SC clarifies immunity scope for ADB officials in recent ruling

The Supreme Court (SC) in a recent ruling said 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 SC En Banc in a decision dated 16 April 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.

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 his 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 and were affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).

In a resolution dated 27 April 2022, the high bench 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 motion for partial reconsideration ad cautelam, arguing there is no need to remand the case to the RTC.

The court in the interest of judicial economy, partially granted their motion and opted to resolve the factual issue.

It 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.

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.

Their immunity though does not apply to their private acts, crimes, and those acts contrary to law.

The SC clarified that courts should assess the application of immunity on a case-to-case basis.