
agen
ts o
f th
e go
vern
men
t is
rem
oved
the
mom
ent
they
are
sue
d in
the
ir i
ndiv
idua
l ca
paci
ty.
This
situ
atio
n us
ually
ari
ses
whe
re t
he p
ublic
offic
ial
acts
with
out
auth
ority
or
in e
xces
s of
the
pow
ers
vest
ed i
n hi
m.
It i
s a
wel
l-se
ttle
d pr
inci
ple
of l
aw t
hat
a pu
blic
offic
ial
may
be
liabl
e in
his
per
sona
l pr
ivat
e ca
paci
ty f
or w
hate
ver
dam
age
he m
ay h
ave
caus
ed b
y hi
s ac
t do
new
ith
mal
ice
and
in b
ad f
aith
, or
bey
ond
the
scop
e of
his
aut
hority
or
jurisd
ictio
n.
The
agen
ts a
nd o
ffic
ials
of
the
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
arm
ed f
orce
s st
atio
ned
in C
lark
Air B
ase
are
no e
xcep
tion
to t
his
rule
. [f
ootn
otes
om
itted
] In
the
pre
sent
cas
e, it
app
ears
tha
t Bra
dfor
d w
as s
ued
for
acts
don
e be
yond
th
e sc
ope
and
beyo
nd h
er p
lace
of
offic
ial fu
nctio
ns.
Thus
she
may
not
ava
il of
imm
unity
. She
may
not
eve
n av
ail
of d
iplo
mat
ic i
mm
unity
bec
ause
Art
icle
31
of t
he
Vie
nna
Con
vent
ion
on D
iplo
mat
ic R
elat
ions
adm
its o
f ex
cept
ions
. It
rea
ds:
-
1. A
dip
lom
atic
age
nt s
hall
enjo
y im
mun
ity f
rom
the
crim
inal
jur
isdi
ctio
n of
th
e re
ceiv
ing
Sta
te.
He
shal
l al
so
enjo
y im
mun
ity
from
its
ci
vil
and
adm
inis
trat
ive
jurisd
ictio
n ex
cept
in t
he c
ase
of:
xxx
xxx
xxx
(c)
an a
ctio
n re
latin
g to
any
pro
fess
iona
l or
com
mer
cial
act
ivity
exe
rcis
ed b
y th
e di
plom
atic
ag
ent
in th
e re
ceiv
ing
Sta
te o
utsi
de h
is o
ffic
ial
func
tions
(E
mph
asis
sup
plie
d).
INTE
RN
ATI
ON
AL
CATH
OLI
C
IMM
IGRATI
ON
CO
MM
ISSIO
N,
petit
ione
r vs
. H
ON
. PU
RA C
ALL
EJA I
N H
ER C
APA
CIT
Y AS D
IREC
TOR O
F TH
E BU
REA
U O
F LA
BO
R R
ELATI
ON
S A
ND
TRAD
E U
NIO
NS O
F TH
E PH
ILIP
PIN
ES A
ND
ALL
IED
SER
VIC
ES (
TUPA
S)
WFT
U r
espo
nden
ts.
FACTS
: IC
MC a
n ac
cred
ited
refu
gee
proc
essi
ng c
ente
r in
Mor
ong
Bat
aan,
is
a no
n-pr
ofit
agen
cy in
volv
ed in
inte
rnat
iona
l hum
anita
rian
and
vol
unta
ry w
ork.
It
is
duly
re
gist
ered
w
ith
the
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
Ec
onom
ic
and
Soc
ial
Cou
ncil
(ECO
SO
C)
and
enjo
ys C
onsu
ltativ
e st
atus
II.
It
has
the
activ
ities
par
alle
l to
th
ose
of
the
Inte
rnat
iona
l Com
mitt
ee
for
Mig
rtio
n (I
CM
) an
d th
e In
tern
atio
nal C
omm
ittee
of th
e Red
Cro
ss (
ICRC).
O
n Ju
ly 1
4, 1
986,
Tra
de U
nion
of
the
Phili
ppin
es a
nd A
llied
Ser
vice
s (T
UPA
S)
filed
w
ith
the
then
M
inis
try
of
Labo
r an
d Em
ploy
men
t a
Petit
ion
for
Cer
tific
atio
n El
ectio
n am
ong
the
rank
and
file
mem
bers
em
ploy
ed b
y th
e IC
MC.
The
latt
er o
ppos
ed t
he p
etiti
on o
n th
e gr
ound
tha
t it e
njoy
s di
plom
atic
im
mun
ity.
On
Febr
uaur
y 5,
198
7 M
ed
Arb
iter
Anas
taci
o L.
Bac
tin s
usta
ined
ICM
C a
nd
dism
isse
d th
e pe
titio
n of
TU
PAS for
lack
of ju
risd
ictio
n.
On
appe
al,
The
Direc
tor
of t
he B
urea
u of
Lab
or R
elat
ions
rev
erse
d th
e M
ed
Arb
iters
Dec
isio
nand
or
dere
d th
e im
med
iate
co
nduc
t of
a
cert
ifica
tion
elec
tion.
This
pre
sent
Pet
ition
for
Cer
tiora
ri w
ith P
relim
inar
y In
junc
tion
assa
iling
the
BLR
Ord
er.
ISSU
E:
Whe
ther
or
not
the
gran
t of
dip
lom
atic
privi
lege
s an
d im
mun
ities
to
ICM
C
exte
nds
to im
mun
ity fro
m t
he a
pplic
atio
n of
Phi
lippi
ne la
bor
law
s.
HEL
D:
The
Petit
ion
is G
RAN
TED
, th
e or
der
of t
he B
urea
u of
Lab
or R
elat
ions
for
Cer
tific
atio
n el
ectio
n is
SET
ASID
E, a
nd t
he T
empo
rary
Res
trai
ning
Ord
er
earlie
r is
sued
is m
ade
PERM
AN
ENT.
It
is
a re
cogn
ized
princ
iple
of
inte
rnat
iona
l la
w a
nd u
nder
our
sys
tem
of
sepa
ratio
n of
po
wer
s th
at
dipl
omat
ic
imm
unity
is
es
sent
ially
a
polit
ical
qu
estio
n an
d co
urts
sho
uld
refu
se t
o lo
ok b
eyon
d a
dete
rmin
atio
n by
the
ex
ecut
ive
bran
ch
of th
e go
vern
men
t, an
d w
here
th
e pl
ea of
di
plom
atic
im
mun
ity
is
reco
gniz
ed
and
affir
med
by
th
e ex
ecut
ive
bran
ch
of
the
gove
rnm
ent
as in
the
case
at
bar,
it
is t
hen
the
duty
of
the
cour
ts t
o ac
cept
th
e cl
aim
of
imm
unity
upo
n ap
prop
riat
e su
gges
tion
by t
he p
rinc
ipal
law
of
ficer
of
the
gove
rnm
ent
. .
. or
oth
er o
ffic
er a
ctin
g un
der
his
dire
ctio
n.
Hen
ce,
in a
dher
ence
to
the
sett
led
prin
cipl
e th
at c
ourt
s m
ay n
ot s
o ex
erci
se
thei
r ju
risd
ictio
n .
. .
as t
o em
barr
ass
the
exec
utiv
e ar
m o
f th
e go
vern
men
t in
con
duct
ing
fore
ign
rela
tions
, it
is a
ccep
ted
doct
rine
tha
t in
suc
h ca
ses
the
judi
cial
dep
artm
ent
of (
this
) go
vern
men
t fo
llow
s th
e ac
tion
of t
he p
oliti
cal
bran
ch
and
will
no
t em
barr
ass
the
latt
er
by
assu
min
g an
an
tago
nist
ic
jurisd
ictio
n.
BASIS
: Art
icle
II
of
th
e M
emor
andu
m
of
Agr
eem
ent
betw
een
the
Phili
ppin
e G
over
nmen
t an
d IC
MC p
rovi
des
that
ICM
C s
hall
have
a s
tatu
s s
imila
r to
th
at o
f a
spec
ializ
ed a
genc
y.
Art
icle
III
, Sec
tion
4. T
he s
peci
aliz
ed a
genc
ies,
the
ir p
rope
rty
and
asse
ts,
whe
reve
r lo
cate
d an
d by
who
mso
ever
hel
d, s
hall
enjo
y im
mun
ity f
rom
eve
ry
form
of
lega
l pr
oces
s ex
cept
in
so f
ar a
s in
any
par
ticul
ar c
ase
they
hav
e ex
pres
sly
wai
ved
thei
r im
mun
ity.
It i
s, h
owev
er,
unde
rsto
od t
hat
no w
aive
r of
imm
unity
sha
ll ex
tend
to
any
mea
sure
of ex
ecut
ion.
-
D
FA v
s. N
LRC
G
.R.
No.
113
191,
18
Sep
tem
ber
1996
Fa
cts:
O
n 27
Jan
uary
199
3, p
riva
te r
espo
nden
t M
agna
yi f
iled
an i
llega
l di
smis
sal
case
aga
inst
AD
B.
Tw
o su
mm
onse
s w
ere
serv
ed,
one
sent
direc
tly t
o th
e AD
B a
nd t
he o
ther
thr
ough
the
Dep
artm
ent
of F
orei
gn A
ffai
rs (
"DFA
").
AD
B
and
the
DFA
not
ified
res
pond
ent
Labo
r Arb
iter
that
the
AD
B,
as w
ell
as i
ts
Pres
iden
t an
d O
ffic
ers,
wer
e co
vere
d by
an
imm
unity
fro
m l
egal
pro
cess
ex
cept
for
bor
row
ings
, gu
aran
ties
or t
he s
ale
of s
ecur
ities
pur
suan
t to
Art
icle
50
(1)
and
Art
icle
55
of t
he A
gree
men
t Es
tabl
ishi
ng t
he A
sian
Dev
elop
men
t Ban
k (t
he
"Cha
rter
")
in
rela
tion
to
Sec
tion
5 an
d Sec
tion
44
of
the
Agr
eem
ent
Bet
wee
n Th
e Ban
k And
Th
e G
over
nmen
t O
f Th
e Ph
ilipp
ines
Reg
ardi
ng T
he B
ank'
s H
eadq
uart
ers
(the
"H
eadq
uart
ers
Agr
eem
ent"
).
The
Labo
r Arb
iter
took
cog
niza
nce
of t
he c
ompl
aint
on
the
impr
essi
on t
hat
the
AD
B h
ad w
aive
d its
dip
lom
atic
imm
unity
fro
m s
uit
and,
in t
ime,
ren
dere
d a
deci
sion
in fav
our
Mag
nayi
.
The
AD
B d
id n
ot a
ppea
l th
e de
cisi
on.
Ins
tead
, on
03
Nov
embe
r 19
93,
the
DFA
ref
erre
d th
e m
atte
r to
the
NLR
C;
in i
ts r
efer
ral,
the
DFA
sou
ght
a "f
orm
al
vaca
tion
of
the
void
ju
dgm
ent.
" W
hen
DFA
fa
iled
to
obta
in
a fa
vora
ble
deci
sion
fro
m t
he N
LRC,
it fil
ed a
pet
ition
for
cer
tiora
ri.
Issu
es:
1. W
heth
er o
r no
t AD
B is
imm
une
from
sui
t 2.
Whe
ther
or
not
by e
nter
ing
into
ser
vice
con
trac
ts w
ith d
iffer
ent
priv
ate
com
pani
es,
AD
B
has
desc
ende
d to
th
e le
vel
of
an
ordi
nary
pa
rty
to
a co
mm
erci
al t
rans
actio
n gi
ving
ris
e to
a w
aive
r of
its
imm
unity
fro
m s
uit
3. W
heth
er o
r no
t th
e D
FA h
as t
he le
gal s
tand
ing
to f
ile t
he p
rese
nt p
etiti
on
4. W
heth
er o
r no
t th
e ex
trao
rdin
ary
rem
edy
of c
ertio
rari is
pro
per
in t
his
case
H
eld
: 1.
U
nder
th
e Cha
rter
an
d H
eadq
uart
ers
Agr
eem
ent,
th
e AD
B
enjo
ys
imm
unity
fro
m l
egal
pro
cess
of
ever
y fo
rm,
exce
pt i
n th
e sp
ecifi
ed c
ases
of
borr
owin
g an
d gu
aran
tee
oper
atio
ns,
as w
ell
as th
e pu
rcha
se,
sale
an
d un
derw
ritin
g of
sec
uriti
es.
The
Ban
ks
offic
ers,
on
thei
r pa
rt,
enjo
y im
mun
ity
in
resp
ect
of
all
acts
pe
rfor
med
by
th
em
in
thei
r of
ficia
l ca
paci
ty.
The
Cha
rter
and
the
Hea
dqua
rter
s Agr
eem
ent
gran
ting
thes
e im
mun
ities
and
pr
ivile
ges
are
trea
ty c
oven
ants
and
com
mitm
ents
vol
unta
rily
ass
umed
by
the
Phili
ppin
e go
vern
men
t w
hich
mus
t be
res
pect
ed.
Bei
ng a
n in
tern
atio
nal
orga
niza
tion
that
has
bee
n ex
tend
ed a
dip
lom
atic
st
atus
, th
e AD
B is
inde
pend
ent
of t
he m
unic
ipal
law
.
"One
of
the
basi
c im
mun
ities
of
an i
nter
natio
nal
orga
niza
tion
is i
mm
unity
fr
om lo
cal
jurisd
ictio
n, i.e
., th
at it
is im
mun
e fr
om th
e le
gal
wri
ts an
d pr
oces
ses
issu
ed b
y th
e tr
ibun
als
of t
he c
ount
ry w
here
it
is f
ound
. T
he
obvi
ous
reas
on f
or t
his
is t
hat
the
subj
ectio
n of
suc
h an
org
aniz
atio
n to
the
au
thor
ity o
f th
e lo
cal
cour
ts w
ould
affor
d a
conv
enie
nt m
ediu
m t
hru
whi
ch
the
host
gov
ernm
ent
may
int
erfe
re i
n th
eir
oper
atio
ns o
r ev
en i
nflu
ence
or
cont
rol
its
polic
ies
and
deci
sion
s of
th
e or
gani
zatio
n;
besi
des,
su
ch
subj
ectio
n to
loc
al j
uris
dict
ion
wou
ld i
mpa
ir t
he c
apac
ity o
f su
ch b
ody
to
disc
harg
e its
res
pons
ibili
ties
impa
rtia
lly o
n be
half
of it
s m
embe
r-st
ates
."
2. N
o. Th
e AD
B di
dn't
desc
end
to th
e le
vel
of an
or
dina
ry pa
rty
to a
com
mer
cial
tr
ansa
ctio
n,
whi
ch
shou
ld
have
co
nstit
uted
a
wai
ver
of
its
imm
unity
fro
m s
uit,
by
ente
ring
int
o se
rvic
e co
ntra
cts
with
diff
eren
t pr
ivat
e co
mpa
nies
. T
here
are
tw
o co
nflic
ting
conc
epts
of
sove
reig
n im
mun
ity,
eac
h w
idel
y he
ld a
nd f
irm
ly e
stab
lishe
d. Acc
ordi
ng t
o th
e cl
assi
cal
or a
bsol
ute
theo
ry,
a so
vere
ign
cann
ot,
with
out
its c
onse
nt,
be m
ade
a re
spon
dent
in
the
Cou
rts
of
anot
her
sove
reig
n. Acc
ordi
ng
to
the
new
er
or
rest
rict
ive
theo
ry,
the
imm
unity
of
th
e so
vere
ign
is
reco
gniz
ed
only
w
ith
rega
rd
to p
ublic
act
s or
act
s ju
re i
mpe
rii o
f a
stat
e, b
ut n
ot w
ith r
egar
d to
priva
te
act
or a
cts
jure
ges
tioni
s.
-
Cer
tain
ly,
the
mer
e en
tering
int
o a
cont
ract
by
a fo
reig
n st
ate
with
a
priv
ate
part
y ca
nnot
be
the
ultim
ate
test
. S
uch
an a
ct c
an o
nly
be t
he s
tart
of
the
inq
uiry
. T
he l
ogic
al q
uest
ion
is w
heth
er t
he f
orei
gn s
tate
is
enga
ged
in t
he a
ctiv
ity i
n th
e re
gula
r co
urse
of
busi
ness
. I
f th
e fo
reig
n st
ate
is n
ot
enga
ged
regu
larly
in a
bus
ines
s or
tra
de,
the
part
icul
ar a
ct o
r tr
ansa
ctio
n m
ust
then
be
test
ed b
y its
nat
ure.
If
the
act
is
in p
ursu
it of
a s
over
eign
ac
tivity
, or
an
inci
dent
the
reof
, th
en it
is a
n ac
t ju
re im
perii,
espe
cial
ly w
hen
it is
not
und
erta
ken
for
gain
or
prof
it.
The
serv
ice
cont
ract
s re
ferr
ed
to
by
priv
ate
resp
onde
nt
have
no
t be
en
inte
nded
by
the
AD
B f
or p
rofit
or
gain
but
are
off
icia
l ac
ts o
ver
whi
ch a
w
aive
r of
imm
unity
wou
ld n
ot a
ttac
h.
3.
Yes.
Th
e D
FA's
fu
nctio
n in
clud
es,
amon
g its
ot
her
man
date
s,
the
dete
rmin
atio
n of
per
sons
and
ins
titut
ions
cov
ered
by
dipl
omat
ic i
mm
uniti
es,
a de
term
inat
ion
whi
ch,
whe
n ch
alle
nged
, en
title
s it
to s
eek
relie
f fr
om t
he
cour
t so
as
not
to s
erio
usly
im
pair t
he c
ondu
ct o
f th
e co
untr
y's
fore
ign
rela
tions
. T
he D
FA m
ust
be a
llow
ed t
o pl
ead
its c
ase
whe
neve
r ne
cess
ary
or
advi
sabl
e to
en
able
it
to
help
ke
ep
the
cred
ibili
ty
of
the
Phili
ppin
e go
vern
men
t be
fore
th
e in
tern
atio
nal
com
mun
ity.
Whe
n in
tern
atio
nal
agre
emen
ts a
re c
oncl
uded
, th
e pa
rtie
s th
eret
o ar
e de
emed
to
have
lik
ewis
e ac
cept
ed t
he r
espo
nsib
ility
of
seei
ng t
o it
that
the
ir a
gree
men
ts a
re d
uly
rega
rded
. I
n ou
r co
untr
y, t
his
task
fal
ls p
rinc
ipal
ly o
n th
e D
FA a
s be
ing
the
high
est
exec
utiv
e de
part
men
t w
ith t
he c
ompe
tenc
e an
d au
thor
ity t
o so
act
in
this
asp
ect
of t
he int
erna
tiona
l ar
ena.
In
Hol
y See
vs.
Hon
. Ros
ario
, Jr
., t
his
Cou
rt h
as e
xpla
ined
the
mat
ter
in g
ood
deta
il; v
iz:
"In
Publ
ic I
nter
natio
nal La
w,
whe
n a
stat
e or
int
erna
tiona
l ag
ency
wis
hes
to
plea
d so
vere
ign
or d
iplo
mat
ic i
mm
unity
in a
for
eign
cou
rt,
it re
ques
ts t
he
Fore
ign
Offic
e of
the
sta
te w
here
it
is s
ued
to c
onve
y to
the
cou
rt t
hat
said
de
fend
ant
is e
ntitl
ed t
o im
mun
ity.
"In
the
Uni
ted
Sta
tes,
the
pro
cedu
re f
ollo
wed
is
the
proc
ess
of 'su
gges
tion,
' w
here
the
for
eign
sta
te o
r th
e in
tern
atio
nal o
rgan
izat
ion
sued
in a
n Am
eric
an
cour
t re
ques
ts t
he S
ecre
tary
of
Sta
te t
o m
ake
a de
term
inat
ion
as t
o w
heth
er
it is
ent
itled
to
imm
unity.
If
the
Sec
reta
ry o
f Sta
te f
inds
tha
t th
e de
fend
ant
is im
mun
e fr
om s
uit,
he,
in t
urn,
ask
s th
e Att
orne
y G
ener
al t
o su
bmit
to t
he
cour
t a
'sug
gest
ion'
tha
t th
e de
fend
ant
is e
ntitl
ed t
o im
mun
ity.
"In
the
Phili
ppin
es,
the
prac
tice
is
for
the
fore
ign
gove
rnm
ent
or
the
inte
rnat
iona
l or
gani
zatio
n to
first
sec
ure
an e
xecu
tive
endo
rsem
ent
of i
ts
clai
m o
f so
vere
ign
or d
iplo
mat
ic i
mm
unity
. B
ut h
ow t
he P
hilip
pine
For
eign
O
ffic
e co
nvey
s its
en
dors
emen
t to
th
e co
urts
va
ries
. I
n In
tern
atio
nal
Cat
holic
M
igra
tion
Com
mis
sion
vs
. Cal
leja
, 19
0 SCRA
130
(199
0),
the
Sec
reta
ry o
f Fo
reig
n Affai
rs j
ust
sent
a l
ette
r di
rect
ly t
o th
e Sec
reta
ry o
f La
bor
and
Empl
oym
ent,
inf
orm
ing
the
latt
er t
hat
the
resp
onde
nt-e
mpl
oyer
co
uld
not
be s
ued
beca
use
it en
joye
d di
plom
atic
im
mun
ity.
In
Wor
ld H
ealth
O
rgan
izat
ion
vs.
Aqu
ino,
48
SCRA 2
42 (
1972
), t
he S
ecre
tary
of
Fore
ign
Affai
rs s
ent
the
tria
l co
urt
a te
legr
am t
o th
at e
ffec
t. In
Bae
r vs
. Ti
zon,
57
SCRA 1
(19
74),
the
U.S
. Em
bass
y as
ked
the
Sec
reta
ry o
f Fo
reig
n Affai
rs t
o re
ques
t th
e Sol
icito
r G
ener
al t
o m
ake,
in
beh
alf
of t
he C
omm
ande
r of
the
U
nite
d St