The Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed a trial court order that dismissed the damage suit filed by businessman Robert John L. Sobrepeña against immigration officials who stopped his travel to the United States on May 11, 2013.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas Jr., the CA ruled that the trial court committed no error in dismissing Sobrepeña’s complaint for violation of Article 32 of the New Civil Code.

On May 11, 2013, Sobrepeña was already seated inside the airplane that would depart at 10:30 p.m. His flight abroad had been cleared by Immigration Office Johnel Badua.

While seated inside the plane, a flight steward approached Sobrepeña and informed him that immigration officers were looking for him. He stepped down the plane and was met by Badua and immigration supervisor Luzviminda Boto.

The two immigration officers informed Sobrepeña that there was a pending malversation case against him and thus, he was not allowed to leave the country.  He was off-loaded and was not able to take his flight.

He was told that the instruction to off-load him came their superior Benito Se Jr., who, in turn, merely implemented an order from the Department of Justice.

Sobrepeña decided to leave the airport and ignored further inquiries by Se as he insisted on his right to leave and not be detained by the immigration officers.

As a result of his off-loading, Sobrepeña claimed his right to travel was impaired and the incident had negative effects on his family as the incident was all over the news.

He also said his business negotiations were cancelled. He claimed actual damages for the airline ticket, his transportation expenses, moral damages for mental anguish, besmirched reputation, and impairment of his rights and the humiliation that he suffered.

He filed criminal and administrative charges against Boto and Badua but the immigration officers were acquitted in the former charge, while the latter complaint was dismissed.

In his damage suit, Sobrepeña claimed that Se, Boto and Badua directly obstructed and violated his right to be free from arbitrary detention and liberty of abode which, consequently, impaired his right to travel.

In resolving Sobrepeña’s petition, the CA said: 
“It is evident that Sobrepeña’s action cannot prosper under Article 32 (10). The personal freedoms protected by that provision refer to the right to transfer from one place to another and to choose one’s residence. It is a recognition of the freedom of a person to have his home in a place chosen by him and, thereafter, to change it without interference from Government except upon lawful orders of the court, or when necessary, in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health.

“There was nothing in Sobrepeña’s complaint or evidence offered to indicate that the travel that was supposedly interdicted had something to do with his place of residence. There was no allegation of material facts that the defendants-appellees prevented him from choosing his abode or changing the same. In fact, he even established that the reason for his flight was simply to attend to some business dealings overseas.

“There was also no detention to speak of within the scope of Article 32 (4). Detention pertains to the act of keeping back or withholding, either accidentally or by design, a person or thing.

“It is the actual confinement of a person in an enclosure, or in any manner detaining and depriving him of his liberty. To detain, therefore, is to hold or keep someone or something in custody.

“Sobrepeña failed to allege and prove that he was detained by the defendants-appellees (Se, Boto and Badua). It must be emphasized that the defendant-appellees did not place Sobrepeña under their custody.

“Sobrepeña was free to leave the airport premises, as he in fact did. He was merely prevented from boarding the airplane and leaving the Philippines. Such restraint alone did not constitute detention under Article 32 (4). Had the legislature intended Article 32 (4) to cover all restraints against liberty, not just detention, it could have expressly stated so.

“Wherefore, the appeal is denied.”