FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 125865. March 26, 2001]

JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), petitioner, vs. E!LE !F "HE
HILIINE#, respondent.
R E # ! L U " I ! N
YNARE#$#AN"IAG!, J.%
This resolves petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of our
Decision dated January 2! 2"""! denyin# the petition for revie$%
The Motion is anchored on the follo$in# ar#u&ents'
() T*+ DF,S D+T+RMIN,TION OF IMM-NIT. IS ,
/O0ITI1,0 2-+STION TO 3+ M,D+ 3. T*+
+4+1-TIV+ 3R,N1* OF T*+ 5OV+RNM+NT ,ND IS
1ON10-SIV+ -/ON T*+ 1O-RTS%
2) T*+ IMM-NIT. OF INT+RN,TION,0
OR5,NI6,TIONS IS ,3SO0-T+%
7) T*+ IMM-NIT. +4T+NDS TO ,00 ST,FF OF T*+
,SI,N D+V+0O/M+NT 3,N8 9,D3)%
:) D-+ /RO1+SS ;,S F-00. ,FFORD+D T*+
1OM/0,IN,NT TO R+3-T T*+ DF, /ROTO1O0%
<) T*+ D+1ISION OF J,N-,R. 2! 2""" +RRON+O-S0.
M,D+ , FINDIN5 OF F,1T ON T*+ M+RITS!
N,M+0.! T*+ S0,ND+RIN5 OF , /+RSON ;*I1*
/R+J-D5+D /+TITION+RS 1,S+ 3+FOR+ T*+
M+TRO/O0IT,N TRI,0 1O-RT 9MT1)=
M,ND,0-.ON5%
>) T*+ VI+NN, 1ONV+NTION ON DI/0OM,TI1
R+0,TIONS IS NOT ,//0I1,30+ TO T*IS 1,S+%
This case has its ori#in in t$o cri&inal Infor&ations
?(@
for #rave oral
defa&ation filed a#ainst petitioner! a 1hinese national $ho $as e&ployed
as an +cono&ist Ay the ,sian Develop&ent 3anB 9,D3)! alle#in# that on
separate occasions on January 2 and January 7(! (CC:! petitioner
alle#edly uttered defa&atory $ords to Joyce V% 1aAal! a &e&Aer of the
clerical staff of ,D3% On ,pril (7! (CC:! the Metropolitan Trial 1ourt of
Mandaluyon# 1ity! actin# pursuant to an advice fro& the Depart&ent of
Forei#n ,ffairs that petitioner enDoyed i&&unity fro& le#al processes!
dis&issed the cri&inal Infor&ations a#ainst hi&% On a petition for
certiorari and &anda&us filed Ay the /eople! the Re#ional Trial 1ourt of
/asi# 1ity! 3ranch (>"! annulled and set aside the order of the
Metropolitan Trial 1ourt dis&issin# the cri&inal cases%
?2@
/etitioner! thus! Arou#ht a petition for revie$ $ith this 1ourt% On
January 2! 2"""! $e rendered the assailed Decision denyin# the petition
for revie$% ;e ruled! in essence! that the i&&unity #ranted to officers
and staff of the ,D3 is not aAsoluteE it is li&ited to acts perfor&ed in an
official capacity% Further&ore! $e held that the i&&unity cannot cover
the co&&ission of a cri&e such as slander or oral defa&ation in the na&e
of official duty%
On OctoAer (! 2"""! the oral ar#u&ents of the parties $ere heard%
This 1ourt also #ranted the Motion for Intervention of the Depart&ent of
Forei#n ,ffairs% Thereafter! the parties $ere directed to suA&it their
respective &e&orandu&%
For the &ost part! petitioners Motion for Reconsideration deals $ith
the diplo&atic i&&unity of the ,D3! its officials and staff! fro& le#al
and Dudicial processes in the /hilippines! as $ell as the constitutional and
political Aases thereof% It should Ae &ade clear that no$here in the
assailed Decision is diplo&atic i&&unity denied! even re&otely% The
issue in this case! rather! Aoils do$n to $hether or not the state&ents
alle#edly &ade Ay petitioner $ere uttered $hile in the perfor&ance of his
official functions! in order for this case to fall sFuarely under the
provisions of Section :< 9a) of the G,#ree&ent 3et$een the ,sian
Develop&ent 3anB and the 5overn&ent of the RepuAlic of the
/hilippines Re#ardin# the *eadFuarters of the ,sian Develop&ent
3anB!H to $it'
Officers ands staff of the 3anB! includin# for the purpose of this ,rticle
eIperts and consultants perfor&in# &issions for the 3anB! shall enDoy the
follo$in# privile#es and i&&unities'
9a) I&&unity fro& le#al process $ith respect to acts perfor&ed Ay
the& in their official capacity eIcept $hen the 3anB $aives the
i&&unity%
,fter a careful deliAeration of the ar#u&ents raised in petitioners
and intervenors Motions for Reconsideration! $e find no co#ent reason
to disturA our Decision of January 2! 2"""% ,s $e have stated therein!
the slander of a person! Ay any stretch! cannot Ae considered as fallin#
$ithin the purvie$ of the i&&unity #ranted to ,D3 officers and
personnel% /etitioner ar#ues that the Decision had the effect of
preDud#in# the cri&inal case for oral defa&ation a#ainst hi&% ;e $ish to
stress that it did not% ;hat $e &erely stated therein is that slander! in
#eneral! cannot Ae considered as an act perfor&ed in an official capacity%
The issue of $hether or not petitioners utterances constituted oral
defa&ation is still for the trial court to deter&ine%
&HEREF!RE! in vie$ of the fore#oin#! the Motions for
Reconsideration filed Ay petitioner and intervenor Depart&ent of Forei#n
,ffairs are D+NI+D $ith FIN,0IT.%
#! !R'ERE'.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Doin the concurrin# opinion of Mr%
Justice /uno%
Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ., concur%
Puno, J., /ls% See concurrin# opinion%
?(@
1ri&inal 1ases Nos% <7(J" K <7(J( of the Metropolitan Trial 1ourt of
Mandaluyon# 1ity! 3ranch >"! presided Ay *on% Ma% 0uisa 2uiDano=
/adilla%
?2@
S1, 1ase No% J:7 of the Re#ional Trial 1ourt of /asi# 1ity! 3ranch
(>"! presided Ay *on% Mariano M% -&ali%
RepuAlic of the /hilippines
#UREME (!UR"
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 1)2*+6 F,-r.ar/ 11, 200*
0H!#R!& MINU(HER, petitioner!
vs%
H!N. (!UR" !F AEAL# a12 AR"HUR #(AL3!, respondents%
D + 1 I S I O N
4I"UG, J.:
So&eti&e in May (C>! an Infor&ation for violation of Section : of
RepuAlic ,ct No% >:2<! other$ise also Bno$n as the LDan#erous Dru#s
,ct of (CJ2!L $as filed a#ainst petitioner 8hosro$ Minucher and one
,AAas ToraAian $ith the Re#ional Trial 1ourt! 3ranch (<(! of /asi# 1ity%
The cri&inal char#e follo$ed a LAuy=Aust operationL conducted Ay the
/hilippine police narcotic a#ents in the house of Minucher! an Iranian
national! $here a Fuantity of heroin! a prohiAited dru#! $as said to have
Aeen seiMed% The narcotic a#ents $ere acco&panied Ay private respondent
,rthur ScalMo $ho $ould! in due ti&e! Aeco&e one of the principal
$itnesses for the prosecution% On " January (C! /residin# Jud#e
+utropio Mi#rino rendered a decision acFuittin# the t$o accused%
On "7 ,u#ust (C! Minucher filed 1ivil 1ase No% =:<>C( Aefore the
Re#ional Trial 1ourt 9RT1)! 3ranch (C! of Manila for da&a#es on
account of $hat he clai&ed to have Aeen tru&ped=up char#es of dru#
trafficBin# &ade Ay ,rthur ScalMo% The Manila RT1 detailed $hat it had
found to Ae the facts and circu&stances surroundin# the case%
LThe testi&ony of the plaintiff disclosed that he is an Iranian national% *e
ca&e to the /hilippines to study in the -niversity of the /hilippines in
(CJ:% In (CJ>! under the re#i&e of the Shah of Iran! he $as appointed
0aAor ,ttachN for the Iranian +&Aassies in ToByo! Japan and Manila!
/hilippines% ;hen the Shah of Iran $as deposed Ay ,yatollah 8ho&eini!
plaintiff Aeca&e a refu#ee of the -nited Nations and continued to stay in
the /hilippines% *e headed the Iranian National Resistance Move&ent in
the /hilippines%
L*e ca&e to Bno$ the defendant on May (7! (C>! $hen the latter $as
Arou#ht to his house and introduced to hi& Ay a certain Jose IOi#o! an
infor&er of the Intelli#ence -nit of the &ilitary% Jose IOi#o! on the other
hand! $as &et Ay plaintiff at the office of ,tty% 1risanto Saruca! a la$yer
for several Iranians $ho& plaintiff assisted as head of the anti=8ho&eini
&ove&ent in the /hilippines%
LDurin# his first &eetin# $ith the defendant on May (7! (C>! upon the
introduction of Jose IOi#o! the defendant eIpressed his interest in Auyin#
caviar% ,s a &atter of fact! he Aou#ht t$o Bilos of caviar fro& plaintiff
and paid /("!"""%"" for it% Sellin# caviar! aside fro& that of /ersian
carpets! pistachio nuts and other Iranian products $as his Ausiness after
the 8ho&eini #overn&ent cut his pension of over P7!"""%"" per &onth%
Durin# their introduction in that &eetin#! the defendant #ave the plaintiff
his callin# card! $hich sho$ed that he is $orBin# at the -S +&Aassy in
the /hilippines! as a special a#ent of the Dru# +nforce&ent
,d&inistration! Depart&ent of Justice! of the -nited States! and #ave his
address as -S +&Aassy! Manila% ,t the AacB of the card appears a
telephone nu&Aer in defendants o$n hand$ritin#! the nu&Aer of $hich
he can also Ae contacted%
LIt $as also durin# this first &eetin# that plaintiff eIpressed his desire to
oAtain a -S Visa for his $ife and the $ife of a country&an na&ed ,AAas
ToraAian% The defendant told hi& that he ?could@ help plaintiff for a fee of
P2!"""%"" per visa% Their conversation! ho$ever! $as &ore concentrated
on politics! carpets and caviar% Thereafter! the defendant pro&ised to see
plaintiff a#ain%
LOn May (C! (C>! the defendant called the plaintiff and invited the latter
for dinner at MarioQs Restaurant at MaBati% *e $anted to Auy 2"" #ra&s
of caviar% /laintiff Arou#ht the &erchandiMe Aut for the reason that the
defendant $as not yet there! he reFuested the restaurant people to I I I
place the sa&e in the refri#erator% Defendant! ho$ever! ca&e and plaintiff
#ave hi& the caviar for $hich he $as paid% Then their conversation $as
a#ain focused on politics and Ausiness%
LOn May 2>! (C>! defendant visited plaintiff a#ain at the latterQs
residence for ( years at 8apitolyo! /asi#% The defendant $anted to Auy a
pair of carpets $hich plaintiff valued at P2J!C""%""% ,fter so&e ha##lin#!
they a#reed at P2:!"""%""% For the reason that defendant did not yet have
the &oney! they a#reed that defendant $ould co&e AacB the neIt day% The
follo$in# day! at ('"" p%&%! he ca&e AacB $ith his P2:!"""%""! $hich he
#ave to the plaintiff! and the latter! in turn! #ave hi& the pair of
carpets%1awphi1.nt
L,t aAout 7'"" in the afternoon of May 2J! (C>! the defendant ca&e
AacB a#ain to plaintiffQs house and directly proceeded to the latterQs
Aedroo&! $here the latter and his country&an! ,AAas ToraAian! $ere
playin# chess% /laintiff opened his safe in the Aedroo& and oAtained
P2!"""%"" fro& it! #ave it to the defendant for the latterQs fee in oAtainin#
a visa for plaintiffQs $ife% The defendant told hi& that he $ould Ae
leavin# the /hilippines very soon and reFuested hi& to co&e out of the
house for a $hile so that he can introduce hi& to his cousin $aitin# in a
caA% ;ithout &uch ado! and $ithout puttin# on his shirt as he $as only in
his paDa&a pants! he follo$ed the defendant $here he sa$ a parBed caA
opposite the street% To his co&plete surprise! an ,&erican Du&ped out of
the caA $ith a dra$n hi#h=po$ered #un% *e $as in the co&pany of aAout
7" to :" Filipino soldiers $ith > ,&ericans! all ar&ed% *e $as
handcuffed and after aAout 2" &inutes in the street! he $as Arou#ht inside
the house Ay the defendant% *e $as &ade to sit do$n $hile in handcuffs
$hile the defendant $as inside his Aedroo&% The defendant ca&e out of
the Aedroo& and out fro& defendantQs attachN case! he tooB so&ethin#
and placed it on the taAle in front of the plaintiff% They also tooB
plaintiffQs $ife $ho $as at that ti&e at the AoutiFue near his house and
liBe$ise arrested ToraAian! $ho $as playin# chess $ith hi& in the
Aedroo& and Aoth $ere handcuffed to#ether% /laintiff $as not told $hy
he $as Aein# handcuffed and $hy the privacy of his house! especially his
Aedroo& $as invaded Ay defendant% *e $as not allo$ed to use the
telephone% In fact! his telephone $as unplu##ed% *e asBed for any
$arrant! Aut the defendant told hi& to Rshut up% *e $as nevertheless told
that he $ould Ae aAle to call for his la$yer $ho can defend hi&%
LThe plaintiff tooB note of the fact that $hen the defendant invited hi& to
co&e out to &eet his cousin! his safe $as opened $here he Bept the
P2:!"""%"" the defendant paid for the carpets and another P!"""%""
$hich he also placed in the safe to#ether $ith a Aracelet $orth
P(<!"""%"" and a pair of earrin#s $orth P("!"""%""% *e also discovered
&issin# upon his release his pieces hand=&ade /ersian carpets! valued
at P><!"""%""! a paintin# he Aou#ht for /7"!"""%"" to#ether $ith his TV
and Aeta&aI sets% *e clai&ed that $hen he $as handcuffed! the
defendant tooB his Beys fro& his $allet% There $as! therefore! nothin#
left in his house%
LThat his arrest as a heroin trafficBer I I I had Aeen $ell puAliciMed
throu#hout the $orld! in various ne$spapers! particularly in ,ustralia!
,&erica! 1entral ,sia and in the /hilippines% *e $as identified in the
papers as an international dru# trafficBer% I I I
In fact! the arrest of defendant and ToraAian $as liBe$ise on television!
not only in the /hilippines! Aut also in ,&erica and in 5er&any% *is
friends in said places infor&ed hi& that they sa$ hi& on TV $ith said
ne$s%
L,fter the arrest &ade on plaintiff and ToraAian! they $ere Arou#ht to
1a&p 1ra&e handcuffed to#ether! $here they $ere detained for three
days $ithout food and $ater%L
(
Durin# the trial! the la$ fir& of 0una! Sison and Manas! filed a special
appearance for ScalMo and &oved for eItension of ti&e to file an ans$er
pendin# a supposed advice fro& the -nited States Depart&ent of State
and Depart&ent of Justice on the defenses to Ae raised% The trial court
#ranted the &otion% On 2J OctoAer (C! ScalMo filed another special
appearance to Fuash the su&&ons on the #round that he! not Aein# a
resident of the /hilippines and the action Aein# one in persona&! $as
Aeyond the processes of the court% The &otion $as denied Ay the court! in
its order of (7 Dece&Aer (C! holdin# that the filin# Ay ScalMo of a
&otion for eItension of ti&e to file an ans$er to the co&plaint $as a
voluntary appearance eFuivalent to service of su&&ons $hich could
liBe$ise Ae construed a $aiver of the reFuire&ent of for&al notice%
ScalMo filed a &otion for reconsideration of the court order! contendin#
that a &otion for an eItension of ti&e to file an ans$er $as not a
voluntary appearance eFuivalent to service of su&&ons since it did not
seeB an affir&ative relief% ScalMo ar#ued that in cases involvin# the
-nited States #overn&ent! as $ell as its a#encies and officials! a &otion
for eItension $as peculiarly unavoidaAle due to the need 9() for Aoth the
Depart&ent of State and the Depart&ent of Justice to a#ree on the
defenses to Ae raised and 92) to refer the case to a /hilippine la$yer $ho
$ould Ae eIpected to first revie$ the case% The court a Fuo denied the
&otion for reconsideration in its order of (< OctoAer (CC%
ScalMo filed a petition for revie$ $ith the 1ourt of ,ppeals! there
docBeted 1,=5%R% No% (J"27! assailin# the denial% In a decision! dated
"> OctoAer (CC! the appellate court denied the petition and affir&ed the
rulin# of the trial court% ScalMo then elevated the incident in a petition for
revie$ on certiorari! docBeted 5%R% No% C((J7! to this 1ourt% The
petition! ho$ever! $as denied for its failure to co&ply $ith S1 1ircular
No% (=E in any event! the 1ourt added! ScalMo had failed to sho$ that
the appellate court $as in error in its Fuestioned Dud#&ent%
Mean$hile! at the court a Fuo! an order! dated "C FeAruary (CC"! $as
issued 9a) declarin# ScalMo in default for his failure to file a responsive
pleadin# 9ans$er) and 9A) settin# the case for the reception of evidence%
On (2 March (CC"! ScalMo filed a &otion to set aside the order of default
and to ad&it his ans$er to the co&plaint% 5rantin# the &otion! the trial
court set the case for pre=trial% In his ans$er! ScalMo denied the &aterial
alle#ations of the co&plaint and raised the affir&ative defenses 9a) of
Minuchers failure to state a cause of action in his co&plaint and 9A) that
ScalMo had acted in the dischar#e of his official duties as Aein# &erely an
a#ent of the Dru# +nforce&ent ,d&inistration of the -nited States
Depart&ent of Justice% ScalMo interposed a counterclai& of /(""!"""%""
to ans$er for attorneysQ fees and eIpenses of liti#ation%
Then! on (: June (CC"! after al&ost t$o years since the institution of the
civil case! ScalMo filed a &otion to dis&iss the co&plaint on the #round
that! Aein# a special a#ent of the -nited States Dru# +nforce&ent
,d&inistration! he $as entitled to diplo&atic i&&unity% *e attached to
his &otion Diplo&atic Note No% :(: of the -nited States +&Aassy! dated
2C May (CC"! addressed to the Depart&ent of Forei#n ,ffairs of the
/hilippines and a 1ertification! dated (( June (CC"! of Vice 1onsul
Donna ;ood$ard! certifyin# that the note is a true and faithful copy of its
ori#inal% In an order of 2< June (CC"! the trial court denied the &otion to
dis&iss%
On 2J July (CC"! ScalMo filed a petition for certiorari $ith inDunction $ith
this 1ourt! docBeted 5%R% No% C:2<J and entitled L,rthur ;% ScalMo! Jr%!
vs% *on% ;enceslao /olo! et al%!L asBin# that the co&plaint in 1ivil 1ase
No% =:<>C( Ae ordered dis&issed% The case $as referred to the 1ourt of
,ppeals! there docBeted 1,=5%R% S/ No% 22<"<! per this 1ourts
resolution of "J ,u#ust (CC"% On 7( OctoAer (CC"! the 1ourt of ,ppeals
pro&ul#ated its decision sustainin# the diplo&atic i&&unity of ScalMo
and orderin# the dis&issal of the co&plaint a#ainst hi&% Minucher filed a
petition for revie$ $ith this 1ourt! docBeted 5%R% No% CJJ>< and entitled
L8hosro$ Minucher vs% the *onoraAle 1ourt of ,ppeals! et% al%L 9cited in
2(: S1R, 2:2)! appealin# the Dud#&ent of the 1ourt of ,ppeals% In a
decision! dated 2: Septe&Aer (CC2! penned Ay Justice 9no$ 1hief
Justice) *ilario Davide! Jr%! this 1ourt reversed the decision of the
appellate court and re&anded the case to the lo$er court for trial% The
re&and $as ordered on the theses 9a) that the 1ourt of ,ppeals erred in
#rantin# the &otion to dis&iss of ScalMo for lacB of Durisdiction over his
person $ithout even considerin# the issue of the authenticity of
Diplo&atic Note No% :(: and 9A) that the co&plaint contained sufficient
alle#ations to the effect that ScalMo co&&itted the i&puted acts in his
personal capacity and outside the scope of his official duties and! aAsent
any evidence to the contrary! the issue on ScalMos diplo&atic i&&unity
could not Ae taBen up%
The Manila RT1 thus continued $ith its hearin#s on the case% On (J
Nove&Aer (CC<! the trial court reached a decisionE it adDud#ed'
L;*+R+FOR+! and in vie$ of all the fore#oin# considerations!
Dud#&ent is hereAy rendered for the plaintiff! $ho successfully
estaAlished his clai& Ay sufficient evidence! a#ainst the defendant in the
&anner follo$in#'
LR,dDud#in# defendant liaAle to plaintiff in actual and co&pensatory
da&a#es of /<2"!"""%""E &oral da&a#es in the su& of /(" &illionE
eIe&plary da&a#es in the su& of /(""!"""%""E attorneyQs fees in the su&
of /2""!"""%"" plus costs%
RThe 1lerB of the Re#ional Trial 1ourt! Manila! is ordered to taBe note of
the lien of the 1ourt on this Dud#&ent to ans$er for the unpaid docBet
fees considerin# that the plaintiff in this case instituted this action as a
pauper liti#ant%L
2
;hile the trial court #ave credence to the clai& of ScalMo and the
evidence presented Ay hi& that he $as a diplo&atic a#ent entitled to
i&&unity as such! it ruled that he! nevertheless! should Ae held
accountaAle for the acts co&plained of co&&itted outside his official
duties% On appeal! the 1ourt of ,ppeals reversed the decision of the trial
court and sustained the defense of ScalMo that he $as sufficiently clothed
$ith diplo&atic i&&unity durin# his ter& of duty and thereAy i&&une
fro& the cri&inal and civil Durisdiction of the LReceivin# StateL pursuant
to the ter&s of the Vienna 1onvention%
*ence! this recourse Ay Minucher% The instant petition for revie$ raises a
t$o=fold issue' 9() $hether or not the doctrine of conclusiveness of
Dud#&ent! follo$in# the decision rendered Ay this 1ourt in 5%R% No%
CJJ><! should have precluded the 1ourt of ,ppeals fro& resolvin# the
appeal to it in an entirely different &anner! and 92) $hether or not ,rthur
ScalMo is indeed entitled to diplo&atic i&&unity%
The doctrine of conclusiveness of Dud#&ent! or its Bindred rule of res
Dudicata! $ould reFuire () the finality of the prior Dud#&ent! 2) a valid
Durisdiction over the suADect &atter and the parties on the part of the court
that renders it! 7) a Dud#&ent on the &erits! and :) an identity of the
parties! suADect &atter and causes of action%
7
+ven $hile one of the issues
suA&itted in 5%R% No% CJJ>< = L$hether or not puAlic respondent 1ourt
of ,ppeals erred in rulin# that private respondent ScalMo is a diplo&at
i&&une fro& civil suit confor&aAly $ith the Vienna 1onvention on
Diplo&atic RelationsL = is also a pivotal Fuestion raised in the instant
petition! the rulin# in 5%R% No% CJJ><! ho$ever! has not resolved that
point $ith finality% Indeed! the 1ourt there has &ade this oAservation =
LIt &ay Ae &entioned in this re#ard that private respondent hi&self! in his
/re=trial 3rief filed on (7 June (CC"! uneFuivocally states that he $ould
present docu&entary evidence consistin# of D+, records on his
investi#ation and surveillance of plaintiff and on his position and duties
as D+, special a#ent in Manila% *avin# thus reserved his ri#ht to present
evidence in support of his position! $hich is the Aasis for the alle#ed
diplo&atic i&&unity! the Aarren self=servin# clai& in the Aelated &otion
to dis&iss cannot Ae relied upon for a reasonaAle! intelli#ent and fair
resolution of the issue of diplo&atic i&&unity%L
:
ScalMo contends that the Vienna 1onvention on Diplo&atic Relations! to
$hich the /hilippines is a si#natory! #rants hi& aAsolute i&&unity fro&
suit! descriAin# his functions as an a#ent of the -nited States Dru#s
+nforce&ent ,#ency as Lconductin# surveillance operations on suspected
dru# dealers in the /hilippines Aelieved to Ae the source of prohiAited
dru#s Aein# shipped to the -%S%! 9and) havin# ascertained the tar#et! 9he
then) $ould infor& the /hilippine narcotic a#ents 9to) &aBe the actual
arrest%L ScalMo has suA&itted to the trial court a nu&Aer of docu&ents =
(% +Ih% Q2Q = Diplo&atic Note No% :(: dated 2C May (CC"E
2% +Ih% Q(Q = 1ertification of Vice 1onsul Donna 8% ;ood$ard dated ((
June (CC"E
7% +Ih% Q<Q = Diplo&atic Note No% J<J dated 2< OctoAer (CC(E
:% +Ih% Q>Q = Diplo&atic Note No% JC( dated (J Nove&Aer (CC2E and
<% +Ih% QJQ = Diplo&atic Note No% 77 dated 2( OctoAer (C%
>% +Ih% Q7Q = (st Indorse&ent of the *on% Jor#e R% 1oFuia! 0e#al ,dviser!
Depart&ent of Forei#n ,ffairs! dated 2J June (CC" for$ardin# +&Aassy
Note No% :(: to the 1lerB of 1ourt of RT1 Manila! 3ranch (C 9the trial
court)E
J% +Ih% Q:Q = Diplo&atic Note No% :(:! appended to the (st Indorse&ent
9+Ih% Q7Q)E and
% +Ih% QQ = 0etter dated ( Nove&Aer (CC2 fro& the Office of the
/rotocol! Depart&ent of Forei#n ,ffairs! throu#h ,sst% Sec% +&&anuel
FernandeM! addressed to the 1hief Justice of this 1ourt%
<
The docu&ents! accordin# to ScalMo! $ould sho$ that' 9() the -nited
States +&Aassy accordin#ly advised the +Iecutive Depart&ent of the
/hilippine 5overn&ent that ScalMo $as a &e&Aer of the diplo&atic staff
of the -nited States diplo&atic &ission fro& his arrival in the /hilippines
on (: OctoAer (C< until his departure on (" ,u#ust (CE 92) that the
-nited States 5overn&ent $as fir& fro& the very Ae#innin# in assertin#
the diplo&atic i&&unity of ScalMo $ith respect to the case pursuant to
the provisions of the Vienna 1onvention on Diplo&atic RelationsE and 97)
that the -nited States +&Aassy repeatedly ur#ed the Depart&ent of
Forei#n ,ffairs to taBe appropriate action to infor& the trial court of
ScalMos diplo&atic i&&unity% The other docu&entary eIhiAits $ere
presented to indicate that' 9() the /hilippine #overn&ent itself! throu#h
its +Iecutive Depart&ent! reco#niMin# and respectin# the diplo&atic
status of ScalMo! for&ally advised the LJudicial Depart&entL of his
diplo&atic status and his entitle&ent to all diplo&atic privile#es and
i&&unities under the Vienna 1onventionE and 92) the Depart&ent of
Forei#n ,ffairs itself authenticated Diplo&atic Note No% :(:% ScalMo
additionally presented +IhiAits LCL to L(7L consistin# of his reports of
investi#ation on the surveillance and suAseFuent arrest of Minucher! the
certification of the Dru# +nforce&ent ,d&inistration of the -nited States
Depart&ent of Justice that ScalMo $as a special a#ent assi#ned to the
/hilippines at all ti&es relevant to the co&plaint! and the special po$er of
attorney eIecuted Ay hi& in favor of his previous counsel
>
to sho$ 9a)
that the -nited States +&Aassy! affir&ed Ay its Vice 1onsul!
acBno$led#ed ScalMo to Ae a &e&Aer of the diplo&atic staff of the
-nited States diplo&atic &ission fro& his arrival in the /hilippines on (:
OctoAer (C< until his departure on (" ,u#ust (C! 9A) that! on May
(C>! $ith the cooperation of the /hilippine la$ enforce&ent officials
and in the eIercise of his functions as &e&Aer of the &ission! he
investi#ated Minucher for alle#ed trafficBin# in a prohiAited dru#! and 9c)
that the /hilippine Depart&ent of Forei#n ,ffairs itself reco#niMed that
ScalMo durin# his tour of duty in the /hilippines 9(: OctoAer (C< up to
(" ,u#ust (C) $as listed as Aein# an ,ssistant ,ttachN of the -nited
States diplo&atic &ission and accredited $ith diplo&atic status Ay the
5overn&ent of the /hilippines% In his +IhiAit (2! ScalMo descriAed the
functions of the overseas office of the -nited States Dru#s +nforce&ent
,#ency! i%e%! 9() to provide cri&inal investi#ative eIpertise and assistance
to forei#n la$ enforce&ent a#encies on narcotic and dru# control
pro#ra&s upon the reFuest of the host country! 2) to estaAlish and
&aintain liaison $ith the host country and counterpart forei#n la$
enforce&ent officials! and 7) to conduct co&pleI cri&inal investi#ations
involvin# international cri&inal conspiracies $hich affect the interests of
the -nited States%
The Vienna 1onvention on Diplo&atic Relations $as a codification of
centuries=old custo&ary la$ and! Ay the ti&e of its ratification on (
,pril (C>(! its rules of la$ had lon# Aeco&e staAle% ,&on# the city states
of ancient 5reece! a&on# the peoples of the Mediterranean Aefore the
estaAlish&ent of the Ro&an +&pire! and a&on# the states of India! the
person of the herald in ti&e of $ar and the person of the diplo&atic
envoy in ti&e of peace $ere universally held sacrosanct%
J
3y the end of
the (>th century! $hen the earliest treatises on diplo&atic la$ $ere
puAlished! the inviolaAility of a&Aassadors $as fir&ly estaAlished as a
rule of custo&ary international la$%

Traditionally! the eIercise of

diplo&atic intercourse a&on# states $as undertaBen Ay the head of state
hi&self! as Aein# the pree&inent e&Aodi&ent of the state he represented!
and the forei#n secretary! the official usually entrusted $ith the eIternal
affairs of the state% ;here a state $ould $ish to have a &ore pro&inent
diplo&atic presence in the receivin# state! it $ould then send to the latter
a diplo&atic &ission% 1onfor&aAly $ith the Vienna 1onvention! the
functions of the diplo&atic &ission involve! Ay and lar#e! the
representation of the interests of the sendin# state and pro&otin# friendly
relations $ith the receivin# state%
C
The 1onvention lists the classes of heads of diplo&atic &issions to
include 9a) a&Aassadors or nuncios accredited to the heads of state!
("
9A)
envoys!
((
&inisters or internuncios accredited to the heads of statesE and
9c) char#es dQ affairs
(2
accredited to the &inisters of forei#n affairs%
(7
1o&prisin# the Lstaff of the 9diplo&atic) &issionL are the diplo&atic
staff! the ad&inistrative staff and the technical and service staff% Only the
heads of &issions! as $ell as &e&Aers of the diplo&atic staff! eIcludin#
the &e&Aers of the ad&inistrative! technical and service staff of the
&ission! are accorded diplo&atic ranB% +ven $hile the Vienna
1onvention on Diplo&atic Relations provides for i&&unity to the
&e&Aers of diplo&atic &issions! it does so! nevertheless! $ith an
understandin# that the sa&e Ae restrictively applied% Only Ldiplo&atic
a#ents!L under the ter&s of the 1onvention! are vested $ith AlanBet
diplo&atic i&&unity fro& civil and cri&inal suits% The 1onvention
defines Ldiplo&atic a#entsL as the heads of &issions or &e&Aers of the
diplo&atic staff! thus i&pliedly $ithholdin# the sa&e privile#es fro& all
others% It &i#ht Aear stressin# that even consuls! $ho represent their
respective states in concerns of co&&erce and navi#ation and perfor&
certain ad&inistrative and notarial duties! such as the issuance of
passports and visas! authentication of docu&ents! and ad&inistration of
oaths! do not ordinarily enDoy the traditional diplo&atic i&&unities and
privile#es accorded diplo&ats! &ainly for the reason that they are not
char#ed $ith the duty of representin# their states in political &atters%
Indeed! the &ain yardsticB in ascertainin# $hether a person is a diplo&at
entitled to i&&unity is the deter&ination of $hether or not he perfor&s
duties of diplo&atic nature%
ScalMo asserted! particularly in his +IhiAits LCL to L(7!L that he $as an
,ssistant ,ttachN of the -nited States diplo&atic &ission and $as
accredited as such Ay the /hilippine 5overn&ent% ,n attachN Aelon#s to a
cate#ory of officers in the diplo&atic estaAlish&ent $ho &ay Ae in
char#e of its cultural! press! ad&inistrative or financial affairs% There
could also Ae a class of attaches Aelon#in# to certain &inistries or
depart&ents of the #overn&ent! other than the forei#n &inistry or
depart&ent! $ho are detailed Ay their respective &inistries or
depart&ents $ith the e&Aassies such as the &ilitary! naval! air!
co&&ercial! a#ricultural! laAor! science! and custo&s attaches! or the liBe%
,ttaches assist a chief of &ission in his duties and are ad&inistratively
under hi&! Aut their &ain function is to oAserve! analyMe and interpret
trends and develop&ents in their respective fields in the host country and
suA&it reports to their o$n &inistries or depart&ents in the ho&e
#overn&ent%
(:
These officials are not #enerally re#arded as &e&Aers of
the diplo&atic &ission! nor are they nor&ally desi#nated as havin#
diplo&atic ranB%
In an atte&pt to prove his diplo&atic status! ScalMo presented Diplo&atic
Notes Nos% :(:! J<J and JC(! all issued post lite& &ota&! respectively!
on 2C May (CC"! 2< OctoAer (CC( and (J Nove&Aer (CC2% The
presentation did nothin# &uch to alleviate the 1ourtQs initial reservations
in 5%R% No% CJJ><! viM'
L;hile the trial court denied the &otion to dis&iss! the puAlic respondent
#ravely aAused its discretion in dis&issin# 1ivil 1ase No% =:<>C( on
the Aasis of an erroneous assu&ption that si&ply Aecause of the
diplo&atic note! the private respondent is clothed $ith diplo&atic
i&&unity! thereAy divestin# the trial court of Durisdiction over his person%
LI I I I I I I I I
L,nd no$! to the core issue = the alle#ed diplo&atic i&&unity of the
private respondent% Settin# aside for the &o&ent the issue of authenticity
raised Ay the petitioner and the douAts that surround such clai&! in vie$
of the fact that it tooB private respondent one 9() year! ei#ht 9) &onths
and seventeen 9(J) days fro& the ti&e his counsel filed on (2 Septe&Aer
(C a Special ,ppearance and Motion asBin# for a first eItension of
ti&e to file the ,ns$er Aecause the Depart&ents of State and Justice of
the -nited States of ,&erica $ere studyin# the case for the purpose of
deter&inin# his defenses! Aefore he could secure the Diplo&atic Note
fro& the -S +&Aassy in Manila! and even #rantin# for the saBe of
ar#u&ent that such note is authentic! the co&plaint for da&a#es filed Ay
petitioner cannot Ae pere&ptorily dis&issed%
LI I I I I I I I I
LThere is of course the clai& of private respondent that the acts i&puted
to hi& $ere done in his official capacity% Nothin# supports this self=
servin# clai& other than the so=called Diplo&atic Note% I I I% The puAlic
respondent then should have sustained the trial courtQs denial of the
&otion to dis&iss% Verily! it should have Aeen the &ost proper and
appropriate recourse% It should not have Aeen over$hel&ed Ay the self=
servin# Diplo&atic Note $hose Aelated issuance is even suspect and
$hose authenticity has not yet Aeen proved% The undue haste $ith $hich
respondent 1ourt yielded to the private respondentQs clai& is arAitrary%L
, si#nificant docu&ent $ould appear to Ae +IhiAit No% "! dated "
Nove&Aer (CC2! issued Ay the Office of /rotocol of the Depart&ent of
Forei#n ,ffairs and si#ned Ay +&&anuel 1% FernandeM! ,ssistant
Secretary! certifyin# that Lthe records of the Depart&ent 9$ould) sho$
that Mr% ,rthur ;% ScalMo! Jr%! durin# his ter& of office in the /hilippines
9fro& (: OctoAer (C< up to (" ,u#ust (C) $as listed as an ,ssistant
,ttachN of the -nited States diplo&atic &ission and $as! therefore!
accredited diplo&atic status Ay the 5overn&ent of the /hilippines%L No
certified true copy of such Lrecords!L the supposed Aases for the Aelated
issuance! $as presented in evidence%
1oncededly! vestin# a person $ith diplo&atic i&&unity is a prero#ative
of the eIecutive Aranch of the #overn&ent% In ;orld *ealth Or#aniMation
vs% ,Fuino!
(<
the 1ourt has reco#niMed that! in such &atters! the hands of
the courts are virtually tied% ,&idst apprehensions of indiscri&inate and
incautious #rant of i&&unity! desi#ned to #ain eIe&ption fro& the
Durisdiction of courts! it should Aehoove the /hilippine #overn&ent!
specifically its Depart&ent of Forei#n ,ffairs! to Ae &ost circu&spect!
that should particularly Ae no less than co&pellin#! in its post lite&
&ota& issuances% It &i#ht Ae recalled that the privile#e is not an
i&&unity fro& the oAservance of the la$ of the territorial soverei#n or
fro& ensuin# le#al liaAilityE it is! rather! an i&&unity fro& the eIercise of
territorial Durisdiction%
(>
The #overn&ent of the -nited States itself! $hich
ScalMo clai&s to Ae actin# for! has for&ulated its standards for
reco#nition of a diplo&atic a#ent% The State Depart&ent policy is to only
concede diplo&atic status to a person $ho possesses an acBno$led#ed
diplo&atic title and Lperfor&s duties of diplo&atic
nature%L
(J
Supple&entary criteria for accreditation are the possession of a
valid diplo&atic passport or! fro& States $hich do not issue such
passports! a diplo&atic note for&ally representin# the intention to assi#n
the person to diplo&atic duties! the holdin# of a non=i&&i#rant visa!
Aein# over t$enty=one years of a#e! and perfor&in# diplo&atic functions
on an essentially full=ti&e Aasis%
(
Diplo&atic &issions are reFuested to
provide the &ost accurate and descriptive DoA title to that $hich currently
applies to the duties perfor&ed% The Office of the /rotocol $ould then
assi#n each individual to the appropriate functional cate#ory%
(C
3ut $hile the diplo&atic i&&unity of ScalMo &i#ht thus re&ain
contentious! it $as sufficiently estaAlished that! indeed! he $orBed for the
-nited States Dru# +nforce&ent ,#ency and $as tasBed to conduct
surveillance of suspected dru# activities $ithin the country on the dates
pertinent to this case% If it should Ae ascertained that ,rthur ScalMo $as
actin# $ell $ithin his assi#ned functions $hen he co&&itted the acts
alle#ed in the co&plaint! the present controversy could then Ae resolved
under the related doctrine of State I&&unity fro& Suit%
The 5r,c,56 6ha6 a #6a6, ca11o6 -, 7.,2 81 6h, co.r67 o9 a 9or,8:1
76a6, is a lon#=standin# rule of custo&ary international la$ then closely
identified $ith the personal i&&unity of a forei#n soverei#n fro&
suit
2"
and! $ith the e&er#ence of de&ocratic states! &ade to attach not Dust
to the person of the head of state! or his representative! Aut also distinctly
to the state itself in its soverei#n capacity%
2(
If the acts #ivin# rise to a suit
are those of a forei#n #overn&ent done Ay its forei#n a#ent! althou#h not
necessarily a diplo&atic persona#e! Aut actin# in his official capacity! the
co&plaint could Ae Aarred Ay the i&&unity of the forei#n soverei#n fro&
suit $ithout its consent% Suin# a representative of a state is Aelieved to Ae!
in effect! suin# the state itself% The proscription is not accorded for the
Aenefit of an individual Aut for the State! in $hose service he is! under the
&aIi& = par in pare&! non haAet i&periu& = that all states are soverei#n
eFuals and cannot assert Durisdiction over one another%
22
The i&plication!
in Aroad ter&s! is that if the Dud#&ent a#ainst an official $ould reFuire
the state itself to perfor& an affir&ative act to satisfy the a$ard! such as
the appropriation of the a&ount needed to pay the da&a#es decreed
a#ainst hi&! the suit &ust Ae re#arded as Aein# a#ainst the state itself!
althou#h it has not Aeen for&ally i&pleaded%
27
In -nited States of ,&erica vs% 5uinto!
2:
involvin# officers of the -nited
States ,ir Force and special officers of the ,ir Force Office of Special
Investi#ators char#ed $ith the duty of preventin# the distriAution!
possession and use of prohiAited dru#s! this 1ourt has ruled =
L;hile the doctrine 9of state i&&unity) appears to prohiAit only suits
a#ainst the state $ithout its consent! it is also applicaAle to co&plaints
filed a#ainst officials of the state for acts alle#edly perfor&ed Ay the& in
the dischar#e of their duties% I I I% It cannot for a &o&ent Ae i&a#ined
that they $ere actin# in their private or unofficial capacity $hen they
apprehended and later testified a#ainst the co&plainant% It follo$s that for
dischar#in# their duties as a#ents of the -nited States! they cannot Ae
directly i&pleaded for acts i&putaAle to their principal! $hich has not
#iven its consent to Ae sued% I I I ,s they have acted on Aehalf of the
#overn&ent! and $ithin the scope of their authority! it is that #overn&ent!
and not the petitioners personally! ?$ho $ere@ responsiAle for their
acts%L
2<
This i&&unity principle! ho$ever! has its li&itations% Thus! Shauf vs%
1ourt of ,ppeals
2>
elaAorates'
LIt is a different &atter $here the puAlic official is &ade to account in his
capacity as such for acts contrary to la$ and inDurious to the ri#hts of the
plaintiff% ,s $as clearly set forth Ay Justice 6aldivar in Director of the
3ureau of Teleco&&unications! et al%! vs% ,li#aen! et al% 977 S1R, 7>)'
RInas&uch as the State authoriMes only le#al acts Ay its officers!
unauthoriMed acts of #overn&ent officials or officers are not acts of the
State! and an action a#ainst the officials or officers Ay one $hose ri#hts
have Aeen invaded or violated Ay such acts! for the protection of his
ri#hts! is not a suit a#ainst the State $ithin the rule of i&&unity of the
State fro& suit% In the sa&e tenor! it has Aeen said that an action at la$ or
suit in eFuity a#ainst a State officer or the director of a State depart&ent
on the #round that! $hile clai&in# to act for the State! he violates or
invades the personal and property ri#hts of the plaintiff! under an
unconstitutional act or under an assu&ption of authority $hich he does
not have! is not a suit a#ainst the State $ithin the constitutional provision
that the State &ay not Ae sued $ithout its consent% The rationale for this
rulin# is that the doctrine of state i&&unity cannot Ae used as an
instru&ent for perpetratin# an inDustice%
LI I I I I I I I I
L9T)he doctrine of i&&unity fro& suit $ill not apply and &ay not Ae
invoBed $here the puAlic official is Aein# sued in his private and personal
capacity as an ordinary citiMen% The cloaB of protection afforded the
officers and a#ents of the #overn&ent is re&oved the &o&ent they are
sued in their individual capacity% This situation usually arises $here the
puAlic official acts $ithout authority or in eIcess of the po$ers vested in
hi&% It is a $ell=settled principle of la$ that a puAlic official &ay Ae
liaAle in his personal private capacity for $hatever da&a#e he &ay have
caused Ay his act done $ith &alice and in Aad faith or Aeyond the scope
of his authority and Durisdiction%L
2J
, forei#n a#ent! operatin# $ithin a territory! can Ae cloaBed $ith
i&&unity fro& suit Aut only as lon# as it can Ae estaAlished that he is
actin# $ithin the directives of the sendin# state% The consent of the host
state is an indispensaAle reFuire&ent of Aasic courtesy Aet$een the t$o
soverei#ns% 5uinto and Shauf Aoth involve officers and personnel of the
-nited States! stationed $ithin /hilippine territory! under the R/=-S
Military 3ases ,#ree&ent% ;hile evidence is $antin# to sho$ any
si&ilar a#ree&ent Aet$een the #overn&ents of the /hilippines and of the
-nited States 9for the latter to send its a#ents and to conduct surveillance
and related activities of suspected dru# dealers in the /hilippines)! the
consent or imprimatur of the /hilippine #overn&ent to the activities of
the -nited States Dru# +nforce&ent ,#ency! ho$ever! can Ae #leaned
fro& the facts heretofore else$here &entioned% The official eIchan#es of
co&&unication Aet$een a#encies of the #overn&ent of the t$o countries!
certifications fro& officials of Aoth the /hilippine Depart&ent of Forei#n
,ffairs and the -nited States +&Aassy! as $ell as the participation of
&e&Aers of the /hilippine Narcotics 1o&&and in the LAuy=Aust
operationL conducted at the residence of Minucher at the Aehest of
ScalMo! &ay Ae inadeFuate to support the Ldiplo&atic statusL of the latter
Aut they #ive enou#h indication that the /hilippine #overn&ent has #iven
its imprimatur! if not consent! to the activities $ithin /hilippine territory
of a#ent ScalMo of the -nited States Dru# +nforce&ent ,#ency% The DoA
description of ScalMo has tasBed hi& to conduct surveillance on suspected
dru# suppliers and! after havin# ascertained the tar#et! to infor& local la$
enforcers $ho $ould then Ae eIpected to &aBe the arrest% In conductin#
surveillance activities on Minucher! later actin# as the poseur=Auyer
durin# the Auy=Aust operation! and then Aeco&in# a principal $itness in
the cri&inal case a#ainst Minucher! ScalMo hardly can Ae said to have
acted Aeyond the scope of his official function or duties%
,ll told! this 1ourt is constrained to rule that respondent ,rthur ScalMo!
an a#ent of the -nited States Dru# +nforce&ent ,#ency allo$ed Ay the
/hilippine #overn&ent to conduct activities in the country to help contain
the proAle& on the dru# traffic! is entitled to the defense of state
i&&unity fro& suit%
&HEREF!RE! on the fore#oin# pre&ises! the petition is D+NI+D% No
costs%
SO ORD+R+D%
Davide! Jr%! 1%J%! 91hair&an)! .nares=Santia#o! 1arpio and ,Mcuna! JJ%!
concur