Case Digest (G.R. No. 184467)
Facts:
Navia, Dio, and Buising v. Pardico, G.R. No. 184467, June 19, 2012, the Supreme Court En Banc, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Edgardo Navia, Ruben Dio, and Andrew Buising are security guards employed by Asian Land (also referred to as Asian Land Security Agency/Grand Royale Security Agency); respondent Virginia Pardico filed the amparo petition on behalf of her missing husband, Benhur V. Pardico. The dispute centers on Benhur’s disappearance after he and Enrique Lapore (Bong) were confronted by the security guards on the night of March 31, 2008 in Grand Royale Subdivision, Malolos City.
On March 31, 2008 Asian Land security personnel went to the residence of Lolita Lapore after receiving a report that Bong and Benhur had been seen removing a lamp. Bong and Benhur were brought to the subdivision’s security office for questioning. Petitioners’ version is that Bong and Benhur voluntarily accompanied the guards, admitted taking a lamp, and were released that same night with logbook entries and signatures by Benhur and Lolita showing release. Respondent’s version is that Bong and Benhur were arrested, Benhur was physically assaulted by Navia, and that Lolita was induced to sign logbook entries without reading them; Lolita last saw Benhur left in petitioners’ custody and Benhur was thereafter missing.
Virginia Pardico filed a Petition for Writ of Amparo in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Malolos City. The RTC found the petition sufficient in form and substance, issued a writ of amparo (Order dated June 26, 2008) directing the petitioners to produce the body of Benhur and commanding a Temporary Protection Order among other reliefs; the writ was served June 27, 2008. A summary hearing was held; petitioners filed a verified return and a compliance. On July 24, 2008 the RTC (Judge Oscar C. Herrera, Jr.) granted the amparo petition and ordered the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to conduct a deep investigation into the petitioners and directed the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan to investigate the legality of Benhur’s arrest. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on August 29, 2008.
Petitioners brought the matter to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45), assailing the sufficiency of the amparo petition and contending that resp...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC gravely err in ruling that respondent is entitled to the writ of amparo?
- Did respondent establish that petitioners committed or are committing acts in violation of Benhur’s right to life, liberty, or security?
- Did respondent sufficiently establish that Benhur Pardico was disappeared at the ins...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)