Title
Manotoc, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-62100
Decision Date
May 30, 1986
Accused of estafa, Ricardo Manotoc Jr. sought permission to travel abroad while on bail, but courts and SEC denied his request, citing lack of urgency and bail bond liability. The Supreme Court upheld the denial, ruling the right to travel is not absolute and can be restricted under bail conditions.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-62100)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background and corporate involvement
    • Petitioner Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr. is principal stockholder of Trans-Insular Management, Inc., and co-stockholder of Manotoc Securities, Inc., acting as president of the former.
    • In response to a market “run” on stock brokerages, petitioner and co-stockholders filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) petitions for appointment of management committees for both corporations; SEC granted relief for Manotoc Securities, Inc. (SEC Case No. 001826).
  • Criminal complaints, indictment, and bail
    • After the acceptance of a suspicious Torrens title by Manotoc Securities, six clients filed criminal complaints for estafa against petitioner and corporate officers.
    • Corresponding informations were filed in CFI Rizal: Criminal Cases Nos. 45399–45400 (Judge Camilon) and Nos. 45542–45545 (Judge Pronove). Petitioner was admitted to bail in the aggregate amount of ₱105,000 with FGU Insurance as surety.
  • Motions to travel and initial denials
    • February 4, 1980: SEC requested Immigration not to clear petitioner for departure; Immigration Regulation Division memorandum issued.
    • March 1, 1982: petitioner moved in both trial courts for permission to leave the country for U.S. business; Judges Camilon (Mar. 9) and Pronove (Mar. 26) denied the motions, citing absence of urgency, unspecified duration, and surety risk.
  • Procedural history of appeals
    • Petitioner sought certiorari and mandamus in the Court of Appeals to annul trial-court orders and SEC/Immigration refusals; CA dismissed petition on Oct. 5, 1982.
    • Supreme Court granted review on April 14, 1983. August 15, 1984: petitioner moved for pendente lite travel, attaching U.S. investment invitation and noting dismissal of cases Nos. 45542–45545; CFI Makati amended remaining informations rather than dismiss them.
    • September 20, 1984: SC en banc denied leave to travel pendente lite.

Issues:

  • Whether a person provisionally released on bail has an unrestricted constitutional right to travel abroad.
  • Whether courts or administrative bodies (SEC, Immigration, AVSECOM) may lawfully restrict such travel.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.