Department of Foreign Affairs vs NLRC : 113191 : September 18, 1996... 4 of 7 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/113191.htm it is immune from the legal writs and processes issued by the tribunals of the country where it is found. (See Jenks, Id., pp. 37-44). The obvious reason for this is that the subjection of such an organization to the authority of the local courts would afford a convenient medium thru which the host government may interfere in their operations or even influence or control its policies and decisions of the organization; besides, such subjection to local jurisdiction would impair the capacity of such body to discharge its responsibilities impartially on behalf of its member-states." [13] Contrary to private respondent's assertion, the claim of immunity is not here being raised for the first time; it has been invoked before the forum of origin through communications sent by petitioner and the ADB to the Labor Arbiter, as well as before the NLRC following the rendition of the questioned judgment by the Labor Arbiter, but evidently to no avail. In its communication of 27 May 1993, the DFA, through the Office of Legal Affairs, has advised the NLRC: "Respectfully returned to the Honorable Domingo B. Mabazza, Labor Arbitration Associate, National Labor Relations Commission, National Capital Judicial Region, Arbitration Branch, Associated bank Bldg., T.M. Kalaw St., Ermita, Manila, the attached Notice of Hearing addressed to the Asian Development Bank, in connection with the aforestated case, for the reason stated in the Department's 1st Indorsement dated 23 March 1993, copy attached, which is self-explanatory. "In view of the fact that the Asian Development Bank (ADB) invokes its immunity which is sustained by the Department of Foreign Affairs, a continuous hearing of this case erodes the credibility of the Philippine government before the international community, let alone the negative implication of such a suit on the official relationship of the Philippine government with the ADB. "For the Secretary of Foreign Affairs (Sgd.) "SIME D. HIDALGO Assistant Secretary" [14] The Office of the President, likewise, has issued on 18 May 1993 a letter to the Secretary of Labor, viz: "Dear Secretary Confesor, "I am writing to draw your attention to a case filed by a certain Jose C. Magnayi against the Asian Development Bank and its President, Kimimasa Tarumizu, before the National Labor Relations Commission, National Capital Region Arbitration Board (NLRC NCR Case No. 00-01690-93). "Last March 8, the Labor Arbiter charged with the case, Ms. Nieves V. de Castro, addressed a Notice of Resolution/Order to the Bank which brought it to the attention of the Department of Foreign Affairs on the ground that the service of such notice was in violation of the RP-ADB Headquarters Agreement which provided, inter-alia, for the immunity of the Bank, its President and officers from every form of legal process, except only, in cases of borrowings, guarantees or the sale of securities. "The Department of Foreign Affairs, in turn, informed Labor Arbiter Nieves V. de Castro of this fact by letter dated March 22, copied to you. "Despite this, the labor arbiter in question persisted to send summons, the latest dated May 4, herewith attached, regarding the Magnayi case. "The Supreme Court has long settled the matter of diplomatic immunities. In WHO vs. Aquino, SCRA 48, 1/20/2016 12:39 PM