\.||~..ce:c.c .- [u|~: - c~-e J.

ge-r
G.R. No. L-14639 March 25, 1919ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL. vs. JUSTO LUKBAN, ET AL.

Issue:

The writ oI Habeas Corpus was Iiled by the petitioner, with the prayer that the respondent produce around 170 women whom
Justo Lukban et, al deported to Davao. Liberty oI abode was also raised versus the power oI the executive oI the Municipality
in deporting the women without their knowledge in his capacity as Mayor.

Facts:

Justo Lukban as Manila City's Mayor together with Anton Hohmann, the city's ChieI oI Police, took custody oI about 170
women at the night oI October 25 beyond the latters consent and knowledge and thereaIter were shipped to Mindanao
speciIically in Davao where they were signed as laborers. Said women are inmates oI the houses oI prostitution situated in
Gardenia Street, in the district oI Sampaloc.

That when the petitioner Iiled Ior habeas corpus, the respondent moved to dismiss the case saying that those women were
already out oI their jurisdiction and that , it should be Iiled in the city oI Davao instead.

The court ruled in Iavor oI the petitioner with the instructions;

For the respondents to have IulIilled the court's order, three optional courses were open: (1) They could have produced the
bodies oI the persons according to the command oI the writ; or (2) they could have shown by aIIidavit that on account oI
sickness or inIirmity those persons could not saIely be brought beIore the court; or (3) they could have presented aIIidavits to
show that the parties in question or their attorney waived the right to be present.

Held:

The court concluded the case by granting the parties aggrieved the sum oI 400 pesos each, plus 100 pesos Ior
nominal damage due to contempt oI court. Reasoning Iurther that iI the chieI executive oI any municipality in the Philippines
could Iorcibly and illegally take a private citizen and place him beyond the boundaries oI the municipality, and then, when
called upon to deIend his oIIicial action, could calmly Iold his hands and claim that the person was under no restraint and that
he, the oIIicial, had no jurisdiction over this other municipality.
We believe the true principle should be that, iI the respondent is within the jurisdiction oI the court and has it in his power to
obey the order oI the court and thus to undo the wrong that he has inIlicted, he should be compelled to do so. Even iI
the party to whom the writ is addressed has illegally parted with the custody oI a person beIore the application Ior the writ is no
reason why the writ should not issue. II the mayor and the chieI oI police, acting under no authority oI law, could deport these
women Irom the city oI Manila to Davao, the same oIIicials must necessarily have the same means to return them Irom Davao
to Manila. The respondents, within the reach oI process, may not be permitted to restrain a Iellow citizen oI her liberty by
Iorcing her to change her domicile and to avow the act with impunity in the courts, while the person who has lost her birthright
oI liberty has no eIIective recourse. The great writ oI liberty may not thus be easily evaded.