Tapuz Vs Del Rosario GR No 182484 17 June 2008

Facts: This is a petition for certiorari against the issuance of the writ of amparo and habeas
data filed by Daniel Masangkay Tapuz, et al.(Petitioners), against the presiding judge
(Respondent, “R “for short) who issued said writs (Judge Elmo Del Rosario, RTC of Kalibo,
Br. 5).
Private Respondents Sps. Sanson (Gregorio and Ma. Lourdes) filed with the MCTC of Aklan a
complaint for forcible entry with damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of prelim
mandatory injunction against petitioners. Said court, rendered judgment in favor of Private
Respondents. Petitioners, appealed said judgment to RTC.
The case was appealed with RTC Br. 6 of Kalibo. On appeal, Private Respondents filed a
motion for the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. After complying
with all the requirements for the issuance of said writ, Respondent issued the same.
Petitioner moved to reconsider the issuance of said writ, while the Private Respondents, on
the other hand, filed a motion for demolition which petitioner also opposed. Respondent
denied the opposition against the motion for demolition and the same issued a writ of
demolition.
Petitioners thereafter filed with the CA a petition for review of the Permanent Mandatory
Injunction and the Order of Demolition. After that, Petitioners also filed herein petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 with prayers for the issuance of the writs of habeas data and
amparo.
Petitioners to support the issuance of said writs alleged factual positions contrary and
opposed to the MCTCs findings and legal reasons. (Note: Contrary to MCTCs findings,
actually, said court found the factual situation in the contrary to Petitioners’s contention.
Petitioners contends that they had prior possession of the subject real property; and Private
Respondents intrude and took away their possession of the same by force and violence).
Issue: Whether Petitioners have a basis for the issuance of the prayed writs to his favor?
Decision: The petitions herein for the issuance of the writs of habeas data and amparo are
fatally defective both as to its substance and form.
WRIT OF AMPARO
Such writ, as held by the Court in this case: “ the writ of amparo was originally conceived as
a response to the extraordinary rise in the number of killings and enforced disappearances,
and to the perceived lack of available and effective remedies to address these extraordinary
concerns. It is intended to address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or
security, as an extraordinary and independent remedy beyond those available under the
prevailing Rules, or as a remedy supplemental to these Rules. What it is not, is a writ to
protect concerns that are purely property or commercial. Neither is it a writ that we shall
issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds.”
The alleged acts of violence made by PR against P were disproved at the proceedings with
the MCTC – through a full-blown trial.
Rather than acts of terrorism that pose a continuing threat to the persons of the petitioners,
the violent incidents alleged appear to us to be purely property-related and focused on the
disputed land. Thus, if the petitioners wish to seek redress and hold the alleged perpetrators
criminally accountable, the remedy may lie more in the realm of ordinary criminal
prosecution rather than on the use of the extraordinary remedy of the writ of amparo.
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

Section 6 of the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data requires the following material allegations
of ultimate facts in a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data:
(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;(b) The manner the
right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it affects the right to life, liberty or
security of the aggrieved party;
(c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the data or information;
(d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the government office, and the person
in charge, in possession or in control of the data or information, if known;
(e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification, suppression or
destruction of the database or information or files kept by the respondent.
These allegations obviously lack what the Rule on Writ of Habeas Data requires as a
minimum, thus rendering the petition fatally deficient. Specifically, we see no concrete
allegations of unjustified or unlawful violation of the right to privacy related to the right to
life, liberty or security. The petition likewise has not alleged, much less demonstrated, any
need for information under the control of police authorities other than those it has already
set forth as integral annexes. The necessity or justification for the issuance of the writ,
based on the insufficiency of previous efforts made to secure information, has not also been
shown. In sum, the prayer for the issuance of a writ of habeas data is nothing more than
the fishing expedition that this Court – in the course of drafting the Rule on habeas data –
had in mind in defining what the purpose of a writ of habeas data is not. In these lights, the
outright denial of the petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas data is fully in order.

Tapuz Vs Del Rosario GR No 182484 17 June 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tapuz Vs Del Rosario GR No 182484 17 June 2008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tapuz Vs Del Rosario GR No 182484 17 June 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facts: This is a petition for certiorari against the issuance of the writ of amparo and habeas

WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

You might also like