Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 604 views

    Pador Vs Arcayan

    Uploaded by

    Ruperto A. Alfafara III
    The petitioners alleged that barangay officials raided their farm without finding evidence of marijuana cultivation. They were later invited to a barangay conference but declined to attend on advice of counsel. The barangay captain refused to sign a receipt for the petitioners' letter declining the invitation. The petitioners claimed their rights were threatened and sought a writ of amparo. The trial court denied the writ, finding the claims were based on hearsay. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the writ of amparo requires substantial evidence that rights to life, liberty or security are violated or threatened by unlawful acts, which was not proven in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pador Vs Arcayan

    Uploaded by

    Ruperto A. Alfafara III
    604 views2 pages
    The petitioners alleged that barangay officials raided their farm without finding evidence of marijuana cultivation. They were later invited to a barangay conference but declined to attend on advice of counsel. The barangay captain refused to sign a receipt for the petitioners' letter declining the invitation. The petitioners claimed their rights were threatened and sought a writ of amparo. The trial court denied the writ, finding the claims were based on hearsay. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the writ of amparo requires substantial evidence that rights to life, liberty or security are violated or threatened by unlawful acts, which was not proven in this case.

    Original Description:

    Pador vs. Arcayan

    Original Title

    Pador vs Arcayan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners alleged that barangay officials raided their farm without finding evidence of marijuana cultivation. They were later invited to a barangay conference but declined to attend on advice of counsel. The barangay captain refused to sign a receipt for the petitioners' letter declining the invitation. The petitioners claimed their rights were threatened and sought a writ of amparo. The trial court denied the writ, finding the claims were based on hearsay. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the writ of amparo requires substantial evidence that rights to life, liberty or security are violated or threatened by unlawful acts, which was not proven in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    604 views2 pages

    Pador Vs Arcayan

    Uploaded by

    Ruperto A. Alfafara III
    The petitioners alleged that barangay officials raided their farm without finding evidence of marijuana cultivation. They were later invited to a barangay conference but declined to attend on advice of counsel. The barangay captain refused to sign a receipt for the petitioners' letter declining the invitation. The petitioners claimed their rights were threatened and sought a writ of amparo. The trial court denied the writ, finding the claims were based on hearsay. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the writ of amparo requires substantial evidence that rights to life, liberty or security are violated or threatened by unlawful acts, which was not proven in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SPOUSES NERIO and SOLEDAD PADOR and REY PADOR vs.

    Barangay Captain
    BERNABE ARCAYAN, Barangay Tanod CHIEF ROMEO PADOR, Barangay Tanods
    ALBERTO ALIVIO, CARMELO REVALES, ROBERTO ALIMORIN, WINELO ARCAYAN,
    CHRISTOPHER ALIVIO and BIENVINIDO ARCAYAN
    G.R. No. 183460

    March 12, 2013

    Facts:
    Petitioners alleged that in February 2008, rumors circulated that petitioner
    Nerio Pador was a marijuana planter in Barangay Tabunan, Cebu City. On 17 March
    2008, respondents Alberto Alivio, Carmelo Revales and Roberto Alimorin raided their
    ampalaya farm to search for marijuana plants, but found none. After the raid,
    petitioner Nerlo and Rey Pador received invitation letters for a conference from
    respondent barangay captain Arcayan. They referred the invitation letters to their
    counsel, who advise them not to attend and, instead, send a letter-reply to
    Barangay Captain Arcayan.
    When the Arcayan received the letter-reply, he allegedly read its contents, got one
    copy, and refused to sign a receipt document. Petitioners then concluded that the
    conduct of the reaid, the sending of the invitation letters, the refusal of respondent
    barangay captain to receive their letter-reply as well as the possibility of more
    harassment cases, false accusation, and possible violence from respondents
    gravely threatened their right to life, liberty and security and necessitated the
    issuance of a writ of amparo. After examining the contents of the petition and the
    affidavits the RTC issued the writ and directed the respondent to make a verified
    return.
    Respondent filed a verified return. The RTC then heard the petition. On 3 July 2008.
    It issued the assailed resolution finding that the petitioners claims ware based
    merely on hearsay, speculation, surmises and conjectures and that respondents had
    sufficiently explained the reason behind the issuance of letter of invitation. It
    thereafter proceeded to deny the petitioners the privilege of the writ of amparo.
    Issue:
    Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the privilidge of writ of Amparo
    Held:
    No. The Supreme Court held that to be entitled to the privilege of the writ,
    petitioner must prove by substantial evidence that their rights to life, liberty and
    security are being violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission. The writ of
    amparo was originally conceived as a response to extraordinary rise in the numbers
    of killings and enforced disappearances, and to the perceived lack of available and
    effective remedies to address these extraordinary concerns. It is intended to
    address violations of or threats to the rights to life, liberty or security. As an
    extraordinary and independent remedy beyond those available under the prevailing
    Rules, or as a remedy supplemental to those Rules. What it is not, is a writ to

    protect concerns that are purely property or commercial. Neither is it a writ that we
    shall issue on amorphous and uncertain grounds.

    You might also like