G.R. No. 205039 - Spouses Santiago vs. Tulfo

Case Summary (G.R. No. 205039)

Events at NAIA 3 and subsequent media statements

On May 6, 2012 petitioners arrived at NAIA 3 and discovered their baggage had been offloaded. While lodging a complaint at the Cebu Pacific complaint desk, petitioners observed Ramon “Mon” Tulfo taking photos of Claudine. A physical altercation ensued: Raymart confronted Mon and was allegedly punched and kicked; Claudine intervened and was allegedly pushed and kicked; Raymart and Atilano engaged in the scuffle. Airport security intervened and brought the parties to the Airport Police Department. Days later, respondents Raffy, Ben, and Erwin Tulfo allegedly aired comments and expletives against petitioners on their TV program and threatened retaliation, prompting petitioners to file an amparo petition.

Procedural history in the trial court

Filing, temporary protection order, judge reassignment, and dispositions

Petitioners filed a petition for writ of amparo on May 11, 2012 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. On May 23, 2012 Erwin Tulfo filed a Manifestation and Motion to Deny Issuance of Protection Order and/or Dismissal Motu Proprio, which petitioners opposed as a prohibited pleading. On May 24, 2012 the presiding judge (Judge Bayani Vargas) issued a temporary protection order (TPO) in favor of petitioners and directed respondents to file their return/answer. Ben Tulfo filed a return asserting his statements were not actual threats but expressions of sentiment in defense of his brother. Judge Vargas submitted the case for resolution on June 29, 2012 and retired on July 11, 2012; Judge Maria Filomena Singh was thereafter designated to handle the case. In a Resolution dated August 6, 2012, the RTC (Judge Singh) dismissed the petition and dissolved the TPO. A motion for reconsideration was denied by resolution dated January 7, 2013. The dismissal and dissolution were subsequently subject of the present petition for certiorari.

RTC’s reasoning for dismissal

Scope of the writ of amparo and the court’s exercise of discretion

The RTC held that the petition was not a proper subject of the writ of amparo because, under the existing Amparo Rule, the remedy is intended to apply solely to cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, or threats thereof. The RTC explained that the purpose of the amparo remedy is to ascertain whereabouts, recover evidence related to death or disappearance, and determine facts surrounding death or disappearance; the petition did not allege such events. Although the RTC acknowledged that the May 23, 2012 Motion to Dismiss was a prohibited pleading, it concluded it had discretion to dismiss motu proprio when the case is clearly beyond the coverage of the rule so as to avoid wasting judicial and party resources.

Issue presented to the Supreme Court

Central legal question and petitioners’ arguments

The essential issue before the Supreme Court was whether the RTC correctly dismissed petitioners’ amparo petition. Petitioners argued that the writ of amparo is not limited to extrajudicial killings or enforced disappearances, that protection under the writ should extend to threats against life, liberty, and security generally, and that the May 23, 2012 Motion was a prohibited pleading that should not have been entertained or have influenced the dismissal.

Supreme Court’s legal analysis on the scope of amparo

Reliance on Manalo and the procedural Amparo Rule’s explicit scope

The Supreme Court denied the petition. It relied upon Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo and the procedural formulation of the writ in A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC (the Amparo Rule). The Court reiterated that, in its present procedural form, the writ of amparo is confined to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, or threats thereof. The Court reviewed the origins and various formulations of amparo internationally but emphasized that the contextual genesis of the Philippine Amparo Rule limited the remedy to those specific instances. The Court cited Section 1 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, which states that while the petition protects the rights to life, liberty, and security, “the writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof,” and held that the two paragraphs of the section must be read together to harmonize the rule’s intent.

Requirement of government participation and evidentiary burden

Element of state involvement and related authorities

The Court reiterated that an amparo petitioner must prove by substantial evidence the indispensable element of government participation in enforced disappearance and that the same requirement should apply to extralegal killings, given that the Amparo Rule was designed to hold public authorities accountable for human-rights abuses. The Court referenced Navia v. Pardico for the proposition that disappearance claims require proof that the arrest, detention, or abduction was carried out by or with the autho

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 205039)

Case Caption, Citation, and Procedural Posture

G.R. No. 205039; Decision promulgated October 21, 2015; reported at 772 Phil. 203; First Division.
Petition for review on certiorari assails the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (RTC) Resolutions dated August 6, 2012 and January 7, 2013 in SP No. Q-12-71275.
Relief sought by petitioners: reversal of RTC dismissal of their petition for writ of amparo and dissolution of the Temporary Protection Order (TPO) previously issued in their favor.
RTC branches involved: Branch 219 for Resolution dated August 6, 2012; Branch 85 for Resolution dated January 7, 2013.
Supreme Court disposition: petition DENIED and the amparo petition dismissed by the RTC is AFFIRMED.

Factual Background — The Airport Altercation (May 6, 2012)

On May 6, 2012 at around 11:40 a.m., petitioners Rozelle Raymond Martin ("Raymart") and Claudine Margaret Santiago ("Claudine") arrived at Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3 (NAIA 3) aboard a Cebu Pacific flight after a vacation with family and friends.
Petitioners waited for their baggage and were informed that their baggage had been offloaded and transferred to a different flight; petitioners lodged a complaint at the Cebu Pacific complaint desk.
While complaining, petitioners observed a man taking photographs of Claudine with his cellular phone; the man was later identified as Ramon "Mon" Tulfo ("Mon").
Raymart approached Mon and in the ensuing encounter Mon allegedly punched and kicked Raymart, prompting Raymart to fight back.
Claudine approached the commotion; Mon allegedly kicked and pushed her back against the counter.
Raymart rushed to defend Claudine; one Edoardo Benjamin Atilano ("Atilano") joined the brawl.
Several airport security personnel intervened, stopped the altercation, and brought the involved persons to the Airport Police Department for investigation.

Subsequent Conduct by Respondents and Filing of Amparo Petition

Days after the airport incident, respondents Raffy, Ben, and Erwin Tulfo, brothers of Mon, aired comments and expletives against petitioners on their TV program and threatened retaliation.
Petitioners, allegedly terrified by the threats, filed a petition for issuance of a writ of amparo against respondents on May 11, 2012 before the RTC (SP No. Q-12-71275).
On May 23, 2012, respondent Erwin Tulfo filed a Manifestation and Motion to Deny Issuance of Protection Order and/or Dismissal of the Petition Motu Proprio (May 23, 2012 Motion). The May 23 motion is not attached to the rollo.
Petitioners opposed the May 23, 2012 Motion on the ground that it was a prohibited pleading under the Amparo Rule.

RTC Proceedings, Temporary Protection Order, and Returns

On May 24, 2012, then-Presiding Judge Bayani Vargas issued a Resolution granting a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) in favor of petitioners and directed respondents to file their return/answer. (The May 24 Resolution is not attached to the rollo; the grant is recorded at rollo, p. 42.)
In their return/answer, Ben Tulfo claimed his statements did not constitute any actual threat and characterized them as expressions of strong sentiments to defend his brother. (Ben's return/answer is not attached to the rollo; the substance is summarized at rollo, pp. 13-14.)
On June 29, 2012, Judge Vargas submitted the case for resolution; Judge Vargas retired on July 11, 2012.
Judge Maria Filomena Singh was designated as Acting Presiding Judge and assumed office to handle the case.

RTC Resolution Dismissing the Amparo Petition (August 6, 2012)

Acting Presiding Judge Maria Filomena D. Singh issued a Resolution dated August 6, 2012 dismissing the petition for writ of amparo and ordering dissolution of the TPO.
The RTC held that the petition was not a proper subject of a writ of amparo because the Amparo Rule, as presently formulated, is intended to apply solely to cases of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, noting that the rule’s purposes include ascertaining the whereabouts of an aggrieved party, recovering evidence related to death or disappearance, and determining the facts surrounding a death or disappearance.
The RTC concluded it lacked authority to issue the writ in favor of petitioners given the limited scope of the Amparo Rule.
Although acknowledging the May 23, 2012 Motion was a motion to dismiss and thus a prohibited pleading, the RTC explained it retained discretion to dismiss the case motu proprio when, on its own determination, the case is not covered by the Amparo Rule.
The RTC rationalized that the prohibition against motions to dismiss aims to expedite proceedings and avoid a waste of time and resources; accordingly, if the court determines from the outset that the remedy cannot be granted, it may dismiss to prevent moot or purely academic litigation.

Petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration and RTC Denial (January 7, 2013)

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the August 6, 2012 Resolution; the motion is not attached to the rollo.
The RTC denied the motion for