Liang vs.

People
GR 125865, 28 January 2000

FACTS: Petitioner is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank. Sometime in
1994, for allegedly uttering defamatory words against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal, he
was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City with two counts of
grave oral defamation. Petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the MeTC.
MeTC Judge received an “office of protocol” from the Department of Foreign Affairs stating
that petitioner is covered by immunity from legal process under Section 45 of the Agreement
between the ADB and the Philippine Government regarding the Headquarters of the ADB in
the country. The MeTC judge without notice to the prosecution dismissed the case based from
the said protocol.
The latter filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed by the DFA. When its
motion was denied, the prosecution filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the RTC
of Pasig City which set aside the MeTC rulings and ordered the latter court to enforce the
warrant of arrest it earlier issued.

After the motion for reconsideration was denied, petitioner elevated the 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 immunity invoked by DFA for ADB employees based on the Agreement is
cognizable in our courts.

HELD: The immunity mentioned therein is not absolute, but subject to the exception that the
act was done in “official capacity.” The prosecution should have been given the chance to
rebut the DFA protocol and it must be accorded the opportunity to present its controverting
evidence.
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. It is a well-settled principle of law that a public official may be liable in his personal
private capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice or in
bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction. Under the Vienna Convention
on Diplomatic Relations, the commission of a crime is not part of official duty.
The petition is therefore denied.
Labels: Political Law