CA affirms dismissal of civil suit vs BI execs

MANILA, Philippines — The Court of Appeals (CA) has upheld the ruling issued by a lower court dismissing the suit for civil damages filed by businessman Robert Sobrepeña against Bureau of Immigration (BI) officials involved in his offloading from a flight to San Francisco, California in 2013.

In an 11-page decision penned by Associate Justice Apolinario Bruselas Jr., the CA’s Fourth Division did not give credence to Sobrepeña’s claim that the Pasig City court erred when it dismissed his complaint for violation of Article 32 of the New Civil Code.

The case stemmed from an incident on May 11, 2013 at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport, when Sobrepeña was barred from leaving the country because of his then-pending malversation cases filed by the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) in connection with a dispute over Camp John Hay.

In his appeal, Sobrepeña insisted that the defendants, then BI airport operations division chief Benito Se Jr., supervisor Luzviminda Boto and immigration officer Johnel Badua, directly obstructed and violated his right to be free from arbitrary detention and liberty of abode which, consequently, impaired his right to travel.

Sobrepeña also said the incident had negative effects on his family as it was reported all over the news. He claimed that some of his business negotiations were canceled.

He claimed actual damages for the airline ticket and his transportation expenses; moral damages for mental anguish, besmirched reputation and impairment of his rights and the humiliation that he suffered; exemplary damages by way of correction for the public good and to prevent the defendants from committing similar acts, as well as lawyer’s fees and cost of suit.

The businessman also filed criminal and administrative cases against Bato and Badua, but the BI employees were cleared of criminal raps while the latter was dismissed.

In denying Sobrepeña’s appeal, the CA said that while Article 32 aims to provide sanctions against violations of rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution, the provision “is not meant to make actionable as torts all violations of rights and liberties.”

Only those rights specifically enumerated in the provision are covered, the appellate court said.

The CA said Sobrepeña’s suit should be anchored on two rights raised in the complaint and covered by Article 32: the freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention and the liberty of abode.

It noted that Article 32 did not expressly include the right to travel as among those actionable by the court. The appeals court said the violation of the right to travel can only be actionable under Article 32 “if it arises from a violation of other rights expressly enumerated thereunder.”

“The right to travel may be violated when one is arbitrarily detained or when one is prevented from changing his abode, but such violation is not actionable on its own, but only in connection with a violation of those rights particularly enumerated in Article 32,” the CA said.

The CA noted that the BI officials did not place the businessman under custody and Sobrepeña was free to leave the airport premises.

Sobrepeña, the CA said, was merely prevented from boarding the plane and leaving the country.