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 petitioners 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.