INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS’ EXECS IMMUNE IN OFFICIAL ACTS
THE immunity of officials and personnel of international organizations covers only acts done in their official capacities, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Thus, in a decision dated April 16, 2024, penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, the Court en banc affirmed the dismissal of the complaint for damages filed by Matthew Westfall against Asian Development Bank (ADB) officials led by Maria Carmela Locsin and several others.
“International organizations enjoy almost absolute, if not absolute, immunity. This grant of immunity protects their affairs from political pressure or control by the host country and prevents local courts from exercising jurisdiction over them,”the Court said in a statement.
“On the other hand, personnel of international organizations are entitled to immunity only for acts performed in their official capacity.,” it added.
Based on the records, Westfall applied for the position of technical advisor in the ADB but was not selected.
He later claimed that the statements made in the panel notes and Interview report by the respondents who were members of the ADB Screening Committee, were defamatory and damaging to his professional reputation.
This prompted him to file a complaint for damages before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City.
Trial court eventually dismissed Westfall’s complaint on the ground that Locsin et al. enjoyed functional immunity since the acts subject of the complaint were done in their official capacities.
The Makati RTC ruling was questioned by Westfall before the Court of Appeals, which in turn upheld the trial court’s decision.
The issue was elevated to the SC, which issued a resolution on April 27, 2022 stressing that the conduct of a factual inquiry to determine if the subject act was done in the performance of official duties was necessary before applying immunity.
As this was not done thoroughly by the CA and the RTC, the Court remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings.
This prompted Locsin and her corespondents to file a motion for partial reconsideration, arguing there is no need to remand the case to the RTC. The Court partially granted their motion and opted to resolve the factual issue.
The SC ruled that the complaint for damages against them must be dismissed as the subject acts were done in their official capacities and thus covered by the “functional immunity” granted to them as ADB officials.
It noted that the respondents “enjoy functional immunity or only that necessary to exercise the organization’s functions and fulfill its purposes.”
“Immunity does not apply to their private acts, crimes, and those acts contrary to law,” it pointed out.
The Court added that courts should assess the application of immunity on a case-to-case basis.
The SC has yet to release a copy of the promulgated decision as of presstime Wednesday.