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 brokerage house). e was in !S for a certain time" went home to #le a petition with S$% for appointmentt of a management committee appointmen committee for both businesses. businesses. Such was granted. owe&er" pending disposition of a case #led with S$%" the latter re'uested the %ommissioner of Immigration not to clear him for departure. %onse'uentl" a memorandum to this eect was issued. There was was a torrens torrens title submitted submitted to to and accepted accepted b Manotoc Manotoc Securities Inc which was suspected to be fake. * of its clients #led separate criminal complaints against the petitioner and +e&eri,a" resident and respecti&el.. e was charged with estafa and was allowed b the %ourt to post respecti&el bail. etitioner #led before each trial court motion for permission to lea&e the countr stating his desire to go to !S relati&e to his business transactions and opportunities. opportuniti es. Such was opposed b the prosecution and was also denied b the /udges. e #led petition petition for certiorari certiorari with %0 seeking to annul annul the prior orders orders and the S$% communication re'uest dening his lea&e to tra&el abroad. 0ccording to the petitioner" ha&ing been admitted to bail as a matter of right" neither the courts that granted him bail nor S$%" which has no /urisdiction o&er his libert" could pre&ent him from e1ercising his constitutional right to tra&el.
ISSUE: 234 petitioner5s constitutional right to tra&el was &iolated. HELD: 43. The court has power to prohibit prohibit person person admitted to to bail from from lea&ing the countr because this is a necessar conse'uence of the nature and function of a bail bond. T! con"#t#on #$%os!" &%on %!t#t#on!' to $a(! #$s!)* ava#)a+)! at a)) t#$!s !n!v!' t! co&'t '!-&#'!s #s %'!s!nc! o%!'at!s as a va)#" '!st'#ct#on on #s const#t&t#ona) '#t to t'av!). In case he will be allowed to lea&e the countr without su6cient reason" he ma be placed beond the reach of courts. 7urthermore" petitioner failed to satisf trial court and %0 of the urgenc of his tra&el" duration thereof" as well as consent of his suret to the proposed tra&el. e was not able to show the necessit of his tra&el abroad. e ne&er indicated that no other person in his behalf could undertake such business transaction.
0rticle 8 Sec*9 :The libert of abode and of changing the same; shall not be impaired e1cept upon lawful order of the court;.< 0ccording to S%" the order of trial court in releasing petitioner on bail constitutes such lawful order as contemplated b the pro&ision on right to tra&el.
