7/28/2019 50924776 Minucher v CA Digest
2/2
diplomatic personage, but acting in his official capacity,
thecomplaint could be barred by the immunity of the foreign
sovereignfrom suit without its consent. Suing a representative of a
state isbelieved to be, in effect, suing the state itself. The
proscription isnot accorded for the benefit of an individual but
for the State, inwhose service he is, under the maxim - par in
parem, non habetimperium - that all states are sovereign equals and
cannot assertjurisdiction over one another.
22The implication, in broad terms, is
that if the judgment against an official would require the state
itselfto perform an affirmative act to satisfy the award, such as
theappropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages
decreed
against him, the suit must be regarded as being against the
stateitself, although it has not been formally impleaded.
(T)he doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply andmay not
be invoked where the public official is being sued in hisprivate
and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. The cloak
ofprotection afforded the officers and agents of the government
isremoved the moment they are sued in their individual
capacity.This situation usually arises where the public official
acts withoutauthority or in excess of the powers vested in him. It
is a well-settled principle of law that a public official may be
liable in hispersonal private capacity for whatever damage he may
havecaused by his act done with malice and in bad faith or beyond
thescope of his authority and jurisdiction."
Indeed, a foreign agent, operating within a territory, canbe
cloaked with immunity from suit but only as long as it can
beestablished that he is acting within the directives of the
sendingstate. The consent of the host state is an
indispensablerequirement of basic courtesy between the two
sovereigns.
While evidence is wanting to show any similar agreementbetween
the governments of the Philippines and of the UnitedStates (for the
latter to send its agents and to conduct surveillanceand related
activities of suspected drug dealers in the Philippines),the
consent orimpr imaturof the Philippine government to theactivities
of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency,however, can be
gleaned from the facts heretofore elsewhere
mentioned. The official exchanges of communication
betweenagencies of the government of the two
countries,certifications from officials of both the Philippine
Departmentof Foreign Affairs and the United States Embassy, as well
asthe participation of members of the Philippine NarcoticsCommand
in the "buy-bust operation" conducted at theresidence of Minucher
at the behest of Scalzo, may beinadequate to support the
"diplomatic status" of the latter butthey give enough indication
that the Philippine governmenthas given its impr imatur, if not
consent, to the activitieswithin Philippine territory of agent
Scalzo of the United StatesDrug Enforcement Agency. The job
description of Scalzo hastasked him to conduct surveillance on
suspected drug suppliersand, after having ascertained the target,
to inform local lawenforcers who would then be expected to make the
arrest. In
conducting surveillance activities on Minucher, later acting as
theposeur-buyer during the buy-bust operation, and then becoming
aprincipal witness in the criminal case against Minucher,
Scalzohardly can be said to have acted beyond the scope of his
officialfunction or duties.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/feb2003/gr_142396_2003.html#fnt22
