Manotoc vs. CA (May 30, 1986)

Manotoc vs. CA | May 30, 1986

FACTS:

Ricardo Manotoc Jr. was one of the two principal stockholders of Trans-Insular Management Inc. and the Manotoc Securities Inc. (stock brokerage house).  He was in US for a certain time, went home to file a petition with SEC for appointment of a management committee for both businesses.  Such was granted.  However, pending disposition of a case filed with SEC, the latter requested the Commissioner of Immigration not to clear him for departure.  Consequently, a memorandum to this effect was issued.

There was a torrens title submitted to and accepted by Manotoc Securities Inc which was suspected to be fake.  6 of its clients filed separate criminal complaints against the petitioner and Leveriza, President and VP respectively.  He was charged with estafa and was allowed by the Court to post bail.

Petitioner filed before each trial court motion for permission to leave the country stating his desire to go to US relative to his business transactions and opportunities.  Such was opposed by the prosecution and was also denied by the judges.  He filed petition for certiorari with CA seeking to annul the prior orders and the SEC communication request denying his leave to travel abroad.

According to the petitioner, having been admitted to bail as a matter of right, neither the courts that granted him bail nor SEC, which has no jurisdiction over his liberty, could prevent him from exercising his constitutional right to travel.

ISSUE: WON petitioner’s constitutional right to travel was violated.

HELD: NO. 

The court has power to prohibit person admitted to bail from leaving the country because this is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond.  The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his constitutional right to travel.  In case he will be allowed to leave the country without sufficient reason, he may be placed beyond the reach of courts. 

Furthermore, petitioner failed to satisfy trial court and CA of the urgency of his travel, duration thereof, as well as consent of his surety to the proposed travel.  He was not able to show the necessity of his travel abroad.  He never indicated that no other person in his behalf could undertake such business transaction.

Article 3 Sec6: “The liberty of abode and of changing the same… shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court….”  According to SC, the order of trial court in releasing petitioner on bail constitutes such lawful order as contemplated by the provision on right to travel.