Previous 8 / 10 Next

(i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or custody of minor children of access to the woman's child/children. In this case, the alleged acts of petitioner among others, i.e., he cocked the gun and pointed the same to his head in order to convince respondent not to proceed with the legal separation case; feeding his other children with the food which another child spat out; and threatening the crying child with a belt to stop him from crying which was repeatedly done; and holding respondent by her nape when he got furious that she was asking him not to come often to their conjugal home and hold office thereat after their agreed separation and threatening her of withholding half of the financial support for the kids, while not conclusive, are enough bases for the issuance of a TPO. Petitioner's actions would fall under the enumeration of Section 5, more particularly, paragraphs a, d, e (2), f, h, and i. It is settled doctrine that there is grave abuse of discretion when there is a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, such as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross so as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.18 We find that the CA did not err when it found no grave abuse of discretion committed by the RTC in the issuance of the TPO. The factual matters herein raised by petitioner should be presented during the hearing on the merits on the issuance of the Permanent Protection Order. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated October 28, 2005 of the Court of Appeals issued in CA-G.R. SP No. 89939, upholding the Regional Trial Court's issuance of the Temporary Protection Order dated May 23, 2005, is AFFIRMED. The Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite is hereby ORDERED to resolve with dispatch respondent's Petition for a Permanent Protection Order. SO ORDERED. DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice WE CONCUR: PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice Chairperson ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA Associate Justice MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN Associate Justice ATTESTATION

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Tua v. Judge Mangrobang

Jurisprudence

Case number: G.R. No. 170701

Division: PH Supreme Court Third Division

Date of decision: Jan 22, 2014

Year of decision: 2014

GBV Case Type

Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (VAWC)

Nature of the case: The victim filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Imus, Cavite a Verified Petition for herself and in behalf of her minor children, for the issuance of a protection order, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004, against her husband. The victim claimed that she and her children had suffered from petitioner’s abusive conduct; that petitioner had threatened to cause her and the children physical harm for the purpose of controlling her actions or decisions; that she was actually deprived of custody and access to her minor children; and, that she was threatened to be deprived of her and her children’s financial support. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals in upholding the Regional Trial Court's issuance of the Temporary Protection Order. The Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite is hereby ORDERED to resolve with dispatch the victim’s for a Permanent Protection Order.

Summary of outcome: The accused particularly directs his constitutional attack on Section 15 of RA 9262 contending that had there been no ex parte issuance of the TPO, he would have been afforded due process of law and had properly presented his side on the matter; that the questioned provision simply encourages arbitrary enforcement repulsive to basic constitutional rights which affects his life, liberty and property. The Court was not impressed. The Court posited that the protection order is an order issued to prevent further acts of violence against women and their children, their family or household members, and to grant other necessary reliefs. Its purpose is to safeguard the offended parties from further harm, minimize any disruption in their daily life and facilitate the opportunity and ability to regain control of their life. The accused also claimed that the CA erred in finding that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the TPO as the petition was bereft of any indication of grounds for the issuance of the same. He contends that the allegations in respondent's affidavit attached to the petition, and without admitting the same to be true, are nothing more than normal or usual quarrels between a husband and wife which are not grave or imminent enough to merit the issuance of a TPO. The Court is again not persuaded and ruled that the factual matters herein raised by him should be presented during the hearing on the merits on the issuance of the Permanent Protection Order.

Observatory: Gender-Based Violence

Affected Sector

Women

Ponente: PERALTA, J.

Long title: RALPH P. TUA, Petitioner, vs. HON. CESAR A. MANGROBANG, Presiding Judge, Branch 22, Regional Trial Court, Imus, Cavite; and ROSSANA HONRADO-TUA, Respondents.

Geolocation 1

Latitude: 14.42893

Longitude: 120.936519

: Geolocation 1

Primary Documents

RALPH P. TUA.pdf
English
Download View

Commission on Human Rights

Select target paragraph3

Tua v. Judge Mangrobang

Primary Documents

Notifications