Title
Spouses Pador vs. Arcayan
Case
G.R. No. 183460
Decision Date
Mar 12, 2013
Petitioners alleged threats to life, liberty, and security due to a raid, invitation letters, and harassment. SC denied writ of amparo, citing insufficient evidence and inapplicability to property concerns.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 183460)

Background of the Case

The Petition for Review on Certiorari arose from a Resolution of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which denied the Petition for a Writ of Amparo filed by the petitioners, the Pador spouses and Rey Pador. The case was initiated following allegations against Nerio Pador of being involved in marijuana cultivation, prompting a raid on his ampalaya farm by respondents which yielded no evidence of drug-related activities.

Allegations by Petitioners

The petitioners contended that unfounded rumors about Nerio being a marijuana planter led to a harassment campaign initiated by respondents. Following the raid on their farm, they received letters from Barangay Captain Arcayan inviting them to a conference. Subsequently, when they sent a letter reply, the Barangay Captain reportedly refused to sign the receipt of the document. The petitioners claimed these actions, combined with the context of the raid and the perceived threat of further harassment, infringed upon their rights to life, liberty, and security, thus warranting the issuance of a Writ of Amparo.

Respondents’ Counter-Narrative

Respondents countered that a report regarding a marijuana plantation led to a legitimate patrol organized by the barangay tanods, aimed at investigating those claims. They highlighted that the patrol was not aimed at the Pador's farm directly but occurred near it. The respondents asserted that the actions taken by them were justified given the allegations of threats and violence made by Nerio Pador against some of the barangay tanods, which were documented and reported among their ranks.

RTC Findings and Ruling

The RTC found that the allegations put forth by the petitioners were based largely on hearsay and speculation. In its Resolution, the RTC noted that the respondents had adequately justified their actions related to the issuance of the invitation letters and the patrol. Furthermore, the RTC denied the petitioners’ request for a Writ of Amparo, emphasizing that there was insufficient evidence proving a violation or threat to the petitioners' rights as claimed.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Conclusion

Upon review, the Supreme Court upheld the RTC's ruling, affirming that the petitioners did not meet the requisite burden of proof establishing that their rights to life, liberty, and security had been violated by the respondents. The Court elaborat

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.