G.R. No.

142396

February 11, 2003

KHOSROW MINUCHER, petitioner,

vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ARTHUR SCALZO, respondents.

Facts:
Khosrow Minucher is the Labor Attach of the Embassy of Iran in the Phil. Arthur Scalzo, then
connected with the American Embassy in Manila, was introduced to him by Jose Inigo (an
informer belonging to the military intelligence community).
Accdg. to Inigo, Scalzo was interested in buying Iranian products like caviar and carpets.
Minucher complained to Scalzo about his problems with the American Embassy regarding the
expired visas of his wife, Abbas Torabian. Offering help, Scalzo gave Minucher a calling card
showing that the former is an agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) assigned to
the American Embassy in Manila. As a result, Scalzo expressed his intent to buy caviar and
further promised to arrange the renewal of the visas.
Scalzo went to Minucher's residence and asked to be entrusted with Persian silk carpets, for
which he had a buyer. The next day, Scalzo returned and claimed that he had already made
arrangements with his contacts concerning the visas and asked for $2,000.
It turned out that Scalzo prepared a plan to frame-up a Minucher and wife for alleged heroin
trafficking. Both were falsely arrested and charged with violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
Minucher prays for actual and compensatory damages. However, counsel for Scalzo filed a
motion to quash summons alleging that the defendant is beyond the processes of the Philippine
court for the action for damages is a personal action and that Scalzo is outside the Philippines.
TC denied the motion. CA dismissed the motion for lack of merit on the basis of the erroneous
assumption that because of the Diplomatic Note (advising the DFA that Scalzo is a member of
the US diplomatic mission investigating Minucher for drug trafficking), Scalzo is clothed with
diplomatic immunity.
Issue:
Whether or not a complaint for damages be dismissed in the sole basis of a statement
complained in a Diplomatic Note.
Held:
No. Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired by either voluntary appearance or
by the service of summons. In the case, Scalzo's counsel filed a motion to quash, which, in
effect already waived any defect in the service of summons by earlier asking an extension to file
time to file an Answer and filing an Answer with Counterclaim.
The complaint for damages cannot be dismissed. Said complaint contains sufficient allegations
which indicate that Scalzo committed imputed acts in his personal capacity and outside the
scope of his official duties and functions. The TC gave credit to Minucher's theory that he was a
victim of frame-up hence, there is a prima facie showing that Scalzo could be held personally
liable for his acts. Further, Scalzo did not come forward with evidence to, prove that he acted in
his official capacity.