SEAFDEC-AQD v. NLRC

NATURE

Petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the decision of the NLRC in holding SEAFDEC-AQDliable to pay Juvenal Lazaga  as separation pay.

FACTS

SEAFDEC-AQD is a department of an international organizationorganized through an agreement entered into by the governments of Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines with Japan as the sponsoring country.

Lazaga was employed as Head of External Affairs Office with the same pay and benefits.SEAFDEC terminated his services due to financial constraints. SEAFDEC failed to pay his separation pay.

ISSUE/RULING

WON NLRC has jurisdiction over the SEAFDEC considering it is an international organization.

No, SEAFDEC-AQD is an international agency beyond the jurisdiction of public respondent NLRCand is immune from suit owing to its international character and the complaint is in effect a suit against the State which cannot be maintained without its consent.

Being an intergovernmental organization, it enjoys functional independence and freedom from control of the state in whose territory its office is located.

In so far as they are autonomous and beyond the control of any one State, they have a distinct juridical personality independent of the municipal law of the State where they are situated. As such"they must be deemed to possess a species of international personality of their own." (Salonga and Yap, Public International Law, 83 [1956 ed.])

WON seafdec is barred by estoppel

Estoppel does not apply to confer jurisdiction to a tribunal that has none over a cause of action. Jurisdiction is conferred by law. Where there is none, no agreement of the parties can provide one. Settled is the rule that the decision of a tribunal not vested with appropriate jurisdiction is null and void.

Jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of the action is a matter of law and may not be conferred by consent or agreement of the parties. The lack of jurisdiction of a court may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal. This doctrine has been qualified by recent pronouncements which it stemmed principally from the ruling in the cited case of Sibonghanoy. It is to be regretted, however, that the holding in said case had been applied to situations which were obviously not contemplated therein. The exceptional circumstances involved in Sibonghanoy which justified the departure from the accepted concept of non-waivability of objection to jurisdiction has been ignored and, instead a blanket doctrine had been repeatedly upheld that rendered the supposed ruling in Sibonghanoy not as the exception, but rather the general rule, virtually overthrowing altogether the time-honored principle that the issue of jurisdiction is not lost by waiver or by estoppel. (Calimlim vs. Ramirez)