Minucher v CA

Doctrine:
Filing a motion to quash, which, in effect already waives 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.
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.