(3) Private respondents were engaged as contract employees hired by GTZ to

work for SHINE on various dates between Dec. 1998 to Sept. 1999. The
GTZ v CA - GTZ andemploymentOSG argue RESPONDENTthat GTZ was
contracts of all not(including
6performing
privateprivate proprietary
respondents)
respondents all specified Dr.
functionsTollkotter,
despite entering
adviser
(1) into of
OnGTZ, June
particular
as
8, the2000, employment
“employer.”
private respondents
All
contracts.
contracts wrote alsoaprovide
letter tothat Nicolay raising
Petitioner: German Agency for Technical Cooperation Invoked “it theisdoctrine
mutually of Holy
agreed several
See and v issues:
Rosario
understood Jr. that Dr. Tollkotter, as employer, is a
Respondent: Court of Appeals
“Certainly,
secondedthe GTZ mere expert
-entering who
SHINE is
into hiring
under
a contract
the
Nicolay
employeeby veered
a foreign
on behalfaway from of GTZ its and original
for purpose to
stateSHINE,
with a which
privatewill party end cannot
facilitate
at a given be thetime.” ultimate
development test. Such
of social an health insurance by shoring up
NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution
(4)
act IncanSept.
only1999,
be theAnne start Nicolay
ofthethenational
inquiry.
(Belgian The
health
national)
logicalinsurance
question
assumed program
the postand as SHINEstrengthening local
of the CA is whether
Project the foreign state
Manager. initiatives,
is engaged
Disagreements as Nicolay
in the activity
arose had refused
between in the to support
Nicolay andlocal privatepartners and new
regular
respondents
courseregarding
of business. proposed
initiatives If the salary
on the foreign
adjustments
premise statethatisand community
not course ofand the local
project. government unit
PONENTE: Tinga, J. engaged regularly in a business schemes or trade,werethenot particular
sustainable—aact or philosophy that supposedly
transaction must then be tested betrayed by its Nicolay’s
nature. Iflack the ofact understanding
is in of the purpose of the
DOCTRINE: Manner by which consent is given: A claim of immunity by pursuit of aLA:
PETITIONERS sovereign
(GTZ/Nicolay) activity,
project. or an incident thereof, then it
a foreign entity SC:Issued a Motion to Dismiss, stating that GTZ was a private corporation
is(1)an In jure -imperii,
actresponse, Nicolay
- especially
Aswrote a resulteach
whenofit the Nicolay’s
is not private
undertaken
new
respondents
thrust, resources
a letter dated have been used
(1) Sec entered 9, Art into 16 of the Constitution addresses the principle of state
for gain Julyor21, 2000,which
profit.” informing them: an employment contract; and that GTZ had failed to
inappropriately.
RULING FORMAT: immunity
secure from from suit,a certification
whether a local state or a foreignstatus. state. It states that
(6) In its reply - toThe respondent’s
project’s New the
- “orientations
allegation DFA
management
#5, and GTZ evolution”
style
controverts
waswere as
notto the its diplomatic
congruent
decided inwithconsensus
the original goals of
LA- Issued an order denying Motion to Dismisss. - In the State mayReiterating
petitioner’s not be suedMotion withouttoitsDismiss, consent. LA granted complaint for
finding statingwith thatpartner
it is a institutions,
matter the project
of public Philhealth knowledge and thethat DOH, the and thus no longer
CA- Affirmed dismissal. illegal- dismissal.
If the instant suit had been brought directly against the Federal
status of petitionersubjectistothat modifications.
-of an Nicolay
“implementing herself agency” suffered and not from cultural insensitivity that
SC- Petition Denied. Affirmed dismissal of the CA. (6) LA Taking Republic
the description oftoGermany, therevalue, would beapparent
nogrounds:
doubt that it is aunder suit
that of a private
- She -stated
person.
Important has consequently
that
Notes: jurisdiction
pursuant whaton respondents
entertain
to failed toface
complaint
sustain healthy on the
havethe ff relationsequivalent
“firmly and with SHINE’s
Philippine
a. Under brought law the against
islastthat a State,
of a corporation
employment and the
contract only
organizednecessary
entered under inquiry
into thebetween is whether
Corporation the
(7) GTZ websiteunequivocally
states that it stated
ispartners
“Federally
in the and staff.
owned,”
paragraph a of“Federal
the letter, it is imperative
FACTS: Code said
but owned
complainants State by had
andthe consented
Philippine
respondents, to government,
beit sued.
provides However,
or
that a the present
government-owned
contract is suit was
subject or
to
enterprise,” and that “founded
ThisI am -
to accept
decision in 1975
At
should the
yournot as enda company
of
resignation, the
be seen GTZ. letter,
under
aswhich respondents
deviation private
I expect fromtothe wrote
receive
more that the
ascommon issues
soon as methodology stated are
(1) On Sept 7, 1971, the governments of Federal Republic of Germany and controlled the brought
laws corporation
of against
the without
jurisdiction It is
original
of the necessary
charter.
locality for
where us to
service understand
is performed. what
law.” Germanpossible.”
government owns
employed in ascertaining very
it. crucial in
whether working for
a party enjoys the project; that
Statepersonality they
immunity offrom could no longer
suit, one
Republic of the Philippines ratified an Agreement concerning b. July precisely are
Respondent the parameters
having entered of thecontract,
into legal canparty nothe GTZ.
longer invoke
(2) In a letterwhichdated focuses find
11, the
on anyparticular
2000, reason
Nicolay tofunctions
stay
informed with exercised
the project
private unless
respondents
by the ALL of of
and thedetermines
issues be
Technical Co-operation in Bonn, West Germany. The Agreement, (2) Counsel Sec 36
sovereignty forofGTZ of the characterizes
the Corporate
German GTZ
Code
government. as states
the implementing
that every agency of the
corporation
pre-termination
whether these of theiraddressed
contracts
are proprietary immediately
of employment
or sovereignand appropriately.
on the grounds
insimilarly
nature. The of “serious
nature
aimed at promoting the technical and economic development by both c. Germanincorporated government,
under thisasuit, depiction
Code has theto power adopted bytoofsue
thetheOSG. acts
and gross
performed (2)
insubordination,
by To the beentity
Taken immune
aback,
among
invoking from
respondents
others,immunity respondent
replied
resulting remains withshould
loss the aand
ofmost
capacity
have
common
confidence secured
important letter fromandthe
clarifying
barometer
be
States, allowed for the conclusion of “arrangements concerning Assuming
sued
DFA in a its that characterization
corporate
certification name.
of respondents’ is correct, diplomatic it does status notand automatically
entitlement
and trust.”
for testing invest whether that the earlier letter was
privilege of Statenot intended asfrom
a resignation letter, but At onetheto
individual projects of technical co-operation.” The agreement was GTZ with
to Constitution
diplomatic the ability
privileges toimmunity
including invoke immunity
suit should
State immunity
from suits.
apply.
from suit.failed
The
(3) On Oct same25, time,
2005,our GTZ raise
filed attention
a Motion to towhat
stipulates they
Dismiss
that perceive
a on
State the as vitalthat
ground
immunity issues.
from LA hadHaving
suit is conditional
limited to an effectivity term of 5 years, however, tacitly extending for GTZ distinction liestoinestablish
whether that the agency is incorporated or unincorporated.
no jurisdiction
on its withholding (3)inhas
over thisfailed
the
On caseregard,
ofAugust as itsrespondents
consent; 21,
acts 2000,
werethe
hence,
under German
cannot
undertaken
respondents
laws and escapein filedlaw,a itcomplaint
liability
discharge
circumstances
hasfrom
of notthe
the consented
pertaining shelter
for to
of
illegal
to the
successive periods of 1 year unless either party denounces so. Upon the be According
sued
sovereigndespite to Justice
it being
immunity. Isagani
owned Cruz,
by the Federal Republic of Germany. We
governmental
creation functions
and legaldismissal
and with ofthe
sovereign
personality an NLRC
acts against government.
of the German
instrumentality GTZ, Director of its Manila
agreement’s expiry, its provisions would “continue to apply to any CA: -adhere Antoincorporated
the rule thatagency
in has
the filed a charter
absence oforitsagency
of evidence own to the
invoking
that investsimmunity
contrary, itforeign
with a
(4) Following remainthe decision
relevant. office, of the
Consent Assistant
to LA,
be GTZ
Project
sued, as Manager,
a special
exhibited in and
this civil
Nicolay;
action
decision, stating
isforoften they
conferredwere
projects agreed upon until their completion.” - laws
Dismissed separate
ondismissed
aUpon
GTZ’s juridical
particular petition personality.
subject are
finding presumed
that “judicial to be the
recourse same at as those
this stage of due
the
certiorari with
by the very the CA. beingwithout denied, lawful GTZ cause,
filed athere
petition being for a “total
review lack of
(2) On Dec 10, 1999, the Philippine government, through the DFA, agreed - same
Philippines,
statute
isIf uncalled
the agency or general
is law creating
incorporated, the the
testinstrumentality
ofan its suability orisagency.
found in its
under Rule 45, case assailing process theand following
for.
decision
both The
substantive
and the
appropriate most
and remedy
resolution intelligent
of theisCA
procedural.” assumption
appeal
GTZ
and the toLA;
failed we
the can gather,
toNLRC.
observe the
to an Arrangement with the German government to jointly promote a - GTZ
arguing that: GTZcharter. isnotice
took akin The
to
a procedural asimple
governmental
requirements
rule isinthat
misstep in theowned
it is suable
LabororLaw
bypassing if its to
controlled
an appeal
and letter
charter
corporation
the says without
NLRC.
should
so, and
not have
project called Social Health Insurance-Networking and Empowerment original this charter
is true regardless
which, by ofvirtue
the functions
ofletter. it is performing.
the Corporation
- The CA could have been entertained
treated as itsa resignation
petition for certiorari despiteCode, its nothas expressly
(SHINE), which was designated to “enable Philippine families— OSG: (3)consented
Philippines to bedesignated
sued. 2 entities, DOH and Philhealth, as implementing
having undertaken (4) Respondents
an appeal before opposed the NLRC argument, stating that GTZ had failed to
especially the poor ones—to maintain their health and secure health In its agencies inthebehalf ofofthe Philippines.
- That theComment,
complaint took
secure
for illegal sidedismissal
a certification GTZ; stating
that
should it was thatimmune
have its
been functionsfrom in
dismissed suitimplementing
forfrom the DFA, the
care of sustainable quality.” The Arrangement stated the various SHINE (7) -The Philhealth
program ruling was in was proprietary
Holy
neither established
See provided under
nor a RA 7875,
template
commercial onin sec 16(g)
how
nature. a foreigngrantsentity
Regarding the
the
lack of jurisdiction and as GTZ it was enjoys GTZ and nofrom
immunity the suit German government which had
obligations of the Filipino and German governments. corporation power “to sue and be sued in court;” therefore, it would
(5) Argued that: desiring
procedural misstep, to OSG
implementedinvoke State
(citing the Heirsimmunity
SHINE of Mayor
ProjectfromNemenciosuitentered
and could duly
Galvez)into prove stated
the immunity
that even
contracts of
Both governments named their respective implementing before not our belocal immune from suit has even in performance ofof itsmustfunctions
- GTZ when wasappeal
tasked, is employment.
available,
under the courts.
the Court
Agreement, The nonetheless
LA
with thereiterated allowed
implementation that petitioners
a writ of certiorari
the secure
when
organizations for SHINE: The Philippines designated the the ordersfrom connected
DFA with SHINE.
a certification
contributions of
(5)ofthe the lower
Asserted
German court
before were theof
government. LArespondents’
issued thateither
The GTZ in was
activitiesdiplomatic
excess of orstatus
a performed
“private without andjurisdiction.
corporation
by entitlement
in the
DOH and the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (Philhealth) (4)toAlthough
diplomatic respondents
privileges were unable tofrom adduce anyissue—whether
evidence to
Therefore,
GTZ pertaining to Court is allowed
implementation
the SHINE ofincluding
to inquire are immunity
directly
development
project into
governmental what
projects.” suits.
is The
thein main Had
finding
nature, GTZthatobtained
it was a
and German government charged the Deustche Gesellschaft GTZ enjoys substantiate
such certification
immunity theirfrom
from claim
the the
suit.thatDFA, GTZit iswould a “private have corporation,”
provided factual neitherbasis GTZ
for
related as they “private are to corporation”
the promotion wasofnever health controverted,
insuranceand in therefore
the deemed
für Technische Zusammenarbeit (or the GTZ) with the nor OSGofwas also able thattowould,
submit at evidence
the verydefining its legal anature other
Philippines.itsThe claim admitted.
fact immunity
that GTZ entered into employment least,
contracts establishwith disputable
implementation of its contributions. than the presumption
evidentiary description “implementing that the foreign agency”
party is supplied.
indeed immune Termwhich has the no
private respondents did not disqualify it from invoking immunity from
precise definition; it does not
opposing party will have to overcome with its own factual evidence.supply whether GTZ is incorporated or
suit.
unincorporated, owned by German state or public interests, or has
-
juridical personality independent of German govn. or none at all.
Therefore, GTZ
(5) the Court websitefinds statesnothat basis it isto“Federally
conclude owned,” or presume a “Federal that GTZ enterprise,”
enjoys
and “founded in 1975 as a
immunity from suit as it was unable to establish with satisfaction that it enjoys company under private law.” German the
immunity from government suit generally owns enjoyed it. At the by same
its parent time,country.it was organized not through