Practice question
An adult is confined in a private warehouse by its manager solely to force payment of an alleged debt. The facts establish no lawful arrest or other legal basis. A draft omits the private manager, asserting that habeas corpus petitions can identify only police custodians. Which correction is proper?
- Keep the omission because private confinement is always lawful
- Treat the debt allegation as a conviction
- Identify the actual private custodian and facts of unlawful restraint; Rule 102 refers to the officer or person restraining liberty
- Name only the nearest judge as respondent regardless of custody
- Seek only an automatic money judgment without addressing restraint
Legal references
- Rules of Court, Rule 102 Sections 1 and 3–6; ordinary adult unlawful-restraint petition, not the separate child-custody procedure: https://lawphil.net/courts/supreme/rc/rc_72-109_proceedings.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.