G.R. No. 152318 http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/april2009/152318.htm Notably, GTZ did not file a motion for reconsideration to the Labor Arbiters Decision or elevate said decision for appeal to the NLRC. Instead, GTZ opted to assail the decision by way of a special [25] civil action for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals. On 10 December 2001, the Court of [26] dismissing GTZs petition, finding that judicial recourse at Appeals promulgated a Resolution this stage of the case is uncalled for[,] [t]he appropriate remedy of the petitioners [being] an appeal [27] to the NLRC x x x. A motion for reconsideration to this Resolution proved fruitless for [28] GTZ. Thus, the present petition for review under Rule 45, assailing the decision and resolutions of the Court of Appeals and of the Labor Arbiter. GTZs arguments center on whether the Court of Appeals could have entertained its petition for certiorari despite its not having undertaken an appeal before the NLRC; and whether the complaint for illegal dismissal should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on account of GTZs insistence that it enjoys immunity from suit. No special arguments are directed with respect to petitioners Hans Peter Paulenz and Anne Nicolay, respectively the then Director and the then Project Manager of GTZ in the Philippines; so we have to presume that the arguments raised in behalf of GTZs alleged immunity from suit extend to them as well. The Court required the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to file a Comment on the petition. In its Comment dated 7 November 2005, the OSG took the side of GTZ, with the prayer that the petition be granted on the ground that GTZ was immune from suit, citing in particular its assigned functions in implementing the SHINE programa joint undertaking of the Philippine and German governments which was neither proprietary nor commercial in nature. The Court of Appeals had premised the dismissal of GTZs petition on its procedural misstep in bypassing an appeal to NLRC and challenging the Labor Arbiters Decision directly with the appellate court by way of a Rule 65 petition. In dismissing the petition, the 7 of 19 1/26/2016 4:07 PM