SC: Immunity of ADB Officials Limited to Official Acts
April 24, 2024
The immunity granted to officials and personnel of international
organizations, such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB), extends
only to acts done in their official capacities.
This was the ruling of the Supreme Court En Banc in a Decision dated
April 16, 2024, penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, where it
affirmed the dismissal of the complaint for damages filed by Matthew
Westfall (Westfall) against ADB officials Maria Carmela D. Locsin et
al. (Locsin et al.).
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 Locsin et al., who were members of the
ADB Screening Committee, were defamatory and damaging to
Westfall’s professional reputation. This prompted him to file a complaint
for damages before the RTC of Makati City.
The RTC dismissed his complaint on the ground that Locsin et al.
enjoyed functional immunity since the acts Westfall complained of were
done in their official capacities. This was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals (CA).
The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated April 27, 2022, held that
before applying immunity, courts must first conduct a factual inquiry to
determine if the subject act was done in the performance of official
duties. 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 et al. to file the present motion for partial
reconsideration ad cautelam, arguing there is no need to remand the case
to the RTC.
In the interest of judicial economy, the Court partially granted their
motion and opted to resolve the factual issue. The Court ruled that the
complaint for damages against them must be dismissed. It held that the
subject acts were done in their official capacities and thus covered by the
functional immunity granted to them as ADB officials.
Westfall v. Locsin
Page | 2
===============
The Court expounded on the different kinds of immunities, specifically
the scope of those enjoyed by international organizations and their
personnel.
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.
On the other hand, personnel of international organizations are entitled
to immunity only for acts performed in their official capacity. They
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.
The Court clarified that courts should assess the application of immunity
on a case-to-case basis.
The Supreme Court Public Information Office will upload a copy of the
Decision in G.R. No. 250673 (Westfall v. Locsin et al.) once it receives
the same from the Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc. (Courtesy of
the Supreme Court Public Information Office)
