Case Summary (G.R. No. 142396)
Facts Leading to Criminal Case
– May 1986: Philippine police narcotics agents, accompanied by Scalzo, conducted a buy‐bust operation at Minucher’s Pasig residence and allegedly seized heroin.
– An Information for violation of Section 4 of R.A. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) was filed against Minucher and Abbas Torabian.
– January 8, 1988: Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 151, Pasig City, acquitted both accused for lack of proof.
Civil Damages Suit Initiation
– August 3, 1988: Minucher filed Civil Case No. 88-45691 in RTC Branch 19, Manila, claiming exemplary and moral damages against Scalzo for malicious prosecution, physical and property damage, and reputational harm.
– He alleged wrongful arrest without warrant, unauthorized entry, seizure of valuables and false public labeling as an international drug trafficker.
Procedural History in Trial Court
– Scalzo’s counsel entered special appearances and sought extensions to file an answer pending U.S. Department of State and Justice advice.
– The RTC held that filing for extension constituted voluntary appearance and waived summons requirements.
– Denials of motions to quash summons and for reconsideration led Scalzo to file petitions before the Court of Appeals (CA) and then the Supreme Court, all denied.
Trial Court’s Order on Default and Answer
– February 9, 1990: RTC Branch 19 declared Scalzo in default for failure to answer and set the case for evidence reception.
– March 12, 1990: The RTC granted Scalzo’s motion to set aside default and admitted his answer, which (a) denied material allegations and (b) asserted official‐duty defense, counterclaiming for legal fees.
Motion to Dismiss on Diplomatic Immunity
– June 14, 1990: Scalzo moved to dismiss for diplomatic immunity, attaching Diplomatic Note No. 414 (May 29, 1990) from the U.S. Embassy and its certification.
– June 25, 1990: RTC denied the motion, finding issues regarding authenticity and scope of alleged immunity.
First Appellate Review on Immunity
– July 27, 1990: Scalzo filed certiorari with injunction before the Supreme Court, which referred the matter to the CA (CA-SP No. 22505).
– October 31, 1990: CA ruled that Scalzo, as a diplomatic agent under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), enjoyed absolute immunity and dismissed the complaint.
Supreme Court Remand in G.R. No. 97765
– September 24, 1992: Supreme Court reversed CA, holding (1) CA erred in dismissing without examining authenticity of the Diplomatic Note, and (2) complaint sufficiently alleged acts in Scalzo’s personal capacity.
– Remanded to RTC for trial on merits under the 1987 Philippine Constitution’s due process and judicial power provisions.
Trial Court Judgment on Damages
– November 17, 1995: RTC Branch 19 ruled for Minucher, awarding:
• Actual and compensatory damages: ₱520,000
• Moral damages: ₱10,000,000
• Exemplary damages: ₱100,000
• Attorney’s fees: ₱200,000 plus costs
– RTC found Scalzo acted outside official duties and was thus liable despite having diplomatic status.
Court of Appeals’ Second Decision
– On appeal, CA reversed RTC, again holding that Scalzo was covered by diplomatic immunity during his tenure and thus immune from civil jurisdiction pursuant to the Vienna Convention.
Issues Presented on Final Review
- Whether the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment (res judicata) bars CA from deciding immunity differently post-remand.
- Whether Arthur Scalzo is entitled to diplomatic immunity or, alternatively, state immunity from suit.
Analysis of Diplomatic Agent Status
– Vienna Convention (1961) grants “diplomatic agents” (heads of mission and diplomatic staff) immunity from civil and criminal jurisdiction, but only when performing official duties.
– Attachés (military, commercial, etc.) may or may not enjoy full diplomatic rank; accreditation requires executive recognition, valid diplomatic passport or formal diplomatic note, and performance of diplomatic functions.
– Scalzo produced Diplomatic Notes No. 414, 757, 791 and a Department of Foreign Affairs protocol certification listing him as Assistant Attaché from October 14, 1985 to August 10, 1988.
– The Supreme Court previously questioned lateness and authenticity of these post litem motam issuances.
Doctrine of State Immunity from Suit
– Customary international law and Philippine precedent (e.g., United States v. Guinto) extend immunity to foreign states and officials acting in their official capacity.
– “Par in parem
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 142396)
Facts of the Underlying Criminal Proceeding
- In May 1986, Philippine narcotics agents, accompanied by U.S. DEA Special Agent Arthur Scalzo, conducted a buy-bust operation at the residence of Iranian national Khosrow Minucher in Pasig City.
- A quantity of heroin, a prohibited drug, was allegedly seized, leading to an Information for violation of Section 4, R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) filed against Minucher and Abbas Torabian.
- On January 8, 1988, RTC Branch 151, Pasig City, acquitted both accused of drug trafficking charges.
Facts of the Civil Suit for Damages
- On August 3, 1988, Minucher filed Civil Case No. 88-45691 in RTC Branch 19, Manila, claiming damages for alleged false, trumped-up drug charges orchestrated by Scalzo.
- Minucher detailed his background: former Iranian Labor Attaché, refugee status in the Philippines, head of the Iranian National Resistance Movement, and importer of Persian products.
- He narrated his first meeting with Scalzo on May 13, 1986, mediated by informant Jose “Jaigo,” during which Scalzo purchased Iranian caviar and offered visa-assistance for a fee.
- Subsequent meetings on May 19, 26, and 27 involved purchase of caviar and carpets, payment of U.S.-dollar fees, and Scalzo’s invitation to a staged introduction that culminated in Minucher’s surprise arrest without warrant.
- Minucher alleged that during his detention, soldiers and American agents handcuffed him, unplugged his phone, and removed money, jewelry, carpets, and personal effects from his home.
- He and Torabian were detained at Camp Crame for three days without food or water, and the drug trafficking arrest was widely publicized locally and internationally.
Procedural History in the Civil Case
- Scalzo appeared specially, sought extensions to file answer pending U.S. State and Justice Department advice, and later moved to quash summons for lack of jurisdiction as a non-resident.
- RTC denied quashal, treated prior motions as voluntary appearance waiving formal notice. Scalzo’s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.
- Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Scalzo’s petition for certiorari, and the Supreme Court denied Scalzo’s separate petition for failure to comply with procedural circulars.
- RTC declared Scalzo in default on February 9, 1990, then set aside default and admitted his answer. Scalzo interposed defenses of failure to state a cause of action, official-duty immunity, and a counterclai