Edgardo Navia v.

Virginia Pardico
G.R. No. 184467 June 19, 2012

FACTS: On March 31, 2008, at around 8:30 p.m., a vehicle of Asian Land Strategies
Corporation arrived at the house of Lolita M. Lapore located at 7A Lot 9, Block 54, Grand
Royale Subdivision, Barangay Lugam, Malolos City. When Lolita went out to investigate, she
saw two uniformed guards disembarking from the vehicle. One of them immediately asked
Lolita where they could find her son Enrique, as a complaint was lodged against them for theft of
electric wires and lamps in the subdivision.

Shortly thereafter, Bong, Lolita and Ben were in the office of the security department of Asian
Land. The supervisor of the security guards, petitioner Edgardo Navia, also arrived thereat.

Petitioners alleged that they invited the Lapores to their office because they received a report
from a certain resident of Grand Royale Subdivision, that she saw Enrique and Ben removing a
lamp from a post in said subdivision. However, according to respondent, Enrique and Ben were
not merely invited but were unlawfully arrested.

The following morning, Virginia went to the Asian Land security office to visit her husband Ben,
but only to be told that petitioners had already released Ben and Enrique. For Ben’s
disappearance, Virginia filed a Petition for Writ of Amparo.

ISSUE: Should the Petition be granted?

RULING: No, the Petition should not be granted.

For the protective writ of amparo to issue in enforced disappearance cases, allegation and proof
that the persons subject thereof are missing are not enough. It must also be shown by the required
quantum of proof that their disappearance was carried out by, "or with the authorization, support
or acquiescence of, [the government] or a political organization, followed by a refusal to
acknowledge [the same or] give information on the fate or whereabouts of [said missing]
persons."

Here, the petition does not contain any allegation of State complicity, and none of the evidence
presented tend to show that the government or any of its agents orchestrated Ben’s
disappearance. In fact, none of its agents, officials, or employees were impleaded or implicated
in Virginia’s amparo petition whether as responsible or accountable persons. Thus, in the absence
of an allegation or proof that the government or its agents had a hand in Ben’s disappearance or
that they failed to exercise extraordinary diligence in investigating his case, the Court will
definitely not hold the government or its agents either as responsible or accountable persons.