LOZADA v.

ARROYO
G.R. NO. 184379-80
April 24, 2012

Facts:

The instant petition stems from the alleged corruption scandal precipitated by
a transaction between the Philippine Government, represented by the National
Broadband Network (NBN), and ZTE Corporation (ZTE), a Chinese manufacturer of
telecommunications equipment. Sec. Romulo Neri sought the services of Lozada as
an unofficial consultant in ZTE-NBN deal. Latter avers that during the course of his
engagement, several anomalies in the transaction involving certain public officials
were discovered. When Lozada was issued a subpoena directing him to appear and
testify, he left the country for a purported official trip to London. Lozada, upon
disembarking the aircraft in Manila, several men held his arms and took his bag. Sec.
Atienza phoned Lozada, assuring him that he was with people from the government
and that the former was going to confer with “ES and Maam.” Lozada surmised that
these individuals referred to ES Ermita and former Pres. Arroyo, respectively. Sec.
Atienza also instructed Lozada to pacify his wife. Violeta. Who was making public
statements asking for her husband’s return. Along the way, he was asked to draft an
antedated letter requesting police protection. He requested to be brought home to
Pasig, but the men compelled to deny his request on account of unidentified risks.
They stopped Outback restaurant in Libis, QC where he was made to fill in the blanks
of a prepared affidavit. Violeta filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus, Arturo likewise filed
a Petition for Writ of Amparo. Lozada clainmed that after his press conference and
testimony in the Senate, he and his family were since then harassed, stalked and
threatened. Respondents filed before the CA a Manifestation and Motion for the
dismissal of the Habeas Corpus case as they asserted that Lozada was never illegally
deprived of his libert and was, at that time, no longer in their custody. Habeas Corpus
case was dismissed for being moot and academic. Ca dropped Pres. Arroyo as a
respondent on the ground that at the time of the Petition in the Amparo case was filed,
she was the incumbent Pres. Enjoying immunity from suit. CA denied the privilege of
the Writ of Amparo as the CA found that petitioners were unable to prove through
substantial evidence that respondents violated, or threatened with violation, the right
to life, libert and security of Lozada.

Issues:
1) Whether the CA committed an error in dropping former Pres. Arroyo as a
respondent in the Amparo case.
2) Whether petitioners should be granted the privilege of the writ of amparo.

Held:

No,CA did not commit an error in dropping former Pres. Arroyo as a respondent in the
Amparo case as the events that gave rise to the present action, as well as the filing of
the original petition and the issuance of the CA decision, occurred during the
incumbency of former Pres. Arroyo. In that respect. It was proper to drop her as a
respondent on account of her presidential immunity from suit.

No, petitioners should not be granted the privilege of the writ of Amparo. The totality
of evidence adduced by petitioners failed to meet the threshold of substantial
evidence. SC is in agreement with te factual findings of the CA to the extent that
Lozada was not illegally deprived of his liberty from the point when he disembarked
from the aircraft up to the time he was led to the departure area of the airport, as he
voluntarily submitted himself to the custody of respondents. That he was not prevented
from making a call to his brother Arturo. SC does not find any evidence on record that
Lozada struggled or made an outcry for help when he was allegedly “grabbed” or
“abducted” at the airport. He even testified that nobody held him, and they were not
hostile to him nor shouted at him. Foregoing statement show that Lozada personally
sought the help of Sec. Atienza to avoid the Senate personnel, and thus knew that the
men who met him at the airport were there to aid him in such objective. The actions of
Lozada evinced knowledge and voluntariness, uncharacteristic of someone who
claims to have been forcibly abducted.