Ebro III vs NLRC : 110187 : September 4, 1996 : J Mendoza : Second...
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/110187.htm
other party.
After six months, ICMC notified petitioner that effective December 21, 1985, the latters
services were terminated for his failure to meet the requirements of 1. classroom performance . .
. up to the standards set in the Guide for Instruction; 2. regular attendance in the mandated
teacher training, and in the scheduled team meetings, one-on-one conferences with the
supervisor, etc.; 3. compliance with ICMC and PRPC policies and procedures.
On February 4, 1986, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice,
underpayment of wages, accrued leave pay, 14th month pay, damages, attorneys fees, and
expenses of litigation. The complaint was filed against private respondents ICMC and its Project
Director Jon Darrah, Personnel Officer Alex Dy-Reyes, Program Officer of the Cultural
Orientation Program Carrie Wilson, and Supervisor of the Cultural Orientation Program Marivic
Soliven. Petitioner alleged that there was no objective evaluation of his performance to warrant
his dismissal and that he should have been considered a regular employee from the start
because ICMC failed to acquaint him with the standards under which he must qualify as such.
He prayed for reinstatement with backwages; P3,155.00 for probationary and P3,445.00 for
regular salary adjustments; value of lodging or dormitory privileges; cost of insurance coverage
for group life, medical, death, dismemberment and disability benefits; moral, and exemplary, and
nominal damages plus interest on the above claims with attorneys fees.
Answering the complaint, ICMC claimed that petitioner failed to qualify for regular
employment because he showed no interest in improving his professional performance both in
and out of the classroom after he had been periodically evaluated (observation summary from
August 20 to October 2, 1985 and evaluation summary of December 14, 1985); that petitioner
was paid his salary up to December 31, 1985, two weeks pay in lieu of notice, and 14th month
pay pro-rata; and that his accrued leave balance had already been converted to cash.
After the parties had formally offered their evidence, private respondents submitted their
memorandum on July 31, 1989 in which, among other things, they invoked ICMCs diplomatic
immunity on the basis of the Memorandum of Agreement signed on July 15, 1988 between the
Philippine government and ICMC.
The Labor Arbiter held that petitioners legal immunity under the Memorandum could not be
given retroactive effect since [that would] deprive complainants property right without due
process and impair the obligation of contract of employment. In addition, he expressed doubt
about petitioners legal immunity on the ground that it was provided for by agreement and not
through an act of Congress. Accordingly, the Labor Arbiter ordered ICMC to reinstate petitioner
as regular teacher without loss of seniority rights and to pay him one year backwages, other
benefits, and ten percent attorneys fees for a total sum of P70,944.85.
Both parties appealed to the NLRC. On August 13, 1990, petitioner moved to dismiss private
respondents appeal because of the latters failure to post a cash/surety bond. In its order of
October 13, 1992, however, the NLRC ordered the case dismissed on the ground that, under the
Memorandum of Agreement between the Philippine government and ICMC, the latter was
immune from suit.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing among other things, that the Memorandum of
Agreement could not be given retroactive effect and that in any case ICMC had waived its
immunity by consenting to be sued.
However, petitioners motion was denied by the NLRC in its resolution dated March 4,
[2]
1993. Hence this petition presenting the following issues:
a) Whether private respondents have perfected their appeal and whether public respondent may, on
appeal, entertain or review private respondents claim of immunity;
2 of 5
1/20/2016 12:16 PM