Previous 3 / 10 Next

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the instant petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Temporary Protection Order dated May 23, 2002 (sic) issued by the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, Branch 22 in Civil Case No. 0464-05 is UPHELD.10 In so ruling, the CA found that the petition filed by respondent under RA 9262 is still pending before the RTC; thus, the factual matters raised therein could not be passed upon in the petition for certiorari filed with it. The CA noted that during the pendency of the herein proceedings, petitioner filed an urgent motion to quash warrant issued by the RTC and which matter could not also be a subject of this petition which assails the TPO dated May 23, 2005 and that the motion to quash should have been filed with the RTC. The CA found that the TPO dated May 23, 2005 was validly issued by the RTC and found no grave abuse of discretion in the issuance thereof as the same were in complete accord with the provision of RA 9262. As to petitioner's argument that there was no basis for the issuance of the TPO, considering that the provision authorizing such issuance is unconstitutional, the CA ruled that since the matter raised herein was the RTC’s alleged grave abuse of discretion in issuing the TPO, such matter could be resolved without having to rule on the constitutionality of RA 9262 and its provisions. And that the requisites that the constitutionality of the law in question be the very lis mota of the case was absent. Dissatisfied, petitioner files the instant petition raising the following issues: I THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS WITH DUE RESPECT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING AND FINDING IN A MANNER CONTRARY TO ESTABLISHED RULES AND JURISPRUDENCE THAT PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMMITTED NO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN THE LATTER ISSUED THE TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE ORDER (TPO) DATED 23 MAY 2005 WITHOUT OBSERVING DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND CONSIDERATIONS OF JUSTICE AND BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. II THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS IN REFUSING TO RULE ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF RA 9262 HAS DECIDED THE CASE IN A MANNER NOT IN ACCORD WITH ESTABLISHED LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE CONSIDERING THAT CONTRARY TO ITS FINDINGS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE SAID LAW IS THE LIS MOTA OF THE CASE.11 Petitioner claims that contrary to the stance of the CA in not deciding the issue of the constitutionality of RA 9262, the issue presented is the very lis mota in the instant case. The issue of constitutionality of RA 9262 was raised by petitioner in his Comment to respondent's Petition with Urgent Motion to Lift TPO dated May 23, 2005 filed with the RTC. However, without awaiting for the resolution of the same, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA assailing the TPO issued for violating the due process clause of the Constitution. Contrary to the CA's finding that the matter raised in the petition filed with it was the RTC’s alleged grave abuse of discretion in issuing the TPO which could be resolved without having to rule on the constitutionality of RA 9262 and its provisions, we find that since petitioner is assailing the validity of RA 9262 wherein respondent's right to a protection order is based upon, the constitutionality of the said law must first be decided upon. After all, the alleged unconstitutionality of RA 9262 is, for all intents and purposes,

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