Previous 7 / 33 Next

has not received a copy of private respondent's motion to modify/renew the TPO, the trial court directed in its Order31 dated October 6, 2006 that petitioner be furnished a copy of said motion. Nonetheless, an Order32 dated a day earlier, October 5, had already been issued renewing the TPO dated August 23, 2006. The pertinent portion is quoted hereunder: xxxx x x x it appearing further that the hearing could not yet be finally terminated, the Temporary Protection Order issued on August 23, 2006 is hereby renewed and extended for thirty (30) days and continuously extended and renewed for thirty (30) days, after each expiration, until further orders, and subject to such modifications as may be ordered by the court. After having received a copy of the foregoing Order, petitioner no longer submitted the required comment to private respondent's motion for renewal of the TPO arguing that it would only be an "exercise in futility."33 Proceedings before the CA During the pendency of Civil Case No. 06-797, petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition34 for prohibition (CA-G.R. CEB-SP. No. 01698), with prayer for injunction and temporary restraining order, challenging (1) the constitutionality of R.A. 9262 for being violative of the due process and the equal protection clauses, and (2) the validity of the modified TPO issued in the civil case for being "an unwanted product of an invalid law." On May 26, 2006, the appellate court issued a 60-day Temporary Restraining Order36 (TRO) against the enforcement of the TPO, the amended TPOs and other orders pursuant thereto. Subsequently, however, on January 24, 2007, the appellate court dismissed36 the petition for failure of petitioner to raise the constitutional issue in his pleadings before the trial court in the civil case, which is clothed with jurisdiction to resolve the same. Secondly, the challenge to the validity of R.A. 9262 through a petition for prohibition seeking to annul the protection orders issued by the trial court constituted a collateral attack on said law. His motion for reconsideration of the foregoing Decision having been denied in the Resolution37 dated August 14, 2007, petitioner is now before us alleging that – The Issues I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION ON THE THEORY THAT THE ISSUE OF CONSTITUTIONALITY WAS NOT RAISED AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY AND THAT, THE PETITION CONSTITUTES A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON THE VALIDITY OF THE LAW. II. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN FAILING TO CONCLUDE THAT R.A. 9262 IS DISCRIMINATORY, UNJUST, AND VIOLATIVE OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Garcia v. Drilon

Jurisprudence

Case number: G.R. No. 179267

Date of decision: Jun 25, 2013

Year of decision: 2013

GBV Case Type

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

Nature of the case: A married woman, 45 years of age who belongs to the middle-class women, together with her 17 years old girl child, 6 years old and 3 years old boy children were abused by the accused who is the husband and the father of the victims respectively, physically, emotionally, psychological and economically and thus the private complainant for herself and in behalf of her children filed a verified petition before the RTC of Bacolod for the issuance of a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against her husband as result of marital infidelity on the part of the accused with threats of deprivation of custody of her children and of financial support. Meanwhile, the accused belatedly questioned the constitutionality of RA 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004 of which the Supreme Court outrightly denied for the reason that the said law does not violate the equal protection clause of Article III of the Constitution nor is violative of the due process clause of the Constitution. Therefore, the TPO was then renewed and extended for 30 days and the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the accused challenging the validity / constitutionality of RA 9262 was denied for lack of merit.

Summary of outcome: Re: Temporary Protection Order: The same is renewed and extended for thirty (30) days. Re: Review on Certiorari (Challenging the validty / constitutionality of RA 9262: Denied for lack of merit.

Ration: No concrete evidence and convincing arguments were presented by petitioner to warrant a declaration of the unconstitutionality of R.A. 9262. In reiteration of Justice Puno's obsevation that "the history of the women's movement against domestic violence shows that one of its most difficult struggles was the fight against the violence of law itself. If we keep that in mind, law will not again be a hindrance to the struggle of women for equality but will be its fulfillment." Hence, the constitutionality of RA 9262 is sustained.

Observatory: Gender-Based Violence

Affected Sector

Women

Ponente: PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Long title: JESUS C. GARCIA, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE RAY ALAN T. DRILON, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court-Branch 41, Bacolod City, and ROSALIE JAYPE-GARCIA, for herself and in behalf of minor children, namely: JO-ANN, JOSEPH EDUARD, JESSE ANTHONE, all surnamed GARCIA, Respondents.

Geolocation 1

Latitude: 10.65916

Longitude: 122.967445

: Geolocation 1

Primary Documents

GARCIA V. DRILON.pdf
English
Download View

Commission on Human Rights

Select target paragraph3

Garcia v. Drilon

Primary Documents

Notifications