G.R. No. 142396 - Khosrow Minucher vs. Court of Appeals

On August 3, 1988, Khosrow Minucher (Labor Attaché of the Iranian Embassy) filed Civil Case No. 88-45691 with the RTC of Manila for damages against Arthur W. Scalzo Jr., then an agent of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) assigned to the American Embassy in Manila.
The parties met in May 1986 through a military intelligence contact and negotiated the sale of Persian carpets and caviar, as well as visa-renewal assistance for petitioner’s wife and an associate, for fees totaling $2,000.

On May 27–28, 1986, Scalzo took two silk carpets (floor price $24,000 each) under pretext of resale, returned with the agreed visa-renewal fee demand of $2,000, then orchestrated petitioner’s and Abbas Torabian’s arrest on fabricated heroin-trafficking charges. They were detained, stripped, denied food and water for three days, threatened with jail or execution, and had personal effects seized.
Petitioner and co-accused were acquitted on January 8, 1988, but petitioner alleges Scalzo falsely testified against him, and claims acts of unlawful arrest, robbery and estafa. He prays for actual damages (P480,000 + $2,000), moral damages (P5 M), exemplary damages (P100,000) and attorneys’ fees (P200,000).

Scalzo’s counsel filed special appearances, motions to quash summons, and sought extensions to answer; the RTC denied the quash motion and granted an extension. Scalzo then filed an Answer with affirmative defenses (including official-function immunity) and counterclaimed for P100,000.
On June 14, 1990, Scalzo moved to dismiss based on Diplomatic Note No. 414 (May 29, 1990) from the U.S. Embassy certifying his diplomatic-staff status (October 14, 1985–August 10, 1988) and invoking immunity under Article 39(2) of the Vienna Convention. The RTC denied the motion on June 25, 1990.
The Court of Appeals granted Scalzo’s certiorari petition (C.A.-G.R. SP No. 22505) and dismissed the case on October 31, 1990 for lack of jurisdiction due to diplomatic immunity. The Supreme Court granted petitioner’s Rule 45 petition (G.R. No. 97765) and reviewed the matter.

May a complaint for damages be dismissed solely on the basis of a Diplomatic Note asserting that the defendant enjoyed diplomatic immunity at the time the cause of action arose?
Is dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction proper where the defendant has voluntarily appeared and filed an answer?
Were the acts imputed to the defendant performed in his official capacity (thus immune), or in his personal capacity (hence outside immunity)?