Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 152318 April 16, 2009
DEUTSCHE GESELLSCHAFT FÜR TECHNISCHE ZUSAMMENARBEIT, also known
as GERMAN AGENCY FOR TECHNICAL COOPERATION, (GTZ) HANS PETER
PAULENZ and ANNE NICOLAY, Petitioners,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ARIEL CADIENTE SANTOS, Labor Arbiter of
the Arbitration Branch, National Labor Relations Commission, and BERNADETTE
CARMELLA MAGTAAS, CAROLINA DIONCO, CHRISTOPHER RAMOS, MELVIN
DELA PAZ, RANDY TAMAYO and EDGARDO RAMILLO, Respondents.
FACTS
On September 7, 1971, In Bonn, West Germany, the governments of the Federal
Republic of Germany and the Republic of the Philippines ratified an Agreement on
Technical Cooperation (Agreement). The agreement "recognized the benefits to both
States from tighter technical co-operation and reiterated the countries' mutual interest in
boosting their States' technical, economic growth, and health insurance stability that
allowed for the formation of "arrangements respecting individual technical co-operation
projects.
On December 10, 1999, The Philippine government and the German government
agreed to an Arrangement in Furtherance of the 1971 Agreement, through then-Foreign
Affairs Secretary Domingo Siazon, which affirmed both governments' shared
commitment to promote a project called Social Health Insurance Networking and
Empowerment (SHINE), which was designed to "enable Philippine families, especially
poor ones, and to maintain their health and secure health care of sustenance.
The Deustche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbei (GTZ) was named as the
program's implementing organization in Germany, while the Department of Health and
the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation were named in the Philippines
(PHILHEALTH). Private respondents were employed by GTZ to work for SHINE as
contract employees.
In September 1999, Anne Nicolay (Nicolay), a Belgian native, took over as SHINE
Project Manager. The SHINE Project Manager and the Private respondents had a
misunderstanding. Private respondents pursued the dispute through a formal letter that
was sent to Nicolay, the letter claimed that SHINE Project Manager which is Nicolay
had strayed from its original purpose of facilitating the development of social health
insurance by bolstering the national health insurance program and strengthening local
initiatives, because Nicolay had refused to support local partners and new initiatives on
the grounds that community and local government unit schemes were not sustainable, a
philosophy that allegedly betrayed Nicolay's lack of understanding of the purpose of the
project. This lead to an exchange of letters which was interpreted by Nicolay, to be the
resignation of the private respondents. Because on the first letter that the Private
Respondents had sent, they ended their letter stated that if Nicolay do not take action
about their concern, they could no longer reason to stay with the project. The Private
Respondents replied that the letter’s purpose is to address their concerns, not as a
resignation letter but later on received their “Pre-Termination letter.” From Nicolay.
On August 21, 2000, Private respondents then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal to
the labor arbiter.
On 25 October 2005, GTZ, through counsel, filed a Motion to Dismiss but On 27
November 2000, the Labor Arbiter issued an Order denying the Motion to Dismiss.
On 7 February 2001, GTZ filed with the Labor Arbiter a "Reiterating Motion to Dismiss,"
No action was taken by the Labor Arbiter on this new motion. Instead, on 15 October
2001, the Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision granting the complaint for illegal dismissal.
GTZ did not file a move for reconsideration or a notice of appeal to the NLRC in
response to the Labor Arbiters Decision. Instead, GTZ filed a civil case for certiorari with
the Court of Appeals to challenge the ruling. The Court of Appeals issued a Resolution
denying GTZ's petition, concluding that judicial intervention at this point of the case is
unnecessary, and that the petitioners' only option is to appeal to the NLRC. As a result,
the Court of Appeals' ruling and the Labor Arbiter's resolutions are being challenged in
this petition for review under Rule 45.
GTZ later on filed a petition for review the decision of Labor of Arbiter to Supreme
Court.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the GTZ enjoys immunity from the suit.
2. Whether or not dismissal of Court of Appeal regarding Labor Arbiter’s decision is
fair.
RULING:
The Supreme Court seek for an answer if GTZ is under Germany or not considering that
if GTZ is not under Germany and they are a private corporation, their assumed
resignation to the letter and pre-termination issue will be valid. Germany claimed that
GTZ is an incorporated agency of their State but they gave jurisdiction regarding their
employees. Therefore, GTZ is under Germany government but was allowed to act as a
private corporation and has a right to pre-terminate an employee.
Supreme Court respected the decision of Labor Arbiter for the reason that GTZ failed to
file a proper case as for their rebuttal and the truly concern of the Private Respondents
is about addressing their concern not for resignation. As a result, there was no basis for
petitioners in foregoing the appeal to the NLRC by filing directly with the Court of
Appeals the petition for certiorari. It then follows that the Court of Appeals acted
correctly in dismissing the petition on that ground. As a further consequence, since
petitioners failed to perfect an appeal from the Labor Arbiter’s Decision, the same has
long become final and executory. All other questions related to this case, such as
whether or not private respondents were illegally dismissed, are no longer susceptible
to review, respecting as we do the finality of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision.
