Case Summary (G.R. No. 97765)
Factual Background
Minucher cultivated a business relationship with Scalzo through a military‐intelligence intermediary in mid‐1986, supplying Persian carpets and caviar. Scalzo purportedly offered to facilitate visa renewals for Minucher’s associates in exchange for a fee, purchased carpets, and then orchestrated Minucher’s arrest on fabricated narcotics charges. Minucher endured detention without food or water, was humiliated, and charged under the Dangerous Drugs Act. He and his co‐defendant were acquitted in January 1988.
Procedural History
• August 3, 1988: Minucher filed a civil complaint for damages (P480,000 for goods, $2,000 visa fee, P5 million moral, P100,000 exemplary, P200,000 attorneys’ fees) in RCT Manila, Branch 19 (Civil Case No. 88‐45691).
• September–October 1988: Scalzo’s counsel made special appearances, sought time extensions to await U.S. State and Justice Departments’ advice, and moved to quash summons. The trial court denied the quash motion; the Court of Appeals and this Court likewise denied relief on certiorari.
• March 9, 1990: Scalzo filed an Answer with affirmative defenses (acts within official functions) and a P100,000 counterclaim for litigation expenses.
• June 14, 1990: Scalzo moved to dismiss based on a Diplomatic Note (No. 414, May 29, 1990) from the U.S. Embassy certifying his diplomatic‐mission status (Oct. 14, 1985–Aug. 10, 1988) and asserting immunity under Article 39(2), Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
• June 25, 1990: The trial court denied the motion to dismiss.
• October 31, 1990: The Court of Appeals granted Scalzo’s certiorari petition, dismissed Civil Case No. 88‐45691 for lack of personal jurisdiction due to diplomatic immunity, and denied reconsideration.
• This petition under Rule 45 followed.
Applicable Law
Constitutional Basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution governs disputes decided after 1986.
International Instrument: Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR)
• Article 31(1): diplomatic agents enjoy immunity from civil jurisdiction except “an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions.”
• Article 39(2): immunity from civil suit for acts performed in the exercise of official functions, even post‐departure.
Issue
Whether a civil complaint for damages against a former diplomatic‐mission official may be dismissed solely on the basis of a belated Diplomatic Note asserting immunity, especially where the complaint alleges acts outside official functions.
Analysis on Personal Jurisdiction
– Jurisdiction over person attaches by valid service or voluntary appearance.
– Scalzo’s repeated motions for extensions and eventual filing of an Answer with counterclaim constituted voluntary appearance and waived any defect in service.
– The trial court therefore acquired personal jurisdiction over Scalzo.
Analysis on Diplomatic Immunity
– Even if immunity applied, the proper ground is the absence of a cause of action (immunity defense), not lack of personal jurisdiction.
– The Diplomatic Note was issued nearly two years after the cause of action accrued and nearly one year after its first invocation, raising authenticity and timeliness concerns.
– Minucher’s complaint expressly alleges that Scalzo framed him through unlawful, malicious acts—criminal in nature and outside the scope of official duties.
Exception to Diplomatic Immunity
– Article 31(1)(c), VCDR: immunity does not cover commercial or professional act
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 97765)
Facts of the Case
- On August 3, 1988, petitioner Khosrow Minucher filed Civil Case No. 88-45691 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila against Arthur W. Scalzo, Jr., claiming damages for unlawful arrest, robbery, estafa and false testimony.
- Petitioner, former Labor Attaché of the Iranian Embassy in Manila, had business dealings in May 1986 with Scalzo—then a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent at the American Embassy—concerning carpets and caviar.
- Scalzo promised to help renew visas of petitioner’s wife and associate Abbas Torabian for a $2,000.00 fee, purchased two kilos of caviar, and later arranged to buy two Persian silk carpets at US$24,000.00 each.
- After delivering carpets and funds, petitioner and Torabian were allegedly framed by Scalzo for heroin trafficking, arrested by American and Filipino police, detained without food or water, coerced to confess, and brought before the RTC of Pasig under the Dangerous Drugs Act.
- Both were acquitted on January 8, 1988. Scalzo testified for the prosecution in the criminal case.
Procedural History
- September 14, 1988: Scalzo’s counsel filed Special Appearance and Motion to extend time to answer, citing study by U.S. Departments of State and Justice.
- October 12 and 27, 1988: Further motions for extension and to quash summons on ground of non-residence; RTC denied quash on December 13, 1988.
- October 6, 1989: Court of Appeals dismissed Scalzo’s certiorari petition challenging RTC orders.
- March 9, 1990: Scalzo filed Answer with affirmative defenses (official function immunity) and counterclaim for attorney’s fees.
- June 14, 1990: Scalzo moved to dismiss based on Diplomatic Note No. 414 (May 29, 1990) asserting diplomatic immunity under Article 39(2) and Article 31 of the Vienna Convention.
- June 25, 1990: RTC denied the motion to dismiss as devoid of merit.
- October 31, 1990: Court of Appeals granted certiorari, dismissed Civil Case No. 88-45691 for lack of jurisdiction over Scalzo due to diplomatic immunity.
- March 8, 1991: Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- Sept