View full case

KHOSROW MINUCHER v. CA

FACTS:

The petitioner, a former Labor Attaché of the Embassy of Iran in the Philippines, filed a complaint for damages against the respondent, who was connected with the American Embassy in Manila. The petitioner alleged that he had several business transactions involving Iranian products with a certain Jose Iñigo, who introduced him to the respondent. During the meeting, the respondent expressed interest in buying Iranian products and offered his help to the petitioner. In a subsequent dinner, the respondent discussed purchasing caviar and carpets from the petitioner. Later on, the respondent came to the petitioner's residence and asked to be entrusted with a pair of Persian silk carpets for which he had a buyer. The respondent returned the next day, claimed to have made visa arrangements, and asked for money. However, it turned out that the respondent had framed the petitioner and falsely arrested him and another individual for alleged heroin trafficking. The petitioner and the other individual were acquitted of the charges. The petitioner filed a complaint for damages, seeking actual and compensatory damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. The respondent, in his answer, denied the allegations and invoked his status as a member of the diplomatic staff of the United States Diplomatic Mission in the Philippines. He also interposed a counterclaim for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the private respondent, Arthur Scalzo, enjoys diplomatic immunity.

  2. Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the private respondent.

  3. Whether the complaint for damages filed against the private respondent can be peremptorily dismissed.

  4. Whether the private respondent is immune from suit in his personal capacity.

  5. Whether or not the Order denying the Motion to Dismiss should be reinstated.

  6. Whether or not the costs should be imposed against the private respondent.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court found that the private respondent, Arthur Scalzo, does not enjoy diplomatic immunity. The Court held that even if Scalzo committed the imputed act and could have been otherwise made liable, his immunity from suit would bar any action against him and prevent recovery of damages arising therefrom.

  2. The trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the private respondent. Although Scalzo's counsel initially filed a motion to quash summons, claiming that Scalzo was outside the Philippines and beyond the court's processes, the court denied the motion. Moreover, Scalzo had effectively waived any defect in the service of summons by previously asking for an extension of time to file an answer and by ultimately filing an Answer with Counterclaim.

  3. The complaint for damages cannot be peremptorily dismissed. The complaint contains sufficient allegations that the private respondent committed the imputed acts in his personal capacity and outside the scope of his official duties and functions.

  4. The private respondent is not immune from suit in his personal capacity. The doctrine of immunity from suit does not apply when the public official is being sued in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. Moreover, Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations admits exceptions to diplomatic immunity, including actions relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving state outside his official functions.

  5. The Order denying the Motion to Dismiss is hereby reinstated.

  6. The costs are imposed against the private respondent.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired either by voluntary appearance or by the service of summons upon him.

  • Diplomatic immunity bars any suit against the diplomatic agent in connection with acts performed in the exercise of their functions and prevents recovery of damages arising therefrom.

  • The doctrine of immunity from suit does not apply when the public official is being sued in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen.

  • A public official may be liable in his personal private capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice and in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction.

  • Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations admits exceptions to diplomatic immunity, including actions relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving state outside his official functions.

  • The court has the authority to reinstate an order denying a motion to dismiss.

  • Costs may be imposed against a party in a court proceeding.