Previous 1 / 10 Next

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 170701 January 22, 2014 RALPH P. TUA, Petitioner, vs. HON. CESAR A. MANGROBANG, Presiding Judge, Branch 22, Regional Trial Court, Imus, Cavite; and ROSSANA HONRADO-TUA, Respondents. DECISION PERALTA, J.: Before us is a petition for review on certiorari which seeks to annul the Decision1 dated October 28, 2005 of the Court of Appeals (CA) issued in CA-G.R. SP No. 89939. On May 20, 2005, respondent Rossana Honrado-Tua (respondent) filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Imus, Cavite a Verified Petition2 for herself and in behalf of her minor children, Joshua Raphael, Jesse Ruth Lois, and J ezreel Abigail, 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, petitioner Ralph Tua. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 0464-05 and raffled-off to Branch 22. Respondent 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. Respondent and petitioner were married on January 10, 1998 in Makati City. They have three children, namely, Joshua Raphael born on February 9, 1999, Jesse Ruth Lois, born on June 27, 2000, and Jezreel Abigail, born on December 25, 2001. In her Affidavit3 attached to the petition, respondent claimed, among others, that: there was a time when petitioner went to her room and cocked his gun and pointed the barrel of his gun to his head as he wanted to convince her not to proceed with the legal separation case she filed; she hid her fears although she was scared; there was also an instance when petitioner fed her children with the fried chicken that her youngest daughter had chewed and spat out; in order to stop his child from crying, petitioner would threaten him with a belt; when she told petitioner that she felt unsafe and insecure with the latter's presence and asked him to stop coming to the house as often as he wanted or she would apply for a protection order, petitioner got furious and threatened her of withholding his financial support and even held her by the nape and pushed her to lie flat on the bed; and, on May 4, 2005, while she was at work, petitioner with companions went to her new home and forcibly took the children and refused to give them back to her. On May 23, 2005, the RTC issued a Temporary Protection Order (TPO),4 which we quote in full:

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