Department of Foreign Affairs vs NLRC : 113191 : September 18, 1996... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/113191.htm it ruled that courts should respect diplomatic immunities of foreign officials recognized by the Philippine government. Such decision by the Supreme Court forms part of the law of the land. "Perhaps you should point out to Labor Arbiter Nieves V. de Castro that ignorance of the law is a ground for dismissal. "Very truly yours, (Sgd.) JOSE B. ALEJANDRINO Chairman, PCC-ADB" [15] Private respondent argues that, by entering into service contracts with different private companies, ADB has descended to the level of an ordinary party to a commercial transaction [16] giving rise to a waiver of its immunity from suit. In the case of Holy See vs. Hon. Rosario, Jr., the Court has held: There are two conflicting concepts of sovereign immunity, each widely held and firmly established. According to the classical or absolute theory, a sovereign cannot, without its consent, be made a respondent in the Courts of another sovereign. According to the newer or restrictive theory, the immunity of the sovereign is recognized only with regard to public acts or acts jure imperii of a state, but not with regard to private act or acts jure gestionis. xxxxxxxxx Certainly, the mere entering into a contract by a foreign state with a private party cannot be the ultimate test. Such an act can only be the start of the inquiry. The logical question is whether the foreign state is engaged in the activity in the regular course of business. If the foreign state is not engaged regularly in a business or trade, the particular act or transaction must then be tested by its nature. If the act is in pursuit of a sovereign activity, or an incident thereof, then it is an act jure imperii, especially when it is not undertaken for gain or profit. [17] The service contracts referred to by private respondent have not been intended by the ADB for profit or gain but are official acts over which a waiver of immunity would not attach. With regard to the issue of whether or not the DFA has the legal standing to file the present petition, and whether or not petitioner has regarded the basic rule that certiorari can be availed of only when there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, we hold both in the affirmative. The DFA's function includes, among its other mandates, the determination of persons and institutions covered by diplomatic immunities, a determination which, when challenged, entitles it to seek relief from the court so as not to seriously impair the conduct of the country's foreign relations. The DFA must be allowed to plead its case whenever necessary or advisable to enable it to help keep the credibility of the Philippine government before the international community. When international agreements are concluded, the parties thereto are deemed to have likewise accepted the responsibility of seeing to it that their agreements are duly regarded. In our country, this task falls principally on the DFA as being the highest executive department [18] with the competence and authority to so act in this aspect of the international arena. In Holy [19] See vs. Hon. Rosario, Jr., this Court has explained the matter in good detail; viz: "In Public International Law, when a state or international agency wishes to plead sovereign or diplomatic immunity in a foreign court, it requests the Foreign Office of the state where it is sued to convey to the court that said defendant is entitled to immunity. 5 of 7 1/20/2016 12:39 PM