Scribd
Upload
43 views1 page

Facts:: Callado Vs International Rice Research Institute

The petitioner was employed as a driver at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and was involved in a vehicle accident while on an official trip. After an investigation, the petitioner was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and misconduct. The IRRI issued a notice of termination. The petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The IRRI claimed immunity from suit as an international organization under Presidential Decree No. 1620. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the immunity defense based on an IRRI order waiving immunity for termination cases, but the NLRC reversed, finding no express waiver by the IRRI Director-General as required. The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC decision, affirming the IRRI's immunity from

Uploaded by

roland deschain
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
43 views1 page

Facts:: Callado Vs International Rice Research Institute

The petitioner was employed as a driver at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and was involved in a vehicle accident while on an official trip. After an investigation, the petitioner was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and misconduct. The IRRI issued a notice of termination. The petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The IRRI claimed immunity from suit as an international organization under Presidential Decree No. 1620. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the immunity defense based on an IRRI order waiving immunity for termination cases, but the NLRC reversed, finding no express waiver by the IRRI Director-General as required. The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC decision, affirming the IRRI's immunity from

Uploaded by

roland deschain
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Callado vs International Rice Research Institute

FACTS: Petitioner was employed as a driver at the IRRI. While driving an IRRI vehicle on an official
trip to NAIA and back to the IRRI, petitioner figured in an accident. After being informed of the findings of a
preliminary investigation conducted by IRRI’s HR Development Department Manager he was charged with: (1)
Driving an institute vehicle while on official duty under the influence of liquor; (2) Serious misconduct
consisting of your failure to report to your supervisors the failure of your vehicle to start because of a problem
with the car battery which, you alleged, required you to overstay in Manila for more than six (6) hours, whereas,
had you reported the matter to IRRI, Los Baños by telephone, your problem could have been solved within one
or two hours; (3) Gross and habitual neglect of your duties. Petitioner submitted his answer and defenses and
after an evaluation the IRRI issued a Notice of Termination. Thereafter petitioner filed a complaint before the
Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension and indemnity pay with moral and exemplary damages
and attorney’s fees. Private respondent IRRI wrote the Labor Arbiter that the former enjoys immunity and
privileges as an international organization by virtue of Article 3 of PD 1620. IRRI likewise wrote the Regional
Director of the Department of Labor and Employment. The Labor Arbiter admitted IRRI’s defense of immunity
but nonetheless, cited an Order issued by the Institute to the effect that “in all cases of termination, respondent
IRRI waives its immunity," and, accordingly, considered the defense of immunity no longer a legal obstacle in
resolving the case.
The NLRC however, found merit in private respondent’s appeal and, finding that IRRI did not waive its
immunity, ordered the decision of the Labor Arbiter set aside and the complaint dismissed.
HELD: IRRI's immunity from suit is undisputed.
Presidential Decree No. 1620, Article 3 provides:

Art. 3. Immunity from Legal Process. The Institute shall enjoy immunity from any penal, civil and
administrative proceedings, except insofar as that immunity has been expressly waived by the Director-General
of the Institute or his authorized representatives.
In the case of International Catholic Migration Commission v. Hon. Calleja, et al. and Kapisanan ng
Manggagawa at TAC sa IRRI v. Secretary of Labor and Employment and IRRI, 12 the Court upheld the
constitutionality of the aforequoted law. The Court noted the letter of the Acting Secretary of Foreign Affairs to
the Secretary of Labor, where the immunity of the IRRI from the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and
Employment was sustained. Diplomatic immunity is essentially a political question and courts should refuse to
look beyond a determination by the executive branch of the government, and where the plea of diplomatic
immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the government.

Petitioner cannot rely on the Order issued by the IRRI because waiver is discretionary on its part.
The grant of immunity to IRRI is clear and unequivocal and an express waiver by its Director-General is the
only way by which it may relinquish or abandon this immunity.

You might also like