G.R. No. 250763, April 16, 2024
Matthew Westfall, Petitioner, vs. Maria Carmela D. Locsin, Amy Leung, Noriko Ogawa, Gil-Hong Kim, Diwesh Sharan, Ramesh Subramaniam, Ken L. Chee, Bibiana Victoria G. Francisco, Takehiko Nakao, Toshio Oya, Makoto Kubota, Christopher Stephens, Ramit K. Nagpal, and Deborah Stokes, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Matthew Westfall, a former staff of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), filed a Complaint for damages against respondents, who are ADB officers and employees, for abuse of right and allegedly defamatory statements damaging to his professional reputation. The statements were contained in the VP Panel Notes and Interview Report prepared by a Screening Committee (SC) for the position of Technical Advisor (Urban and Water) at ADB, for which Westfall had applied but was not selected. Westfall claimed the documents contained “highly disparaging, grossly inaccurate and factually incorrect” statements about his knowledge and experience. Respondents, as members of the SC, invoked functional immunity from legal processes for acts performed in their official capacities. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, upholding the defense of immunity and ruling that respondents acted in the performance of their official duties. The Court of Appeals (CA) denied Westfall’s petition. The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated April 27, 2022, partly granted Westfall’s Petition for Review, reinstated his complaint, and remanded the case to the RTC to determine if the specific respondents (Locsin, et al.) were acting in their official capacities. The Court affirmed the dismissal as against other respondents (Nakao, et al.) for failure to state a cause of action. Respondents filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, which is the subject of this Decision.

ISSUE

1. Whether the case should be referred to the Court En Banc and set for oral arguments.
2. Whether the Court erred in remanding the case to the RTC for further proceedings.
3. Whether the Court committed a reversible error in failing to consider that the acts subject of the complaint were performed by respondents in their official capacities and were not abusive and defamatory.

RULING

1. On referral to the Court En Banc and oral arguments: The Court denied the motions. The issues presented do not involve novel questions of law, doctrines to be modified or reversed, or significant impact requiring the attention of the Court En Banc. The applicable principles on diplomatic or functional immunity are already settled. Oral arguments were deemed unnecessary as the parties had already extensively pleaded their positions.
2. On the remand to the RTC: The Court upheld its directive to remand the case. It ruled that functional immunity does not extend to all acts and utterances of international organization officials; it applies only to acts performed in an official capacity. Where an act is ultra vires, such as a crime or an act contrary to law, immunity does not apply. Courts have the power and duty to inquire into the factual basis of the invoked protection. The determination of whether an act was done in an official capacity, or whether it was ultra vires or done with malice, is a question of fact. Since the RTC and CA dismissed the complaint based solely on the pleadings without a thorough factual inquiry, a remand for a full-blown trial is necessary to receive evidence and resolve the factual issue.
3. On the nature of the acts and applicability of immunity: The Court found no error in its previous ruling. It reiterated that immunity is not automatic and must be established. The factual allegations in the complaint—that the statements were “false,” “malicious,” “abusive,” and “defamatory”—if proven, could constitute acts done outside the scope of official functions or with malice, which are not protected by immunity. The remand order does not prejudge the case but allows the trial court to receive evidence on this precise factual issue. The dismissal of the complaint against respondents Nakao, et al. was affirmed as the complaint failed to allege any specific act committed by them.
The Court DENIED the Motion for Partial Reconsideration and AFFIRMED its earlier Resolution remanding the case to the RTC for further proceedings.