G.R. No.


July 31, 1936

RODOLFO A. SCHNECKENBURGER vs. MANUEL V. MORAN, Judge of First Instance of Manila Facts: This petition is for a writ of prohibition overruled with a view to preventing the Court of First Instance of Manila from taking cognizance of the criminal action filed against him. The petitioner was an accredited honorary consul of Uruguay at Manila. He was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila of falsification of a private document. He objected to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground that both under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Philippines the court below had no jurisdiction to try him. His objection was overruled hence this present petition. Issue: Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction to try the petitioner. Ruling: The counsel for the petitioner contend that the CIF of Manila has no jurisdiction according to Aticle III Sec. 2 of the United States Constitution which stipulated that the Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls, and such jurisdiction which excludes the courts of the Philippines and that that such jurisdiction is conferred exclusively upon the Supreme Court of the Philippines. Although section 17 of Act No. 136 vests in the Supreme Court the original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, habeas corpus, and quo warranto, such jurisdictiona was also conferred on the Courts of First Instance by the Code of Civil Procedure. (Act No. 190, secs. 197, 217, 222, 226, and 525.) It results that the original jurisdiction possessed and exercised by the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands was not exclusive of, but concurrent with, that of the Courts of First Instance. Hence, the Court of Instance has jurisdiction over the petitioner. G.R. No. 125865 January 28, 2000

case to this Court via a petition for review arguing that he is covered by immunity under the Agreement and that no preliminary investigation was held before the criminal cases were filed in court. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is covered by immunity. Ruling: The DFA's determination that a certain person is covered by immunity is only preliminary which has no binding effect in courts. In receiving ex-parte the DFA's advice and in motu propio dismissing the two criminal cases without notice to the prosecution, the latter's right to due process was violated. Furthermore, the immunity mentioned under Section 45 of the Agreement is not absolute, but subject to the exception that the act was done in "official capacity." It should have been determined first if the case falls within the ambit of Section 45(a) thus, the prosecutor should have been given the chance to rebut the DFA Protocol. Finally, slandering a person could not possibly be covered by the immunity agreement because our laws do not allow the commission of a crime, such as defamation, in the name of official duty. Hence, the petitioner is covered by immunity. G.R. No. L-35131 November 29, 1972 THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION and DR. LEONCE VERSTUYFT vs. HON. BENJAMIN H. AQUINO, as Presiding Judge of Branch VIII, Court of First Instance of Rizal Facts: The present petition is an original action for certiorari and prohibition to set aside respondent judge's refusal to quash a search warrant issued by him at the instance of respondents Constabulary Offshore Action Center (COSAC) officers for the search and seizure of the personal effects of Verstuyft of the WHO (World Health Organization) notwithstanding his being entitled to diplomatic immunity, as duly recognized by the Executive branch of the government and to prohibit respondent judge from further proceedings in the matter. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs Carlos P. Romulo pleaded to Hon. Aquino that Dr. Verstuyft is entitled to immunity from search in respect for his personal baggage as accorded to members of diplomatic missions pursuant to the Host Agreement and further requested for the suspension of the search warrant. The Solicitor General accordingly joined the petitioner for the quashal of the search warrant but respondent judge nevertheless summarily denied the quash hence, the petition at bar. Issue: Whether or not personal effect of WHO Officer Dr. Verstuyft can be exempted from search and seizure under the diplomatic immunity. Ruling: The executive branch of the Phils has expressly recognized that Verstuyft is entitled to diplomatic immunity, pursuant to the provisions of the Host Agreement. The DFA formally advised respondent judge of the Philippine Government's official position. The Solicitor

JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG) vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Facts: Petitioner is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB). He was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Mandaluyong City with two counts of grave oral defamation for uttering defamatory words against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal. Petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the MeTC. On April 13, 1994, the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, acting pursuant to an advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs that petitioner enjoyed immunity from legal processes under Section 45 of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government regarding the Headquarters of the ADB (hereinafter Agreement) dismissed the two criminal cases without notice to the prosecution. On a petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by the People, the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 160, annulled and set aside the order of the Metropolitan Trial Court dismissing the criminal cases. After the motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioner was denied, petitioner elevated the

No. "The immunity covers the organization concerned. In response to this crisis. its property and its assets. an Agreement was forged between the Philippine Government and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees whereby an operating center for processing IndoChinese refugees for eventual resettlement to other countries was to be established in Bataan . whenever there is any abuse of privilege by ICMC. at the request of the Holy See. therefore. It is duly registered with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and enjoys Consultative Status. HON.General. 1990 INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC IMMIGRATION COMMISSION vs. enjoys diplomatic immunity. Section 31 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations 17 provides that "each specialized agency shall make 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. Petition is GRANTED. pursuant to Article IV of the Memorandum of Agreement between ICMC the the Philippine Government. The exercise of jurisdiction by the Department of Labor in these instances would defeat the very purpose of immunity. on 23 February 1981. 85750 September 28. G. its activities are parallel to those of the International Committee for Migration (ICM) and the International Committee of the Red Cross On 14 July 1986. the plight of Vietnamese refugees fleeing from South Vietnam's communist rule confronted the international community. Category II. assuming that during that period (1983-1985) it was tacitly recognized as enjoying such immunity. in accordance with international practice. Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS) filed with the then Ministry of Labor and Employment a Petition for Certification Election among the rank and file members employed by ICMC The latter opposed the petition on the ground that it is an international organization registered with the United Nations and. and every officer concerned in executing it" to obtain or enforce such writ or process. It was incorporated in New York. whether as party or as attorney. It is equally applicable to proceedings in personam and proceedings in rem. likewise expressly affirmed said petitioner's right to diplomatic immunity and asked for the quashal of the search warrant. As an international organization rendering voluntary and humanitarian services in the Philippines. hence. Bataan. which is to shield the affairs of international organizations. The writs of certiorari and prohibition from the petitioners were granted. The unfortunate fact remains that respondent judge chose to rely on the suspicion of respondents COSAC officers "that the other remaining crates unopened contain contraband items" The provisions of Republic Act 75 declares as null and void writs or processes sued out or prosecuted whereby inter alia the person of an ambassador or public minister is arrested or imprisoned or his goods or chattels are seized or attached and makes it a penal offense for "every person by whom the same is obtained or prosecuted. and the Temporary Restraining Order earlier issued is made . from political pressure or control by the host country to the prejudice of member States of the organization. The objective is to avoid the danger of partiality and interference by the host country in their internal workings.R. USA. therefore. the Government is free to withdraw the privileges and immunities accorded. ISSUE: Whether or not the grant of diplomatic privileges and immunites to ICMC extends to immunity from the application of Philippine labor laws? HELD: The grant of immunity from local jurisdiction to ICMC is clearly necessitated by their international character and respective purposes. ICMC was one of those accredited by the Philippine Government to operate the refugee processing center in Morong. PURA CALLEJA IN HER CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS FACTS: As an aftermath of the Vietnam War. as principal law officer of the gorvernment. and to ensure the unhampered performance of their functions ICMC employees are not without recourse whenever there are disputes to be settled." Moreover. as a non-profit agency involved in international humanitarian and voluntary work. The Court. may be deemed to have waived it. holds the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in not ordering the quashal of the search warrant issued by him in disregard of the diplomatic immunity of petitioner Verstuyft. the Order of the Bureau of Labor Relations for certification election is SET ASIDE. ICMC did not invoke its immunity and. Clauses on jurisdictional immunity are said to be standard provisions in the constitutions of international Organizations.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful