CASE DIGEST

NAVIA v. PARDICO
Special Proceedings

Court Supreme Court (EN BANC)

Citation G.R. No. 184467

Date June 19, 2012

Petitioner EDGARDO NAVIA, RUBEN DIO, and ANDREW BUISING

Respondent VIRGINIA PARDICO, for and in behalf and in representation of BENHUR V.

PARDICO

Ponente J. Del Castillo

Relevant topic Change of Name; Correction of Entries in Civil Registry

Prepared by Clark S. Orjalo

CASE SUMMARY:
Virginia filed a petition for Writ of Amparo after security guards of Asian Land invited her husband Ben (together with 2
others) in connection with an investigation on the alleged stealing of lamps and electric wires in the subdivision. While
the two others were able to go home, Virginia was unable to find her husband. Petitioners (security guards of Asian
Land) insists that they had released Ben. The trial court granted the privilege of the writ of amparo.

From the statutory definition of enforced disappearance, thus, we can derive the following elements that constitute it:

 (a) that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;

 (b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a political
organization;

 (c) that it be followed by the State or political organization’s refusal to acknowledge or give information on the
fate or whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo petition; and,

 (d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person from the protection of the law for a prolonged
period of time.

For the protective writ of amparo to issue, allegation and proof that the persons subject thereof are missing are not
enough. The elements above mentioned must be proved with substantial evidence. The petitioner in an amparo case
has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the indispensable element of government participation.

IN THIS CASE, the petition does not contain any allegation of State complicity, and none of the evidence presented
tend to show that the government or any of its agents orchestrated Ben’s disappearance. In fact, none of its agents,
officials, or employees were impleaded or implicated in Virginia’s amparo petition whether as responsible or
accountable persons. In the absence of an allegation or proof that the government or its agents had a hand in Ben’s
disappearance or that they failed to exercise extraordinary diligence in investigating his case, the Court will definitely
not hold the government or its agents either as responsible or accountable persons.

FACTS:

● On March 31, 2008 (8:30pm), a vehicle of Asian Land Strategies Corporation arrived at the house of Lolita.
● Lolita went out and saw 2 uniformed guards disembarking from the vehicle. One of them immediately asked
Lolita where they could find her son Bong. Before Lolita could answer, the guard saw Bong and told him that
he and Ben should go with them to the security office of Asian Land because a complaint was lodged against
them for theft of electric wires and lamps in the subdivision.
● Accordingly, Bong, Ben and Lolita went to the office of the security department of Asian Land also located in
the Grand Royale Subdivision (where they live). There they also met petitioner Navia who was the supervisor
of the security guards.
● VERSION OF PETITIONERS (Navia, et al.):

1
CASE DIGEST
NAVIA v. PARDICO
Special Proceedings

o According to Navia, et al., they received a report from a certain Mrs. Emphasis who saw Bong
removing a lamp from a post in the subdivision. Petitioners Dio and Buising then went to the house of
Mrs. Emphasis and was able to confirm the same. Petitioners then went to the house of Lolita to get
Bong and Ben who then voluntarily went with them.
o Bong and Ben admitted that they took the lamp but clarified that they were only transferring it to a post
nearer to the house of Lolita.
o However, since there was no complaint, Navia ordered the release of Bong and Ben.
o Bong and Ben signed a statement to the effect that the guards released him w/o inflicting any harm or
injury to him. Lolita also signed the logbook below an entry which states that she will never again
entertain Ben in her house.
o Lolita and Bong left the security. Ben was left behind as Navia was still talking to him about those who
might be involved in the reported loss of electric wires and lamps.
o After a bried discussion though, Navial allowed Ben to leave.
o Ben signed the logbook to affirm that he was released unharmed and without any injury.
o Petitioners Dio and Busing also went to Lolita's house to make her sign the logbook as witness that
they indeed released Ben from their custody. Lolita affixed her signature on the logbook after the entry
was read to her and she had read the same.
o Subsequently, however, petitioners received an invitation from the Malolos City Police Station
requesting them to appear thereat in connection with Viriginia Pardico's complaint about her missing
husband, Ben.
● VERSION OF THE RESPONDENT:
o According to Virginia, Bong and Ben were unlawfully arrested and were not merely invited.
o Upon seeing Ben, Navia lividly grumbled "Ikaw na naman?" and slapped him while he was seated.
Ben also received a flurry of punched from Navia.
o Navia then took hold of his gun, looked at Bong, and said "Wala kang Nakita at wala kang narinig,
papatayin ko na si Ben"
o When Lolita was again asked to sign the logbook after she had went home, she was assured by
petitioner Busing that her signature would only pertain to Bong's release. She relied on what Busing
told her as it was dark and she had poor eyesight, and then proceeded to sign the logbook. It would
later turn out that she was tricked into signing the logbook as witness that Ben was released
unharmed.
o The following morning, Virginia went to the Asian Land security office to visit Ben, but she was told
that they had released him. However, she could not find Ben, so she reported the matter to the police.
● Exasperated with the mysterious disappearance of her husband, Virginia filed a Petition for Writ of Amparo
before the RTC of Malolos City.
● The trial court, despite petitioners' prayer for denial of the petition for writ of amparo, granted the privilege of
the writ of amparo. MR denied.
● Petitioners then filed the present petition before the SC.
ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUE #1 HELD

W/N the petition for Writ of Amparo must be dismissed YES

RATIO:
 Ben's disappearance as alleged in Virginia's petition and proved during the summary proceedings conducted
does not fall within the ambit of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC and relevant laws (on Writ of Amparo).
 A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC or The Rule on the Writ of Amparo was promulgated to arrest the rampant extralegal
killings and enforced disappearances in the country. Its purpose is to provide an expeditious and effective
relief "to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity."
 A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC did not define extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. This omission was
intentional as the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court which drafted A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC chose to
allow it to evolve through time and jurisprudence and through substantive laws as may be promulgated by
Congress.
 Meanwhile, Section 3(g) of RA 98511 defines enforced or involuntary disappearances as follows:
o (g) "Enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons" means the arrest, detention, or abduction
of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political
organization followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information
1
Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity
2
CASE DIGEST
NAVIA v. PARDICO
Special Proceedings

on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing from the protection of the
law for a prolonged period of time.

 From the statutory definition of enforced disappearance, thus, we can derive the following elements that
constitute it:

o (a) that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of deprivation of liberty;

o (b) that it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the State or a
political organization;

o (c) that it be followed by the State or political organization’s refusal to acknowledge or give information
on the fate or whereabouts of the person subject of the amparo petition; and,

o (d) that the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person from the protection of the law for a
prolonged period of time.

 For the protective writ of amparo to issue, allegation and proof that the persons subject thereof are missing
are not enough. The elements above mentioned must be proved with substantial evidence. The petitioner in
an amparo case has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the indispensable element of government
participation.

 IN THIS CASE,

o The petition does not contain any allegation of State complicity, and none of the evidence presented
tend to show that the government or any of its agents orchestrated Ben’s disappearance. In fact, none
of its agents, officials, or employees were impleaded or implicated in Virginia’s amparo petition
whether as responsible or accountable persons. 

o In the absence of an allegation or proof that the government or its agents had a hand in Ben’s
disappearance or that they failed to exercise extraordinary diligence in investigating his case, the
Court will definitely not hold the government or its agents either as responsible or accountable
persons.

 We are aware that under Section 1 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC a writ of amparo may lie against a private
individual or entity. But even if the person sought to be held accountable or responsible in an amparo petition
is a private individual or entity, still, government involvement in the disappearance remains an indispensable
element. Here, petitioners are mere security guards at Grand Royale Subdivision in Brgy. Lugam, Malolos
City and their principal, the Asian Land, is a private entity. They do not work for the government and nothing
has been presented that would link or connect them to some covert police, military or governmental operation.

o To fall within the ambit of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC in relation to RA No. 9851, the disappearance must be
attended by some governmental involvement. This hallmark of State participation differentiates an
enforced disappearance case from an ordinary case of a missing person.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the July 24, 2008 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Malolos City, is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The Petition for Writ of Amparo filed by Virginia Pardico is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.