[ G.R. No. L-3311. October 31, 1949 ] 84 Phil. 865
[ G.R. No. L-3311. October 31, 1949 ]
MOTHER M. MARGOLARI, F.M.M., PETITIONER, VS. TIBURCIO TANCINCO, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, MACARIO M. OFILADA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EX-OFICIO SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA, AND MERCEDES REYES VDA. DE AGUDO, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
TORRES, J.:
During the pendency of Special Proceedings No. 9086 in the Branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila, presided by Judge Tiburcio Tancinco, wherein Mercedes Reyes Vda. de Agudo is suing out a writ of habeas corpus, directed to Mother Superior M. Margolari, F.M.M. (the petitioner in the case before us) to produce the body of Philomena Agudo before said court, because it is alleged that she is being detained and deprived of her liberty by said Mother Superior, and that the custody of Philomena Agudo be given to Mercedes Reyes Vda. de Agudo, on September 2, 1949, the court Issued a writ addressed to the Sheriff of Manila, commanding the latter to produce the body of said Philomena Agudo and to summon the respondent Mother Superior M. Margolari of the Saint Anthony’s Institution, to appear likewise before the court issuing the said order.
At the hearing of said case and upon receiving the testimony of Mercedes Reyes Vda. de Agudo, on September 8, 1949, the court issued an order in the following terms:
“In the interest of equity and pending the final determination of this proceedings, the Sheriff of the City of Manila is hereby directed to take immediately from the care of Mother M. Margolari. Mother Superior of St. Anthony’s Institution the body of Philomena Agudo and to deliver the said Philomena Agudo to the care and custody of the Social Welfare Commissioner, Manila.
“The expenses incident to Philomena’s stay in the above named Institution shall, be borne by the petitioner herein. A representative of the Social Welfare Commissioner shall accompany Philomena Agudo to this Court at the next hearing of this case on September 14, 1949 at 8:00 o’clock in the morning.
“It is also ordered that any interested party or parties in this case may be allowed to visit Philomena at the Social Welfare Commission at any appropriate time of the day.”
In an urgent motion, counsel for Mother M. Margolari moved for the reconsideration of said order of September 8, 1949, on the ground that: (1) There is no necessity for Philomena Agudo to be placed under the care and custody of the Social Welfare Commissioner; the respondent is placing Philomena Agudo at the disposal of the court, for which purpose she was offering to post a bond of P1,000 to guaranty Philomena Agudo’s appearance at any time she is needed by the court. (2) Philomena Agudo, being of age and with sufficient discretion to decide where it is best for her to stay, does not want to leave the Saint Anthony’s Institution. (3) She fears, that if she is taken out from the Saint Anthony’s Institution, she may be physically molested and harassed, (4) She is a strong willed girl who can not be influenced by anybody, and having made up her mind to embrace the religious life, not even her own mother can prevail upon her to give up her intention; on the other hand, if she did not wish to take up the religious life, neither the respondent Mother M. Margolari nor anyone else can prevail upon her to embrace such life. And (5) in an affidavit attached to this record as Annex F, Philomena Agudo declared that she is a postulant in the Saint Anthony’s Institution of her own free will and volition and not due to force, duress or intimidation or undue influence on the part of anybody, and that she is staying in that institution voluntarily and deliberately and has “not authorized” her “mother or anybody” to file the habeas corpus petition, and therefore repudiates such move to take her away from the convent, “as contrary to her desire and wishes and she is happy and content in the convent.”
It is further stated in the motion for reconsideration that sometime in February, 1948, she had applied for admission as a postulant in the Saint Anthony’s Institution and was admitted only sometime in June, 1949. During the intervening period of about one year and four months, between her application and admission, “she had every chance and opportunity to deliberate and decide whether she should take up the religious life or not.” The fact that—the motion for reconsideration concludes—“she was not immediately accepted also proves that no undue and improper influence had been brought to bear upon her by the respondent; otherwise, said postulant would have been immediately admitted.”
Counsel, therefore, prayed that the order issued by the court “placing Philomena Agudo under the care and custody of the Social Welfare Commissioner and/or the Welfareville pending the trial of the instant proceedings be reconsidered, and that she be allowed to continue staying in the Saint Anthony’s Institution.”
After consideration of the motion of the respondent, the court denied the same and maintained its order of September 8, 1949. The court ruled, however, that “in view of the oral manifestation of counsel for the respondent that he will institute the necessary proceedings with the Supreme Court impugning the validity of this Court’s order of September 8, 1949, the Sheriff of the City of Manila is hereby ordered to hold in abeyance, for a period of one day only, from the date the respondent is notified hereof, the execution of said order of September 8, 1949.”
Counsel then filed on behalf of Mother M. Margolari, a petition for certiorari with prohibition and preliminary injunction praying this Court to issue an order requiring the court below to certify to this court the record of case No. 9086, particularly the orders of September 8 and 12, 1949, so that the same may be reviewed by us; to issue a writ of preliminary injunction after the necessary bond has been filed, restraining the Honorable Tiburcio Tancinco, Judge of the 5th Branch of the Court of First Instance and Macario Ofilada, ex-oficio Sheriff of the City of Manila, from executing and enforcing the aforementioned orders of September 8 and 12, 1949, and after hearing the parties to render a decision declaring said orders of September 8 and 12, 1949, “to be null and void, and forever restraining the respondent judge and sheriff from enforcing or executing the same, and permitting Philomena Agudo to stay or live where she may choose during the pendency of the habeas corpus proceedings in the Court below.”
Predicated on the above, the question brought before us for our determination is whether or not the court below has acted illegally and with abuse of discretion in issuing the above-quoted order of September 8, 1949, taking Philomena Agudo from the care of M. Margolari, Mother Superior of Saint Anthony’s Institution and committing her to the care and custody of the Social Welfare Commissioner.
Counsel for Mercedes Reyes Vda. de Agudo argues that, pursuant to Section 12 of Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, the respondent judge has the power to issue the order of September 8, for the safekeeping of the person of Philomena Agudo. Said Section 12 says:
“SEC. 12. Hearing on return. Adjournments.—When the writ is returned before one judge, at a time when the court is in session, he may forthwith adjourn the case into the court, there to be heard and determined. The court or judge before whom the writ is returned or adjourned must immediately proceed to hear and examine the return, and such other matters as are properly submitted for consideration, unless for good cause shown the hearing is adjourned, in nhich event the court or judge shall make such order for the safekeeping of the person imprisoned or restrained as the nature of the case requires. If the person imprisoned or restrained is not produced because of his alleged sickness or infirmity, the court or judge must be satisfied that it is so grave that such person cannot be produced without danger, before proceeding to hear and dispose of the matter. On the hearing the court or judge shall disregard matters of form and technicalities in respect to any warrant or order of commitment of a court or officer authorized to commit by law.”
The facts which gave rise to these proceedings, examined in the light of the clear provisions of the above-quoted rule, evidently lead us to the conclusion that the order in question can find no support in the letter or spirit thereof. Philomena Agudo is in no need of protection or safekeeping. Her personal safety not being in danger, and inasmuch as she is safe in the convent where she is now, the order complained of is without basis.
Petition is, therefore, granted. No pronouncement is made as to costs.
Moran, C.J., Feria, Bengzon, Padilla, and Tuason, JJ., concur. Paras, J., concurs in the result.