Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

GTZ v CA

Petitioner: German Agency for Technical Cooperation


Respondent: Court of Appeals
NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution
of the CA
PONENTE: Tinga, J.
DOCTRINE: Manner by which consent is given: A claim of immunity by
a foreign entity
RULING FORMAT:
LA- Issued an order denying Motion to Dismisss.
CA- Affirmed dismissal.
SC- Petition Denied. Affirmed dismissal of the CA.
FACTS:
(1) On Sept 7, 1971, the governments of Federal Republic of Germany and
Republic of the Philippines ratified an Agreement concerning
Technical Co-operation in Bonn, West Germany. The Agreement,
aimed at promoting the technical and economic development by both
States, allowed for the conclusion of arrangements concerning
individual projects of technical co-operation. The agreement was
limited to an effectivity term of 5 years, however, tacitly extending for
successive periods of 1 year unless either party denounces so. Upon the
agreements expiry, its provisions would continue to apply to any
projects agreed upon until their completion.
(2) On Dec 10, 1999, the Philippine government, through the DFA, agreed
to an Arrangement with the German government to jointly promote a
project called Social Health Insurance-Networking and Empowerment
(SHINE), which was designated to enable Philippine families
especially the poor onesto maintain their health and secure health
care of sustainable quality. The Arrangement stated the various
obligations of the Filipino and German governments.
Both governments named their respective implementing
organizations for SHINE: The Philippines designated the
DOH and the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. (Philhealth)
and German government charged the Deustche Gesellschaft
fr Technische Zusammenarbeit (or the GTZ) with the
implementation of its contributions.

(3) Private respondents were engaged as contract employees hired by GTZ to


work for SHINE on various dates between Dec. 1998 to Sept. 1999. The
- GTZ andemployment
OSG arguecontracts
RESPONDENT
that GTZ
of was
all 6not
private
(including
performing
respondents
private
proprietary
all
respondents)
specified Dr. Tollkotter,
functionsadviser
despiteofentering
GTZ,
(1) as
into
Onthe
June
particular
employer.
8, 2000,
employment
private
All contracts
respondents
contracts.
also wrote
provide
a letter
that it
to Nicolay
is
raising
Invoked mutually
the doctrine
agreed
of Holy
and
several
Seeunderstood
v issues:
Rosario Jr.
that Dr. Tollkotter, as employer, is a
Certainly,the
seconded GTZ
mere
expert
-enteringintoacontractbyaforeign
who
SHINE
is hiring
underthe
Nicolay
employee
veered
on behalf
away from
of GTZ
its and
original
for purpose to
SC:
SHINE, which will endfacilitate
at a given
thetime.
development of social health insurance by shoring up
statewithaprivatepartycannotbetheultimatetest.Suchan
(1) Sec 9, Art 16 of the Constitution addresses the principle of state
(4)
In Sept. 1999, Anne Nicolay
the national
(Belgian
health
national)
insurance
assumed
program
the postand
as SHINE
strengthening local
actcanonlybethestartoftheinquiry.Thelogicalquestion
immunity from suit, whether a local state or a foreign state. It states that
Project Manager. Disagreements
initiatives, as Nicolay
arose between
had refused
Nicolay
to support
andlocal
private
partners and new
iswhethertheforeignstateisengagedintheactivityinthe
the State may not be sued without its consent.
respondents
proposed
initiatives
salary
on the
adjustments
premise
that
and
community
course ofand
the local
project.
government unit
regular
courseregarding
of business.

If

the
foreign

state

is

not
- If the instant suit had been brought directly against the Federal
schemes were not sustainablea philosophy that supposedly
engagedregularlyinabusinessortrade,theparticularactor
Republic of Germany, there would be no doubt that it is a suit
betrayed Nicolays lack of understanding of the purpose of the
transactionmustthenbetestedbyitsnature.Iftheactisin
brought against a State, and the only necessary inquiry is whether
LA:(GTZ/Nicolay)
PETITIONERS
project.
pursuitofasovereignactivity,oranincidentthereof,thenit
said
State
had
consented
to value,
bethat
sued.
present suitunder
was
Important
(6) Issued
Taking
Notes:
the
description
on face
theHowever,
apparent
equivalent
a
Motion
to
Dismiss,
stating
GTZ
a the
private
(1) In response, Nicolay
- As
wrote
a result
each
of
the
Nicolays
private
new
respondents
thrust,
resources
awas
letter
dated
have corporation
been used
isanact jureimperii,
especiallywhenitisnotundertaken
brought
against
It is contract;
necessary
for that
us
toGTZ
understand
what
Philippine
lawinto
is
that
ofGTZ.
a corporation
organized
under
thehad
Corporation
which
entered
an
employment
and
failed
to
July 21, 2000, informing
inappropriately.
them:
precisely
are
parameters
oftotheitslegal
personality
of GTZ.
forgainorprofit.
Thisdecisionshouldnotbeseenasdeviationfromthemorecommonmethodology
Code but
owned
by the
Philippine as
government,
or a government-owned
or
secure
from
the
DFA
a
certification
diplomatic
status.
- The projects- orientations
New management
and evolution
style waswere
not congruent
decided inwith
consensus
the original goals of
Counsel
for GTZ
characterizes
GTZ
as the implementing
agency of the
corporation
without
original
charter.
employedinascertainingwhetherapartyenjoysStateimmunityfromsuit,one
(6) Initsreplytorespondentsallegation#5,GTZcontrovertsthe
- (2)Incontrolled
petitioners
Reiterating
Motion
to Dismiss,
LA no
granted
with partner
institutions,
the project
Philhealth and
the DOH,
and thus
longercomplaint for
German
government,
a
depiction
similarly
adopted
by
the OSG.
findingstatingthatitisamatterofpublicknowledgethatthe
whichfocusesontheparticularfunctionsexercisedbythepartyanddetermines
subject
to illegal
modifications.
- dismissal.
Nicolay herself suffered from cultural insensitivity that
Assuming
that
characterization
is
correct,
it
does
not
automatically
Sec
36
of
the
Corporate
Code
states
that
every
corporation
whether
these
are
proprietary
or sovereign
in healthy
on
nature.
relations
The
nature
of SHINEs
the acts
statusofpetitioneristhatofanimplementingagencyandnot
-stated
LA
hasconsequently
jurisdiction
to entertain
the fffirmly
grounds:
- She
that
pursuant
to
failed
what
respondents
to complaint
sustain
have
and
with
GTZthe
with
thethis
ability
invoke
State and
immunity
suit.
incorporated
under
Codetohas
the power
capacity
to sue
andThe
be
thatofaprivateperson.
performedbytheentityinvokingimmunityremainsthemostimportantbarometer
a. invest
Under
employment
into from
between
the
unequivocally
stated
partners
in the
and
last
staff.
paragraph ofcontract
the letter,entered
it is imperative
distinction
lies
in
whether
the
agency
is
incorporated
or
unincorporated.
sued
in
its
corporate
name.
and
it provides
that
is subject
to
fortestingwhethertheprivilegeofStateimmunityfromsuitshouldapply.Atthe
(7) GTZ websitethat
states
that
isAt
Federally
owned,
arespondents
Federal
I am
to accept
-it complainants
your
the end
resignation,
of
therespondents,
letter,
which
I expect
towrote
receive
thatcontract
asthesoon
issues
stated are
According
to
Isagani Cruz,
lawscrucial
of Justice
the jurisdiction
where
is performed.
enterprise,andfoundedin1975asacompanyunderprivate
assametime,ourConstitutionstipulatesthataStateimmunityfromsuitisconditional
possible. thevery
in working of
forthe
thelocality
project;
that service
they could
no longer
-GTZRespondent
An incorporated
agency
hasunder
a charter
of itslaw,
own
that
invests
it invoke
withtoa
toNicolay
establish
that
it ALL
has
consented
b.
having
entered
contract,
can
nonot
longer
onitswithholdingofconsent;hence,thelawsandcircumstancespertainingtothe
law.Germangovernmentownsit.
(2) In a letter
dated
Julyhas
find
11,failed
2000,
any reason
to informed
stay
with into
private
the German
project
respondents
unless
of
the
of
the
issues
be
separate
juridical
personality.
beofsued
despite
it
being
owned
byappropriately.
thethe
Federal
Republic
of Germany. We
sovereignty
of
theemployment
German
government.
creationandlegalpersonalityofaninstrumentalityoragencyinvokingimmunity
pre-termination
their
addressed
contracts
immediately
of
and
on
grounds
of serious
-adhere
If the
agency
isfrom
incorporated,
theoftest
of its suability
is found
in the
its
to
rule that
in the
absence
to
the secured
contrary,
foreign
c.
bethe
immune
suit,resulting
respondent
should
have
from
remainrelevant.Consenttobesued,asexhibitedinthisdecision,isoftenconferred
and gross
insubordination,
(2)ToTaken
aback,
among
respondents
others,
replied
to evidence
with
loss
of
a common
confidence
letter clarifying
charter.
The
simple
rule
is
that
it
is
suable
if
its
charter
says
so,
and
laws
on
a
particular
subject
are
presumed
to
be
the
same
as
those
of
the
DFA
certification
of respondents
statusletter,
and entitlement
bytheverysamestatuteorgenerallawcreatingtheinstrumentalityoragency.
and trust.
thata earlier
letter was
not intendeddiplomatic
as a resignation
but one to
thisdiplomatic
is true
regardless
ofthe
the
functions
it is performing.
Philippines,
and
following
most
intelligent
assumption
we
can gather,
to
privileges
including
immunity
from
suits.
Having
failed
(3) On Oct 25, 2005, GTZ
raise
filed
attention
a Motion
to to
what
Dismiss
they perceive
on the ground
as vitalthat
issues.
LA had
(3) Philippines
designated
2 entities,
DOH
Philhealth,
as implementing
akin
to
governmental
owned
orand
corporation
without
this
regard,
respondents
cannot
escape
liability
from
shelter
of
no jurisdictionGTZ
over
(3)inis
the
On
case
August
asaits
21,
acts2000,
were undertaken
respondents
incontrolled
filed
discharge
a complaint
of
the thefor
illegal
agencies
in behalf
of the
Philippines.
original
charter
which,
by
the Corporation
Code, of
hasitsexpressly
sovereign
immunity.
governmental functions
dismissal
and sovereign
with the
actsvirtue
NLRC
of theofGerman
against
government.
GTZ, Director
Manila
- Philhealth
was
established under RA 7875, sec 16(g) grants the
to
sued.
CA: theconsented
(4) Following
decision
office,
of be
the
Assistant
LA, GTZ
Project
filed
Manager,
a special
andcivil
Nicolay;
actionstating
for they were
corporation
power
to
sue and
bejudicial
sued inrecourse
court; therefore,
it would
Dismissed
GTZs
petition
finding
at this lack
stage
the
certiorari with the CA.
dismissed
Upon being
without
denied,
lawful
GTZthat
cause,
filed
athere
petition
being
forareview
total
ofof due
not
be
immune
from
suit
even
in
performance
of
its
functions
(7)
The
ruling
in
Holy
See
provided
a
template
on
how
a
foreign
entity
case
is
uncalled
for.
The
appropriate
remedy
is
an
appeal
to
the
NLRC.
under Rule 45, assailing
process
the decision
both substantive
and resolution
and procedural.
of the CA GTZ
and the
failed
LA;to observe the
connected
withState
SHINE.
desiring
to
invoke
immunity
from Law
suit
duly
prove
immunity
- GTZ
took
a procedural
misstep
an could
appeal
to the
NLRC.
arguing that:
notice
requirements
in in
thebypassing
Labor
and letter
should
not have
(4)before
Although
respondents
were
unable
to that
adduce
any evidence
to
our
local
courts.
The
LA
has
reiterated
petitioners
must
secure
- The CA could have
been
entertained
treated as its
a resignation
petition forletter.
certiorari despite its not
substantiate
their
claim
that
GTZ
is
a
private
corporation,
neither
GTZ
from
DFA
a
certification
of
respondents
diplomatic
status
and
entitlement
OSG:undertaken
having
(4) Respondents
an appeal before
opposed
the NLRC
argument, stating that GTZ had failed to
OSG
was
also
able
to submit
evidence
defining
legal
nature
other
tonor
diplomatic
privileges
including
from
suits.its
Had
GTZ
obtained
In its
took
the
sidedismissal
of GTZ;
stating
thatimmune
its
functions
in
implementing
the
- That
theComment,
complaint
secure
for illegal
a certification
that
should
itimmunity
was
have
been
dismissed
from
suit
for
from
the
DFA,
than
the
description
implementing
agency
supplied.
Term
has
no
such
certification
from
the
DFA,
it
would
have
provided
factual
basis
for
SHINE
programand
was
proprietary
nor
commercial
nature. Regarding
the
lack
of jurisdiction
as GTZ
itneither
was
enjoys
GTZ
immunity
and no
from
the
suit
German in
government
which had
precise
definition;
it that
does
not
supply
whether
GTZ
is incorporated
or
its
claim
of
immunity
would,
at
the
very
least,
establish
a
disputable
procedural
misstep,
OSG
(citing
Heirs
of
Mayor
Nemencio
Galvez)
stated
that
even
(5) Argued that:
implemented the SHINE Project and entered into the contracts of
unincorporated,
owned
by
German
state
or
public
interests,
orwhen
has
evidentiary
presumption
that
the
foreign
party
is
indeed
immune
which
the
when
appeal
is
available,
the
Court
nonetheless
allowed
a
writ
of
certiorari
- GTZ was tasked, employment.
under the Agreement, with the implementation of the
juridical
personality
independent
of German
govn.
none
at all.
party
will
have
overcome
with
its aown
evidence.
the ordersopposing
of
lower
court
were
issued
either
in was
excess
of factual
ororwithout
contributions
(5)
ofthethe
Asserted
German
before
government.
theto
LA
that
The
GTZ
activities
performed
private
corporation
by jurisdiction.
in the
(5)
GTZwebsitestatesthatitisFederallyowned,aFederalenterprise,
Therefore,
Courtto
isthe
allowed
to inquire
directly
into
what is The
the
issuewhether
GTZ
pertaining
implementation
SHINE
project
of development
are governmental
projects.
in main
finding
nature,
that it was a
and
founded
inthe
1975
a company under private law. German
GTZ enjoys
immunity
suit. aswas
related
as they
private
are to from
the
corporation
promotion
ofnever
health
controverted,
insurance and
in therefore
the
deemed
government
ownsit.Atthesametime,it
Philippines. The fact
admitted.
that GTZ entered into employmentwasorganizednotthrough
contracts with
legislativepubliccharter,butunderprivatelaw.Asacompanyorganized
Therefore,
the Court
finds
no basisit to
conclude
presume from
that GTZ enjoys
private
respondents
did not
disqualify
from
invokingorimmunity
under
private
law,
it
has
legal
personalityindependent
ofitthat
of the
immunity
from
suit
as
it
was
unable
to
establish
with
satisfaction
that
enjoys
the
suit.
immunity
from
suit
generally
enjoyed
by
its
parent
country.
German

government.

Further,

in

the

website

of

the

German

govn,
it
statesthatGTZisaprivatecompanyownedbytheFederalRepublicof
Germany.

Вам также может понравиться