KHOSROW MINUCHER, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ARTHUR SCALZO, respondents. G.R. No. 142396 February 11, 2003

Topic: Exceptions to Generality Principle

GIST:  ACTING AS A SPECIAL AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, SCALZO WAS ENTITLED WITH THE STATE OF IMMUNITY.

--------------

FACTS:

Sometime in May 1986, an Information for violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise also known as the "Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972," was filed against petitioner Khosrow Minucher.

1. May 27, 1989 - a buy-bust operation was performed in the house of the plaintiff (Municher).

2. August 03, 1988- Municher, filed a civil case before RTC for damages of what he claimed to have been fabricated charges of drug-trafficking.

3. With the sumbitted Civil Case, law firms,Luna, Sison, and Manas, files a special appearance for Scalzo and moved fir the extension of time to file an answer pending a supposed advice from the United States Department of States and Department of Justice on the defenses to be raised.

4. October 22, 1988-  Scalzo files another special appearance to reject the summons on the ground that he is not a resident of the Philippines.

5. December 13, 1988- The motion was denied.

Scalzo, filed different motions but were being denied by the court due to lack of evidence.

6. June 14, 1990- Two years after the Civil Lawsuit, Scalzo filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that being a special agent of the US Drug Enforcement Agency Administration, he was entitled of Diplomatic Immunity. But, on June 25, 1990, the motion was dismissed.

7. July 27, 990- Scalzo filed a petition for certiorari.

8. October 31, 1990- The Court of Appeals, promulgated its decision sustaining Scalzo's diplomatic immunity and ordering the dismissal against him.

9.Municher filed a petition for review, appealing the judgment of Court of Appeals.

10. September 24, 1992- the court reversed the COA's decision and remanded the case to the lower court for trial.

11. Manila Regional Trial Court- continued with their hearings, rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, establishing the defendant liable for the complaints towards him, and was ask to pay actual and compensating damages Adjudging defendant liable to plaintiff in actual and compensatory damages of P520,000.00; moral damages in the sum of P10 million; exemplary damages in the sum of P100,000.00; attorney's fees in the sum of P200,000.00 plus costs.The Clerk of the Regional Trial Court, Manila, is ordered to take note of the lien of the Court on this judgment to answer for the unpaid docket fees considering that the plaintiff in this case instituted this action as a pauper litigant.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Scalzo was entitled of the Diplomat Immunity.

Ruling:

Yes. Given the documents that Scalzo, presented to the court to prove his diplomacy, that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, to which the Philippines is a signatory, grants him absolute immunity from suit, while the diplomatic immunity of Scalzo might thus remain contentious, it was sufficiently established that, indeed, he worked for the United States Drug Enforcement Agency and was tasked to conduct surveillance of suspected drug activities within the country on the dates pertinent to this case.

The consent or imprimatur of the Philippine government to the activities of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, however, can be gleaned from the facts heretofore elsewhere mentioned.

All told, this Court is constrained to rule that respondent Arthur Scalzo, an agent of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency allowed by the Philippine government to conduct activities in the country to help contain the problem on the drug traffic, is entitled to the defense of state immunity from suit.

____________

Additional Info:

Under the Exceptions to the General Application of  Criminal Law, one subject was the treaty on treaties stipulations which is in this case was Vienna Convention.

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) is an international agreement regulating treaties between states. Known as the "treaty on treaties," it establishes comprehensive rules, procedures, and guidelines for how treaties are defined, drafted, amended, interpreted, and generally operated.

Immunity Principle has its limitations, too. it s a different matter where the public official is made to account in his capacity as such for acts contrary to law and injurious to the rights of the rights of the plaintiff. Un-authorized acts of Government Officials or Offices are not acts of the State, and an action against the officials or officers by one whose rights have been invaded or violated by such acts, for the protection of his rights is not a suit against the state within the rule of  immunity of the State from suit.