Ebro III vs NLRC : 110187 : September 4, 1996 : J Mendoza : Second... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/110187.htm corresponding immunities, but also because ICMC in that case did not invoke its immunity and, therefore, may be deemed to have waived it, assuming that during that period (1983-1985) it was tacitly recognized as enjoying such immunity. Here, according to petitioner, his employment and subsequent dismissal by ICMC took place in 1985, prior to the execution of the Memorandum of Agreement on July 15, 1988 and, therefore, like in the 1989 ICMC case, the Memorandum should not be made to apply to him. This Court did not really reject ICMCs invocation of immunity for causes of action accruing prior to the execution of the Memorandum. It left open the possibility that ICMC may have been tacitly enjoying diplomatic immunity beforehand. It is important to note that in the 1989 case ICMC did not invoke its immunity notwithstanding the fact that the Memorandum took effect [8] while the case was pending before the Court. Moreover, in the 1990 ICMC case, ICMCs immunity was in fact upheld despite the fact that at the time the case arose, the Memorandum recognizing ICMCs status as a specialized agency had not yet been signed. In that case, the petition for certification election among its rank and file employees was filed on July 14, 1986 and the order directing a certification election was made when ICMCs request for recognition as a specialized agency was still pending in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Yet this Court held that the subsequent execution of the Memorandum was a bar to the granting of the petition for certification election. The scope of immunity of the ICMC contained in the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations is instructive. Art. III, 4 of the Convention provides for immunity from every form of legal process. Thus, even if private respondents had been served summons and subpoenas prior to the execution of the Memorandum, they, as officers of ICMC, can claim immunity under the same in order to prevent enforcement of an adverse judgment, since a writ of execution is a legal process within the [9] meaning of Article III, 4. Third. Another question is whether ICMC can invoke its immunity because it only did so in its memorandum before the Labor Arbiter. It is contended that ICMC waived its immunity in any event. Art. III, 4 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations requires, however, that the waiver of the privilege must be express. There was no such waiver of immunity in this case. Nor can ICMC be estopped from claiming diplomatic immunity since estoppel does not operate to confer jurisdiction to a tribunal that has [10] none over a cause of action. Fourth. Finally, neither can it be said that recognition of ICMCs immunity from suit deprives petitioner of due process. As pointed out in International Catholic Migration Commission v. [11] Calleja, petitioner is not exactly without remedy for whatever violation of rights it may have suffered for the following reason: Section 31 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations provides that each specialized agency shall make provision for appropriate modes of settlement of: (a) disputes arising out of contracts or other disputes of private character to which the specialized agency is a party. Moreover, pursuant to Article IV of the Memorandum of Agreement between ICMC and the Philippine Government, whenever there is any abuse of privilege by ICMC, the Government is free to withdraw the privileges and immunities accorded. Thus: Article IV. Cooperation with Government Authorities. 1. The Commission shall cooperate at all times with the appropriate authorities of the Government to ensure the observance of Philippine laws, rules and regulations, facilitate the proper administration of justice and prevent the occurrences of any abuse of the privileges and immunities granted its officials and alien employees in Article III of this Agreement to the Commission. 4 of 5 1/20/2016 12:16 PM