G.R. No. 152318 6 of 19 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/152318.htm the contracts of employment. [19] On 27 November 2000, the Labor Arbiter issued an Order denying the Motion to Dismiss. The Order cited, among others, that GTZ was a private corporation which entered into an employment contract; and that GTZ had failed to secure from the DFA a certification as to its diplomatic status. On 7 February 2001, GTZ filed with the Labor Arbiter a Reiterating Motion to Dismiss, again praying that the Motion to Dismiss be granted on the jurisdictional ground, and reprising the arguments for dismissal it had earlier raised. [20] No action was taken by the Labor Arbiter on this [21] granting the new motion. Instead, on 15 October 2001, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision complaint for illegal dismissal. The Decision concluded that respondents were dismissed without [22] lawful cause, there being a total lack of due process both substantive and procedural [sic]. GTZ was faulted for failing to observe the notice requirements in the labor law. The Decision likewise proceeded from the premise that GTZ had treated the letter dated 8 June 2000 as a resignation letter, and devoted some focus in debunking this theory. The Decision initially offered that it need not discuss the jurisdictional aspect considering that the same had already been lengthily discussed in the Order de[n]ying respondents Motion to Dismiss. [23] Nonetheless, it proceeded to discuss the jurisdictional aspect, in this wise: Under pain of being repetitious, the undersigned Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on the following grounds: Firstly, under the employment contract entered into between complainants and respondents, specifically Section 10 thereof, it provides that contract partners agree that his contract shall be subject to the LAWS of the jurisdiction of the locality in which the service is performed. Secondly, respondent having entered into contract, they can no longer invoke the sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Germany. Lastly, it is imperative to be immune from suit, respondents should have secured from the Department of Foreign Affairs a certification of respondents diplomatic status and entitlement to diplomatic privileges including immunity from suits. Having failed in this regard, respondents cannot [24] escape liability from the shelter of sovereign immunity.[sic] 1/26/2016 4:07 PM