41. JEFFREY LIANG v.

PEOPLE, GR NO 125865, MARCH 26, 2001

FACTS:

Two criminal informations for grave oral defamation was filed against Jeffrey Liang, an economist of ADB
and the petitioner herein, for allegedly uttering defamatory words towards Joyce V. Cabal on January 28
and January 31, 1994. The case was dismissed by the MTC of Mandaluyong City pursuant to the advice
of DFA that petitioner enjoyed immunity from legal processes. People filed an appeal on a petition for
certiorari and mandamus to the RTC of Pasig City and it annulled and set aside the order of MTC.
Petitioner thus filed a petition for review with the SC. SC granted the motion for intervention of DFA.

ISSUE:

WON the defamatory utterances done while in the performance of petitioner's official functions as an
economist fall on the immunity granted under Section 45 of the Headquarters Agreement.

HELD:

No. Slandering a person cannot be said to have been done in an official capacity and hence, it is not
covered by the immunity agreement. Section 18(a) of the General Convention on Privileges and
Immunities of the UN states that officials of the UN shall be immune from legal process in respect of
words spoken or written and all acts performed by them in their official capacity. The Convention on
Specialized Agencies carries exactly the same provision. The Charter of the ADB provides under Article
55 (i) that officers and employees of the bank shall be immune from legal process with respect to acts
performed by them in their official capacity except when the bank waives immunity. Section 45 (a) of
the ADB Headquarters Agreement accords the same immunity to the officers and staff of the bank.
Moreover, it is stated in Section 2 of the General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN
that the UN shall enjoy immunity. Section 4 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the
Specialized Agencies likewise provides that the specialized Agencies shall enjoy immunity from every
form of legal process subject to the same exception. Finally, Article 50 (1) of the ADB Charter and
Section 5 of the Headquarters Agreement similarly provide that the bank shall enjoy immunity from
every form of legal process, except in cases arising out of or in connection with the exercise of it’s
powers to borrow money, to guarantee obligations, or to buy and sell or underwrite the sale of
securities. Clearly, there is only immunity to an international official if his acts are imputed to the
organization and without the organization's waiver, the local authorities or courts cannot hold him liable
for them. Provisions for immunity from jurisdiction for official acts appear in the Constitution of most
modern international organizations. The acceptance of the principle is sufficiently widespread to be
regarded as declaratory of international law.
42. DE PERIO SANTOS v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY MACARAIG and SECRETARY MANGLAPUS, GR NO 94070,
APRIL 10, 1992

FACTS:

Petitioner was appointed by President Corazon Aquino as the Permanent Representative of the
Philippines to the Philippine Mission to the United Nations and other international organizations with
station in Geneva, Switzerland. However, 5-Man Ad Hoc Investigation Committee found a prima facie
case against her for returning Sfr. 1,597 and not the sum of Sfr. 673 to the government when asked by
the DFA for the UNCTAD G-77 Preparatory Conference she attended. Ambassador Eduardo Rosal also
charged her with estafa before the Tanodbayan. This case was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

On November 23, 1987, DFS recalled her to Manila for consultation. She came home on November 29,
1987. On March 17, 1988, the BFSA constituted a new 5-Man Investigating Committee to evaluate the
evidence presented by the parties. Petitioner filed s motion for reconsideration on the ground that she
was denied due process when she was declared guilty of misconduct although it was not one of the
charges against her. Conceding that point, the Secretary ordered the records remanded to the BFSA for
hearing to give petitioner an opportunity to defend herself against the charge of misconduct which was
deemed to have been filed by the Secretary himself since an administrative complaint can be initiated
directly by the Department Head. Insisting that no formal charge of misconduct had been filed against
her, petitioner refused to attend the hearing. Consequently, in his resolution of August 18, 1988,
Secretary MANGLAPUS declared his decision declaring petitioner guilty of the lesser offense of
misconduct, meted to her the penalty of reprimand and recalled her the home office final and
executory, effective immediately. Petitioner appealed that resolution to the Office of the President. On
January 24, 1989, Pres. Aquino nominated Narcisa L. Escaler in lieu of the petitioner. On March 30, 1989,
Pres. Aquino found her guilty. Sec. Macaraig, Jr. denied her motion for reconsideration, hence petition.

ISSUES:

1. WON Secretary MANGLAPUS, the head of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the
Secretary of Foreign Affairs have the authority to recall petitioner to home office.
2. WON petitioner can be replaced despite being appointed as the Permanent Representative of
the Philippines in Geneva, Switzerland

RULING:

1. Yes. The Court is not disposed to disturb the order of the DFA and the Office of the President in
recalling the petitioner to home office. The general rule is that factual findings of administrative
agencies are binding on this Court and controlling on the reviewing authorities if supported by
substantial evidence. Courts of Justice will not interfere with purely administrative matters
rendered by administrative bodies within the scope of their power and authority. Moreover, the
conduct of the country's Foreign Affairs is vested on the President through respondent
MANGLAPUS as alter ego of the President. As head of the department of Foreign Affairs, he is
mandated by law to maintain the country’s representation with foreign governments, the
United Nations (UN), Association of Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN), and other international
and regional organizations. The foreign service officers and employees abroad represent the
interest of the Philippines under the direction, supervision, and control of the Chief Executive
 through respondent Secretary. Also, the recall order issued by the Secretary of Foreign Affairs
was a valid exercise of his authority as an alternative ego of the President. His order recalling the
petitioner to home office, having been affirmed by the President, any doubts as to it’s validity
and propriety have thereby been laid to rest.
2. Yes. The petitioner's designation as the Permanent Representative of the Philippine Government
to the United Nations and other international organizations in Geneva, Switzerland was one
based on the special trust and confidence which the appointing power, the President, had in the
appointee. Once that trust and confidence ceased to exist, the incumbent's continuance in the
position became untenable. The tenure of officials holding primarily confidential positions ends
upon loss of confidence, because their term of office lasts only as long as confidence in them
endures. When that confidence is lost and officer holding the position is separated from the
service, such cessation is not removal from office but merely an expiration of his/her term. As
holder of a primarily confidential position, petitioner's foreign assignment was at the pleasure of
the President. The recall order terminating her tour of duty in Geneva, Switzerland and
returning to her home office was merely a change of post or transfer of location of work.