G.R.No.182165.November25,2009.

P/SUPT.FELIXBERTOCASTILLO,POLICEOFFICERSROMEO
BAGTAS, RUPERTO BORLONGAN, EDMUNDO DIONISIO,
RONNIE MORALES, ARNOLD TRIA, and GILBERTO
PUNZALAN,ENGR.RICASOLP.MILLAN,ENGR.REDENTOR
S. DELA CRUZ, MR. ANASTACIO L. BORLONGAN, MR.
ARTEMIO ESGUERRA, TISOY, and JOHN DOES, petitioners,
vs.DR.AMANDAT.CRUZ,NIXONT.CRUZ,andFERDINAND
T.CRUZ,respondents.

Writ of Amparo Writ of Habeas Data The coverage of the writs is

limited to the protection of rights to life, liberty and security The writs
cover not only actual but also threats of unlawful acts or omissions.The
coverageofthewritsislimitedtotheprotectionofrightstolife,libertyand
security. And the writs cover not only actual but also threats of unlawful
actsoromissions.
SameSameTobecoveredbytheprivilegeofthewrits,respondentmust
meetthethresholdrequirementthattheirrighttolife,libertyandsecurityis
violated or threatened with an unlawful act or omission.To thus be
covered by the privilege of the writs, respondents must meet the threshold
requirement that their right to life, liberty and security is violated or
threatened with an unlawful act or omission. Evidently, the present
controversy arose out of a property dispute between the Provincial
Government and respondents. Absent any considerable nexus between the
acts complained of and its effect on respondents right to life, liberty and
security, the Court will not delve on the propriety of petitioners entry into
theproperty.
Same Same Absent any evidence or even an allegation in the petition
thatthereisundueandcontinuingrestraintontheirlibertyand/orthatthere
exists threat or intimidation that destroys the efficacy of their right to be
secure in their persons, the issuance of the writ cannot be justified.
Althoughrespondentsreleasefromconfinementdoesnotnecessarilyhinder
supplication for the writ of amparo, absent any evidence or even an
allegationinthepetition

_______________

*ENBANC.

629
thatthereisundueandcontinuingrestraintontheirliberty,and/orthatthere
exists threat or intimidation that destroys the efficacy of their right to be
secureintheirpersons,theissuanceofthewritcannotbejustified.
Same Same Petitions for writs of amparo and habeas data are
extraordinaryremedieswhichcannotbeusedastoolstostalltheexecution
of a final and executory decision in a property dispute.It need not be
underlined that respondents petitions for writs of amparo and habeasdata
are extraordinary remedies which cannot be used as tools to stall the
executionofafinalandexecutorydecisioninapropertydispute.
Same Same Validity of the arrest or the proceedings conducted
thereafterisadefensethatmaybesetupbyrespondentsduringtrialandnot
before a petition for writs of amparo and habeas data.At all events,
respondents filing of the petitions for writs of amparo and habeas data
should have been barred, for criminal proceedings against them had
commenced after they were arrested in flagrante delicto and proceeded
against in accordance with Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.
Validityofthearrestortheproceedingsconductedthereafterisadefensethat
maybesetupbyrespondentsduringtrialandnotbeforeapetitionforwrits
ofamparoandhabeasdata.Thereliefsaffordedbythewritsmay,however,
be made available to the aggrieved party by motion in the criminal
proceedings.

PETITIONintheSupreme Court for Issuance of Writs of Amparo

andHabeasData.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
JeffreyC.Cruzforpetitioners.
FranciscoGalmanCruzforrespondents.

629

CARPIOMORALES,J.:
Petitioners,1employeesandmembersofthelocalpoliceforceof
the City Government of Malolos, challenge the March 28, 2008
DecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofMalolos,Branch10
in a petition for issuance of writs of amparo and habeas data
institutedbyrespondents.
Thefactualantecedents.
Respondent Amanda Cruz (Amanda) who, along with her
husbandFranciscoG.Cruz(SpousesCruz),leasedaparcelofland
situated at Barrio Guinhawa, Malolos (the property), refused to
vacate the property, despite demands by the lessor Provincial
Government of Bulacan (the Province) which intended to utilize it
forlocalprojects.
TheProvincethusfiledacomplaintforunlawfuldetaineragainst
the Spouses Cruz before the then Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of
Bulacan,Bulacan.
ByDecisionofSeptember5,1997,theMTCrenderedjudgment
againsttheSpousesCruz,whichjudgment,followingitsaffirmance
bytheRTC,becamefinalandexecutory.
The finality of the decision in the ejectment case
notwithstanding, the spouses Cruz refused to vacate the property.
TheythereuponfiledcasesagainsttheProvince2andthe

_______________

1 P/Supt. Felixberto Castillo (Chief of Police), SPO1 Romeo Bagtas, SPO3

RupertoBorlongan,POEdmundoDionisio,PORonnieMorales,POArnoldTriaand
PO Gilberto Punzalan (police officers), Engineer Ricasol Millan (Chief, City
Engineers Office) Engineer Redentor S. dela Cruz (City Engineers Office),
Anastacio Borlongan (City Administrator), Artemio Esguerra and Rolando Tisoy
Cruz.
2 Petition for Annulment of Judgment with prayer for Writ of Preliminary
InjunctionbeforeRTCMalolosPetitionforCertioraribeforetheCourtofAppeals,
questioningthedenialofSpousesCruzesmotionforinhibitionagainstthePresiding
JudgeofBranch18,RTCMalolosComplaintforDamagesbeforeRTCQuezonCity,
CivilCaseforInjunctionbeforeRTCMalolos.

631

judges who presided over the case.3 Those cases were dismissed
except their petition for annulment of judgment lodged before
Branch 18 of the RTC of Malolos, and a civil case for injunction
833M2004lodgedbeforeBranch10ofthesameRTCMalolos.
TheSpousesCruzsoughtinthecaseforinjunctiontheissuance
of a permanent writ of injunction to prevent the execution of the
finalandexecutoryjudgmentagainstthem.
ByOrderofJuly19,2005,theRTC,findingmeritintheSpouses
Cruzes allegation that subsequent events changed the situation of
the parties to justify a suspension of the execution of the final and
executory judgment, issued a permanent writ of injunction, the
dispositiveportionofwhichreads:

WHEREFORE,theforegoingpetitionersMotionforReconsideration
of the Order dated August 10, 2004 is hereby GRANTED. Order dated
August 10, 2004 is hereby RECONSIDERED and SETASIDE. Further,
the verified petition dated November 05, 2002 are hereby REINSTATED
and MADE PERMANENT until the MTCBulacan, Bulacan finally
resolves the pending motions of petitioners with the same determines the
metesandbounds of 400 sq. meters leased premises subject matter of this
casewithimmediatedispatch.Accordingly,REMANDthedeterminationof
the issues raised by the petitioners on the issued writ of demolition to the
MTCofBulacan,Bulacan.
SOORDERED.4(Emphasisintheoriginalunderscoringsupplied)

_______________
 3 Criminal Complaint against Presiding Judge of Branch 18 RTCMalolos,
dismissedbyResolutionofMay3,2004AdministrativeComplaintdocketedasA.M.
No.CA0438againstCourtofAppealsJusticePortiaA.Hormachuelos,RTCJudges
VictoriaC.FernandezBernardo,RenatoC.Francisco,ManuelDJ Siayngco, Caesar
A. Casanova and MTC Judge Ester R. ChuaYu. The complaint was dismissed by
Resolution of March 31, 2004. Cruz was found guilty of contempt of court and
consequentlyfinedintheamountofP20,000.00.
4Rollo,p.171.

632

FindingthatthefallooftheRTCJuly19,2005Ordertreats,as
a suspensive condition for the lifting of the permanent injunction,
the determination of the boundaries of the property, the Province
returned the issue for the consideration of the MTC. In a Geodetic
Engineers Report submitted to the MTC on August 31, 2007, the
metesandboundsofthepropertywereindicated.
TheMTC,byOrderofJanuary2,2008,approvedtheReportand
ruled that the permanent injunction which the RTC issued is
ineffective. On motion of the Province, the MTC, by Order of
January21,2008,thusissuedaSecondAliasWritofDemolition.
On receiving notice of the January 2, 2008 MTC Order, the
Spouses Cruz filed a motion before Branch 10 of the RTC for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) which it set for
hearingonJanuary25,2008onwhichdate,however,thedemolition
had,earlierintheday,beenimplemented.Suchnotwithstanding,the
RTC issued a TRO.5 The Spouses Cruz, along with their sons
respondents Nixon and Ferdinand, thereupon entered the property,
placed several container vans and purportedly represented
themselvesasownersofthepropertywhichwasforlease.
On February 21, 2008, petitioners Police Superintendent
FelixbertoCastilloetal.,whoweredeployedbytheCityMayorin
compliance with a memorandum issued by Governor Joselito R.
Mendoza instructing him to protect, secure and maintain the
possessionoftheproperty,enteredtheproperty.
Amandaandhercorespondentsrefusedtoturnovertheproperty,
however. Insisting that the RTC July 19, 2005 Order of Permanent
Injunction enjoined the Province from repossessing it, they shoved
petitioners,forcingthelatterto

_______________

5Id.,atpp.151153.

633

arrestthemandcausetheirindictmentfordirectassault,trespassing
andotherformsoflightthreats.
 RespondentslaterfiledonMarch3,2008aRespectfulMotion
PetitionforWritofAmparoandHabeasData,docketedasSpecial
Civil Action No. 53M2008, which was coincidentally raffled to
Branch10oftheRTCMalolos.
Respondents averred that despite the Permanent Injunction,
petitioners unlawfully entered the property with the use of heavy
equipment,toredownthebarbedwirefencesandtents,6andarrested
themwhentheyresistedpetitionersentryandthatasearlyasinthe
evening of February 20, 2008, members of the Philippine National
Policehadalreadycampedinfrontoftheproperty.
Onthebasisofrespondentsallegationsintheirpetitionandthe
supporting affidavits, the RTC, by Order of March 4, 2008, issued
writsofamparoandhabeasdata.7
TheRTC,creditingrespondentsversioninthiswise:

Petitioners have shown by preponderant evidence that the facts and

circumstancesoftheallegedoffensesexaminedintoonWritsofAmparoand
Habeas Data that there have been an ongoing hearings on the verified
Petition for Contempt, docketed as Special Proceedings No. 306M2006,
beforethisCourtforallegedviolationbytherespondentsofthePreliminary
Injunction Order dated July 16, 2005 [sic] in Sp. Civil Action No. 833M
2002, hearings were held on January 25, 2008, February 12 and 19, 2008,
wheretherespondentsprayedforanApril22,2008continuance,however,in
the pitch darkness of February 20, 2008, police officers, some personnel
fromtheEngineeringdepartment,andsomeciviliansproceededpurposelyto
the Pinoy Compound, converged therein and with continuing threats of
bodilyharmanddangerandstonethrowingoftheroofsofthehomesthereat
fromvoicesarounditspremises,onapretextofanordinarypoliceoperation
whenenterviewed[sic]bythemediathenpresent,butat8:00a.m.tolatein
theafternoonofFebruary21,

_______________

6Id.,atp.173,SamaSamangSinumpaangSalaysay.
7Id.,atpp.178180.

634

2008, zoomed in on the petitioners, subjecting them to bodily harm, mental

torture, degradation, and the debasement of a human being, reminiscent of
themartiallawpolicebrutality,sendingchillinanyordinarycitizen,8

rendered judgment, by Decision of March 28, 2008, in favor of

respondents,disposingasfollows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commitment Orders and

waiversinCrim.CasesNos.0877forDirectassaultCrim.CaseNo.0877
forOtherFormsofTrespass and Crim. Case No. 0878 for Light Threats
areherebyDECLAREDillegal,nullandvoid,aspetitionersweredeprived
of their substantial rights, induced by duress or a wellfounded fear of
personal violence. Accordingly, the commitment orders and waivers are
hereby SET ASIDE. The temporary release of the petitioners is declared
ABSOLUTE.
Withoutanypronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.9(Emphasisintheoriginalunderscoringsupplied)

Hence,thepresentpetitionforreviewoncertiorari,pursuantto
Section1910ofTheRuleontheWritofAmparo(A.M.No.07912
SC),11 which is essentially reproduced in the Rule on the Writ of
HabeasData(A.M.No.08116SC).12
Inthemain,petitionersfaulttheRTCfor

giving due course and issuing writs of amparo and habeas data when
fromtheallegationsofthepetition,thesameoughtnottohave

_______________

8Id.,atpp.127128.
9Id.,atp.131.
10Sec.19.Appeal.Any party may appeal from the final judgment or order to the
SupremeCourtunder Rule 45. The appeal may raise questions of facts or law or both. The
period of appeal shall be five (5) working days from the date of notice of the adverse
judgment.Theappealshallbegiventhesamepriorityashabeascorpuscases.
11TookeffectonOctober24,2007.
12TookeffectonFebruary2,2008.

635

beenissuedas(1)thepetitionin[sic]insufficientinsubstanceasthesame
involves property rights and (2) criminal cases had already been filed and
pending with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, City of
Malolos.(Underscoringsupplied)

Thepetitionisimpressedwithmerit.
The Court is, under the Constitution, empowered to promulgate
rulesfortheprotectionandenforcementofconstitutionalrights.13In
view of the heightening prevalence of extrajudicial killings and
enforceddisappearances,theRuleontheWritofAmparowasissued
and took effect on October 24, 2007 which coincided with the
celebration of United Nations Day and affirmed the Courts
commitment towards internationalization of human rights. More
thanthreemonthslateroronFebruary2,2008,theRuleontheWrit
ofHabeasDatawaspromulgated.
Section1oftheRuleontheWritofAmparoprovides:

Section1.Petition.The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy

available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is
violatedorthreatenedwithviolationbyanunlawfulactoromissionofa
public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. The writ
shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats
thereof.(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)

Section1oftheRuleontheWritofHabeasDataprovides:

Section1.Habeas Data.The writ of habeas data is a remedy

availabletoanypersonwhoserighttoprivacyinlife,libertyorsecurityis
violatedorthreatenedbyanunlawfulactoromissionofapublicofficial
or employee or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering,
collectingorstoringofdataorinformationregardingtheperson,family,
home and correspondence of the aggrieved party. (Emphasis and
underscoringsupplied)

_______________

13ArticleVIII,Section5(5).

636

From the abovequoted provisions, the coverage of the writs is

limitedtotheprotectionofrightstolife,libertyandsecurity. And
the writs cover not only actual but also threats of unlawful acts or
omissions.
SecretaryofNationalDefensev.Manalo14teaches:

AstheAmparoRulewasintendedtoaddresstheintractableproblemof
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, its coverage, in its
present form, is confined to these two instances or to threats thereof.
Extralegal killings are killings committed without due process of law,
i.e., without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings. On the other hand,
enforced disappearances are attended by the following characteristics: an
arrest, detention or abduction of a person by a government official or
organized groups or private individuals acting with the direct or indirect
acquiescence of the government the refusal of the State to disclose the fate
or whereabouts of the person concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the
deprivation of liberty which places such persons outside the protection of
law.15(Underscoringsupplied,citationsomitted)

To thus be covered by the privilege of the writs, respondents

must meet the threshold requirement that their right to life, liberty
and security is violated or threatened with an unlawful act or
omission.Evidently,thepresentcontroversyaroseoutofaproperty
disputebetweentheProvincialGovernmentandrespondents.Absent
anyconsiderablenexusbetweentheactscomplainedofanditseffect
onrespondentsrighttolife,libertyandsecurity,theCourtwillnot
delveontheproprietyofpetitionersentryintotheproperty.
AproposistheCourtsrulinginTapuzv.DelRosario:16

Tostartoffwiththebasics,thewritofamparowasoriginallyconceived
asaresponsetotheextraordinaryriseinthenumberofkillingsandenforced
disappearances,andtotheperceivedlackof

_______________

14G.R.No.180906,October7,2008,568SCRA1.
15Id.,atpp.3839.
16G.R.No.182484,June17,2008,554SCRA768.

637

availableandeffectiveremediestoaddresstheseextraordinaryconcerns.Itis
intended to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or
security,asanextraordinaryandindependentremedybeyondthoseavailable
under the prevailing Rules, or as a remedy supplemental to these Rules.
Whatitisnot,isawrittoprotectconcernsthatarepurelypropertyor
commercial. Neither is it a writ that we shall issue on amorphous and
uncertaingrounds.Consequently,theRuleontheWritofAmparoinline
withtheextraordinarycharacterofthewritandthereasonablecertaintythat
its issuance demandsrequires that every petition for the issuance of the
writmustbesupportedbyjustifyingallegationsoffact,towit:
xxxx
ThewritshallissueiftheCourtispreliminarilysatisfiedwiththeprima
facie existence of the ultimate facts determinable from the supporting
affidavitsthatdetailthecircumstancesofhowandtowhatextentathreatto
or violation of the rights to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party
wasorisbeingcommitted.17(Emphasisanditalicsintheoriginal,citation
omitted)

Tapuzalsoaroseoutofapropertydispute,albeitbetweenprivate
individuals, with the petitioners therein branding as acts of
terrorism the therein respondents alleged entry into the disputed
landwitharmedmenintow.TheCourtthereinheld:

On the whole, what is clear from these statementsboth sworn and

unswornis the overriding involvement of property issues as the petition
tracesitsrootstoquestionsofphysicalpossessionofthepropertydisputed
bytheprivateparties.Ifatall,issuesrelatingtotherighttolifeortoliberty
can hardly be discerned except to the extent that the occurrence of past
violencehasbeenalleged.Therighttosecurity,ontheotherhand,isalleged
onlytotheextentofthetreatsandharassmentsimpliedfromthepresenceof
armed men bare to the waist and the alleged pointing and firing of
weapons.Notably, none of the supporting affidavits compellingly show
thatthethreattotherightstolife,libertyand

_______________

17Id.,atpp.784785.

638
securityofthepetitionersisimminentorcontinuing.18(Emphasisinthe
originalunderscoringsupplied)

It bears emphasis that respondents petition did not show any

actual violation, imminent or continuing threat to their life, liberty
andsecurity.Bareallegationsthatpetitionersinunison,conspiracy
and in contempt of court, there and then willfully, forcibly and
feloniously with the use of force and intimidation entered and
forcibly, physically manhandled the petitioners (respondents) and
arrested the herein petitioners (respondents)19 will not suffice to
prove entitlement to the remedy of the writ of amparo. No undue
confinement or detention was present. In fact, respondents were
evenabletopostbailfortheoffensesadayaftertheirarrest.20
Although respondents release from confinement does not
necessarily hinder supplication for the writ of amparo, absent any
evidenceorevenanallegationinthepetitionthatthereisundueand
continuingrestraintontheirliberty,and/orthatthereexiststhreator
intimidationthatdestroystheefficacyoftheirrighttobesecurein
theirpersons,theissuanceofthewritcannotbejustified.
That respondents are merely seeking the protection of their
propertyrightsisgatheredfromtheirJointAffidavit,viz.:

xxxx
11.Kamiayhumarangathumigasaharapngmgaheavyequipmentna
hawak hawak ang nasabing kautusan ng RTC Branch 10 (PERMANENT
INJUNCTION at RTC ORDERS DATED February 12, 17 at 19 2008)
upangipaglabanangdignidadngkautusanngkorte,ipaglabanangprinsipyo
ng SELFHELP at batas ukol sa PROPERTY RIGHTS, Wala kaming
nagawa ipagtanggol ang aming karapatan sa lupa na 45 years naming IN
POSSESSION.(Underscoringsupplied)

_______________

18Id.,atp.786.
19Rollo,p.94.
20Ibid.

639

Oddly, respondents also seek the issuance of a writ of habeas

data when it is not even alleged that petitioners are gathering,
collecting or storing data or information regarding their person,
family,homeandcorrespondence.
As for respondents assertion of past incidents21 wherein the
Province allegedly violated the Permanent Injunction order, these
incidents were already raised in the injunction proceedings on
account of which respondents filed a case for criminal contempt
againstpetitioners.22
 Beforethefilingofthepetitionforwritsofamparoandhabeas
data,oronFebruary22,2008,petitionerseveninstitutedapetition
for habeas corpus which was considered moot and academic by
Branch14oftheMalolosRTCandwasaccordinglydeniedbyOrder
ofApril8,2008.
More. Respondent Amanda and one of her sons, Francisco Jr.,
likewisefiledapetitionforwritsofamparoandhabeasdatabefore
the Sandiganbayan, they alleging the commission of continuing
threats by petitioners after the issuance of the writs by the RTC,
whichpetitionwasdismissedforinsufficiencyandforumshopping.
It thus appears that respondents are not without recourse and
haveinfacttakenfulladvantageofthelegalsystemwiththefiling
ofcivil,criminalandadministrativecharges.23
It need not be underlined that respondents petitions for writs of
amparo and habeas data are extraordinary remedies which cannot
be used as tools to stall the execution of a final and executory
decisioninapropertydispute.
ATALLEVENTS,respondentsfilingofthepetitionsforwrits
of amparo and habeas data should have been barred, for criminal
proceedingsagainstthemhadcommencedafterthey

_______________

21Id.,atp.95.
22DocketedasSp.CivilActionNo.306M2006,Id.,atpp.409411.
23VideNotes2and3.

640

were arrested in flagrante delicto and proceeded against in

accordance with Section 6, Rule 11224 of the Rules of Court.
Validity of the arrest or the proceedings conducted thereafter is a
defensethatmaybesetupbyrespondentsduringtrialandnotbefore
apetitionforwritsofamparoandhabeasdata.Thereliefsafforded
bythewritsmay,however,bemadeavailabletotheaggrievedparty
bymotioninthecriminalproceedings.25
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The challenged
March 4, 2008 Order of Branch 10 of the Regional Trial Court of
MalolosisDECLAREDNULLANDVOID,anditsMarch28,2008
DecisionisREVERSEDandSETASIDE.SpecialCivilActionNo.
53M2008isDISMISSED.
SOORDERED.

Puno (C.J.), Carpio, ChicoNazario, Nachura, LeonardoDe

Castro,Brion,Bersamin,DelCastillo,Abadand
Villarama,Jr.,JJ.,concur.
Corona,Velasco,Jr.andPeralta,JJ.,OnOfficialLeave.
 Petition granted, Order of Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Br.
10 dated March 4, 2008 declared null and void and its March 28,
2008decisionreversedandsetaside.

_______________

24 When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense,

whichrequiresapreliminaryinvestigation,thecomplaintorinformationmaybefiled
by a prosecutor without need of such investigation provided an inquest has been
conductedinaccordancewithexistingRules. In the absence or unavailability of an
inquestprosecutor,thecomplaintmaybefiledbytheoffendedpartyorapeaceofficer
directly with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or
arrestingofficerorperson.xxx
25Section22.EffectofFilingofaCriminalAction.Whena criminal action
hasbeencommenced,noseparatepetitionforthewritshallbefiled.Thereliefsunder
the writ shall be made available by motion in the criminal case. x x x (The same
sectionisreproducedintheRulesontheWritofHabeasData,alsoatSection22).

641

Note.Thewritofhabeascorpus applies to all cases of illegal

confinement or detention in which individuals are deprived of
liberty.Itisawritofinquiryintendedtotestthecircumtancesunder
which a person is detained. (Go vs. Dimagiba, 460 SCRA 451
[2005])
o0o

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.