You are on page 1of 1

Manotoc vs.

CA (May 30, 1986)

Manotoc vs. CA | May 30, 1986
Ricardo Manotoc Jr. was one of the two principal stockholders of Trans-Insular M
anagement 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, pend
ing disposition of a case filed with SEC, the latter requested the Commissioner
of Immigration not to clear him for departure. Consequently, a memorandum to th
is effect was issued.
There was a torrens title submitted to and accepted by Manotoc Securities Inc wh
ich was suspected to be fake. 6 of its clients filed separate criminal complain
ts against the petitioner and Leveriza, President and VP respectively. He was c
harged with estafa and was allowed by the Court to post bail.
Petitioner filed before each trial court motion for permission to leave the coun
try stating his desire to go to US relative to his business transactions and opp
ortunities. Such was opposed by the prosecution and was also denied by the judg
es. 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 trav
ISSUE: WON petitioner s constitutional right to travel was violated.
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 bo
nd. The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all time
s whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on hi
s constitutional right to travel. In case he will be allowed to leave the count
ry without sufficient reason, he may be placed beyond the reach of courts.
Furthermore, petitioner failed to satisfy trial
is travel, duration thereof, as well as consent
avel. He was not able to show the necessity of
icated that no other person in his behalf could

court and CA of the urgency of h

of his surety to the proposed tr
his travel abroad. He never ind
undertake such business transact

Article 3 Sec6: The liberty of abode and of changing the same shall not be impaire
d except upon lawful order of the court . According to SC, the order of trial cour
t in releasing petitioner on bail constitutes such lawful order as contemplated
by the provision on right to travel.