含羞草社区

The Philippine Supreme Court, in Vallacar Transit Inc v Yanson Jr (25 November 2025), formally adopted the “fugitive disentitlement doctrine” to bar respondent Ricardo Yanson Jr from seeking judicial relief while he remained a fugitive of justice.

Sometime in 2019, Ricardo and his faction voted to remove Leo Rey Yanson as Vallacar Transit Inc’s (VTI) president. After Leo Ray’s removal, Ricardo and his faction transferred 55 of VTI’s buses to Dynamic Builders and Construction’s compound.

By the time a carnapping case was filed and the corresponding warrant of arrest was issued, Ricardo had already fled the country. Ricardo sought affirmative relief in the form of a suspension of the criminal case due to a prejudicial question. However, VTI contested this by claiming Ricardo is barred from seeking relief due to the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. The Supreme Court agreed that Ricardo should not be able to seek relief while he remains a fugitive.

Origins of US fugitive disentitlement doctrine

The doctrine traces its origins to the US. In Molinaro v New Jersey (1970), the Supreme Court of New Jersey formally pronounced that the defendant’s escape from the restraints placed on him “disentitles” him from calling on the court for determination of his claims. While initially applied to criminal cases, the doctrine has been used in the context of civil cases. Ultimately, the rationale for the doctrine is “not [to] allow a fugitive to utilise the resources of the court when he has flouted the judicial system”, regardless of the nature of the case.

Philippines adopts fugitive disentitlement doctrine

According to Miranda v Tuliao (31 March 2006), jurisdiction over the accused is acquired on arrest or voluntary appearance. Once an accused asks for affirmative relief, they are deemed to have submitted to the court, even if not under the custody of the court.

Although the fugitive disentitlement doctrine has foreign roots, the Supreme Court noted that the rules and case law show that it had been adopted and practised in the Philippines. Under rule 124, section 8 of the Rules of Court, and Usares v People (6 October 2021), an accused who flees to another country loses his standing in court until he surrenders. In De Joya v Judge Marquez (31 January 2006), the court held that those who refuse to surrender are not entitled to relief.

Hence, an accused is deemed a fugitive from justice when he has left the country, knowing that information was filed and a warrant was issued against him.

Considering the above-mentioned the Supreme Court expressly ruled, in Vallacar Transit Inc v Yanson Jr, that it was high time to apply the “fugitive disentitlement doctrine” in the Philippines to strengthen the justice system and due process rights, which are enjoyed by the accused and the state.

Philippines fugitive lawmaker injunction bid

In the Philippines, a former lawmaker recently petitioned the Supreme Court to issue a temporary restraining order, or a writ of injunction, against a resolution by the ombudsman that led to the filing of criminal charges against him. As of writing this article, the former lawmaker is facing three arrest warrants but has been out of the country since mid-2025, and publicly refuses to return to the Philippines.

While the former lawmaker claims that the fugitive disentitlement doctrine does not apply since the case is not “an appeal in a criminal case” nor “judgment has … been rendered against [him]”, the highest tribunal may or may not rule on the doctrine’s applicability.

While Degen v United States (1996) has recognised that civil courts have alternatives to protect government interests instead of applying the harsh sanction of disentitlement, the former lawmaker will need to contend with the reasoning behind the doctrine, which states that “absconding betrays contempt for the very process that the [accused] invokes, and injures the dignity of the judiciary” (The Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine, Immigration Litigation Bulletin, US Department of Justice, 2013). The former lawmaker’s petition before the Philippine Supreme Court will likely show the limits of the scope of the doctrine.

Anthony Jacoba is a partner, and Carlo Sebastian Chua and Jerard Emmanuel Afable are associates at Ocampo & Suralvo in Manila

Ocampo & Suralvo
6th Floor, Liberty Center Bldg.
104 HV Dela Costa St., Salcedo Village
Makati City, Metro Manila – 1227, Philippines

Contact details:
T: +63 2 8800 6157
E: info@ocamposuralvo.com